Saturday, 26 March 2022
Friday, 25 February 2022
Someone asked me what I thought of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.
"Idiot whites killing one another again over drivel. One can't help think that with such behaviour, Europeans somehow want to be wiped out."
Monday, 18 January 2021
How the Republican Party Lost the Georgia Senate Election Runoffs: and why the results undermine Trump’s “voter fraud” narrative
The number of Black registered voters in Georgia increased by about 130,000 between Oct. 11, 2016, and Oct. 5, 2020, the largest increase among all major racial and ethnic groups, and the total number of new voters registered in that state since 2016 totaled an astonishing 520,000(!)
"The number of Latino and White registered voters increased by roughly the same amount, each by 95,000, despite there being far fewer Latino than White existing registered voters (260,000 vs. 3.8 million). The number of Asian registered voters increased by 63,000, a substantial amount relative to the group’s Oct. 5, 2020, total (188,000)."
Furthermore, "roughly 72,000 newly registered voters (14%) did not disclose their race or ethnicity, while 56,000 (11% of newly registered voters) identify with other racial and ethnic groups. The number of Native American registered voters more than doubled from 6,000 in 2016 to 15,000 in 2020. In addition, roughly 76,000 new voters have reportedly registered between the presidential election Oct. 5 deadline and the Dec. 7 U.S. Senate runoff registration deadline. Fewer than half (46%) of these new voters identified themselves as White. White registered voters remain the largest group among all Georgians registered to vote, making up 53% in 2020 – down from 63% just before the 2008 election."
For example, Democratic Georgia Senate candidate Jon Ossoff won 30 percent of the white vote, as opposed to his Republican opponent David Perude's 70 percent.
But the 92 percent black vote for Ossof, combined with the 63 percent "Latino" vote, provided the numbers the Democrats needed to flip the state.
Thursday, 7 January 2021
When Donald Trump was elected in 2016—thanks to the disproportional representation system of the US’ Electoral College—I was, like many others, astonished, and did not really know what to expect apart from an understanding that the next four years were going to be interesting like no other presidential term in recent history.
And Trump did not disappoint. From his hilarious twitter account to his wall-building, from his murderous assassination of Iranian generals and acquiescence in Israel’s ongoing murder of Iranian scientists, from his bombing of ISIS-fighting Syrian soldiers to his failure to understand the racial demographic changes underway in America which destroyed his own re-election chances; all of this was a soap opera which had to have a dramatic ending, one way or another.
And boy, he did not disappoint. I think he will be lucky to escape legal consequences following the events at the US Capitol on January 6. What was he thinking? What were those people thinking? That one could just storm Congress, literally kick in the door, and then walk away as if nothing happened?
Trump’s supporters will now learn the hard
way that if one follows that path—of attacking Congress—one has to be prepared to
go all the way, and not back down once the Rubicon has been crossed. They will
now face punishment like many have not even dreamed about, and all for nothing.
They will also have finally wrecked any chance of the real and genuine legal challenge against the presidential election results (that based on the constitutional provision which states that election rule changes must be endorsed by thee state legislatures) from succeeding.
Trump’s supporters will also now have learned, as ably demonstrated in the Georgia Senate runoff elections, that race is the sole determining factor in politics, and the very nature of society itself.
As usual, the Trumpists pretended that the Georgia race was a fight between “capitalism” and “socialism,” or between “radicals” and “moderates.” And so the silly white Republicans campaigned as if race didn’t exist.
Contrast that with the Democratic campaign, which openly relied on the black vote in Georgia. The “Black Votes Matter”movement organized hundreds of thousands of black votes to be submitted for the Democratic candidates, and the media openly admitted this and cheered it on (See “Why Warnock and Ossoff Won in Georgia, New York Times, Jan. 7, 2021; “How Black voters lifted Georgia Democrats to Senate runoff victories,” The Guardian, 7 Jan 2021, et al).
From the Georgia results we learn that 93% of black voters supported the Democratic candidates, a racial voting block which, when combined with the 29 % white liberal vote, simply overran the majority white Republican vote.
(The double standards here are clear, and reveal a story in themselves: Blacks organizing on a racial basis is a good thing, but God help any person trying to organize whites on a racial basis—that would be the height of evil! It’s so obvious, but who dares point it out?)
So now we come to the end of the Trump presidency, on an explosive note which was almost inevitable. His crashing and burning on January 6, 2021, was almost a fitting end to a pointless diversion, and will force his dispirited followers into either finally understanding that their salvation lies in peaceful, planned, secession, or ultimately being consumed by the Third World.
Sunday, 13 December 2020
IN a display of resilience which is breathtaking to behold, the Trump faction has not backed down from their very dubious defeat at the US Supreme Court and are launching another barrage of law suits, this time in induvial states, which are carbon copies of the original suit.
The US Supreme Court’s ruling that the state of Texas had no standing to interfere in other state’s elections procedures, despite the very clear breaches of Article II of the US Constitution, is one of those decisions that is open to interpretation on Article III of that same Constitution. It is probably something that could be argued, but obviously that isn’t going to happen.
According to Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer, “We move immediately, seamlessly, to plan B, which is to bring lawsuits now in each one of the states. We had them ready. They’re just a version of the one that was brought in the Supreme Court. So last night, the president made the decision,” Giuliani said during an appearance on Steve Bannon’s “War Room: Pandemic.”
According to Giuliani, suits are being filed in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona and Nevada. The suits will essentially be copies of the allegations contained in the original Texan suit.
“If the state doesn’t have standing, surely the president of the United States has standing. And certainly, the electors in the states have standing. So, they will be bringing those very cases right in those courts, starting today,” Giuliani said. “And let’s see what excuse they can try to use to avoid having a hearing on that.”
So the soap drama is not over yet.
Thursday, 10 December 2020
I—like many others—was somewhat dismissive of the latest US Supreme Court application, launched initially by the state of Texas against the states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia, alleging that the presidential elections in those states were invalid. However, upon reading the plaintiff’s case carefully, and double checking with the constitution, I am forced to wonder if Trump has not indeed this time “grabbed them all by the pu**y.”
* Updaete 12/12/2020: as predicted below, the Supreme Court used the "standing" issue to refuse to hear the case. There are now no more legal options for Trump.
Essentially, the case before the court can be summed up as follows:
Article II of the US Constitution says that only the state legislatures can draw up the rules by which presidential elections for electors are held in the states.
"The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:
The four states named as respondents (Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia) all ran their elections by rules created outside of the state legislatures, that is, rules created by judges, unelected civil servants, and orders from some individual politicians.
These rules all had to do with the rules governing mail-in ballots, which in Pennsylvania’s case, jumped from around 230,000 in 2016, to nearly 2.5 million in 2020. These arbitrary rules included the mailing out of unsolicited ballot forms to voters, a lack of enforcement of the signature check rules, amongst many other issued.
To use the mail-in ballots as an example: traditionally, when a voter applies for a mail in ballot, they must sign an application form.
The returned ballot is then cross checked against the original application form signature to try and ensure that it came from the person who asked for the ballot.
Obviously, when mail in ballots are sent out unsolicited, this double check process cannot be enforced or used.
Here is the important part: the decision to use unsolicited mail-in ballots was not the result of the legislatures of any of the states, but rather the made-up rules by individuals within the states’ civil service.
California, by contrast, ordered their election from within decisions taken in the state legislature. That is why they are not named as respondents.
So the bottom line is that Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia, all ran their elections in contravention of the US constitution.
The suit does not have to prove fraud: all it does is show that the states failed to adhere to the regulations as laid down in the constitution.
And on the face of it, this would appear to be a correct argument.
"This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors?
These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution.
By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution."
According to the constitution, there are two ways in which this dispute about the selection of electors can be solved. The Court can
(i) order that the state legislatures appoint the electors directly (on the basis that the state legislature was also elected by the people) or
(ii) refer the election of the president directly to Congress. In such a case, each state is given ONE vote based on state delegations.
The Republican Party controls the state legislatures of the four states named as respondents, and that party also makes up a majority of the state delegations in the House (if not a majority of individual delegates, but that doesn’t matter as each state is given a vote, not each individual congressman/woman).
In either of these two remedies, Trump will take the Electors from those four states, and pass the 270 Elector mark with ease, adding 62 electors to his total and reducing Biden’s by the same amount.
So what will the US Supreme Court do? That is the million-dollar question.
If the Court follows through on the Constitution, they will have no choice but to agree with the Texan suit.
Furthermore, on the fact of it, it would appear that the only way this suit could be struck down is on a technicality on the standing of the parties involved, revolving around the claim that the States do not have the right to take each other to Court on such matters.
Whatever they decide, it will be an interesting few weeks ahead.
Monday, 7 December 2020
COVID-denial cranks—of whom there are sadly a large number on the so-called "right wing" of the political spectrum—must be feeling red-faced today as news emerges that Sweden’s much-vaunted laissez-faire approach to containing the pandemic has resulted in a death rate ten times higher than its equally-sized immediate neighbors.
New reports have revealed that Sweden’s
death toll has now passed 7,000—far larger than its equally sized neighbors
Denmark, Finland and Norway, which have recorded death-rates of 878, 415 and 354 deaths respectively (figures correct as of December 6, 2020).
Previously, COVID-19 denialist lauded Sweden’s approach to dealing with the crisis, saying that the reliance on “voluntary measures” to control the epidemic was somehow proof that all the other nations were wrong in making mask-wearing and the closure of proven high-risk transmission centers—such as bars and nightclubs—compulsory.
As a report in the Wall Street Journal has revealed, a surge in infections in Sweden has “led to rising hospitalizations and deaths,” and the government there “has abandoned its attempt—unique among Western nations—to combat the pandemic through voluntary measures.”
The Wall Street Journal continued: “Like other Europeans, Swedes are now heading into the winter facing restrictions ranging from a ban on large gatherings to curbs on alcohol sales and school closures—all aimed at preventing the country’s health system from being swamped by patients and capping what is already among the highest per capita death tolls in the world.”
Now, Sweden has a Covid-19-related death rate reaching almost 700 per million inhabitants, its infections are growing as rapidly as anywhere else, and in some cases, faster. It is therefore no surprise that the government has a “made a U-turn.”
What this means is that there is no sign that the “herd immunity” strategy works to combat the virus.
What the COVID-denialists all failed to grasp was that the virus was something completely new, and no-one, not the “experts” or the numerous “lay-experts” actually had any real idea of how to deal with the pandemic.
All the experts could do was to deal with it as best as they could given past experience of world wide pandemics, and that was what they did, with the notable exception of Sweden.
In addition, it also now transpires that Sweden’s approach did also not “save the economy” either. According to official figures, in the first half of 2020, Sweden’s gross domestic product fell by 8.5% and unemployment is projected to rise to nearly 10% in the beginning of 2021.
Just as many businesses in Sweden are facing closure as anywhere else—except that, unlike in the rest of Europe, “where governments coupled restrictions with generous stimulus, Swedish authorities have offered comparatively less support to businesses since they didn’t impose closures.”
As Swedish restaurateur Jonas Hamlund told the Wall Street Journal: “This is worse than a lockdown and it has been a catastrophic year for everyone in the business: They haven’t closed us so they don’t give us any substantial support, yet [now] they say to people ‘don’t go to restaurants’.” Hamlund was forced to close one of his two restaurants in the coastal city of Sundsvall, laying off 30 people.
Fear of the virus and the government’s advice to avoid social interactions have weighed on domestic demand, damaging business and investor confidence, said Lars Calmfors, an economist and member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. “Countries that had mandatory restrictions have done better than us,” he added.
In Stockholm, Anna Lallerstedt runs a chain of three popular restaurants that was started by her parents in the 1980s. Last month she closed two of them, shedding nearly 100 jobs. She says she fears that her last restaurant, now employing just over 10 people, might also be at risk with the current surge expected to peak around the Christmas season, which traditionally brings substantial revenues. “Maybe we should have had masks earlier,” Ms. Lallerstedt said.
* Talking of masks, it is also of interest to note that some COVID-denialists have also claimed that there has never before been compulsory mask-wearing in the West before, and that this measure is a sign of “government control.”
This is, of course, nonsense. Compulsory mask wearing and social distancing was an automatic measure implemented during the infamous 1918 flu pandemic, as even the most basic of historical research easily demonstrates.
Sunday, 8 November 2020
As the Trump faction scrambles to lodge a barrage of dubious legal appeals against the outcome of the US Presidential election 2020, a sober assessment of the racial voting patterns—and American demographics—provides a much simpler reason for the election result: obvious racial demographics.
I would urge everyone to consider the following before jumping on the conspiracy bandwagon, which in this particular case, is being driven by the race-denying "conservatives."
In 2020, the majority of under 18 year olds in America were nonwhite.
By 2027 -- that, is, in six year's time, the majority of under 29 year olds in America will be nonwhite.
What this means is that in 2020, the
majority of under 23 year olds in America are nonwhite.
Exit polls have revealed what this meant in terms of racial turnout for the candidates.
(Bear in mind that the US Federal definition of "white" includes all Arabs, all Middle Easterners, and anyone else who is not "black," "Latino,' or "native American.'
42 % of whites voted for Biden
12% of blacks voted for Trump
27% of "Latino" voters voted for Trump.
In a nutshell, Biden won the election through a combination of white liberals (a minority of the white vote) and massive nonwhite support.
This also explains why the results from the major metropolitan areas (Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Raleigh etc) most often mentioned in the “fraud” conspiracy theories, went overwhelmingly for Biden.
There was no doubt some cheating (have you ever seen an election without some?) but it is highly doubtful that this was of such a large scale as to influence millions of votes.
These fraud conspiracy theories all ignore the reality of race and its effect upon society, and indeed, civilization itself. In that way, they are even dangerous in themselves.
It was, quite frankly, surprising that Trump won in 2016, and would have been doubly surprising if he had won in 2020.
Furthermore, it is also clear that if the Republican Party had not lost in 2020, they would most certainly have lost in 2024.
This leads on to the inevitable question: What now for white Americans?
Firstly, It is clear that democracy, or elections, offers no hope of salvation for white America. The Third World invasion is now so complete, that it is impossible to win elections, even with the majority of the white vote, as 2020 has demonstrated.
Given this fact, what does the future hold for white Americans? There are essentially two paths:
1. Just let things slide so that whites become a minority in the country they founded. This will lead to America becoming a large South Africa, which contains a shrinking white minority, hated and despised because they still are the only ones who can create wealth and progress; blamed for all nonwhite failures to achieve; and subjected to ever-increasing nonwhite violent criminality as the have-nots seize what little the whites have left.
2. Whites can congregate in an area (geographical consolidation), form a majority in those areas, and steadily push towards secession as the US collapses into Third World status.
Orania in South Africa provides a perfect parallel. If whites trapped in South Africa do not start congregating in Orania and de facto seize possession of the Northern Cape to the western seaboard, they will be ultimately be exterminated. It is as simple as that.
Similarly, if white Americans do not physically congregate and de facto seize possession of a state or states in America, they too will be ultimately be exterminated. It is as simple as that.
This is the ultimate law of nature: those who form the majority population in a territory, determine the nature of the civilization in that region.
Anything else, such as conspiracy theories about "cheating" or "betrayal" are meaningless diversionary nonsense, and distract from a clear understanding of the racial factor as the ultimate determinant of history.
Thursday, 10 September 2020
Blame Whitey Part 5901: "Systemic Racist" Clicks South Africa Advertisement Produced by Nonwhite-led team
Those who follow news from South Africa will know that the big news there currently is that a health and beauty chain called Clicks is currently under attack after publishing an absurd series of images on its website which contrasted "dry and damaged hair" with fine and healthy, normal hair."
The images the company used showed nonwhite hair as "dry and damaged" and white hair as "fine" and "normal" hair.
Predictably, there has been outrage from the blacks, who, quite correctly I may add, took the depiction of white hair as "normal” as an unbridled insult.
The radical Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) party, which has a sizeable following and representation in the South African Parliament, launched its militants to attack Clicks stores across the country, and some were severely damaged and firebombed in the resulting fracas.
This narrative was, of course, carried our in the international media, where the “systemic racism” nonsense was, of course, faithfully replicated.
Now, however, it has emerged that the offending advertisements weren’t even produced by whites, but by a nonwhite-led marketing team!
Clicks said in a media statement that all employees responsible for publishing the advertisement have also been suspended.
CEO Vikesh Ramsunder revealed yesterday that the digital team was made up of two black employees, two white employees, and a coloured manager.
“How they didn’t find this (advertisement) insensitive is beyond me… It shows that I have a lot of work to do in terms of sensitivity training,” Ramsunder told Cape Talk.
Ramsunder is right: how could anyone have thought that this advertisement would not give offence?
Given the widespread "affirmative action" (a code word for anti-white discrimination), it can be taken for granted that the whites on the "digital team" were lower ranking staff, and that the two blacks and the coloured manager were the final arbiters of this advertisement.
So there’s the answer.
Yet, in spite of this, whites will still get the blame for "systemic racism," because, as we know, whites are always to blame, for everything.
* Who owns Clicks? It is a publicly listed company, and according to the 2019 Annual Company report, "more than 70% of the group’s shares are now held by offshore fund managers." (page 80). Hmm.
Monday, 17 August 2020
The outpouring of hatred against white people which erupted in May 2020 after the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA, serves as a classic example of how lies and distortions have become the norm in the mass media and in the mind of the mob.
George Floyd: A Test Case in Anti-White Hatred
The outpouring of hatred against white people which erupted in May 2020 after the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA, serves as a classic example of how lies and distortions have become the norm in the mass media and in the mind of the mob.
The establishment narrative alleges that Floyd, a 6 feet 4 inch (193 cm) and 223 pound (101 kg) “black” American, was killed after he was held in a neck restraint position by a white police officer.
The incident was filmed by a bystander with one of the now ubiquitous cell phone cameras, and showed Floyd being held by officer Derek Chauvin in a neck restraint pose.
On the video, Floyd can be heard telling the policeman that he “can’t breathe,” and he then becomes unresponsive.
Floyd was subsequently treated onsite by paramedics, was transported to a local hospital, but could not be revived. He was declared dead at 9:25 p.m. on May 25, 2020.
The footage of Floyd’s treatment went viral on social media. Within hours, there were protests, which soon escalated into violence, looting, and arson. Thanks to the mass media’s coverage, the protests first went national in the US (following the same pattern in most cases, i.e. violence, arson, and looting), and then, finally, internationally, as the protests “spread” to many parts of Western Europe.
Before all of the facts were known, the narrative had been created: Floyd had been murdered by a racist white policeman for no reason at all except that he was black, and this was just one of a long line of similar incidents where black people are routinely murdered at will by whites. It is claimed that this is the result of what is called “systemic racism,” or “endemic racism,” generated of course by whites against nonwhites.
To satisfy the mob, all four officers were fired. Chauvin was charged with second-degree murder, third-degree murder, and manslaughter. The other three officers present, Tou Thao, Thomas Lane, and J. Alexander Kueng were charged with aiding and abetting both second-degree murder and manslaughter.
The first flaw in this narrative came with the official autopsy carried out on Floyd exactly twelve hours after his death.
Wednesday, 29 July 2020
It’s been more than 25 years since the ANC came to power in South Africa. Even though this is a longer period than it took the Boers to establish no less than three republics during the 1800s, it seems as if the new South Africa is still mired in endless blaming of white people for various problems the country faces.
It is almost comical to see, for example, serious allegations that white people have somehow sabotaged ESKOM. As if there is a deliberate program or desire on the part of white people to make black people look bad.
But it does not end there. White people are apparently also to blame for the collapse in the educational system, the high crime rate, economic problems facing black people, and in fact, almost everything else about which black people complain.
The handful of black people who point out that whites are not to blame for everything, are of course ignored or dismissed as Uncle Toms.
There is of course, no justification at all to blame white people for everything that is going wrong in South Africa, a quarter of a century after the ANC came to power. In fact, as the older and honest people of all races know, apartheid itself died long before 1994. The so-called petty apartheid systems had started to be dismantled in the 1980s: influx control was abandoned in the mid-1980s, and the group areas and mixed marriages acts, for example, were no longer enforced from the late 1980s onward.
In fact, the last all-white Parliament sat in 1982, even if the then tricameral system was rejected by the ANC and other opponents. That rejection does not nullify the fact that the tricameral system and its resultant social implications was a major break with apartheid as it had been originally designed.
This means that apartheid — as it is blamed for everything — actually vanished more than 25 years ago. Yet still, white people are blamed for everything.
Perhaps then, the time has come to punish white people properly for apartheid.
Perhaps the time has come to give white people exactly what is claimed they gave to black people: perhaps the time has come to give white people apartheid!
If the government or the EFF, or anyone else, really wants to punish white people then they should make them live under the sort of policies under which they claim black people suffered so much.
And here we are not talking about just affirmative action, BEE, or job reservation, removing white symbols, town names, statues, Afrikaans language educational systems, or “land reform”—as they are already doing—but the whole caboodle.
Why not go all the way, and teach these white people exactly how real apartheid worked?
Why not force white people into their own schools?
Why not force white people into having their own residential areas?
Why not force white people to socially segregate?
Why not take away the vote from white people? (not like their votes make any difference in the new South Africa anyway).
And finally, why not force white people into their own homeland in some barren area?
Some place where they will only have the vote to form their own government in that area, just like a bantustan? And no vote in the rest of South Africa!
Perhaps the northern Cape might be a suitable white bantustan? After all, it is barren and relatively unpopulated.
They could even forcibly relocate white people to this white bantustan. With trucks, perhaps. Dump them there and let them get on with it.
Think of all the possibilities this would open up.
The government takes revenge on the white people in the way that they say white people exploited blacks.
They could also then demonstrate to the world just how evil apartheid was, as this white bantustan collapses.
Let the white bantustan build its own schools! And let them collapse!
Let the white bantustan build its own economy! And let it collapse!
Let the white bantustan start its own farms! And let them collapse!
That will teach them how evil apartheid was.
And yes, then black people could have the majority of the country, the rich farm areas, the cities.....
Jam these white people into a bantustan, enforce apartheid against them, and let them get on with it! That will show them!
Best of all, they could get rid of these pesky white people once and for all.
Applying apartheid to white people would immediately stop their interference in the country's economy, politics, and so on.
So let’s stop messing around.
Why doesn’t the government dish out to white people what they say white people dished out to them.
It’s only fair, right, and long overdue. Make white people suffer under apartheid!
Friday, 11 August 2017
“Their DNA is from all over the country, with less than half of it coming from Great Britain.”“The DNA breakdown of the average Bledington resident was: Great Britain (Anglo Saxon) 42.54%; Europe West (The region covered today by France and Germany) 20.61%; Ireland/Scotland/Wales 17.03%; Scandinavia 10.06%; Iberian Peninsula (Spain/Portugal) 2.80%; Italy/Greece 1.79%; Europe East 1.66%; European Jewish 1.58%; Finland/Northwest 1.03%; Caucasus 0.46%; West Asia 0.24%; Asia South 0.11%; Asia Central 0.03%; Africa North 0.03%; Native American 0.01%; Asia East 0.01%; Middle East 0.01%; Melanesia 0.01%.”
In a DNA estimate, low confidence regions are areas for which there's a small amount of DNA evidence found in a sample. All ethnicities with predicted percentages of less than 4.5% appear as low confidence regions.To calculate your ethnicity, we run 40 separate tests on randomly selected portions of your DNA. The bottom number in a range is the smallest amount of an ethnicity that appeared during the 40 analyses, and the top number in a range is the largest amount of an ethnicity that appeared.When an ethnicity has a range that includes zero (meaning that in at least one of the 40 tests, that ethnicity didn’t appear) and doesn’t exceed 15%, or when the predicted percentage is less than 4.5%, the ethnicity is included in an estimate as a low confidence region.The larger the amount of an ethnicity that appears in a test, the more confidence we’re able to attribute to our estimate of that ethnicity. Because low confidence regions are regions for which smaller amounts of evidence appears, our confidence in the percentage of DNA that comes from a low confidence region is necessarily low.
Wednesday, 6 April 2016
|King Otto I.|
|Prince Dmitry Donskoy.|
|Johannes Gutenberg and his printing press.|
|The Fall of Granada.|
|The Hero of Vienna, Jan Sobieski.|
|The Battle of Navarino.|
|William Bradford Shockley.|
|The Apollo II crew.|