John Paul Stevens as a prototypical WASP

There’s been a lot of talk about the fact that soon there will be no WASPs on the Supreme Court. What does it mean? And does it really matter?

What’s fascinating is that John Paul Stevens was nominated to the Supreme Court as a moderate Republican who gradually moved further to the left as he got older.  What strikes me is his strong sense of principle–even to the extent of making decisions that could not possibly be seen as helping his ethnic group. After all, that’s what being principled means: Doing something because you value an ideal, not because there is anything in it for you. If I don’t steal something because I am afraid of getting caught, it’s not a matter of principle. But if I refrain from stealing some money it even if there is no possibility of being caught and even if getting the money would mean a lot to me, then I am acting on principle.

Stevens’ liberalism meant that despite being nominated by a Republican, he timed his retirement to occur during a Democratic administration. Even without knowing who would be the Democratic president, he surely knew that a Democratic president would nominate someone quite unlike himself to fill his position. The chances of any Democratic administration appointing a WASP to the Supreme Court are less than zero. And of course, Obama appointed someone who seems to all appearances to be a strongly identified Jew — not to mention that she has no visible qualifications and has benefited immensely from Jewish ethnic networking.

Much the same could be said about David Souter–another WASP appointed by a Republican who chose to retire during a Democratic administration and was replaced by a Latina.

The result is that the Obama administration has has had two appointments very early on, predictably appointing people who represent two important Democratic constituencies–Latino and Jewish. (Jews contribute at least 60% of the money for the Democratic Party, and Latinos are an increasingly important component of the non-White ethnic coalition that the Democratic Party has now become.)

Stevens therefore is the ultimate non-ethnic actor. This is reflected in his writing:

“The ideas of liberty and equality have been an irresistible force in motivating leaders like Patrick Henry, Susan B. Anthony, and Abraham Lincoln, schoolteachers like Nathan Hale and Booker T. Washington, the Philippine Scouts who fought at Bataan, and the soldiers who scaled the bluff at Omaha Beach,” he wrote in an unusually lyrical dissent [in a 1989 flag burning case]. “If those ideas are worth fighting for—and our history demonstrates that they are—it cannot be true that the flag that uniquely symbolizes their power is not itself worthy of protection.

Ideas are worth fighting for, but Stevens has no interest in advancing the cause of WASPs as an ethnic group. Here he idealizes non-White Filipinos fighting alongside Whites to secure a set of principles. He has no concern that there will be no more WASPs on the court for the foreseeable future, presumably because he thinks that what’s important is that certain ideas will continue to guide the country.

Writing in the LATimes, Gregory Rodriquez framed the the issue by titling his article “The triumph of WASP culture“: the lack of WASPs means the WASPs have won. The multicultural left should build statues to Stevens and Souter as heroes of the hopeful non-White future. Their principled sense that ideas matter and that race and ethnicity are not at all important is exactly how the multicultural left wants all Whites to behave. WASPs as the proposition ethnic group heralding America as the proposition nation.

This devotion to universalist ideas is a strong tendency in the liberal WASP subculture that has been such an important strand of American intellectual history. (See my review of Eric M. Kaufmann’s The Rise and  Fall of Anglo America.) (The exception was during the 1920s when the WASPs sided with the rest of America when they led the battle to enact the immigration restriction law of 1924 which drastically restricted immigration and explicitly attempted to achieve an ethnic status quo as of 1890. Even then, there were substantial numbers of WASPs who opposed immigration restriction.)

In the 19th century, this liberal WASP tradition could be seen in their attraction to utopian communities and their strong moral revulsion to slavery that animated the cause of abolition. Ideas matter and are worth fighting for–even if more than 600,000 White people died in the battle –“Let us die to make men free” as the “Battle Hymn of the Republic” urged. They had the idea that people are able to fashion moral ideals and then bring them into being as a result of political activism. They were individualists who saw the world not in terms of ingroups and outgroups, but as composed of unique individuals. Their relatively tepid ethnocentrism and their proneness to moral universalism — ethnic traits in my view and in  the view of many WASPs in the 19th century — made them willing allies of the rising class of Jewish intellectuals who came to dominate intellectual discourse beginning at least by the 1930s.  Even by the 1920s, the triumph of Boasian anthropology meant that appeals to WASP ethnicity would fall on deaf ears in the academic world.

And now that the forces of liberal cosmopolitanism have won out, the WASPs — even the liberal ones — are being rapidly jettisoned by our new, substantially Jewish elite. The replacement of Stevens by Kagan is deliciously paradigmatic.

Kaufmann points out that one of the defining features of the  WASPs is the tendency to believe that as a result of assimilation everyone would be just like them. Immigrant Catholics would shed their religion and become proper Protestants. In fact, becoming a WASP wasn’t all that hard if you had enough money, dressed right, joined the right clubs, and became an Episcopalian or Congregationalist. As I wrote about growing up in Wisconsin:

I think we Catholics did feel a bit separate from the Protestants, especially the well-off Protestants. … But the divisions didn’t seem very important (ethnicity wasn’t an issue) and there was a certain amount of mobility among the groups. In any case, no one felt like an outsider. We certainly did not have the intense hostility toward the WASP elite that has been so typical of Jews.

I suspect therefore that Stevens and Souter think, perhaps unconsciously, that the people who replace them will be just like them in the sense that they will uphold the same ideals. The republic will live on but with different faces–a utopian idea, to say the least.

In fact, it is far more likely that now that the WASPs are gone, the Supreme Court and every other important institution will be divvied up as an ethnic spoils system, especially for the Democrats as they try to appease the various parts of their ethnic coalition. And the Republicans will doubtless appoint at least some non-Whites to show that the principles of WASP idealism are not dead.

The reality is that the  various non-White ethnic groups jockeying for power in America are not like the WASPs at all. Their powerful sense of ethnic identification means by definition that they are unprincipled–that they can be reliably predicted to see things in terms of what is good for their ethnic group. Sotomayor’s “wise Latina” comment comes to mind, and Kagan’s strong ethnic identity implies that she, like the rest of the Jewish community, will be mainly motivated the old dictum of “what’s good for the Jews”: the Supreme Court as a lifetime legislative appointment to be used to advance the interests of their ethnic group. Kagan’s unprincipled views on issues such as free speech are entirely within the mainstream of the Jewish community. Indeed, in one of her law review articles she anticipated the recent hate crimes legislation that was pushed so strongly by the ADL and supported by the rest of the organized Jewish community. The most glaring aspect of Jewish political behavior now is their remarkably unprincipled support for the multicultural left, including massive non-White immigration in the United States while at the same time providing unquestioning support for an apartheid, racialist Israel with laws that make Arizona’s immigration laws pale by comparison.

Stevens and Souter are naive. Their devotion to ideas and principle along with similar attitudes of a very large number of like-minded Whites will cast a long, deadly shadow as we head into the  future.  All the research shows that ethnically divided societies are prone to conflict and have less of a civic sense — for example, people in ethnically divided societies are less likely to contribute to public goods like health care. The new elite is much more likely to act out their historical grudges against the White majority than to uphold WASP ideals. Ethnicity matters.

Bookmark and Share

Share:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

98 Comments to "John Paul Stevens as a prototypical WASP"

  1. tergium hulotov's Gravatar tergium hulotov
    July 27, 2010 - 6:30 am | Permalink

    no it doeznt matter according to the newspapers i regularly comment in ,(3) as the amelikans are so jew screwed in thought they think I am prejudiced just for pointing out the jews all over the place, being alarmist on sotomajor being jew not latino,and kagan? jumpin jaysus she so aint right, and 2 jewesess senators in kali,along with govnor to be, and chiefs of police los anglesbut fear not the xians love jews and stand by gods chosen problem is the god in the bible ixs a lowly demi god of f his rocker to boot thinsk he actually created this and rules the earths dog and pony show, that is the god of the jews,a deranged entity enfeebled with exiastence he cant cope with and delusional as to what is a nice demi god,we need a nicer demigod.only uniforms jews parade around in are nazi type ones thwey haveto keep the dream alive after all.

  2. Someday's Gravatar Someday
    July 24, 2010 - 7:43 am | Permalink

    Powerful as the Jews are they would be worried if some members of their community were parading around NVKD uniforms.

    And they would be right to be worried.

  3. Andrew's Gravatar Andrew
    July 21, 2010 - 11:03 pm | Permalink

    “What have the Neonazis ever done that is so bad?”

    What have the Neonazis ever done that is NOT bad for the white cause ?”

    The Neonazis are not the problem. Most of them have done nothing worse then parade around in poorly fitting military costumes and use bad judgement. There is a game afoot, which is to demonize a certain political viewpoint. There is a need for the opposition to have an ugly, negative image that WNs can be branded with. If Neonazis had never existed, then Hitler’s image would be used. If Hitler had never existed then the KKK’s image would be used. If none of them had ever existed, there are untold numbers of crazies and criminals that could be used.

    It is a battle between 2 different camps (David versus Goliath), which includes a public relations campaign. Jews have an excellent public image (at least among the American public), even though their clan includes the most gruesome mass murderers that ever existed, people like Kaganovich and Beria. There is no shortage of unsavory Jews and Jewish groups (those who are not shy about discussing their virulent hatred of Europeans and the West). The existence of these individuals and groups is irrelevant for the Jews, and they are not affected in the slightest if you do bring them up.

    The Neonazis are likewise irrelevant. Being vulnerable to being embarrassed by them is a critical weakness. WNs need to have a sense of confidence in their views, and mental armor against being shamed by whatever stereotype we are given, or whatever epithets are thrown at us.

  4. July 20, 2010 - 7:06 am | Permalink

    Andrew,

    “If I could quickly sum up your view, you believe that the ancient Indo-Europeans were most similar to modern-day Iranians. They were “Caucasians” in the sense of being caucasoid, but this is a very large group that includes Arabs, Turks and Middle Easterners. You believe that they looked significantly different than Northern Europeans/Germanics, possibly looking more like Iranians or Iraqis. They were probably primarily responsible for the development of agriculture and early civilization, and would have been a high-IQ people, producing large numbers of creative geniuses. Would this be correct?”

    Yes.

    Though my two caveats would be:

    1. The development of agriculture likely would’ve preceded the existence of the ancient Indo-Europeans. It would be more that the ancient Indo-Europeans were descended from the inventers of agriculture.

    2. While I think the ancient Indo-Europeans probably had a high IQ, this belief is really only based on inferences relating to how culturally and militarily advanced their descendant groups seem to have been relative to their contemporaries.

    “The idea of Middle Easterners (at least the people who live there now) developing complex civilizations just seems so incongruous. It may be that there was an indo-European race that looked like Middle Easterners, but was genetically submerged by intermarriage with intensely tribal arabs.”

    Obviously there also could’ve been evolution.

    The Parsee and the Iranians are from the same stock, they broke off from each other about a thousand years ago, and yet the Parsee far outperform Europeans in terms of per capita intellectual output, while the Iranians evidently have a lower IQ than Europeans.

    Ashkenazi Jews have a higher IQ than any European, and yet are about 70% of recent Middle Eastern ancestry, while completely lacking Northern European ancestry.

    “(I imagine that any genotype that was not intensely tribal could not survive in that intensely competitive environment).”

    A lot of the differences between Middle Eastern Caucasians and European Caucasians goes to how in the Middle East group selection has tended to be more salient, whereas in Europe individual level selection has tended to be more salient.

    And certainly all Non-European Caucasoid groups in the past would’ve been very Tribal in comparision to modern Europeans.

    I have this gut feeling that if the Proto-Indo-Europeans came back into existence and were planted in Europe, they’d slaughter their way across the Countryside (assuming anyone was stupid enough to clue them in on guns).

    If displacing the genes of this or that other group using military force is a form of Tribalism, the Proto-Indo-Europeans were some of the supreme tribalists.

    “I personally am biased in my own view, because I would prefer the past to be as the older writers envisioned, where Nordics were the primary innovators and founders of civilizations. But, if this view is not correct, I am willing to abandon it. The only thing is, the evidence really seems to be on the side of the older writers.”

    The evidence was profoundly cherry-picked and based on an irrational series of inferences. They continually showed an inability to understand simple concepts like the ways in which phenotype adapts to climate, and the meaninglessness of looking at anything but ratios when discussing the prevalence of racial traits in different populations in an attempt to infer their group membership.

    “For example, going back to the Greek and Roman statues, the faces of the elites are very Northern European.”

    Actually they were overwhelmingly Alpine, a phenotype in no way unique to Northern Europe.

    The racial type in most of Central Italy and Greece in the early 20th Century was Alpine according to Madison Grant.

    So unless “Northern Europe” includes Central Italy and Greece, there’s no basis for saying the Roman or Greek elite were Northern European in phenotype.

    “They certainly do not appear to be very similar to modern-day Middle Easterners or Iranians…”

    The statues only are from a time long after the Indo-European invasion. There would’ve been plenty of time for adaptation to the European climate and/or the more general gene competition environment to have occurred.

    Also it seems logical that the Indo-Europeans who entered Europe would’ve become influenced by mixing with groups who were in Europe before them.

    There’s nothing about the theory that Indo-Europeans were highly similar to Iranians which predicts that Classical Greeks would’ve looked all that much like Iranians.

    “(Pericles looks like a modern White football player…”

    Pericles was a European, so it isn’t surprising he looked like a White. Also it should be noted that the skull structure depicted in the statue of him I’m familiar with is clearly of Mediterranean type.

    “certainly nothing like Ahmadinejad).”

    Ahmadinejad looks less like Europeans than most Iranians. The spectrum of phenotypes in Iran is such that it seems likely almost all the types of looks found in Europe today could’ve been produced from them, if a few thousand years of selection were put on the population.

    For example, blondes are found in the North of Iran. Even if Europeans were 100% of Proto-Iranian ancestry they’d be nothing strange about blondes being found in Europe at a high rate in some parts of the Continent, so long as there was sufficient selection for the trait in the Continent.

    Also you need to understand that all the blood in Europe came from the Middle East. It’s just a question of how recently it came in.

    The Indo-European invasion of Europe occurred long enough ago that there’s nothing at all anomalous in the degree of divergence in phenotype that exists between Iranians and Europeans.

    And even in a Country like Lebanon, which would have taken more Arab blood than Iran for historical reasons, the current Prime Minister could likely pass for a European if he wanted to.

    http://www.novinite.com/media/images/2010-03/photo_verybig_114665.jpg

    “There is enough evidence of at least some blondism/light features within the population of Greece.”

    That means nothing from this standpoint because there’s also evidence of blondism/light features in the Iranians of today.

    “The gods were blond…”

    That’s not true at all. Zeus had silver hair, reflecting his age. Poseidon had dark hair. Hades had dark hair.

    And even with the Sun God Apollo there’s good reason to think the descriptions of his hair as blonde were figurative:

    *******************************
    Ion of Chios (5th c. BC) brings some examples of how poetic use of color terms (e.g. purple mouths, rosy fingers, etc.) differs from what is proper to the arts (in Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 13, 81). Significantly, he disusses Pindar’s description of Apollo (Olympic 6) where the epithet chrusokoman (golden-haired) is applied, saying that “if the painter had made the god’s hair golden and not black, the painting would be worse” Thus, it appears, that the image of the god of light as golden-haired was recognized as poetic, while a normal hair color (black) was used for depicting the god.
    ********************************
    http://dienekes.50webs.com/arp/articles/hellenes/

    “the ideal of beauty was a Nordic”

    That’s not true.

    *************************
    Greek art furnishes important information about the racial type of the ancient Hellenes. Coon in [4] observed that the beauty ideal of a straight nose and a lithe body was borrowed from Minoan Crete which was undisputably peopled by Mediterraneans [5,11]. The characteristic nose-forehead continuity of idealistic depictions of gods and heroes is more typical of Mediterraneans than Nordics [5], although it was rare for ancient Greeks [6] as it is for modern ones [10]. Angel [6] observes though, that his Dinaric-Mediterranean (Type F) morphological type approaches this ideal, in contrast to the Nordic-Iranian (Type D) in which the nasal bone projects at a sharp angle with the frontal bone. Indeed, Bertil Lundman, who claimed to have studied more than 20,000 individuals anthropologically [49], remarked that “the morphology of the Northlander must be assumed to be sufficiently known; it is necessary to stress only that a high nose bridge with a so-called Greek profile always points to foreign admixture.” Thus, the Greek profile is seen as evidence of the “Northern” character of the Ancient Greeks, yet a real expert on northern physical anthropology acknowledges that it is foreign to the Northern morphological type.

    Statues sometimes show traces of pigmentation; this includes different pigment types and is not uniform, representing the different hair colors among Greeks. Manzelli in a study of polychromatic Archaic Greek statuary [43] records an incidence of only 2% of yellow hair.(f) Manzelli also records that eye colors were black, “red,” and brown in the majority of surviving examples, with only a single example having green eyes. Mary Stieber [47] who studied the appearance of archaic statues of young women called korai also concludes that despite the presence of light hair in some examples, “it remains a fact that yellow hair is a rarity; for this reason alone it is tempting to infer that the percentage of its occurrence in female statues on the Acropolis is largely a reflection of its occurrence in real life.” Buxton in [3] records an interesting fact observed by Sergi [1], Ripley [2], and Deniker [27] and the Greek anthropologist Klon Stephanos. A quote from Ripley (p.410) “these ideal heads [of the statues] are distinctly brachycephalic.” Importantly, various populations in modern Hellas who are suspected by some (for historical and linguistic reasons) to represent a relatively pure Hellenic type, the Sphakiots and Maniates are also brachycephalic. Ancient Greeks were, however, on average mesocephalic [6].

    The German art historian, Winckelmann [16] discusses extensively the Greek beauty ideal. The low forehead, luxurious curly hair, straight nose in continuity to the nose, large eyes and ovoid faces described by the author are typical of Southern Europe, contrasting with the small eyes, high forehead, angular features and straight hair typical of more northern climes. Winckelmann observes the similarity of modern Greeks, particularly from the islands to the classical forms, relating in particular that the Greek women of Chios are the “most beautiful of the human race.”

    Winckelmann’s impressions are supported by a modern study by Farkas et al. [51], according to which 20% of modern Greek males have a forehead (tragion to nasion) that is lower than the normal range of white Americans, who are mostly of northwestern European descent; The lowness of the forehead was also typical of ancient Greeks [6].

    The same study discovered that 50% of Greek males and 16.7% of Greek females have an eye fissure length greater than the normal range of white Americans.

    Greek pottery cannot be used directly for determining pigmentation, because most of it is bi-chromatic. It is interesting though, that in the more realistic red-figure vases, the hair is almost always painted black, creating a great contrast with the body which is white (numerous examples in [24]). In white background lekythoi, realistic colors are used.

    Extreme blondness, typical of Nordic individuals is almost completely absent while many examples have hair that is black or a dark brown. Reddish brown is also present. Martin F. Kilmer, in [7: p.131, n.4] in discussing an Etruscan vase showing a blond woman says that this is “not a common Greek feature.” Thus, while examples of blonde hair in Greek art are not unknown (e.g., the Blonde Ephebe of the Acropolis, whose hair is deep yellow [21]), they are not common.
    ******************************

    http://dienekes.50webs.com/arp/articles/hellenes/

    “Another important aspect was the type of culture. I believe that culture reflects genes, each genotype when left alone will naturally build a culture that represents its inborn traits. Greek culture is, for lack of a better word, extremely ‘European‘.”

    That would largely be because European culture derives from the Ancient Greeks.

    “The seeking of knowledge for its own sake, beliefs in abstract ideas and ideals, and everything else is as European as it gets. Other Europeans are instantly drawn to that.”

    That would be because all the Europeans are similar to each other genetically, and share some general adaptations to the climate and gene competition environment that prevailed on the European continent.

    “it also seems that these things are foreign to other ethnic groups, Greek and Roman culture holds no magic for them.”

    It was Islamic scholars in the Middle East who kept many Greek and Latin writings alive during the Dark Ages.

    The “Islamic Golden Age” is thought to have been inspired by ancient Greek writings.

    What ended the Islamic Golden Age is that Muslim religious authorities came to the view that philosophical and scientific speculation should be discouraged because they distract people from the Koran.

    “Middle Easterners seem to be drawn to abstract patterns in their artwork, not realistic representations…”

    That’s because realistic representations were banned by Islam.

    Regulations against any form of imagery seem to have taken effect quite early on in Islam. The earliest traces of defined regulations date back to the middle of the 8th century, some 120 years after the death of Muhammad, but there may well have been established regulations before this.

    While the theories behind image prohibition did not go through the same sophisticated theology as so many other questions of Islam, the challenge of Bukhari, vol 7, book 62, 110: “… The makers of these pictures will be punished on the Day of Resurrection, and it will be said to them, ‘Give life to what you have created.’ ” was turned into a general and absolute regulation against any life-like representation of any living creature, at least within religious art. In early Islam, there were examples of life-like representations in the official art of coinage, but even this would be abandoned.

    “(which they seem to have difficulty creating).”

    What’s the evidence for this?

    “They are also intensely tribal, I cant imagine them ever developing democracies.”

    The Proto-Indo-Europeans never developed any such thing as Democracy. Therefore the fact that you can’t imagine modern Middle Eastern people developing Democracy is an important way in which modern Middle Easterners are more similar to Proto-Indo-Europeans than groups which developed in Europe, such as some of the Ancient Greeks.

    “It may be that there was an indo-European race that looked like Middle Easterners, but was genetically submerged by intermarriage with intensely tribal arabs…”

    There would’ve been some mixture with Arabs, but not submergence.

    “(I imagine that any genotype that was not intensely tribal could not survive in that intensely competitive environment).”

    Which is a reason to think the Proto-Indo-Europeans may have been intensely tribal.

    “When I try to imagine Iranians or Middle Easterners establishing Greek City states, it just seems ludicrous..”

    Nobody said that they did any such thing. The point is that that a group extremely or very similar to Iranians entered Europe and evolved into the Greeks, etc.

    Then the Greeks developed Greek city states.

    “it just seems ludicrous, like Africans establishing a Chinese civilization. Africans would and could never do that, its completely foreign to their genotype, which constructs very different cultures and civilizations(?)”

    The genetic divergence between Middle Easterners and Europeans is FAR smaller than the difference between Black Africans and Europeans.

    The differences in phenotype between Middle Easterners and Europeans is FAR smaller than the differences between Black Africans and Europeans.

    If someone said Black Africans directly entered Europe and then evolved into a group capable of founding Western Civilization, it would be hard to believe.

    However, the idea of Middle Easterners entering Europe and then evolving into a group capable of founding Western Civilization isn’t hard to believe at all.

    “On the issue of blondism/light features, I think that the explanation that makes the most sense is that this is a unique European trait. Blonde hair/blue eyes appeared in Europe at some point in the past.”

    What is the basis for saying it occurred in Europe? Blondism/light features are found in in non-European groups where there’s no reason to suppose the slightest European ancestry.

    For example an analysis of 650,000 single nucleotide polymorphisms showed the Kalash to have no membership within European populations, in spite of the fact that they exhibit European type blondism and light features.

    “Aborigines do go through a blond stage in their youth, but I think we are talking about something completely different. Their hair retains the wiry quality of their genotype. The blond hair found in South America is of the soft European type (there is a very different texture in Europeans, I have heard this from Vietnamese hair stylists, straight from the horses mouth so to speak).”

    I brought up the Aborigines to show that blondism arose at least once in a non-Caucasoid group. I’m not saying the Aborigines were the ancestors of the Cloud People, but rather to show that if a mutation causing blondism occurred at least twice in Human History, it may have happened a third time.

    How unlikely it is that a mutation causing blondism would produce the type of blondism found in Europeans is beyond my abilities to calculate.

    “The chances of a purely indigenous blonde tribe arising in South America among other black-haired peoples seems negligible.”

    It was in an area where the terrain facilitates peripatric speciation, as evidenced by the high biodiversity of the Andean region, that the Cloud People developed.

    In theory that could’ve stopped an indigenous mutation causing blondism from spreading.

    “Also, when archeologists dig there, they find earlier levels of civilization increasingly more advanced. That is completely opposite to what you would expect if a civilization is growing organizally (each level should be less developed the further down you go, as the society is progressing over time).”

    What’s the source for this?

    “If I can refer to my personal theory again, here is an analogy. Lets say that we had proof that long ago a type of dog existed in Mexico that was used to lead the blind. This ability obviously requires an extremely smart animal, with very high dog IQ. If the only dogs that currently exist in Mexico are Chihuahas, and there is absolutely no evidence anything other canine lived there, I still cannot accept that the ancient dog type was a Chihuaha. Chihahua’s brains are simply incapable such a complex task.”

    Well, they aren’t now. But it’s important to understand that evolution doesn’t only move in one direction.

    “I believe that it must have taken a lot of brainpower to develop Central America’s agriculture and stone architecture, which was likewise beyond the capacity of natives (unmixed natives have IQs similar to Equador, which is 80).”

    The Bantu peoples developed agriculture and animal husbandry, and yet their descendants seem to average out to having I.Q.s of about 70.

    “I would even go further to say that the Sumerian and Egyptian civilizations were beyond the capability of the native non-European peoples that live there now (Egypt’s IQ is 83, Iran’s is 84).”

    Looking at Lynn’s book the only data he had for Iranian IQ was a single test of 627 fifteen year olds that occured in 1956.

    With Israel, we find that in 1989 the same test (Standard Progressive Matrices) was given to Israelis aged 9 to 15 and it found an IQ of only 90, even though it was based on a sample size double that of the Iranian sample.

    So if you’re going to believe Iran has an average IQ of only 84, you also have to believe Israel has an average IQ of only 90.

    Both results are clearly too low, if you ask me.

    Also there’s no evidence that there was ever significant gene flow from Europe into either Egypt or Iran.

    These two Countries were never European.

    “Going back again to blondism as a uniquely European trait, whenever there are white-skinned, light-featured races, I think the most likely explanation is that there is a relatively close shared genepool.”

    That has been utterly disproven by the case of the Kalash.

    “I have to say that I am somewhat skeptical of the reliability of genetic tests to determine how related different peoples are (as opposed to being completely reliable when determining how related two individuals are). How could Romans or Greeks, who appear European in their statues, with at least some light features, be closer to Iranians genetically (Iranians have a completely different phenotype)?”

    The Iranians are not completely different by any means. There always used to be a controversy about whether the modern Iranians are a subtype of Nordics (Coon said that), a subtype of Eastern Mediterranean type (Bertil Lundman said that), or are most similar to Atlanto-Mediterraneans (Earnest Hooton said that).

    “I am suspicious that in comparing population groups, genetic tests are often giving a very crude result. They are looking for certain identifiable markers, and making judgements from those.”

    More recent tests are based on hundreds of thousands of markers distributed throughout the genome.

    “Secondly, and most importantly, it is the brain structure. Similar brains think alike, as we see in studies of identical twins, as well as all the similar traits within families. If I could find the 7000 year old remains of a person whose genetic code showed a brain similar to yours, and brought them back to life, we would have two people who would behave similarly, think similarly, and make similar decisions when faced with choices. This would be the case whether all the other parts of your respective genetic codes were quite a bit different.”

    The genes affecting mental functioning and brain development are dispersed throughout the genome.

    “When comparing Group A to B, a genetic test will show Group A has the most similarity with Indo-Europeans.”

    It wouldn’t at all show that, assuming you had an genetic basis for implying that the Group A was “White”, the indigenous Europeans were “White”, and the foreign group was “Non-White”.

    Admixture with more genetically dissimilar groups causes greater divergence of genetic distance.

    “But when looking at what truly matters, which is phenotype and brain structure, Group B is much more similar.”

    And in this scenario Group B WOULD ALSO BE MORE SIMILAR IN GENETIC DISTANCE.

    It seems you don’t understand how genetic distance is calculated.

    “The Indo-European invaders into India were by many accounts very similar phenotypically to the Tocharians; tall and light featured.”

    Uh, in comparison to the Dravidians.

    “After mixing with the aboriginal people (who were apparently similar to Australia’s aborigines), I think most of the resulting hybrid population has little in common with the Indo-European invaders in regard to either phenotype or brain structure (the average IQ of India is 81, according to Lynn).”

    The upper caste Indians were found to be significantly more similar to Europeans than Asians, which indicates a concentration of Indo-European ancestry greater than a “little“.

    Also it should be noted that India has Nuclear Weapons that they built themselves, an achievement overwhelmingly found in Countries of significant Indo-European ancestry.

    America, France, England, Russia, Pakistan, and India all have Nuclear weapons they built themselves; whereas the only non-Indo-European Countries with Nuclear weapons they built themselves are the Jews in Israel and the high IQ Mongoloids in China and North Korea.

    Also I think the upper castes of India are taller than the lower castes.

    “It is possible that the original founders of civilizations were not European Whites, but rather a distantly related Caucasoid group.”

    They wouldn’t have been distantly related. Even today, the Danes are more genetically related to Iranians than to Basques, for example.

    “The sticking point for me is the innovation and creativity that this group demonstrated. We just dont see this in any non-European group. I suppose an exception is the Jews, but they lack visio-spatial skills…”

    I’ve seen no actual evidence that Jewish visio-spatial IQ is lower than that of Europeans.

    “If the original Indo-Europeans un-Europeanlike, instead being more like the Iranians, their genius has apparently been annhilated through intermixing with ungifted groups.”

    That would be taking things too far. The Iranians are still quite advanced, and their descendants the Parsees have higher per capita intellectual achievement than any living European group.

    “But Im having difficulty imagining a group with European giftedness that was unlike Europeans.”

    You have to understand that the innovations that led to civilization occurred over an extremely long time span. The whole idea that it would’ve taken the production of geniuses at some kind of amazing clip is a historically ignorant fallacy.

    For that reason it shouldn’t be assumed that the groups which invented civilization necessarily had European levels of giftedness.

    It could be that they had the closest thing to European levels of giftedness up to that point, but that only those offshoots of the groups which went into Europe developed European levels of giftedness, with the development only occurring after they entered Europe.

    “Why would it be more logical that they shared a trademark genetic trait for intelligence, but were a different ethnic group?”

    It could be that important gene combinations for having a high IQ entered Europe through the Indo-Europeans, in fact it seems likely, but so what?

    That doesn’t mean Indo-Europeans were the same ethnic group as Europeans today, all it means is the Europeans of today evolved from Indo-Europeans.

    “My thinking is that the humans living in Europe at the time of the Indo-European invasion were basically their racial cousins…”

    They would’ve been related to them because the Europeans at the time were overwhelmingfly descended from a diffusion of Near Eastern farmers, with these Near Eastern farmers likely sharing a recent origin with the Indo-Europeans.

    “so the genepool didnt change a whole lot (as opposed to the invasion of India, where mixing with a non-White group resulted in profound changes)”

    Well, even the small remnant of Pre-Neolithic blood in Europeans at the time of the Indo-European invasion would’ve likely been more similar to the Indo-Europeans than the indigenous groups Indo-Europeans found in India.

    “I hope I am not being stubborn, but the beliefs of older writers of Indo-Europeans as a White/European people just seem to ring true with what we know…”

    White/Europeans are a subgroup of Indo-Europeans, not the other way around.

    “(as opposed to being a distantly related Caucasoid group simlar to Iranians).”

    The degree to which the Iranians are “distantly related” to Europeans, as compared to how closely Europeans are related to each other, can easily be explained by the geographic isolation of Iran relative to Europe, and the comparatively distant time frame during which the Indo-European invasion of Europe took place.

  5. Someday's Gravatar Someday
    July 20, 2010 - 7:00 am | Permalink

    “What have the Neonazis ever done that is so bad?”

    What have the Neonazis ever done that is NOT bad for the white cause ?

  6. Andrew's Gravatar Andrew
    July 19, 2010 - 11:37 pm | Permalink

    @Severus,
    “White-skins are doomed.”

    That reminds me of the book, “The Sky is Falling!” I cant believe you have the audacity to give yourself a Roman name and then go about being defeatist. You deserve a French name, the Romans would be embarrassed by your willingness to give up at the first opportunity.

    “I detest these creatures as much as the Pureblood itself. ”

    What have the Neonazis ever done that is so bad? Dress up in costumes and hold Hitler fan clubs? How has that hurt anyone? The problem is your own susceptibility to being embarrassed and shamed, and your willingness to punish co-ethnics. You need to realize that you have the problem. You need to grow yourself a pair, stop worrying about what you are called or who you are associated with, and gird your loins for the struggle ahead. And what have you ever done to help the situation? Talked to a neighbor? Written an editorial to a newspaper? Sent in funds to the A3P? Even lifted a finger? I suggest directing some of the energy you reserve for bemoaning the predicament in a more productive manner.

  7. Andrew's Gravatar Andrew
    July 19, 2010 - 11:26 pm | Permalink

    @Reginald,
    If I could quickly sum up your view, you believe that the ancient Indo-Europeans were most similar to modern-day Iranians. They were “Caucasians” in the sense of being caucasoid, but this is a very large group that includes Arabs, Turks and Middle Easterners. You believe that they looked significantly different than Northern Europeans/Germanics, possibly looking more like Iranians or Iraqis. They were probably primarily responsible for the development of agriculture and early civilization, and would have been a high-IQ people, producing large numbers of creative geniuses. Would this be correct?

    I think the above might be the most common theory among today’s mainstream archeologists. As you have noted, agriculture and civilization seems to have arisen in the Middle East, and scholars tend to assume that the people living in these areas today would have the most genetic similarity to the ancients that lived there. You have noted that Indo-Europeans appear from genetic tests to have more genetic similarity with modern-day Iranians than any other group.

    This modern view is at variance with a lot of older thought. Writers and investigators of previous generations overwhelmingly agreed with the theories at “March of the Titans” (www.white-history.com), which mainstream writers would completely disagree with. On this topic, I am just a layman, not having done any really deep research into the matter, nor am I particularly interested in getting into the nitty gritty. I am just trying to understand the best evidence available and piece it together for a very general idea of what happened historically.

    In this effort, Im trying to judge mainstream views versus the older views, which differ almost like night and day, coming to opposite conclusions. In examining this difference, we should recognize that our knowledge base has increased, but I am not sure that this increase has been very revolutionary. Its still a matter of putting together clues, based on very incomplete and often contradictory evidence, and then forming an overall theory based on logic, common sense and knowledge of other subjects.

    I am concerned that there is a strong current of political correctness flowing through modern mainstream archeology and the evolution of man, that decreases its reliability to arrive at the best conclusions. Older thinkers such as Coon and even more recent investigators such as Heyerdahl are accused of “racism” when their theories are politically incorrect. A modern-day researcher who thinks Europeans were responsible for other civilizations would be a very offensive individual, unlikely to receive any research grants by any major university (they would want to get rid of him asap). Older researchers have fallen into disrepute, and I think this is not so much that they were wrong (or biased or unprofessional), but rather that their ideas had become politically incorrect, and very uncomfortable. For example, Heyerdahl’s theory that Whites were behind the Mayans is considered to be “racist”, because it suggests that the Mayans couldnt achieve civilization on their own.

    I personally am biased in my own view, because I would prefer the past to be as the older writers envisioned, where Nordics were the primary innovators and founders of civilizations. But, if this view is not correct, I am willing to abandon it. The only thing is, the evidence really seems to be on the side of the older writers.

    For example, going back to the Greek and Roman statues, the faces of the elites are very Northern European. They might not be exactly so, but I agree with Coon that there is a strong resemblance. They certainly do not appear to be very similar to modern-day Middle Easterners or Iranians (Pericles looks like a modern White football player, certainly nothing like Ahmadinejad). There is enough evidence of at least some blondism/light features within the population of Greece. The gods were blond, the ideal of beauty was a Nordic one, while art and literature have many references to light-featured people (Jason and the Argonauts were blond, etc.) Similarly, there appears to be a significant amount of light features among the Roman patricians. Augustus, Nero, Caligula, Titus, Domitian and Trajan are described as blonde (http://www.white-history.com/earlson/romanemperors.htm). Doesnt Augustus’s statue resemble some average White guy from college, while Caesar’s statue looks a White high school math teacher? Perhaps I am just seeing what I want to see.

    Another important aspect was the type of culture. I believe that culture reflects genes, each genotype when left alone will naturally build a culture that represents its inborn traits. Greek culture is, for lack of a better word, extremely “European”. The seeking of knowledge for its own sake, beliefs in abstract ideas and ideals, and everything else is as European as it gets. Other Europeans are instantly drawn to that. When I read Herodotus and Thucydides in college, it seemed like these could have been written by an Englishman not too long ago. And it also seems that these things are foreign to other ethnic groups, Greek and Roman culture holds no magic for them. Middle Easterners seem to be drawn to abstract patterns in their artwork, not realistic representations (which they seem to have difficulty creating). They are also intensely tribal, I cant imagine them ever developing democracies.

    The idea of Middle Easterners (at least the people who live there now) developing complex civilizations just seems so incongruous. It may be that there was an indo-European race that looked like Middle Easterners, but was genetically submerged by intermarriage with intensely tribal arabs (I imagine that any genotype that was not intensely tribal could not survive in that intensely competitive environment). When I try to imagine Iranians or Middle Easterners establishing Greek City states, it just seems ludicrous, like Africans establishing a Chinese civilization. Africans would and could never do that, its completely foreign to their genotype, which constructs very different cultures and civilizations(?)

    On the issue of blondism/light features, I think that the explanation that makes the most sense is that this is a unique European trait. Blonde hair/blue eyes appeared in Europe at some point in the past. This was a unique mutation, that happened probably completely by chance, against the odds, just like epicanthal folds among Asians. It was a freak occurrence that spread for whatever reason. Africans have existed for over 200,000 years without any such mutation, and if left alone would probably have gone another 200K years without it occurring.

    Aborigines do go through a blond stage in their youth, but I think we are talking about something completely different. Their hair retains the wiry quality of their genotype. The blond hair found in South America is of the soft European type (there is a very different texture in Europeans, I have heard this from Vietnamese hair stylists, straight from the horses mouth so to speak). The chances of a purely indigenous blonde tribe arising in South America among other black-haired peoples seems negligible. Also, when archeologists dig there, they find earlier levels of civilization increasingly more advanced. That is completely opposite to what you would expect if a civilization is growing organizally (each level should be less developed the further down you go, as the society is progressing over time). Heyerdahl’s theory, reinforced by his boat voyages using the natural Atlantic currents, and so forth really seems to be the most logical explanation, if you are looking at it through unbiased eyes.

    If I can refer to my personal theory again, here is an analogy. Lets say that we had proof that long ago a type of dog existed in Mexico that was used to lead the blind. This ability obviously requires an extremely smart animal, with very high dog IQ. If the only dogs that currently exist in Mexico are Chihuahas, and there is absolutely no evidence anything other canine lived there, I still cannot accept that the ancient dog type was a Chihuaha. Chihahua’s brains are simply incapable such a complex task. I believe that it must have taken a lot of brainpower to develop Central America’s agriculture and stone architecture, which was likewise beyond the capacity of natives (unmixed natives have IQs similar to Equador, which is 80). I would even go further to say that the Sumerian and Egyptian civilizations were beyond the capability of the native non-European peoples that live there now (Egypt’s IQ is 83, Iran’s is 84).

    Going back again to blondism as a uniquely European trait, whenever there are white-skinned, light-featured races, I think the most likely explanation is that there is a relatively close shared genepool. I have to say that I am somewhat skeptical of the reliability of genetic tests to determine how related different peoples are (as opposed to being completely reliable when determining how related two individuals are). How could Romans or Greeks, who appear European in their statues, with at least some light features, be closer to Iranians genetically (Iranians have a completely different phenotype)? I am suspicious that in comparing population groups, genetic tests are often giving a very crude result. They are looking for certain identifiable markers, and making judgements from those. However, the things that make a European have to do with two major parts of the genetic code. First, and less importantly, is the phenotype; light features, skin, the facial structure, etc. Secondly, and most importantly, it is the brain structure. Similar brains think alike, as we see in studies of identical twins, as well as all the similar traits within families. If I could find the 7000 year old remains of a person whose genetic code showed a brain similar to yours, and brought them back to life, we would have two people who would behave similarly, think similarly, and make similar decisions when faced with choices. This would be the case whether all the other parts of your respective genetic codes were quite a bit different.

    In the case of genetic testing for population groups, I am not sure if the markers being used are relevant for testing true similarity in all cases. All humans are 99 point [big number goes here] similar, with a lot of variance between individuals and in between groups. I suppose there are various markers that can help tell the difference between groups, some markers being more useful than others. But trying to use that information for a hypothetical statement like “indo-Europeans are four times closer to Iranians than Germans” is probably stretching the information available beyond what is reasonable.

    Here is an example. Lets say for the purpose of illustration that Iran was originally populated by Group A, a 100% pure indo-European group. A foreign non-White nomadic group invades at some point, resulting in a 50% mixture of the population. After 1000 years of intermixing, Group A will retain a very large number of genetic markers in common with the Indo-Europeans. But, the phenotype will have changed dramatically, with probably an extermination of light features (dark features being dominant traits). More importantly, the brain structure will change dramatically, and IQ will drop precipitously, extinguishing most of the bell curve slice of geniuses. Meanwhile, we have Group B, identical to the original Group A, then eventually mixes with a majority native European population that had a similar brain structure, resulting in 30% indo-European genes, 70% other European genes. There has been a big change genetically, but the brain structure and phenotype remains similar to what it was prior to mixing. When comparing Group A to B, a genetic test will show Group A has the most similarity with Indo-Europeans. But when looking at what truly matters, which is phenotype and brain structure, Group B is much more similar. I think the above case is possibly similar what happened in history (Group A being Iranians, Group B being Western Europeans).

    I think the Tocharians give us an important clue about what Indo-European peoples looked like. They appear to have left from the Indo-European homeland, without venturing into Europe. Their phenotype still seems very “European” from what we can see from their mummies. The Indo-European invaders into India were by many accounts very similar phenotypically to the Tocharians; tall and light featured. After mixing with the aboriginal people (who were apparently similar to Australia’s aborigines), I think most of the resulting hybrid population has little in common with the Indo-European invaders in regard to either phenotype or brain structure (the average IQ of India is 81, according to Lynn).

    It is possible that the original founders of civilizations were not European Whites, but rather a distantly related Caucasoid group. The sticking point for me is the innovation and creativity that this group demonstrated. We just dont see this in any non-European group. I suppose an exception is the Jews, but they lack visio-spatial skills, and are probably incapable of engineering original inventions that require that (which include most early inventions).

    If the original Indo-Europeans un-Europeanlike, instead being more like the Iranians, their genius has apparently been annhilated through intermixing with ungifted groups. But Im having difficulty imagining a group with European giftedness that was unlike Europeans. Why would it be more logical that they shared a trademark genetic trait for intelligence, but were a different ethnic group? My thinking is that the humans living in Europe at the time of the Indo-European invasion were basically their racial cousins, so the genepool didnt change a whole lot (as opposed to the invasion of India, where mixing with a non-White group resulted in profound changes). I hope I am not being stubborn, but the beliefs of older writers of Indo-Europeans as a White/European people just seem to ring true with what we know (as opposed to being a distantly related Caucasoid group simlar to Iranians).

  8. July 19, 2010 - 4:29 am | Permalink

    “Secondly, these great minds have almost always been Europeans. Charles Murray asserts that Whites, predominantly Northern Europeans (Romans and Greeks are considered such),”

    Andrew,

    They certainly aren’t considered such by mainstream scholars.

    And as Vito points out, the evidence for phenotypic divergence between the Roman and Greek elites relative to actual Northern Europeans in the writings of ancient Roman and Greek elites describing those Northern Europeans is overwhelming.

    “were behind 97% of the most important human accomplishment in every major field of endeavor from 800 BC to 1950.”

    800 BC was certainly after both the Neolithic diffusion and the Indo-European invasion.

    How intelligent Europeans were before then is not known.

    “I believe that in regard to the capacity for high-level innovation, we are looking at a completely unique genetic trait, such as blonde hair and blue eyes, which only occur naturally in European populations (occurrence among non-Whites represents either an anomaly or European genes).”

    This analogy is problematic because there are so many genes which interact to affect brain functioning. The divergence in mental functioning between Europeans and non-Europeans would largely be the result of differences in gene frequencies leading to divergent probabilities of different gene combinations occurring.

    “Third, the early developments of civilization such as agriculture and writing required the same tremendous inventiveness and persistence of other developments of civilization. For example, it took a string of geniuses to develop all of the methodology required to build and maintain successful agriculture.”

    Well, I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the earliest groups to develop agriculture were in a part of the World that has always been either Caucasoid or Proto-Caucasoid:

    ************************************
    The Neolithic Age, Era, or Period, or New Stone Age, was a period in the development of human technology, beginning about 9500 BCE in the Middle East[1] that is traditionally considered the last part of the Stone Age. The Neolithic followed the terminal Holocene Epipalaeolithic period, beginning with the rise of farming, which produced the “Neolithic Revolution” and ending when metal tools became widespread in the Copper Age (chalcolithic) or Bronze Age or developing directly into the Iron Age, depending on geographical region. The Neolithic is not a specific chronological period, but rather a suite of behavioral and cultural characteristics, including the use of wild and domestic crops and the use of domesticated animals.[2]

    New findings put the beginning of the Neolithic culture back to around 10700 to 9400 BCE in Tell Qaramel in northern Syria, 25km north of Aleppo.[3] Until those findings are adopted within archaeological community, the beginning of the Neolithic culture is considered to be in the Levant (Jericho, modern-day West Bank) about 9500 BCE. It developed directly from the Epipaleolithic Natufian culture in the region, whose people pioneered the use of wild cereals, which then evolved into true farming. The Natufians can thus be called “proto-Neolithic” (12,500–9500 BCE or 12,000-9500 BCE[1]). As the Natufians had become dependent on wild cereals in their diet, and a sedentary way of life had begun among them, the climatic changes associated with the Younger Dryas are thought to have forced people to develop farming. By 9500–9000 BCE, farming communities arose in the Levant and spread to Asia Minor, North Africa and North Mesopotamia. Early Neolithic farming was limited to a narrow range of plants, both wild and domesticated, which included einkorn wheat, millet and spelt, and the keeping of dogs, sheep and goats. By about 8000 BCE, it included domesticated cattle and pigs, the establishment of permanently or seasonally inhabited settlements, and the use of pottery.
    ********************************************
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic

    It is notable that the Proto-Neolithic Natufians of what is now Israel are the people where we have by far the earliest evidence for the domestication of the dog.

    But just because these great innovators, who were at least creative geniuses by the standards of their time, were Caucasoid doesn’t mean they were European.

    The Middle East was settled by Homo Sapiens before Europe, all the evidence of ancient gene flow seems to be in the direction of Middle Eastern genes going into Europe, and not the other way around.

    Now the Middle Easterners at the forefront of developing agriculture would’ve played a central role in the Neolithic diffusion, a diffusion that clearly had a massive impact on the genetics of Europe.

    At the same time there would be some degree of Pre-Neolithic ancestry in Europeans today which would’ve been lacking in the Middle Eastern groups who first invented things like agriculture and settlements.

    This would stop me from saying they were Europeans, though probably they were the ancestors of the Indo-Europeans given that the Indo-Europeans practiced agriculture and seen to have come from very near where agriculture was invented.

    “My logic though is that the powerful creative minds necessary to develop the prerequisites of civilization are almost absent among non-Whites.”

    I’m not quite sure about that. The number zero was a very important innovation, and yet it was invented in India.

    Of course the Indians, especially the upper castes, are largely descended from the Proto-Indo-Iranians, who were very closely related to the Proto-Indo-Europeans who mixed with Pre-Indo-European European groups to create the genetic cluster we now call Whites.

    “The author suggests that these were ‘Nordic’ people, but it might be more accurate to say that if they were European, they were Indo-European Caucasians.”

    It would be more accurate, certainly, or at least less inaccurate.

    I’m just not sure if the Proto-Indo-Europeans, who were of course as you say a form of Caucasian (another word for Caucasoid), ever got that far south.

    “(in spite of the racist tones of the webpage, it does a good job of summarizing the NG article). Ramses II, one of the great pharaohs, was red-haired, based on examination of his hair follicles.”

    I agree the ancient Egyptian pharaohs and their subjects were Caucasian. I just don’t agree that they were European, and I’m also doubtful they were Proto-Indo-European.

    I think they were more related to the Non-Indo-European Neolithic farmers who settled Europe from Anatolia.

    “This only discusses the link between the Guanches and the Egyptians. A few excerpts, ’the descendants of the Cro-Magnons are represented today by the genetic remnants of the berber and Tuareg peoples of Northwest Africa, the Guanches of the 16th century Canary Islands, the Basques of Northern Spain…[there is a strong] resemblance between Guanche crania from the Canary Islands and Crô-Magnon skulls.’”

    Okay, the Basques seem to have taken less gene flow from the Neolithic diffusion, and especially less gene flow from the Indo-European invasion, than other European groups.

    This would make them at least somewhat more similar to Cro-Magnons, just because they’d have a higher percentage of their pedigree tracing back to Cro-Magnons, and a lower percentage tracing back to West Asians who underwent changes relative to their Middle Eastern ancestors, changes probably related to the invention of agriculture.

    The Berbers seen to be in a similar boat to the Basques at least in the sense that they seem to have never taken a meaningful degree of Indo-European blood, except perhaps indirectly from the Vandals in recent times.

    “It is known that their language closely resembles both Basque (Euskadi) and spoken Berber (the Tifinagh language), indicating an ancient or classical lingual and perhaps cultural or ethnic linkage between the three groups.”

    The majority of scholars are of the view that the Basque language is a genetic isolate, meaning that no common ancestry with other languages can be meaningfully determined.

    And no scholar would say that Basque is closely related to another living language.

    It isn’t considered part of the Afroasiatic language family which includes Berber, Ancient Egyptian, Arabic, and Hebrew.

    Some general similarities may exist, but not anything like (for example) the linguistic similarities between English and Hindi.

    “The Guanche buried the mummified bodies of their dead in bricked-up caves in as inaccessible spots as possible, and they followed a Stone Age way of life…They had no chisels or metal instruments. Supposedly their only way of fishing was to jump into the sea so as to frighten the fish into their reed nets…They used cattle as a symbol of wealth, and the nobility had slaves or commoners as servants…It is possible like many civilizations, especially those living on small archipelagoes, the inhabitants rose and fell from savagery many times in their millennia of history…It is difficult to imagine people indigenous to island archipelagoes so close to one another would not now how to or want to construct boats, or know how to swim, unless they had regressed in civilization due to civil strife and subsequent cultural reduction, or cataclysm”.

    Genetic-Cultural groups ebb and flow, certainly, and it could be that the Spaniards caught them at a time when they at a more primitive state than they were before.

    “My question though is how could the Guanches, Egyptians and Central Americans all have so many similarities and not have contact? Just the step-pyramids (early Egyptian pyramids were stepped), which are aligned east-west with the sun are strikingly similar, could that really be just a coincidence? Isn’t a better explanation that a single people introduced their religion/culture through physical contact?”

    That doesn’t follow. There could’ve been cultural diffusion, like there was with Alphabetic Writing and what we now call the Arabic Numeral system.

    What happened with Alphabetic Writing is that a form of it was invented by the Phoenicians, and this form was ripped off by the Ancient Greeks.

    Then the Italians ripped it off from the Greeks, without there being any need for the Italians to have come in contact with the Phoenicians. (The Italians later would come in contact with Phoenician descended Carthaginians, with whom they fought a war to the death, but that was a while after they got alphabetic writing from the Greeks.)

    Then the Germans got alphabetic writing from the Italians, the Russians got alphabetic writing from the Greeks, the Egyptians got alphabetic writing from the Greeks to form Coptic, etc.

    None of them necessarily needed to come in contact with the actual Phoenicians, they just needed to come in contact with people who themselves came in contact with Phoenicians, or people who came in contact with people who came in contact with people who came in contact with Phoenicians.

    “Thor Heyerdahl’s theories about Guanche connections to Central America, in conjunction to the above, seem very compelling. In relation to my personal theory, could a pure-bred indigenous Indian population (average IQ in the 80s) have developed the very complex civilization in the Americas?”

    I wouldn’t necessarily say it was very complex. There’s no evidence that they ever figured out how to use the wheel for any useful activity, for example.

    In contrast, even sub-Saharan Black Africans managed to figure out how to use wheels to make pottery, at least in the East of sub-Saharan Africa.

    “Why are there apparently blonde mummies in South America, along with the legend of the White Viracochas?”

    It’s a mistake to say the texture was European just because it was natural as opposed to being bleached.

    A high level of a form of blondism has been found among Australian Aborigines at a higher incidence than could be explained by admixture with Europeans:

    http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2006/04/blonde-antipodals.php

    Blond isn’t a uniquely Caucasoid hair color, much less a uniquely European hair color.

    But then there’s the question of why the trait would be found in mummies from South America, but not in the indigenous people of South America who were there when the Spanish came.

    It seems what happened is that the Cloud People of South America, who were noted for their high incidence of blondism and who famously sided with the Spanish against the Incas, were wiped out by diseases.

    So now the question becomes: Who the heck were these Cloud People?

    Obviously what they should do is check their dna to see if it’s Caucasoid, and if so what general group of Caucasoid, but I’m not aware that anyone has done that.

    If there was actually a Caucasoid and/or European group in the pre-contact Americas, it would’ve been the Cloud People and/or their ancestors.

    “I am hoping that someone will at least agree with me that a very tall, robust people, with Cro-Magnon skulls, which was intelligent and beautiful, is evidence that Cro-Magnons were not necessarily the brutes that some believe (though we are talking about more modern Cro-Magnons). Of course, the combined evidence that we have is fairly scanty. Your thoughts?”

    The evidence is indeed scanty.

    Also, it’s important to understand that the Basques aren’t pure Cro-Magnon, and the Gauches wouldn’t have been either.

    It’s that in both groups (certainly the Basque and maybe the Gauches) there was less gene flow from West Asia, allowing more of the really old European skull shape (which evolved from Cro-Magnons) to be expressed..

    At the same time I would agree that the Cro-Magnons weren’t necessarily the brutes many believe.

    It’s interesting that the Spanish losses are said to have been proportionately far greater subjecting the Gauches than what it took to subjugate the West Indies.

    This may suggest the Gauches were at least more advanced and/or intelligent than the indigenous peoples of the Americas.

    It would be good to look at a Gauchen genotype to see whether they were more or less influenced by the two great Neolithic migrations into Europe than the Basques were.

    Has anyone said the old Gauchen skulls were more like Cro-Magnons than the Basques?

  9. John's Gravatar John
    July 18, 2010 - 6:16 pm | Permalink

    Severus says “When I actually see all the white-skinned “keyboard warriors” get off their *ss and DO something — besides sit around waving a flag from a lawn chair while eating a hot dog and screaming anti-fascist and anti-socialist epithets (e.g., TEA Party) — then I will buy into what you’re saying here.”

    I was reading NumbersUSA, typed in ‘racist’ and what I came up with was an article that condemned racism and white supremicists. What, by the way, is a white supremicist? After doing a bit of research all I can come up with is white nationalist groups who say they don’t advocate supremicism over anyone. They just want to preserve their heritage just like other groups. Why can’t Americans preserve their heritage like Mexicans? So what if there is a white anglo ethnic element opposing immigration? Roy Beck suffers from a white guilt trip when he feels he has to come out against ‘racists’. Which opposition he worried about? The La Raza (ethnic group) or Jews who overwhelmingly support open borders for the U.S., but apartheid like segregation and rights in Israel.

  10. Someday's Gravatar Someday
    July 18, 2010 - 1:57 pm | Permalink

    Andrew, call north Europeans of 10 – 15,000BP a modern type of Cro-Magnon if you want but remember they had changed a lot by then.

    I think WASPs lack the genetically mediated traits necessary for ethnic defense, if that is just down to Clark’s ‘domestication’ having been more intense at their level then all elites will tend to that behavior including Jews and we have nothing to worry about. If ethnicity such as being European or North European is the main factor then history (which is the history of WASP behavior) is no guide to what the attitude of Jewish elites to the historical majorities in countries like the US will be will become.

    If there was something special about the Puritan settlers in New England compared to all other Whites, in that only their descendants the WASPs can be manipulated into self righteously sticking it to fellow whites, then maybe there is some hope; there could be some support for a movement for ethnic defense from the non WASP Whites.

    Vito, yes who knows but whatever the freeborn residents of Attica between 530 and 430 B.C looked like they were of the West. Ferguson wasn’t talking about technological but commercial civilization. He thought it was eroding something valuable in human nature, take a look at WASPs and tell me he was wrong.

    Maybe the internet is to mass media as the traditional societies were to capitalism. Hegel (and Marx) owed a lot to Ferguson.

  11. John's Gravatar John
    July 17, 2010 - 4:30 pm | Permalink

    Severus, why are you saying that? That is too funny. The numbers are there. There’s really isn’t a better time than now for whites to start speaking out for their interests, make just one small effort. Things are not as bad as you say. There won’t be mass arrests, unless we keep silent and keep getting dispossessed. So in the meantime, people should think of one example where they can find hypocrisy, or a grievance, where whites are being treated unfairly, and state it boldly where there are a lot of whites but where one would not expect to hear that point of view. If you talk about Aryans, you for sure will be ridiculed and discredited. But if you bring up logical arguments, then who could disagree? For example, when the tea party is accused of racism, then someone should say, “Whites should advocate their own interests. That’s what all the other races do,” instead of that sniveling, “How dare they call us racistsl.” Or suggest, “Israel protects itheir borders, but America can’t protect theirs. How come? Isn’t that a form of supremecism? Why the double standard?”

  12. Vito's Gravatar Vito
    July 17, 2010 - 2:49 am | Permalink

    “predominantly Northern Europeans (Romans and Greeks are considered such)”

    Considered as such by who? The same who believe that Ancient Egypt was a “Nordic desert empire?”

    For a more sane and racialist interpretation of Ancient Egypt, see:
    http://www.amazon.com/Race-Ancient-Egypt-Old-Testament/dp/1878465082

    No one at the current time can really know what the racial background of the Classical era Romans and Greeks really was, but it should be noted that from their earliest encounters with groups like the Germans and Celts, both Romans and Greeks noted the physical differences between themselves and those groups.

    “We may expect that many of the boasted improvements of civil society, will be mere devices to lay the political spirit at rest, and will chain up the active virtues more than the restless disorders of men.”

    This writer has hit the nail on the head.”

    Surely. We must destroy modern technological civilization.

    Stop using the computer.

  13. Andrew's Gravatar Andrew
    July 17, 2010 - 12:41 am | Permalink

    @Someday,
    “Again, by the time agriculture was introduced to Northern Europe the population had evolved into a white appearance but Cro-Magnons were not white; the genes for white skin were not around back then”.

    Would you accept that later Cro-Magnons were possibly/probably White? I am referring to those that existed perhaps 15K BP or later (prior to the Neolithic era). At some point, we would have had a more modern type of Cro-Magnon, which eventuallly evolved into modern Europeans, correct? I agree with you that it is most probable that 30K BP is too early for White skin/features. Also, what is your take on the similarity between the Guanches and Cro Magnons (for the article I mentioned to Reginald), especially in regard to their being very tall/robust, with similar crania, while being predominantly blond/red haired with fair features?

    “That is the thing with WASPs it’s not a lack of IQ that makes them incapable of defensive ethnic politics it’s just that they won’t act without permission from what is regarded as ‘authority’.”

    By WASPs, do you mean European elites, or do you mean the more narrow category of old family (mostly English) elites? I mean, do you think that WASPs are a genetic category separate from other Whites?

    “Adam Ferguson pointed out that modern civilization and capitalism lay the foundations for despotism institutional defences such as the rule of law are not, in themselves, sufficient as defences of liberty if the people lack some of the old virtues ( those virtues have been ‘bred out’ of WASPs).”

    I think that you are on to something with European’s dependence on authority (East Asians seem to have an even stronger desire for central authority, judging by the way almost all East Asian societies operate). Europeans typically react very healthily to an external threat, they can be easily energized to fight the enemy without, and will put up with enormous sacrifices, laboring mightily for long periods to defeat external foes. The achilles heel is of course their need to adhere to abstractions, principles, etc. They key to triggering their survival instincts is persuading them that they are under threat. In regard to the threat of extinction, I personally believe that at some point, they will have no other choice but to recognize the threat and react. South Africa is a sad case because the elites and upper middle class generally absconded (and there were those that were irreplacable and command salaries that allow them to live in gated communities far from the dark misery). For the US, there is nowhere for people to abscond to, they are stuck here. As the misery ratchets down over time, I am confident that they will react (there really is very little multicultural misery at present, its just pinpricks – that will change).

    “We may expect that many of the boasted improvements of civil society, will be mere devices to lay the political spirit at rest, and will chain up the active virtues more than the restless disorders of men.”

    This writer has hit the nail on the head.

  14. Andrew's Gravatar Andrew
    July 17, 2010 - 12:22 am | Permalink

    @Reginald,
    Thanks for describing your understanding of the early human situation as well as including very interesting facts. I am going to give an overview of a personal theory I have, which underlies why I think some theories of the beginnings of civilizations are more persuasive than others.

    First, almost every great achievement or discovery in human history is the product of an extremely powerful mind. No “average joe” could have ever designed the automobile or computer, for example. Those were the products of people far to the right of the bell-curve, people who had capabilities far beyond mine, and even though I consider myself above average, in comparison to them (Shockley, Edison, etc.) I am essentially a slobbering idiot.

    Secondly, these great minds have almost always been Europeans. Charles Murray asserts that Whites, predominantly Northern Europeans (Romans and Greeks are considered such), were behind 97% of the most important human accomplishment in every major field of endeavor from 800 BC to 1950. This appears to be the case, and I believe that this is due to European genetic traits, and have to do with the brain structure/inherited personalities of European geniuses. I believe that in regard to the capacity for high-level innovation, we are looking at a completely unique genetic trait, such as blonde hair and blue eyes, which only occur naturally in European populations (occurrence among non-Whites represents either an anomaly or European genes).

    Third, the early developments of civilization such as agriculture and writing required the same tremendous inventiveness and persistence of other developments of civilization. For example, it took a string of geniuses to develop all of the methodology required to build and maintain successful agriculture. I would reason that therefore, it is most likely that Europeans were behind them. I can see that this is a very controversial statement. The idea that Europeans were behind Chinese, Sumerian, Egyptian, Mayan and other civilizations sounds like gross racial chauvinism and is very disagreeable, and of course it is impossible to prove conclusively (although there is suggestive evidence). My logic though is that the powerful creative minds necessary to develop the prerequisites of civilization are almost absent among non-Whites. This is not to denigrate any non-White group. East Asians are capable of improving European innovations, and developing societies superior in many ways to Europeans’. Europeans may well have genetic defects (ie. WASP inability for ethnic defense) that might lead to their extinction. Europeans are inferior to other groups in many ways.

    But, because creative geniuses are so few among non-Whites, and every major innovation is the product of a long string of geniuses developing it, those things seem to almost never arise among non-White groups. This is a strong statement, I know. But even for the Chinese, a high-IQ, capable group, it appears that the basic building blocks of their civilization were received from Europeans (Tocharians, for one). Doubtless, they improved upon these things and developed small innovations along the way, like the Japanese took older more primitive European automobiles and developed excellent modern vehicles (though I am convinced that if the earth had been populated only by Japanese since earliest times, the automobile would never have been invented).

    Therefore, whenever there is a record of a high-level civilization arising, such as in Egypt or Central America, I am very suspicious that there were European founders behind it.

    An author that lists evidence of Europeans in Egypt is here:
    http://www.white-history.com/earlson/nordicegypt.htm
    The author suggests that these were “Nordic” people, but it might be more accurate to say that if they were European, they were Indo-European Caucasians. There is a forensic reconstruction of King Tut here, done very recently by National Geographic:
    http://www.arguewitheveryone.com/race-issues/76251-sorry-niggers-but-king-tut-white-man.html
    (in spite of the racist tones of the webpage, it does a good job of summarizing the NG article). Ramses II, one of the great pharoahs, was red-haired, based on examination of his hair follicles.

    An excellent article that discusses the links between the (White) guanches and Egypt is here:
    http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=66608824&blogId=461990549

    This only discusses the link between the Guanches and the Egyptians. A few excerpts, “the descendants of the Cro-Magnons are represented today by the genetic remnants of the berber and Tuareg peoples of Northwest Africa, the Guanches of the 16th century Canary Islands, the Basques of Northern Spain…[there is a strong] resemblance between Guanche crania from the Canary Islands and Crô-Magnon skulls”.

    “Generally dolichocephalic, fair-featured with blond or red-hair, with males over six foot tall and women approaching six feet in height, they were a people of tall, strong and comely appearance, resembling many Northern Europeans today but for a generally greater and more robust stature. Their general appearance and racial characteristic were valued by the Spanish…All historians agree in reporting that the Canarians were beautiful.”

    “Their civilization once featured sea-faring, mummifying their dead, dog-taming for hunting and war…They were able seafarers who explored the Atlantic Ocean as early as the first millennium BC and, as the Lixitae of classical tradition, acted as pilots, translators and perhaps even crews for Carthaginian sea-captains”

    “It is known that their language closely resembles both Basque (Euskadi) and spoken Berber (the Tifinagh language), indicating an ancient or classical lingual and perhaps cultural or ethnic linkage between the three groups.”

    “The Guanche buried the mummified bodies of their dead in bricked-up caves in as inaccessible spots as possible, and they followed a Stone Age way of life…They had no chisels or metal instruments. Supposedly their only way of fishing was to jump into the sea so as to frighten the fish into their reed nets…They used cattle as a symbol of wealth, and the nobility had slaves or commoners as servants…It is possible like many civilizations, especially those living on small archipelagoes, the inhabitants rose and fell from savagery many times in their millennia of history…It is difficult to imagine people indigenous to island archipelagoes so close to one another would not now how to or want to construct boats, or know how to swim, unless they had regressed in civilization due to civil strife and subsequent cultural reduction, or cataclysm”.

    “the most stunning link between the Guanches and the Egyptians comes in the form of pyramids – the Guanches built several small step pyramids on the islands, using exactly the same model as those found in ancient Egypt and in Mesopotamia. The pyramids have an east-west alignment which also indicates that they probably had a religious purpose, associated with the rise and setting of the sun.”

    My question though is how could the Guanches, Egyptians and Central Americans all have so many similarities and not have contact? Just the step-pyramids (early Egyptian pyramids were stepped), which are aligned east-west with the sun are strikingly similar, could that really be just a coincidence? Isnt a better explanation that a single people introduced their religion/culture through physical contact? Thor Heyerdahl’s theories about Guanche connections to Central America, in conjunction to the above, seem very compelling. In relation to my personal theory, could a pure-bred indigenous Indian population (average IQ in the 80s) have developed the very complex civilization in the Americas? Why are there apparently blonde mummies in South America, along with the legend of the White Viracochas?
    http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?app=gallery&module=images&section=viewimage&img=715
    (hair texture indicates European, rather than bleached native hair).

    The Guanches are especially interesting due to their linguistic and cranial similarities to other peoples thought to be related to the Cro-Magnons. I am hoping that someone will at least agree with me that a very tall, robust people, with Cro-Magnon skulls, which was intelligent and beautiful, is evidence that Cro-Magnons were not necessarily the brutes that some believe (though we are talking about more modern Cro-Magnons). Of course, the combined evidence that we have is fairly scanty. Your thoughts?

  15. John's Gravatar John
    July 16, 2010 - 2:28 pm | Permalink

    Severus says “That is the core of the problem right there. You have to destroy the Freemasonic Order before you can do anything because these people are all indoctrinated and brainwashed by that equality, fraternity, liberty nonsense.

    The only thing that can undo Freemasonry and Pureblood tyranny is infiltration of their organizations and some kind of secret counter-Order. No white-skins are willing to do this. They are just absolute sheep. Americans will surrender their guns and ammo before EVER considering actually using these items against governmental tyranny. This psychological disarming of the Americans has even baffled the CIA. Americans go to TEA Parties and scream “vote ‘em out,” as though that does a d*mn thing. A sorry state of affairs, yes. This place is an insane asylum.”

    No need for infiltration. That sounds like something that is sneaky. We are already there. All whites need to do is keep promoting what all the other groups do – lobby for their own interests. In the Republican party, the implicit formation is there, a white majority. Now is the job of explaining to these WASP-like masses that there is no future in being ethnically neutral. Affirmative Action is the culture, but the only effective counterattack is what the white firefighters did. They took an explicit stand for their interests and were successful in getting a reversal. We need to make light of more examples like that of how whites can achieve these reversals. There are a lot of people who are fed up with Affirmative Actionm, open borders and a one ethnic group sided foreign policy, Just as fast as something can change, it can be reversed. We still have a majority.

  16. Someday's Gravatar Someday
    July 16, 2010 - 3:57 am | Permalink

    Again, by the time agriculture was introduced to Northern Europe the population had evolved into a white appearance but Cro-Magnons were not white; the genes for white skin were not around back then. Cro-magnons were robust and did not have the fine features that are typical of Europeans today. If you want to know when Europeans became ‘white’ in their facial features look at the crowding of teeth.

    THE earliest recorded case of impacted wisdom teeth belongs to the renowned “Magdalenian Girl,” a nearly complete 13,000- to 15,000-year-old skeleton excavated in France

    That is also around the time the genes for white skin appeared.

    Sticking with Clark’s analogy of wolves and dogs –

    STUDIES in the early 1980s showed that wolves, from which dogs probably descended, can unlock a gate after watching a human do it once, while dogs remained stumped after watching repeatedly.

    That never sat well with Vilmos Csanyi, Mr. Csanyi, who had dogs of his own, suspected the dogs were awaiting permission to open the gate, that they regarded opening the gate as a violation of their master’s rules.

    That is the thing with WASPs it’s not a lack of IQ that makes them incapable of defensive ethnic politics it’s just that they won’t act without permission from what is regarded as ‘authority’. Adam Ferguson pointed out that modern civilization and capitalism lay the foundations for despotism institutional defences such as the rule of law are not, in themselves, sufficient as defences of liberty if the people lack some of the old virtues ( those virtues have been ‘bred out’ of WASPs).

    The boasted refinements of the polished age, are not divested of danger… They open a door, perhaps , to disaster…they enervate the minds of those who are placed to defend them…they reduce the military spirit of entire nations…. they prepare for mankind the government of force. […]
    We may expect that many of the boasted improvements of civil society, will be mere devices to lay the political spirit at rest, and will chain up the active virtues more than the restless disorders of men.

  17. Geiseric's Gravatar Geiseric
    July 16, 2010 - 12:55 am | Permalink

    @Reginald: “The Norse who invaded Normandy lacked writing other than highly cumbersome runes, but the people they conquered were not so lacking, etc. … The Danish and Norse invaders of England lacked writing other than the highly cumbersome runes, but the English were not so lacking, etc.”

    The “highly cumbersome runes” can be traced back to the 2nd century CE., and were still used in 14th-century Scandinavia. The Norse in Normandy and England would have known the classics of Norse literature, such as the Ynglingatal (late 9th century).

  18. John's Gravatar John
    July 15, 2010 - 9:57 pm | Permalink

    MacDonald is right. Stevens and Souter think minorities appointed will be just as objective as they were. We can bet for sure when wise Latina Sotomayer and Kaganovich retire they will do so during a Republican administration. Ha. As if having a Republican administration ever mattered. Look at Jeb Bush who says the Republican party can’t be a party of old white guys. But 90% of Republicans are white. When are these Republicans going to make their ethnicity a priority like the other groups do? Time is running out.

  19. July 15, 2010 - 8:56 pm | Permalink

    “Their use of mummies and step-pyramids was thought by Thor Hyerdahl to be strong evidence that they had founded the civilizations of Central America (murals in temples show blondes being sacrificed, and legends tell of the Whites that founded the civilization and were wiped out eventually by the natives). What are your thoughts on this theory?”

    Andrew,

    If Whites or White like people were in Central America that far back, they did a good job of hiding their bones and dna.

    The only really old bones found in the Americas thus far which aren’t the same as the natives are either Ainu like (not Caucasoid) or Australoid (if I recall correctly some such bones may have been found in Baja California).

    “My understanding is that these Berbers are European peoples…”

    Well, there seems to have been a significant amount of gene flow from Europe into North Africa.

    From the Wikipeida article on Berbers:

    *********************************
    Additionally, recent studies have discovered a close mitochondrial link between Berbers and the Saami of Scandinavia which confirms that the Franco-Cantabrian refuge area of southwestern Europe was the source of late-glacial expansions of hunter-gatherers that repopulated northern Europe after the Last Glacial Maximum and reveals a direct maternal link between those European hunter-gatherer populations and the Berbers.[62][63] With regard to Mozabite Berbers, one-third of Mozabite Berber mtDNAs have a Near Eastern ancestry, probably having arrived in North Africa ∼50,000 years ago, and one-eighth have an origin in sub-Saharan Africa. Europe appears to be the source of many of the remaining sequences, with the rest having arisen either in Europe or in the Near East.”[64]

    Autosomal DNA
    Berbers display a heterogeneous autosomal profile but in general autosomal markers are predominantly European or Eurasian with a minor but significant Sub-Saharan African component. As a result, Berber populations possess a genetic profile that is intermediate between Europeans and Sub-Saharan Africans. Analysis of HLA markers has shown that Berbers have a close genetic relationship with Mediterranean Europeans but also possess some characteristics of Sub-Saharan Africans.[68][69]

    *************************************
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berber_people#Modern-day_Berbers

  20. July 15, 2010 - 8:28 pm | Permalink

    “I would be interested in hearing your view of who the Indo-Europeans are, and what distinguishes them.”

    I would say that an Indo-European, to the extent that they can meaningfully be said to still exist, is a Caucasian who is more related to Iranians than to Near Easterners.

    Frank Salter, I his book “On Ethnic Genetic Interests”, had a genetic distance chart including five European groups and Iranians.

    The fascinating thing about it is that all four of the European groups which speak Indo-European languages were significantly closer to Iranians than they were to Near Easterners.

    The Danes were 33% closer to Iranians than Near Easterners, the English were 20% closer to Iranians than Near Easterners, the Italians 56% closer to Iranians than Near Easterners, and the Greeks 84% closer to Iranians than Near Easterners.

    In sharp and telling contrast, the only European group which doesn’t speak an Indo-European language, the Basques, was actually closer to Near Easterners than to Iranians.

    The Basque are 16% closer to Near Easterners than to Iranians.

    This strongly suggests that the process which led to European groups speaking Indo-European languages also made them more like Iranians than they were previously.

    “Indo-Europeans are not technically ‘Nordic‘, but they were very similar genetically to (other) Germanic peoples, sharing the same phenotypic traits such as blondism, height and skull shape.”

    They wouldn’t have been similar genetically to Pre-Indo-European groups in Europe.

    The degree of genetic similarity which exists arose due to gene flow from the Indo-Europeans into pre-existing European groups.

    This can clearly be seen with the Basques, the best relic of Pre-Indo-European Europeans we have, who are far more dissimilar to Iranians in genetics than any of the Indo-European speaking European groups.

    “If we could for example bring a Tocharian back to life, this view suggests that we would see someone who looked and behaved in a very Northern European manner. This is a view that the White History site generally agrees with (its based on the work of many different earlier writers). Whats your take on this?”

    I don’t find it credible at all. Northern Europeans look and act like Northern Europeans largely because they’re ancestors disproportionately spent an evolutionarily meaningful amount of time in Northern Europe.

    The traits represent adaptations to a specific environment.

    In terms of physical appearance we see this in how so many Ashkenazi Jews have come to look much more like Northern Europeans than their ancestors ever did just from a little more than 1,000 years spent in the North of Europe.

    Genetic research shows it isn’t the result of admixture between Northern Europeans and Ashkenazi Jews, because there was no such admixture which left a measurable trace in the Ashkenazi Jewish population.

    This is called convergent evolution.

    Anyway, I think the Proto-Indo-Europeans would’ve looked a lot like marginally more northern adapted versions of Farsi speaking Iranians.

    In other words what Coon called the “Nordic-Iranian” type, and which almost everybody nowadays would just call the Iranian type because they don’t buy that the two types are actually the same just because of some very general similarities.

    There may have been a few of the relatively northern tribes which developed a relatively high incidence of blondism, in the same way that one of the northern tribes of Pakistan has a fairly high incidence of blondism and associated traits like fair skin.

    Note though that this Pakistani tribe, the Kalash, has clearly been shown to have no special genetic relationship to Europeans in spite of their quirk of phenotype.

    “I guess a major question that I have in regard to Clark’s theory is the genetic quality of Europeans prior to the evolution that occurred in the Middle Ages/earlier times. If Europeans were at a low level at the beginning of the Paleolithic period…”

    If you go all the way back to the beginning of the Paleolithic, I doubt there’s much of their genes left in the Europeans of today.

    “, how did they eventually rise so much higher than Eastern peoples that appear to have had agriculture for just as long? For example, what about the people of the fertile crescent?”

    I think Clark’s theory involves a process which would require the breakdown of traditional clan structures.

    In Europe clan structures were deliberately broken down by the Church, especially with their extreme prohibitions against consanguineous marriages.

    But in the Middle East there was no such effort to break down clan structures.

    This actually was probably a good thing for the Middle Easterners in the long term, as it helped stop them from becoming overly individualistic, a key factor which is helping lead Europeans down the road to destruction.

    But at the same time these clan structures in the Middle East would’ve prevented Clark’s hypothesized evolutionary process from occurring.

    “To help me understand your view, I would appreciate it if you would sketch out a sort of time line of how you see events happening, groups forming and migrations occurring, as well as how the Indo-Europeans would have been different from our Germanics.”

    Okay.

    First there were Cro-Magnons in West Asia and Europe.

    Then the Cro-Magnons in the West Asia developed into Neolithic Caucasoid farmers in one area, and Indo-European Caucasoid semi-nomads who domesticated the horse in another.

    During this time the Cro-Magnons in Europe also evolved into Caucasoids, while remaining Hunter-Gatherers.

    Then there were two very large migrations and/or invasions into Europe.

    The first one came primarily from Anatolia, though some of what reached far Western Europe may have came from North Africa.

    These were the Neolithic farmers who introduced agriculture to Europe.

    Then there was an Indo-European invasion which probably came from somewhere around the Black Sea, and which was accompanied by enough violence and domination as to knock out all the Pre-Indo-European languages other than Basque, and which left strong enough a genetic legacy to make the Europeans both more similar to Iranians than they used to be, and less similar to the Near Eastern areas where the Neolithic farmers came from.

    First an Indo-European group broke off and became the partial genetic and 100% linguistic ancestors of the Greeks, then a similar process occurred with groups which broke off to become the partial genetic and 100% linguistic ancestors of the Germanics, Italics, Celts, and Slavs.

    Whether the physical types found in these groups evolved in the Indo-Europeans splinter groups after they invaded Europe, or if they represent a relic of Pre-Indo-European Europe, is not known.

    Then during part of the Bronze age there was some gene flow from Phoenicians into the coast of Southern Europe.

    “, as well as how the Indo-Europeans would have been different from our Germanics.”

    Either the Germanics or their Pre-Indo-European part ancestors evolved a phenotype in Northern Europe distinct from that found elsewhere.

    For example there’s a far higher rate of the blue eye genes in northern Europe than anywhere else in the World, and there’s a far higher rate of the blonde hair genes in northern Europe than anywhere else in the World.

    Now blonde hair and blue eye genes are found to some extent all over the Caucasian area, in varying rates.

    The issue with these genes is the rate at which the gene is found.

    “One point that has been brought up by earlier writers is the faces of the Greek and Roman statues. They seem to look very Northern European. “

    They’re too short faced, and too often convex nosed, for that statement to be accurate.

    “In addition, Im not sure about the reliability of using language as an indicator of ethnic origin. The Franks were a Germanic tribe, but adopted French from the existing inhabitants, the same with the Germanic invaders of Italy and elsewhere adopting native tongues.”

    The Franks were illiterate. Of course they would’ve taken up the language of the literate French due to that fact.

    The Germanic invaders of Rome were also illiterate, so of course they would’ve taken up the language of the Italians.

    “The Norse invaded Normandy, but a generation later, they were speaking French “

    The Norse who invaded Normandy lacked writing other than highly cumbersome runes, but the people they conquered were not so lacking, etc.

    “same with Danish invaders of England and Norse invaders of Ireland, speaking the native language”

    The Danish and Norse invaders of England lacked writing other than the highly cumbersome runes, but the English were not so lacking, etc.

    “Writing in Latin letters was introduced to Scandinavia with Christianity, so there are no native documentary sources from Scandinavia before the late 11th and early 12th centuries.[7] The Vikings did write inscriptions in runes, however, but these are usually very short and often hard to understand. The contemporary documentary sources upon which modern knowledge is based therefore consist mostly of texts written in Christian and Islamic communities overseas, that had often been negatively affected by Viking activity. “

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runic_alphabet

    These examples you give aren’t analogous to what some claim happened in Italy. The people in the area of Rome had no written language when the invasion from the North supposedly happened, so there would’ve been no reason for those supposed invaders to deviate from the general historical pattern that invaders maintain their language except in those cases where they are almost immediately liquefied into the conquered through inter-breeding.

    “This could be a case of an Indo-European ruling class conquering a native people and bringing civilization and rule. It may sound far-fetched, but there is a lot of evidence that many (if not most) of the earlier Pharoahs were light-featured, with blond or red hair. Recent analysis of Tutankhamen indicates he was Western European, based on his skull shape. DNA testing has been done on several pharoahs, but the results have not been made public, which is suspicious. One professor who had some access to the results has indicated that Tut had Western European genes.”

    I think the finding was that King Tut had the Atlantic Modal Haplotype, which is not generally thought to be of Indo-European derivation.

    One view is that it’s the Y Chromosome that dominated all of Europe before the Indo-European invasion pushed it up against the Atlantic Ocean.

    A basic point here is that King Tut having that haplogroup should be contextualized by looking at how frequently it’s found in Egyptians of today.

    If 10% of Egyptians today have it, it doesn’t really mean much of anything from the standpoint of showing the Egyptian Elite to have been more similar to Western Europeans than the Egyptians of today.

    On the other hand if it’s extremely low rate, then the chances of it showing up in a famous Pharaoh would be low unless the Y Chromosomes in the ancient Egyptian elite differed in their frequencies from the Y Chromosomes of Egyptians today.

    “It may sound far-fetched, but there is a lot of evidence that many (if not most) of the earlier Pharoahs were light-featured, with blond or red hair.”

    I know one of them was red-haired, but hadn’t heard of some being blonde.

    What’s the source that many of them were red-haired or blonde?

    “Recent analysis of Tutankhamen indicates he was Western European, based on his skull shape.”

    Who did the study? A few years ago there was some Egyptian report saying he was North African Caucasoid in skull shape, but I seem to recall some ways in which that study seemed sloppy.

    “Would you agree that the Vikings appear to have been a high-IQ, very capable genetic strain?”

    Yes, I would.

    It’s interesting that shortly after they picked up writing from groups to their south, they managed to write down some legends (the Sagas) which turned out to be of real literary merit.

    Also many of them seem to have excelled at administration, such as of course William the Conquerer (I can’t recall if William’s mother was a Viking but at least his paternal ancestry went back to the Norse).

    “They certainly did seem to be much more warlike than other groups…”

    There were rumors to that effect.

    “The modern Scandinavians are a very tame and docile people, which seems remarkably different from their forebears.”

    That‘s true.

    “I would hypothesize that the best/most ambitious genes migrated out of Scandinavia, through the launching of continual invasions and explorations for centuries. Your thoughts?”

    That’s a fascinating theory.

    I’ll have to think about it, though, before giving my thoughts.

    They’re so many issues with regression to the mean, and how relevant that concept is to the validity of this idea, that I’m having a hard time thinking it through properly.

  21. Jim's Gravatar Jim
    July 15, 2010 - 3:54 pm | Permalink

    @Pierre de Craon

    Thanks for the info on Gibson, and a synopsis on American Catholicism. I need to learn more. I know that much liberal thought resides in Catholicism (like the rest of society) yet something tells me it’s not quite as emasculated as main stream protestant denominations.

  22. Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
    July 15, 2010 - 11:57 am | Permalink

    Severus,

    It’s good to see that someone else has read or even heard of Léon de Poncins (1897–1976). The scion of an old French aristocratic family, he was both a literary essayist and a historian of conspiracies. (DISCLAIMER: all good Americans know that only conspiracy nuts and anti-Semites believe that conspiracies exist!) Freemasonry and Judaism were the primary targets of his research, and his principal weapon of exposure was literal quotation from the targets’ own published writings. No partisan attacks, no rumors, no smears, no innuendos. Just the facts, ma’am. His exposés were devastating and very ill received by their targets.

    Most of his books were published here (forty to seventy years ago) in excellent translations, but the one Severus mentions is one of only a few still in print. Given that the primary object of his research—along with international Jewry, the Illuminati, and international Freemasonry—was the Vatican II revolution and the post-V2 Catholic Church, it is hardly surprising that no one in the Establishment has worked at keeping his books alive and readily accessible.

    Incidentally, Severus, Léon is Poncin’s first name. “Vicomte” is merely his title (French for “viscount”). In France as in England, a viscount is a relatively low-ranking member of the peerage, and it is doubtful whether during his adult life in “republican” France his rank carried enough clout even to get him a decent table at a three-star provincial restaurant.

  23. Junghans's Gravatar Junghans
    July 15, 2010 - 8:31 am | Permalink

    The 26,000 year old carved ivory likeness of a Cro-Magnon from Brünn in Moravia, that Someday linked to, is most interesting. This would have been during the height of the Pleistocene/Würm glaciation, when there was a narrow, East-West, unglaciated gap across central Europe. The figure is beardless, so is it possibly a female, or were these ancient ancestors lacking in facial hair? According to Spencer Wells in DEEP ANCESTRY, the split between Asians and Europeans was around 40,000 years ago, so maybe they were beardless. Richard Fuerle, however, in ERECTUS WALKS AMONGST US, believes, like Carleton Coon did earlier, that the racial divide is much older. Fuerle seems to be current on his DNA analysis as well, even though it conflicts with Wells’ timeline.

  24. Someday's Gravatar Someday
    July 15, 2010 - 4:42 am | Permalink

    ‘“The homeland appears to be Northern Europe, particularly Northern Germany and Scandinavia,” That would be the homeland of the actual Nordics’

    Reginald, Scandinavia was under a kilometre of ice during the last Ice Age. There may have been people here and there in later Ice Age Northern Europe who still looked like their ancestors the Cro-Magnons (or even looked like Africans) but they were a minority. The first Scandinavians came from the actual white homeland of northern and eastern Europe and arrived looking much like they do today having already evolved away from the ancestral types due to sexual selection. So long before the time they followed herds north as the ice retreated the appearance would have been nordic looking, not CroMagnon. And there has never been a people who were entirely – or even mainly – blonde; light hair and eye color has always been diverse.

    To get back on the topic of how much typical WASP behavior is due to the selection Clark describes, it is noteworthy that Scandinavia is very liberal so maybe WASPs failure to take their own side in the culture war was largely down to the Puritans’ Danish ancestry as Kevin MacDonald says.

    I do wonder whether the liberal politics of countries like Sweden and Denmark are reflections of genetic distictiveness. It would be difficult for small countries not to be influenced bythe superpower elite pushing a prestigious ideology. As far as I know Sweden’s current left-liberalism is a recent trend in historical terms.

  25. Andrew's Gravatar Andrew
    July 15, 2010 - 3:24 am | Permalink

    @Reginald,
    “A serious problem with the article is that it’s based on the thoroughly discredited view that the Indo-Europeans were Nordic.”

    I would be interested in hearing your view of who the Indo-Europeans are, and what distinguishes them. Generally when I say “Nordic” or “Germanic”, I am referring to a specific strain of genes (not really culture/language). This group is typically tall, fair (light-skinned, light-eyes and light-colored hair), with dolichacephalic skulls (long skulls as opposed to round ones). I would consider the Tocharians to probably be among this group. I realize that my terminology is not technically correct. It would probably be better to classify the Germans as a branch of Indo European peoples.

    Consider this hypothesis: A group of indo-European peoples lived in Southern Russia during Neolithic times. They were a talented people, and developed various superior technologies. There was a great flood at some point, perhaps 5K-6K BC, which resulted in massive migrations. This flood is seen in the mythology of most nations where the Indo-Europeans settled. Some moved Eastward (the Tocharians and Aryan invaders of India). Others moved Westward into Europe. Over time they separated into many different tribes and peoples, conquering or merging with existing populations. The round-skulled peoples we see in Europe (such as the Slavs) are the result of the Indo-Europeans merging with another pre-existing human group, creating a hybrid. The Scandinavians (true Nordics) were a related people, but had existed in Europe during and after the Indo-European migration. In this view, Indo-Europeans are not technically “Nordic”, but they were very similar genetically to (other) Germanic peoples, sharing the same phenotypic traits such as blondism, height and skull shape. If we could for example bring a Tocharian back to life, this view suggests that we would see someone who looked and behaved in a very Northern European manner. This is a view that the White History site generally agrees with (its based on the work of many different earlier writers). Whats your take on this?

    “Actually, even if that were true it means nothing from the standpoint of Clark’s theory. If the aristocracy of Greece was actually an unmixed relic of the spread of Indo-Europeans into Europe, they would’ve been fundamentally different from any Germanic group.”

    I guess a major question that I have in regard to Clark’s theory is the genetic quality of Europeans prior to the evolution that occurred in the Middle Ages/earlier times. If Europeans were at a low level at the beginning of the Paleolithic period, how did they eventually rise so much higher than Eastern peoples that appear to have had agriculture for just as long? For example, what about the people of the fertile crescent?

    “If the ancient Greek aristocrats were basically pure Indo-Europeans, they were profoundly different from any of the Germanic peoples of the last thousands of years in terms of genetics.”

    To help me understand your view, I would appreciate it if you would sketch out a sort of time line of how you see events happening, groups forming and migrations occurring, as well as how the Indo-Europeans would have been different from our Germanics.

    “Ancient Latin was not a Germanic language.”

    One point that has been brought up by earlier writers is the faces of the Greek and Roman statues. They seem to look very Northern European. Coon writes, “Their facial type is not native to the Mediterranean basin, but is more at home in the north….” In addition, Im not sure about the reliability of using language as an indicator of ethnic origin. The Franks were a Germanic tribe, but adopted French from the existing inhabitants, the same with the Germanic invaders of Italy and elsewhere adopting native tongues. The Norse invaded Normandy, but a generation later, they were speaking French (same with Danish invaders of England and Norse invaders of Ireland, speaking the native language).

    “Like Arabic and Hebrew, and unlike the Indo-European language Farsi, Ancient Egyptian was a Afroasiatic language.

    The idea that it was founded by any kind of Proto-Indo-European, much less a specifically Proto-Nordic ones, is staggeringly far-fetched.”

    This could be a case of an Indo-European ruling class conquering a native people and bringing civilization and rule. It may sound far-fetched, but there is a lot of evidence that many (if not most) of the earlier Pharoahs were light-featured, with blond or red hair. Recent analysis of Tutankhamen indicates he was Western European, based on his skull shape. DNA testing has been done on several pharoahs, but the results have not been made public, which is suspicious. One professor who had some access to the results has indicated that Tut had Western European genes http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2010/07/king_tuts_dna_i.php

    “The Guanches were still in the Stone Age when they made first contact with Europeans.”

    The Guanches were described as tall, beautiful, light-featured and very intelligent by the Spanish conquerors, who took many of the females as wives. Their use of mummies and step-pyramids was thought by Thor Hyerdahl to be strong evidence that they had founded the civilizations of Central America (murals in temples show blondes being sacrificed, and legends tell of the Whites that founded the civilization and were wiped out eventually by the natives). What are your thoughts on this theory? What about the strange similarities of mummies and/or pyramids that we see among the Guanche, Tocharians, Egyptians and possibly other groups. Could this signify a single culture and ethnic group who founded these civilizations? (Note that pyramids, a conspicuously non-Asian edifice, are even found as far east as Bejing).

    If there were in fact high-IQ Whites living in stone age conditions on the Canary islands, this would also seem to be counter-evidence that Neolithic Whites were at a low level genetically (that the high IQ was the result of medieval evolution).

    “the most probable Northwest African Berber origin of the ‘Guanches’, as the native Canarians are generally known.”

    My understanding is that these Berbers are European peoples (or at least were prior to mixing with non-Europeans), with a high incidence of blond/red hair and so forth. Even during Roman times, there were large numbers of Europeans living in South Africa (and of course the Germanic Vandals swept through there and ruled for a time).

    “Germany’s climate is such that it could support more Neolithic farmers per square mile than Sweden, thus putting the Swedish Cro-Magnons in a better position to pass on their genes to the Swedes of today.”

    Would you agree that the Vikings appear to have been a high-IQ, very capable genetic strain? They certainly did seem to be much more warlike than other groups, which I would guess was not only based on culture. The modern Scandinavians are a very tame and docile people, which seems remarkably different from their forebears. I would hypothesize that the best/most ambitious genes migrated out of Scandinavia, through the launching of continual invasions and explorations for centuries. Your thoughts?

  26. July 14, 2010 - 10:41 pm | Permalink

    “I sincerely hope the study you have referred to is correct. I was using the figures quoted from Wikipedia referencing the Bell Curve data, which appears to show 1 child per high-IQ couple (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve).”

    Okay, I found the probable reason for the discrepancy.

    The Bell Curve chart didn’t show completed fertility, but instead only showed “fertility to date“.

    It isn’t clear how old the “Utopian Sample”, which seems to have been taken from the 1978 national longitudinal study of youth, was in 1994 when the chart was created.

  27. July 14, 2010 - 10:12 pm | Permalink

    Andrew,

    “An excellent article that goes into depth on the racial types of ancient Greece compared with moderns is here:”

    A serious problem with the article is that it’s based on the thoroughly discredited view that the Indo-Europeans were Nordic.

    And it undermines its credibility that it tries to pretend that this view hasn’t been discredited, just ignoring all the reasons modern scholars have for rejecting it.

    For example, upper caste Subcontinental Indians are more related to Eastern Europeans than they are to Germanic Europeans.

    Given that the only connecting rod between Europeans and Indians is Indo-Europeans, this is powerful evidence that the original Indo-Europeans weren’t Nordic.

    And even more strangely, the article fails to consider the obvious fact that Ancient Greek was in no way a Germanic language.

    Supposedly, according to the theory promoted by the article, Indo-European languages were spread through Europe by downward cultural diffusion from Aristocrats.

    Therefore according to the article’s own logic, the Greek Aristocrats couldn’t have been Nordic, as the language they allegedly brought with them broke off from the main Indo-European body before the Germanic languages broke off.

    “with a great deal of evidence provided, including DNA analysis.”

    The most relevant DNA evidence was this quote: “The analysis for eastern Mediterranean Europe indicated a very high frequency (~20%) of recent gene flow, as compared with only ~10% Neolithic input.”

    Now the Neolithic input obviously occurred well before even the Homeric era, ending in Europe about 1,400 years before the Trojan War supposedly occurred.

    So obviously the Neolithic input would’ve been in the Classical Greeks.

    With the about 20% estimated gene flow from times more recent than the Neolithic, there’s no basis for saying whether it occurred before the peak period of Greek achievement or not.

    “If in fact the Greek aristocracy was primarily Nordic/Germanic, and was responsible for almost all of the discoveries/advances of Ancient Greece, I think this provides compelling evidence that at least some Germanic peoples had very high IQs/Social competence by at least around 500 BC, probably much earlier. This pre-dates the evolution of the Middle Ages that is important for Clark’s hypothesis.”

    Actually, even if that were true it means nothing from the standpoint of Clark’s theory. If the aristocracy of Greece was actually an unmixed relic of the spread of Indo-Europeans into Europe, they would’ve been fundamentally different from any Germanic group.

    Germanic peoples, like all other modern European peoples, have a very large component of their ancestry which is not of Indo-European origin.

    If the ancient Greek aristocrats were basically pure Indo-Europeans, they were profoundly different from any of the Germanic peoples of the last thousands of years in terms of genetics.

    “The founding Roman families and Greek aristocracy are thought (by many/most older writers) to represent such Germanic tribes…”

    Ancient Latin was not a Germanic language.

    The ancient languages most related to it were the Osco-Umbrian languages of Central and Southern Italy, the Aequian language spoken by a tribe just east of Rome, and Vestinian language spoken by the Vestini of central Italy.

    And as I mentioned before Ancient Greece, even in the time of Homer, was certainly not a Germanic language.

    In fact there are some indications from a chart published in the book “Genes, Peoples, and Languages” that it split off not long after Armenian.

    “…as are various other peoples, including the founders of Egypt, the Tocharians and Guanches.”

    Like Arabic and Hebrew, and unlike the Indo-European language Farsi, Ancient Egyptian was a Afroasiatic language.

    The idea that it was founded by any kind of Proto-Indo-European, much less a specifically Proto-Nordic ones, is staggeringly far-fetched.

    “…Tocharians and Guanches…”

    The Guanches were still in the Stone Age when they made first contact with Europeans.

    And on their origin, to quote a study published in the European Journal of Human Genetics:

    “The first human settlers that arrived at the Canary Islands do not seem to pre-date the 1st millennium BC.1 Since the incorporation of the Canary Islands to the European world in the 15th century, the origin and survival of these aboriginal inhabitants has been a debatable topic. Population genetic studies on their present day inhabitants, mainly those based on uniparental markers, have given support to the most probable Northwest African Berber origin of the ‘Guanches’, as the native Canarians are generally known.”

    http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v12/n2/full/5201075a.html

    “The homeland appears to be Northern Europe, particularly Northern Germany and Scandinavia,”

    That would be the homeland of the actual Nordics, but certainly not of the Indo-Europeans who at least gave the Nordics the languages they speak today.

    “When this group came into being is subject to debate. It appears to be some time between 30K – 1K BC. In regard to this view, I am probably biased, because like Tolkien, the existence of this ideal people in the past is very appealing (many people have hoped it could be recreated through voluntary selective breeding). I have been influenced by writers that thought the Germanics were closely related to the Cro Magnons of perhaps 25K BC.”

    I do think Germanics are more related to the European Cro-Magnons than most European populations to their South are.

    After all it was much harder to farm up there, which would’ve given the Neolithic settlers much less of an advantage than they had in places like Greece and Italy.

    This may be reflected even within the Germanic group given the finding that Swedes have a significantly greater genetic distance from Near Eastern populations than Germans do.

    For example, one study found the Swedes about 40% further away in Fst from Palestinians than Germans are.

    Germany’s climate is such that it could support more Neolithic farmers per square mile than Sweden, thus putting the Swedish Cro-Magnons in a better position to pass on their genes to the Swedes of today.

  28. Andrew's Gravatar Andrew
    July 14, 2010 - 6:25 pm | Permalink

    @Reginald,
    “I would say that the people who live in Greece today have only a tiny fraction of genetic similarity with their predecessors (1% or less).”

    I find this doubtful, especially given the extreme lack of measurable genetic distance found between modern Greeks and the parts of Italy which were colonized by the ancient Greeks.”

    My reasoning is that in between 300 BC or so and now, there have been massive population shifts affecting Greece. There have been continual invasions flooding through the peninsula, from Germans to Bulgars to Turks (the Turkish invaders alone would have done a lot of ethnic cleansing and replacing of population). In addition, the slaves held by the “normal” Greek population (the ones that were citizens and producing all of the learning) intermixed over time, thus submerging the gifted genes of the middle and upper classes (the “true” greeks that were responsible for the developments of that civilization, who were overwhelmingly among the aristocracy). These “true” greeks were always outnumbered by other groups even during the height of Greek civilization.

    An excellent article that goes into depth on the racial types of ancient Greece compared with moderns is here:
    http://aryannordicalpinealiens.blogspot.com/2008/10/greeks.html
    I find this to be very convincing and well-informed, with a great deal of evidence provided, including DNA analysis. The author didnt go into much detail in regard to the Dorian invasions of Greece (around the time of Homer), the Dorians appearing to have been a Germanic people.

    Basically, the article asserts that the aristocracy of Greece was primarily Nordic/Northern European. The lower echelons of the population consisted of various racial types.

    @Someday
    If in fact the Greek aristocracy was primarily Nordic/Germanic, and was responsible for almost all of the discoveries/advances of Ancient Greece, I think this provides compelling evidence that at least some Germanic peoples had very high IQs/Social competence by at least around 500 BC, probably much earlier. This pre-dates the evolution of the Middle Ages that is important for Clark’s hypothesis.

    There is a widespread belief among the older racialist writers of a time when German/Nordic tribes existed, which had extremely high-quality genes. They were a warrior culture, a tall, fair people, with strong physiques and fine minds, though they were uneducated, and lived close to nature. Some writers referred to them as “Aryans”, a type of ideal race, although of course that term has become tainted by the National Socialists. The ideal is typified in people such as Dolph Lundgren, who are “aryan supermen”, with (apparently) excellent genes in regard to the mind and physiology. Tolkien identified with this idea, imagining the Anglo-Saxons to be such a people (for a time), and based his fictional Rohirrim on this idea. There does seem to be something to this (the latest national IQ studies appear to bear this out). Wherever the tall, fair race of Nordics has settled, first-rate Western nations have sprung up, from the barren North of Iceland to the rich plains of South Africa. The founding Roman families and Greek aristocracy are thought (by many/most older writers) to represent such Germanic tribes, as are various other peoples, including the founders of Egypt, the Tocharians and Guanches. The homeland appears to be Northern Europe, particularly Northern Germany and Scandinavia, though there may have been an older migration from the Black Sea area.

    When this group came into being is subject to debate. It appears to be some time between 30K – 1K BC. In regard to this view, I am probably biased, because like Tolkien, the existence of this ideal people in the past is very appealing (many people have hoped it could be recreated through voluntary selective breeding). I have been influenced by writers that thought the Germanics were closely related to the Cro Magnons of perhaps 25K BC. I appreciate the information you have brought forward, and acknowledge that you have presented some strong evidence that suggests the Germanics came upon the scene at a later point. For me, its a fascinating subject.

  29. Someday's Gravatar Someday
    July 14, 2010 - 7:42 am | Permalink

    By Cro-Magnons I mean modern humans in north Eurasia before they altered into the form of modern human that exists today and before the ancestral Eurasians were divided into two breeding polulations which became Europeans and East Asians. That is dated aprox. 20,000 years ago, skeletal changes mean the European population was no longer CroMagnon by 10,000 years ago. When Europeans turned white is a matter of dispute but it was not before 25,000. The ‘lighter skin for maximizing vitamin D hypothesis’ has altered, agriculture is now often viewed as the cause which would mean the skin lightened far later than 10,000.

    Modern reconstructions tend to look too modern, looking at them tells you more about the bias of the scientists that what Neanderthals really looked like for example.

    Here is a 26,000 year old carved ivory portrait of a Cro Magnon man
    Few Cro-Magons would have been up to our standard in reading and writing I think

    THE cerebellum — a brain structure linked to language and concentration — appears to take up a larger proportion of the head now than in the time of Cro Magnon

    .

    I dont think there has ever been a people or tribe that was entirely blonde, the unusual thing about Europeans is the diversity of hair and eye colors The puzzle of European hair and eye color

  30. July 14, 2010 - 4:14 am | Permalink

    When I say the Macedonians were less advanced than the City-State Greeks, I mean culturally speaking, and not necessarily in terms of genetics or IQ.

    The main issue is that with the exception of short-lived Alexander, who seems to have been influenced by City-State Greeks, the Macedonians didn’t seem to care about the higher intellectual pursuits to the same degree that the City-State Greeks did.

    Losing control of their destiny to Macedonians may have had a dysgenic effect, and at any rate would’ve had a demoralizing effect which likely would’ve undermined their ability to achieve at the level they did before their defeat.

  31. July 14, 2010 - 4:03 am | Permalink

    “I would say that the people who live in Greece today have only a tiny fraction of genetic similarity with their predecessors (1% or less).”

    I find this doubtful, especially given the extreme lack of measurable genetic distance found between modern Greeks and the parts of Italy which were colonized by the ancient Greeks.

    Also, there’s this study:

    ****************************
    Three Pakistani populations residing in northern Pakistan, the Burusho, Kalash and Pathan claim descent from Greek soldiers associated with Alexander’s invasion of southwest Asia. Earlier studies have excluded a substantial Greek genetic input into these populations, but left open the question of a smaller contribution. We have now typed 90 binary polymorphisms and 16 multiallelic, short-tandem-repeat (STR) loci mapping to the male-specific portion of the human Y chromosome in 952 males, including 77 Greeks in order to re-investigate this question. In pairwise comparisons between the Greeks and the three Pakistani populations using genetic distance measures sensitive to recent events, the lowest distances were observed between the Greeks and the Pathans. Clade E3b1 lineages, which were frequent in the Greeks but not in Pakistan, were nevertheless observed in two Pathan individuals, one of whom shared a 16 Y-STR haplotype with the Greeks. The worldwide distribution of a shortened (9 Y-STR) version of this haplotype, determined from database information, was concentrated in Macedonia and Greece, suggesting an origin there. Although based on only a few unrelated descendants, this provides strong evidence for a European origin for a small proportion of the Pathan Y chromosomes.
    ****************************
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17047675

    The fact that the classical Greeks seem to have been higher IQ than the Greeks of today doesn’t demonstrate genetic replacement.

    The time spans involved are such that dysgenics on the trait, or a relaxation of formally greater eugenic pressures, could easily explain it.

    It is notable that Greek achievement seemed to start declining when the City-States lost their freedom, and it could be that living as a conquered people under their less intellectually advanced relatives the Macedonians has a seriously negative effect.

  32. July 14, 2010 - 4:00 am | Permalink

    “Other studies have shown that many of the Greek elites were blonde().”

    The link you provide includes this quote:

    “When the heroine Electra, in Euripides’ play of that name, finds a lock of her brother Orestes’ hair, on the grave of their father Agamemnon, she can tell that it is his hair, because of its distinctive blond color.”

    This doesn’t correspond to the translations of the play I’m familiar with.

    For example, in this 1910 translation by E.P. Coleridge the hair is described as auburn, and Electra does not recognize her brother from it:

    ***********************************************
    OLD MAN
    Ah yes! in vain; but still I could not bear to leave him thus; and so I added this to my journey that I sought his grave, and, falling thereupon, wept o’er its desolation; then did I open the wine-skin, my gift to thy guests, and poured a libation, and set myrtle-sprigs round the tomb. And lo! upon the grave itself I saw a black ram had been offered, and there was blood, not long poured forth, and severed locks of auburn hair. Much I wondered, my daughter, who had dared approach the tomb; certainly ’twas no Argive. Nay, thy brother may perchance have come by stealth, and going thither have done honour to his father’s wretched grave. Look at the hair, compare it with thy own, to see if the colour of these cut locks is the same; for children in whose veins runs the same father’s blood have a close resemblance in many features.

    ELECTRA
    Old sir, thy words are unworthy of a wise man, if thou thinkest my own brave brother would have come to this land by stealth for fear of Aegisthus. In the next place, how should our hair correspond? His is the hair of a gallant youth trained up in manly sports, mine a woman’s curled and combed; nay, that is a hopeless clue. Besides, thou couldst find many, whose hair is of the same colour, albeit not sprung from the same blood. No, maybe ’twas some stranger cut off his hair in pity at his tomb, or one that came to spy this land privily.
    ***********************************************

    Note that Argos was in the south of Greece, and thus the statement that someone with auburn hair “certainly was no Argive” would seem to be a reference to the people there almost universally having hair darker than auburn.

    Also, it doesn’t really mean anything to pick and show a few examples of ancient Greek art depicting blondes, as the White History website does. (This is especially the case given that one of the artworks they showed was of a God who was symbolically associated with the gold colored sun, and not an actual Human Being.)

    What matters is what percentage of art depicting hair color depicts blondes.

    To quote from an article by Dienekes:

    **********************************
    Manzelli in a study of polychromatic Archaic Greek statuary [43] records an incidence of only 2% of yellow hair.(f) Manzelli also records that eye colors were black, “red,” and brown in the majority of surviving examples, with only a single example having green eyes. Mary Stieber [47] who studied the appearance of archaic statues of young women called korai also concludes that despite the presence of light hair in some examples, “it remains a fact that yellow hair is a rarity; for this reason alone it is tempting to infer that the percentage of its occurrence in female statues on the Acropolis is largely a reflection of its occurrence in real life.”
    ****************************
    http://dienekes.50webs.com/arp/articles/hellenes/

  33. July 14, 2010 - 3:58 am | Permalink

    Andrew,

    “A Jewish physician in the 4th Century AD wrote, ‘Wherever the Hellenic and Ionic race has been kept pure, we see proper tall men of fairly broad and straight build, neatly made, of fairly light skin and blond’.”

    Here’s a passage from the important Swiss historian Jacob Burkhardt:

    “A document of this kind does exist, though it is of late date (the beginning of the fifth century A. D.); it is an important passage of the Physiognomica of Adamantius Judaeus and was discovered by Muller. Here a baptized Jew is speaking of the Hellenes as a race already considered remarkable. Apart from some general observations he says they were ‘just sufficiently (autarkos) tall, sturdy, pale-complexioned, with well-formed hands and feet, a medium-sized head, strong neck, fine brown softly-waving hair, square-faced (prosopon tetragonon), that is not oval but with fairly strong cheekbones), the lips delicate, the nose straight, the eyes lustrous and expressive, (opthalmous hugrous, charpous, gorgous): they have the most beautiful eyes of any people in the world’”

    http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/burckhardt09.htm

    There’s nothing there about them being blonde.

  34. July 14, 2010 - 3:57 am | Permalink

    Andrew,

    “A Jewish physician in the 4th Century AD wrote, ‘Wherever the Hellenic and Ionic race has been kept pure, we see proper tall men of fairly broad and straight build, neatly made, of fairly light skin and blond’.”

    Here’s a passage from the important Swiss historian Jacob Burkhardt:

    “A document of this kind does exist, though it is of late date (the beginning of the fifth century A. D.); it is an important passage of the Physiognomica of Adamantius Judaeus and was discovered by Muller. Here a baptized Jew is speaking of the Hellenes as a race already considered remarkable. Apart from some general observations he says they were ‘just sufficiently (autarkos) tall, sturdy, pale-complexioned, with well-formed hands and feet, a medium-sized head, strong neck, fine brown softly-waving hair, square-faced (prosopon tetragonon), that is not oval but with fairly strong cheekbones), the lips delicate, the nose straight, the eyes lustrous and expressive, (opthalmous hugrous, charpous, gorgous): they have the most beautiful eyes of any people in the world'”

    http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/burckhardt09.htm

    There’s nothing there about them being blonde.

    “Other studies have shown that many of the Greek elites were blonde (http://www.white-history.com/hellenes.htm).”

    The link you provide includes this quote:

    “When the heroine Electra, in Euripides’ play of that name, finds a lock of her brother Orestes’ hair, on the grave of their father Agamemnon, she can tell that it is his hair, because of its distinctive blond color.”

    This doesn’t correspond to the translations of the play I’m familiar with.

    For example, in this 1910 translation by E.P. Coleridge the hair is described as auburn, and Electra does not recognize her brother from it:

    ***********************************************
    OLD MAN
    Ah yes! in vain; but still I could not bear to leave him thus; and so I added this to my journey that I sought his grave, and, falling thereupon, wept o’er its desolation; then did I open the wine-skin, my gift to thy guests, and poured a libation, and set myrtle-sprigs round the tomb. And lo! upon the grave itself I saw a black ram had been offered, and there was blood, not long poured forth, and severed locks of auburn hair. Much I wondered, my daughter, who had dared approach the tomb; certainly ’twas no Argive. Nay, thy brother may perchance have come by stealth, and going thither have done honour to his father’s wretched grave. Look at the hair, compare it with thy own, to see if the colour of these cut locks is the same; for children in whose veins runs the same father’s blood have a close resemblance in many features.

    ELECTRA
    Old sir, thy words are unworthy of a wise man, if thou thinkest my own brave brother would have come to this land by stealth for fear of Aegisthus. In the next place, how should our hair correspond? His is the hair of a gallant youth trained up in manly sports, mine a woman’s curled and combed; nay, that is a hopeless clue. Besides, thou couldst find many, whose hair is of the same colour, albeit not sprung from the same blood. No, maybe ’twas some stranger cut off his hair in pity at his tomb, or one that came to spy this land privily.
    ***********************************************

    http://classics.mit.edu/Euripides/electra_eur.html

    Note that Argos was in the south of Greece, and thus the statement that someone with auburn hair “certainly was no Argive” would seem to be a reference to the people there almost universally having hair darker than auburn.

    Also, it doesn’t really mean anything to pick and show a few examples of ancient Greek art depicting blondes, as the White History website does. (This is especially the case given that one of the artworks they showed was of a God who was symbolically associated with the gold colored sun, and not an actual Human Being.)

    What matters is what percentage of art depicting hair color depicts blondes.

    To quote from an article by Dienekes:

    **********************************
    Manzelli in a study of polychromatic Archaic Greek statuary [43] records an incidence of only 2% of yellow hair.(f) Manzelli also records that eye colors were black, “red,” and brown in the majority of surviving examples, with only a single example having green eyes. Mary Stieber [47] who studied the appearance of archaic statues of young women called korai also concludes that despite the presence of light hair in some examples, “it remains a fact that yellow hair is a rarity; for this reason alone it is tempting to infer that the percentage of its occurrence in female statues on the Acropolis is largely a reflection of its occurrence in real life.
    ****************************
    http://dienekes.50webs.com/arp/articles/hellenes/

    “I would say that the people who live in Greece today have only a tiny fraction of genetic similarity with their predecessors (1% or less).”

    I find this doubtful, especially given the extreme lack of measurable genetic distance found between modern Greeks and the parts of Italy which were colonized by the ancient Greeks.

    Also, there’s this study:

    ****************************
    Three Pakistani populations residing in northern Pakistan, the Burusho, Kalash and Pathan claim descent from Greek soldiers associated with Alexander’s invasion of southwest Asia. Earlier studies have excluded a substantial Greek genetic input into these populations, but left open the question of a smaller contribution. We have now typed 90 binary polymorphisms and 16 multiallelic, short-tandem-repeat (STR) loci mapping to the male-specific portion of the human Y chromosome in 952 males, including 77 Greeks in order to re-investigate this question. In pairwise comparisons between the Greeks and the three Pakistani populations using genetic distance measures sensitive to recent events, the lowest distances were observed between the Greeks and the Pathans. Clade E3b1 lineages, which were frequent in the Greeks but not in Pakistan, were nevertheless observed in two Pathan individuals, one of whom shared a 16 Y-STR haplotype with the Greeks. The worldwide distribution of a shortened (9 Y-STR) version of this haplotype, determined from database information, was concentrated in Macedonia and Greece, suggesting an origin there. Although based on only a few unrelated descendants, this provides strong evidence for a European origin for a small proportion of the Pathan Y chromosomes.
    ****************************
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17047675

    The fact that the classical Greeks seem to have been higher IQ than the Greeks of today doesn’t demonstrate genetic replacement.

    The time spans involved are such that dysgenics on the trait could easily explain it.

  35. Andrew's Gravatar Andrew
    July 14, 2010 - 12:23 am | Permalink

    @Reginald,

    I should have consulted you before I posted :).

    “Only a very small minority of ancient Greeks were described as blonde. In the entire Iliad, for example, only four Greeks out of hundreds have their hair described using a term that could possibly be translated as blonde.”

    There is other evidence that indicates the Greeks were a nordic type. Spartans were said to be blonde. A Jewish physician in the 4th Century AD wrote, “Wherever the Hellenic and Ionic race has been kept pure, we see proper tall men of fairly broad and straight build, neatly made, of fairly light skin and blond”. Other studies have shown that many of the Greek elites were blonde (http://www.white-history.com/hellenes.htm). I would say that the people who live in Greece today have only a tiny fraction of genetic similarity with their predecessors (1% or less).

    “No European group achieved the ability to write until after going through a significant period where they practiced agriculture, for instance.”

    This is true. However, was writing developed because of increasing IQ, or because agriculture/civilization requires (or encourages) the development of writing? I am considering the potentially dysgenic effect of relatively small groups of well-fed, physically robust Germanic tribesmen (eating lots of meat and dairy) transitioning to a larger population of poorly fed peasants (eating primarily grains), periodically facing widespread famines and disease (which may well select for smaller-bodied, smaller-brained individuals). I think a large-brained individual would have difficulty surviving on a meager grain-based diet. If the vast majority of the population was poor peasantry, such a dysgenic effect could lower the average IQ (while the ruling elites retained high IQs and a rich diet).

    “I don’t think he’s said each generation.”

    I think you are right. From an interview: “we’re in an era of decline–that the rate of human accomplishment has slowed in both the arts and the sciences”. If the average IQ is dropping each generation though (the number of high IQ people is dropping per generation), it does seem to follow that less innovation will occur each generation.

    “According to a study by Gerhard Meisenberg in the journal Intelligence, only Black females have so extremely dysgenic a fertility pattern.”

    I sincerely hope the study you have referred to is correct. I was using the figures quoted from Wikipedia referencing the Bell Curve data, which appears to show 1 child per high-IQ couple (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve).

    “…thus halving our geniuses each generation”
    Due to Regression to the Mean, that doesn’t follow.”

    If the birthrate was only 1 child per high IQ couple, this would not in itself mean the number of geniuses are being halved each generation. But, combined with the below-replacement birth rate of Northern Europeans around the world, I think it would be close to that. For example, Germany, with its 70 million or so Germanics, is a major reservoir of Northern European genes, and thus naturally a font of innovation. I understand that the birthrate of White Germans (not including Turks) is near 1.2 children per couple.

  36. Andrew's Gravatar Andrew
    July 13, 2010 - 11:12 pm | Permalink

    “You won’t admit being wrong or holding a self-contradictory opinion, even when you’ve been caught dead to rights.”

    I fail to see the contradiction. Perhaps you could explain it.

    “Let’s boil all your blather down, shall we?”

    By all means, my good fellow.

    “Except for the profound drop in average IQ, particularly since the Industrial Revolution and the advent of technological civilization (as noticed by Galton and others), Whites haven’t genetically changed much at all since the time of the Cro-Magnon, according to Andrew. After all, IQ isn’t important, nor are the other personality characteristics he mentions, like propensity to violence or passivity.”

    I am afraid that your effort to summarize my argument has come up woefully short. I was going to grade your attempt with an “F”, but have changed this to an “F+” as you have obviously put in some effort trying to figure out what I wrote in the plainest terms I could think of. Since you would of course never intentionally attempt to mischaracterize my post, I can only assume that you have a learning disability of some kind. I encourage you to re-read what I wrote, and re-attempt a summarization. I will then re-grade your work, though please note that I will expect even greater effort on your part (if that is possible). I am saddened that the attempt to educate you will obviously be more difficult than I had at first presumed.

  37. Andrew's Gravatar Andrew
    July 13, 2010 - 10:58 pm | Permalink

    @Someday
    “White advocates who appear in media interviews are going to face attributions of racism…I think coming up with a ready answer including a convincing rejection of the accusation of racism and an explaination of the morality of white racial consciousness is the most important task there is.”

    I agree that this is very important.

    “Cro magnons were not white”

    By “Cro Magnons”, I hope you would agree that we are talking about “Homo sapiens sapiens of modern form, in the time range ca. 35,000-10000 b.p.”, which is the definition in the Oxford campanion for Archeology. More specifically, we are talking about the inhabitants of Europe of that era that would eventually become modern European man. We need to be aware that there were no doubt multiple ethnic groups in Europe at 35K-10K BP, which probably differed from each other to a wide extent (smaller groups having limited contact with each other will evolve divergently over time).

    According to Wikipedia (not the most authoritive source, of course), Cro Magnons looked very similar to modern humans. “Physically they only differ from their modern day descendants in Europe by being on average taller, having a more robust physique and a slightly larger cranial capacity”, although skulls from some periods and areas show a significantly larger cranial capacity.

    Also according to Wikipedia, they appear to have been light-skinned. “While the skin- and hair colour of the Cro-Magnons can at best be guessed at, light skin is known to have evolved rapidly in the Asian and European line, suggesting Cro-Magnons were tan or lighter”. The vitamin D hypothesis suggests lighter skin tone.

    “If we examine the various alleles that lighten European skin color, the time of origin seems to be relatively late. At the SLC45A2 (AIM1) gene, the date is ~ 11,000 BP”

    This is compelling contrary evidence. There is some indication that blue eyes (also related to less melanin) evolved around 11,000 BP as well.

    “They had front teeth that met edge to edge like Australian Aboriginies so even ignoring the skin they could not pass for Europeans today.”

    Most Cro Magnon reconstructions by artists seem to show normal-looking European-type people. A couple of them:
    http://www.white-history.com/hwr1_files/cro3.jpeg
    http://mathildasanthropologyblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/mw-cromag.jpg

    “The braincase capacity of the ape – like Neanderthals was greater than modern humans. The brain size tells you nothing unless all other things are equal. Among Europeans today head size will correlate with IQ but big headed whites are not similar to early stone age Europeans, in appearance, genetics, or behavior.”

    You have a good point. I do not believe that the evidence available is conclusive one way or the other in regard to the intellectual abilities of Cro Magnons. I can say that a modern human with a cranial capacity of 1600 cc would have an extraordinarily large brain, and barring some abnormality (like giantism), he would most likely have a very high IQ. This is not always the case, but there of course is a very strong correlation between cranial size and IQ.

    I think we need to be cautious about judging IQ by the technology developed by the Ice Age hunters. The demands and circumstances of that harsh era were not conducive to developing written language and the other prerequisites of civilization. They had weaving, jewelry, highly developed stone weapons, statuary, painting, trade networks and so forth. Their technology and artistry was superior to that of Subsaharan Africa prior to arab colonization, and generally equal or superior to that of the indigenous peoples living in upper North America in 1600, thus I think its reasonable to assume that whatever the Cro Magnon IQ was, it was not lower than that of native Americans. Its probably an open question on whether or not the very large brain case represented high IQ. I tend to think that it was, but again, I dont think the evidence is conclusive. I look forward to more evidence as it becomes available.

    As a side note, when we examine what traits result in success in our society, IQ seems to be the most important factor, rather than traits such as passivity and so forth. A high-IQ eskimo or Amazonian Indian could be expected to typically do very well (I am assuming those represent a genetic groups that never went through an agricultural/civilizational stage).

    “The WASPs are the result of selection for genetically controlled traits like passivity, delaying gratification, planning for the future and fullfilling obligations (such as honouring debts). In a WASP controlled culture the average WASP maximizes their long-term material welfare much better than a medieval Englishman would be able to for genetic reasons. If a hostile culture tells them that they have a moral obligation against their own interests the suite of traits Clark describes makes them helpless.”

    I agree with this (though I tend to think that there was not as much genetic change as Clark suggests).

    “Once the elite level legal culture of the court told them that their duty lay in helping non whites Supreme Court WASPs proved to be sheep.”

    The situation is complex because we are talking about a complicated, multi-faceted culture and nation in which nearly every significant institution has been subverted. The subversion includes the entire education system, from top to bottom, shaping people’s paradigms starting in pre-school. We are talking about the media and entertainment industries, which have such power to shape opinions. The culture of critique/liberalism also permeates the legal system, government and the business world. It should not be surprising that people like Anthony Kennedy or the other WASPs have adopted the beliefs they hold. People are not completely logical and rational beings. If Anthony Kennedy had been educated and instilled from birth with the idea that eating people was correct, he would no doubt have been a voracious cannibal, and very understandably so (many societies did have cannibalism, and it was perfectly natural for them to devour other people, however odd that may seem to us). Society’s institutions have a very powerful effect on a population, and WASPs are not the only ones absorbing liberalism. Most East Asians and many or even most common secular Jews are appear to have gobbled it up as well.

  38. July 13, 2010 - 8:13 pm | Permalink

    “The achievements of the golden-haired Greeks”

    Andrew,

    Only a very small minority of ancient Greeks were described as blonde. In the entire Iliad, for example, only four Greeks out of hundreds have their hair described using a term that could possibly be translated as blonde.

    “The advent of agriculture in the beginning decreased average IQ.”

    I assume you mean in Europe.

    And even in Europe there are some reasons to be skeptical of this view.

    No European group achieved the ability to write until after going through a significant period where they practiced agriculture, for instance.

    “Charles Murray has provided good evidence that the rate of human accomplishment is decreasing each generation.”

    I don’t think he’s said each generation.

    “According to the Bell Curve, IQ 125+ individuals have close to 1 child per couple…”

    According to a study by Gerhard Meisenberg in the journal Intelligence, only Black females have so extremely dysgenic a fertility pattern.

    See the chart in this article:

    http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/hbd-human-biodiversity/yes-dysgenics-is-a-problem/

    “…thus halving our geniuses each generation”

    Due to Regression to the Mean, that doesn’t follow.

    Part of it depends on how we define “genius”.

    But even many Whites with I.Q.s over 160 will have at least one parent with an I.Q. under 125.

    “High IQ Europeans are responsible for almost all of the major discoveries/achievements since the time of the Greeks. As they continue to decline in number, the world’s technological progress will inevitably begin to stagnate.”

    That’s true.

    Though to an extent it already has stagnated, largely I think because of Feminism and Relativism undercutting the old European idea that its important for men to spend time in pursuit of objective truths.

    Feminists don’t really like science for the simple reason that men are better at it, I think, and in so many academic settings real scholarship has been replaced by touchy feely nonsense masquerading as scholarship, but actually having nothing to do with it.

    “Note that although East Asians have high average IQs, they have a very steep Bell Curve, with fewer embiciles or geniuses (according to Lynn).”

    That’s true. Also, they score as having “low openness to experience”
    on personality tests, which seems to be correlated with creativity once you adjust for IQ.

    “Although Asians produce many small improvements on existing technology, they produce very, very few original inventions or breakthrough discoveries. So, my friend,in the brave new world that is to come, there is probably little chance we will be zipping around the stars in our spaceships , or becoming cyborgs or whatever else you have read in the latest science fiction novels.”

    That’s true.

    Once Kennedy’s Anti-European immigration act was passed, and the Apollo Space Program allowed to stagnate, it became inevitable that the dreams of the SciFi guys would never come true.

  39. Jonathan's Gravatar Jonathan
    July 13, 2010 - 5:07 pm | Permalink

    “For example, to oppose Jewish over-representation on the Supreme Court gets one labeled an anti-Semite, anti-Semitism is racism, therefore those who oppose Jewish hegemony are racists (according to the narrative).

    So one need not actually espouse any racist doctrine to get labeled a racist”

    So, I’m a racist*…so shoot me. You better not miss.

    It’s amazing how one word…ONE WORD….paralyzes so many Whites!

    The late Dr. William L. Pierce once said in one of his American Dissident Voices broadcasts, which I’ll paraphrase:

    “…they (who else?) would rather DIE than to do something that would cause them to be labeled a racist.”

    How pathetic…

    Jonathan

    *Jew-wise and racially-conscious and proud of it.

  40. Jonathan's Gravatar Jonathan
    July 13, 2010 - 4:40 pm | Permalink

    Spooky says:
    July 11, 2010 at 1:43 PM

    “It’s not that Stevens is anti-white. He’s anti-Western worldview, like most elite whites are, thanks to the takeover of academia.”

    Exactly! Stevens and other feckless, racially-unconcious Whites have been infected with lethal Jew-think, thanks, like you said “to the takeover of acedemia” by Leftist Jews and their “useful idiots.”

    America is going to crash and burn, my friends…from these ashes perhaps a White Phoenix will arise.

    The whole rotten, infected, poisoned, once-great America is “past the tipping point” and trying to rescue it from its suicidal nosedive into a multicultural abyss is near impossible in my opinion.

    A real tragedy…

    Jonathan

  41. Jonathan's Gravatar Jonathan
    July 13, 2010 - 4:15 pm | Permalink

    barb says:
    July 11, 2010 at 12:20 PM

    “After all, we’re told by Jews that anti-semitism is just some sort of psychological pathology of Gentiles that periodically mysteriously arises, without any causal mechanism whatsoever, out of the ether.”

    In response to that vomit I’ll just quote Arthur Schopenhauer:

    “The Jew is The Great Master of Lies.”

    Nuff said.

    Jonathan

  42. Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
    July 13, 2010 - 1:05 pm | Permalink

    Jim: You are, of course quite right in being hesitant to say that “Catholics are the monolithic (and therefore easily categorized) group that the Jews are.”

    Part of the process of Americanization–described as a heresy by popes and theologians starting roughly 125 years ago–was the total elimination of “group cohesion,” for lack of a better term. Long, long before Vatican II, American Catholics (via their hierarchical and intellectual elite) decided that being accepted as “good Americans” by the majority culture was a prize worth winning, no matter the cost. The cost, as it happens, was the content of Catholic belief–i.e., the faith. As time passed, Americanist Catholic leaders, having largely abandoned the faith for social acceptance, had little or no problem taking marching orders from the dominant quarter of American society. As dominance passed from the Anglo-Norman ascendancy of old to the Jewish arrivistes with sharp elbows and sharper teeth, Americanist Catholics followed the new officer class. (After all, to a bottom kisser, everyone looks remarkably alike.) It is no coincidence that one of the most influential voices at Vatican II was that of the Americanist Judaeophilic intellectual priest John Courtney Murray.

    This story is very long, however, and this is not the forum for it. The proximate point is that what makes Mel Gibson different from Nancy Pelosi and the other pseudocatholics in government that people refer to as Catholics is that Gibson, whatever his passing flaws of character, hasn’t sold out his Catholic faith to the Jewish thug class that runs the show. Since he is more than a bit rough around the edges, he has effectively handed his enemies and ours a stick to beat him with, and those enemies haven’t been slow to use it.

    Incidentally, since, as you say, you aren’t Catholic, you have no reason to know that it’s not really accurate to say that when “Gibson made his controversial movie that pissed off ALL the jews, he was part of a ‘Charismatic’ Catholic group.” In fact, Gibson neither is nor was a charismatic–essentially, someone who wants to be a member of a storefront Evangelical church without the social stigma attached thereto. He is and was a Traditionalist Catholic (as am I); like his father and other Traditionalists, he holds to the centuries-old suspicion of Jewish means and ends that all pre-Americanist and pre-Modernist Catholics held to as a consequence of their Catholic faith. Because of his extreme prominence and visibility–which two decades of (Jewish-owned) Hollywood adulation gave him and which he boldly capitalized on with the audaciously successful effrontery of The Passion of the Christ–he made himself a prime target for cultural assassination.

  43. Phil's Gravatar Phil
    July 13, 2010 - 11:47 am | Permalink

    Given the Jewish community’s enthusiastic support for the brutalization of the indigenous Palestinian people (Canaanites), what reason is there for us to expect that we would get any better treatment from the Jews if they gained sufficient power?

  44. Anonymous's Gravatar Anonymous
    July 13, 2010 - 9:05 am | Permalink

    Why do you use the word “Latina” to describe Sotomayor? She’s a Puerto Rican, plain and simple. The question we should be asking ourselves is if she will recuse herself from all cockfighting cases that come before the court.

    No Spanish speakers use the term “Latino,” except when their paws are out demanding something from gringos.

  45. Der weiße Engel's Gravatar Der weiße Engel
    July 13, 2010 - 8:42 am | Permalink

    Im flattered that you have been following my posts.

    Yes, it is a little shocking anyone still reads them. I suppose it’s true that most sensible people have dismissed you by now as just a bubblehead.

    Its ironic that you would suggest I am a big man, my lady friends have remarked upon the exact same thing.

    LOL. Yes, I just bet they do.

    Actually though, little guy, what I said was it takes a big man to admit he was wrong, and that is something you habitually refuse to do, and again are refusing to do here. You won’t admit being wrong or holding a self-contradictory opinion, even when you’ve been caught dead to rights.

    Let’s boil all your blather down, shall we?

    Except for the profound drop in average IQ, particularly since the Industrial Revolution and the advent of technological civilization (as noticed by Galton and others), Whites haven’t genetically changed much at all since the time of the Cro-Magnon, according to Andrew. After all, IQ isn’t important, nor are the other personality characteristics he mentions, like propensity to violence or passivity.

    Hmmm. I see. :-)

  46. Someday's Gravatar Someday
    July 13, 2010 - 4:43 am | Permalink

    White advocates who appear in media interviews are going to face attributions of racism, some direct and in so many words, some in the form of cleverly weighted questions. I think coming up with a ready answer including a convincing rejection of the accusation of racism and an explaination of the morality of white racial consciousness is the most important task there is.

    Whites are very similar to their ancestors who lived 10K years ago,

    Cro magnons were not white

    EUROPEANS did not turn white until long after their ancestors came to Europe some 35,000 years ago. If we examine the various alleles that lighten European skin color, the time of origin seems to be relatively late. At the SLC45A2 (AIM1) gene, the date is ~ 11,000 BP (Soejima et al. 2005). At SLC24A5, the date falls between ~ 12,000 and 3,000 BP (Norton & Hammer 2007). As a Science journalist commented: “the implication is that our European ancestors were brown-skinned for tens of thousands of years” (Gibbons, 2007).,

    They had front teeth that met edge to edge like Australian Aboriginies so even ignoring the skin they could not pass for Europeans today. The braincase capacity of the ape – like Neanderthals was greater than modern humans. The brain size tells you nothing unless all other things are equal. Among Europeans today head size will correlate with IQ but big headed whites are not similar to early stone age Europeans, in appearance, genetics, or behavior.

    The reason the Cro Magnon type (which later in the stone age evolved into todays European) were big is more likely to be that up untill 25,000 years ago there was violent competition for access to females. I doubt that would produce much in the way of IQ. Maybe at a certain time and place in ancient Greece some classes had a high average IQ but it surely was not due to hunter-gathering which had been abandoned thousands of years before that time.

    High IQ won’t get you half as far without the personalty traits which Clark describes. The WASPs are the result of selection for genetically controlled traits like passivity, delaying gratification, planning for the future and fullfilling obligations (such as honouring debts). In a WASP controlled culture the average WASP maximizes their long-term material welfare much better than a medieval Englishman would be able to for genetic reasons. If a hostile culture tells them that they have a moral obligation against their own interests the suite of traits Clark describes makes them helpless.

    Once the elite level legal culture of the court told them that their duty lay in helping non whites Supreme Court WASPs proved to be sheep.

  47. Andrew's Gravatar Andrew
    July 13, 2010 - 2:58 am | Permalink

    “Wow! This is amazing stuff, coming from a guy who just one month ago was insisting to me that the White genome had barely changed at all since ancient times, and will undergo no significant changes for centuries into the future.”

    Im flattered that you have been following my posts. As I recall, you were the science fiction buff who had numerous exhuberant and fanciful futuristic predictions in regard to genetic engineering and how we were on the cusp of transforming into a new species. Apparently you have retained a grudge that your theories were found to be wanting, which is most regrettable.

    ” “Humans today are very similar to those of the medieval and ancient world. Whatever changes have happened have not been very dramatic,” is what he wrote then. I’m not sure I agree with all the details of his speculation here, but it’s good to see that I’ve made a convert. It takes a big man to admit he was wrong, as I’m sure Andrew will now hasten to do.”

    Its ironic that you would suggest I am a big man, my lady friends have remarked upon the exact same thing. I trust it would be fair to say that our question or difference at present is attempting to characterize the degree of evolutionary change that has occurred within the European population in the past 10K years. I think we agreed last time that although there have been changes, these werent dramatic changes. Since you are apparently having some trouble understanding my points and following my logic, I will try to sum them up for you in a more easy-to-comprehend manner.

    Here goes. The brain is the most important asset humans have. Usually, the bigger the brain, the greater the intelligence/IQ. Human populations with big brains have huge advantages over other groups. A long, long time ago, Europe was ruled by the Ice Age Cro Magnons. They had very rich diets, allowing them to support very large brains, and they thrived. In time, the climate changed, the ice retreated, and agriculture became common. This allowed greater population density, but the average calories and protein consumed decreased, and Europeans’ brain sizes decreased as well, on average (five smaller-brained farmers can defeat 1 larger, more intelligent hunter). Although the average IQ decreased, the population retained high-IQ individuals within it (the far-right of the Bell Curve).

    The Neolithic period eventually transformed into the era of the Ancients and first civilizations. The Northern European/Germanic ethnic groups had high average IQs at this time (not as high as the Cro Magnon, as indicated by cranial capacity). The achievements of the golden-haired Greeks and other groups are good evidence of the high intellectual capacity of Germanic&other Europeans of this era. These groups probably had a much larger percent of highly gifted among their populations. While modern Europeans have 1% highly gifted, ancient Greeks had perhaps 20-30%. Not all European ethnic groups had these high IQs. The high intellectual capacity of Northern European/Germanic/Nordish groups are discussed in great length by an army of earlier writers such as Madison Grant, Carleton Coon, et. al. Germanics are heavily over-represented among the world’s legacy of geniuses. There is also strong evidence that other European ethnic groups are less-gifted, such as the Celts and Slavs. Even today, after significant mixing with Germanics, nations with those groups have lower IQs (Ireland: 93, Scotland: 97, Ukraine: 96), while Germanic nations have higher IQs (Germans: 106, Dutch: 107), and have always been more successful.

    But on to our tale of history. One very talented and extremely intelligent ethnic group, the Romans, eventually conquered Southern Europe and the Mediterranean. Centuries later, the Roman empire was overrun by German Tribes, initiating the Dark Ages then later Middle Ages, and civilization marched on to the era of the Industrial Revolution. During that entire time, there was natural selection happening in European populations. What were the nature of the changes? I will list some characteristics below and speculate on what changed, to help you get a better idea of what was likely/possible:
    1) Appearance: Very little change. Older Europeans were probably more genetically fit athletically, and thus more attractive.
    2) IQ: Ethnically mixed Europeans of the Dark Ages had perhaps 2-5 IQ points less than modern humans. The purebred (unmixed) ancient Germanic tribes had perhaps 2-5 IQ points above modern Europeans.
    3) Immunity: Substantial increases in the ability to survive plagues and disease among modern Europeans.
    4) Laziness: Little change.
    5) Violent Propensity: A decrease in modern Europeans.
    6) Passivity: An increase in modern humans.

    I am not sure what adjectives you want to use to describe these changes (there were no doubt others as well). I think they might be characterized as “some changes but not dramatic ones”. Put a Neolithic, Ancient or Dark Age European in our society, raised from birth, and they fit in just fine. Put a modern European in one of those older periods, and they fit in fine as well (assuming they have good genes in regard to athletic prowess), with no significant discernable difference in appearance. There would be certainly nothing like the huge gulf that separates Europeans from Asians or Blacks (in regard to behavioral traits and differences in the brain).

    “In a kind of reverse Lynn/Flynn Effect, Andrew appears to have re-thought the matter and come to the conclusion that there has been a global decrease in IQ through the millennia. He is saying that the arrival of technological civilization has made White men stupider, on average, than they used to be in the time of ancient Greece”

    Please try to pay closer attention, I have tried to make it easier to understand above.

    “Perhaps Andrew can also inform us whether this relationship is causal or mere coincidence. Does civilization itself cause a drop in IQ, and did the advent of technological civilization accelerate this drop? Or if not, then what causes the drop in IQ, I wonder?”

    Please focus and concentrate, good sir. This really isnt that hard to understand. The advent of agriculture in the beginning decreased average IQ. High-IQ (not as high) Nordish European groups remained. They eventually mixed with lower IQ groups, diluting and lowering the average IQ, but retaining a demographic slice of high-IQ individuals. In slowly prospering Medieval societies, over time, the higher IQ individuals had more children, thus increasing the average IQ.

    “Tell us more, Andrew.”

    I will be happy to elucidate you further. We are now in a dysgenic phase, and have been for about the past 150 years at least. Even within the European population, average IQ is decreasing each generation, as higher-IQ individuals have less children, and lower-IQ ones have more. Sir Francis Galton recognized this was occurring even in the 1800s. According to the Bell Curve, IQ 125+ individuals have close to 1 child per couple, thus halving our geniuses each generation. Charles Murray has provided good evidence that the rate of human accomplishment is decreasing each generation. High IQ Europeans are responsible for almost all of the major discoveries/achievements since the time of the Greeks. As they continue to decline in number, the world’s technological progress will inevitably begin to stagnate.

    Note that although East Asians have high average IQs, they have a very steep Bell Curve, with fewer embiciles or geniuses (according to Lynn). Although Asians produce many small improvements on existing technology, they produce very, very few original inventions or breakthrough discoveries. So, my friend,in the brave new world that is to come, there is probably little chance we will be zipping around the stars in our spaceships , or becoming cyborgs or whatever else you have read in the latest science fiction novels. In the future, Eurabia will be producing about as much innovation as Turkey has ever produced, while Meximerica will be producing about as much innovation as Mexico.

  48. July 13, 2010 - 2:06 am | Permalink

    BTW, hope Kmac discusses vdare’s current Sailer piece on World Jewry’s next victims, China, India and Japan. You and I will financially foot the bill for the upcoming international coordinated jewish assault on the east.

    It seems jews have written the USA’s epitaph. They see the writing on the wall, they know they have killed yet another host. Oh well, onto the next sucker!

    What struck me in reading the JPPPPPP paper is their explanation of why china lags so far behind on innovation:

    This explains the impressive growth
    of Chinese research and development (R&D)
    expenditures, increasing between 1991 and
    2002 by 15.2 percent annually in real terms. In
    numbers of researchers China has now overtaken
    Japan (811,000 versus 676,000 R&D
    personnel), although there are differences of
    definition between the two countries. However,
    this remarkable effort was not matched by a
    comparable increase in scientific and technological
    productivity. Looking at patent indicators,
    which are the best available measure of technological
    innovation, China is lagging behind by
    a large measure. Its innovative performance or
    R&D output bears no comparison to its R&D
    expenditures or input. In 1999, China accounted
    for less than 0.2 percent of the world’s patents
    (half of which were owned or co-owned by
    foreign companies or persons), whereas the US,
    the EU, and Japan together accounted for more
    than 90 percent of the world total.12Some Chinese and Chinese-born scientists
    have begun to critically analyze China’s “low
    scientific profile on the world stage,” which one
    of them attributes to the “Confucian tradition
    of respecting customs and hierarchy”, “political
    conformity”, and “deference to authority and to
    existing paradigms [which] is a major barrier to
    scientific breakthrough.”13 These scientists have
    research experience in the United States and
    know that in the West, scientific and technological
    innovation requires an open society that
    allows for independent thought and free circulation
    of ideas. However, the question remains
    whether these Western characteristics can easily
    be introduced into China without jeopardizing
    the stability and cohesion of this huge country.
    China is said to have “the world’s longest tradition
    of successful autocracy,”14 and was often
    suspicious of novelty.

    I do believe that is precisely what Prof Kmac said in the masterpiece CofC.

    Have a nice collapse, everyone.

  49. Der weiße Engel's Gravatar Der weiße Engel
    July 12, 2010 - 10:52 pm | Permalink

    It would have been very advantageous for Cro Magnons to have very high IQs, perhaps an average of 120-130 or so (this is of course conjecture). A very rich diet would make this possible. The brain is biologically very expensive (burning 25% of metabolic calories), but the payoff would also be huge for a group if they could afford it.

    […]

    And in fact, there is strong evidence that Cro Magnons, who hunted the big Ice Age game and whose diet consisted of massive quantities of meat and protein, had significantly larger cranial capacities in comparison to modern humans (cranial capacity being strongly associated with IQ). Compared to the average White today, they were probably intellectual supermen, with much higher IQs. Sir Francis Galton believed, with good reason, that the ancient Greeks also had significantly higher intellectual ability than the average modern White person. The population of Athens was generally around 50,000 people, but their intellectual products are astounding, many times the per capita output of modern Whites. It is likely that the ancient Greeks had an average IQ that would dwarf that of modern Whites.

    [The Greeks’] later achievements by 400 BC are just stunning, and show monumental intellectual capacity. Other high-achieving groups such as the Minoans and Romans suggest that the Greeks were not alone. Clark suggests that a lot of the evolution happened during the Middle Ages, and uses evidence from 1250 on to suggest that this was a period of rapid evolution. Of course, even by 1250, the Greeks’ achievements had not been equalled yet. White societies at this time consisted of 90+% of the population being poor peasants, and much of what they were selected for was strong backs, not wealth-accumulating ability. This does not discount Clark’s assertion of evolution occurring, which I do agree with, but I think it was happening to a far lesser degree than he argues.

    Wow! This is amazing stuff, coming from a guy who just one month ago was insisting to me that the White genome had barely changed at all since ancient times, and will undergo no significant changes for centuries into the future. “Humans today are very similar to those of the medieval and ancient world. Whatever changes have happened have not been very dramatic,” is what he wrote then. I’m not sure I agree with all the details of his speculation here, but it’s good to see that I’ve made a convert. It takes a big man to admit he was wrong, as I’m sure Andrew will now hasten to do. ;-)

    In a kind of reverse Lynn/Flynn Effect, Andrew appears to have re-thought the matter and come to the conclusion that there has been a global decrease in IQ through the millennia. He is saying that the arrival of technological civilization has made White men stupider, on average, than they used to be in the time of ancient Greece, and that, despite their genius relative to modern Whites, the ancient Greeks were likely much stupider than their Cro-Magnon ancestors. Perhaps Andrew can also inform us whether this relationship is causal or mere coincidence. Does civilization itself cause a drop in IQ, and did the advent of technological civilization accelerate this drop? Or if not, then what causes the drop in IQ, I wonder?

    Tell us more, Andrew.

  50. mark's Gravatar mark
    July 12, 2010 - 10:18 pm | Permalink

    barb says:
    July 11, 2010 at 12:20 PM

    Mark said:
    “Feel free to write your ideas in an oblique, cryptic, or fictional format.”

    I think the problem will take care of itself.

    After all, we’re told by Jews that anti-semitism is just some sort of psychological pathology of Gentiles that periodically mysteriously arises, without any causal mechanism whatsoever, out of the ether.

    Surely, then, pogroms, do, too?

    Yes, pogroms arise, too.

    However, men act to make them arise. It will be easier for them to act if they have contemplated a range of tactical/battlefield scenarios that one man can carry out, limited only by his courage, equipment, and personal finances. It is my opinion that it is our job at this time to fill the Internet with such a range of guerrilla warfare tactics so that when each White man feels it’s his time to act he will be able to do so on short notice.

    What we see here on TOO/TOOblog is called “prepping the battlefield” in military parlance. The only way we will save our race is if, and only if, this preparation is eventually expressed on the battlefield.

  51. July 12, 2010 - 7:49 pm | Permalink

    Andrew: “I was trying to point out that Chris Moore is unhappy that Whites are characterized as “racists”, and was trying to defend them by saying they were not. He, like all of us, needs to get over that. We need to accept that we want to be separate, that we want to flock with birds of our own feather, and that this is a good thing, a moral thing, and we have every right to feel this way.”

    The point I was really trying to make is that Whites are no more racist than any other race, and apparently quite a bit less so, given their lack of ethnocentrism in favor of principle — a characteristic that is likely the product of social evolution itself from Greco-Roman heritage through modern Western Civilization. I theorize that Whites have evolved to the point of wanting to leave escape routes open so they don’t have to fester under the yoke of tyranny, be it social, political, religious or otherwise. “My race, right or wrong” ethnocentrism can quickly lead to corruption and abuse of power by ruthless factions, as we are seeing with Jewish ethnocentrism here and in Israel. I’m also thinking of early Americans wanting to escape corrupt Europe for opportunity and religious freedom.

    My larger point is that modern Whites have been indoctrinated into self-hatred by the Left (including academia) and by the powerful influence of axe-grinding ethnocentric Jewry to the point that today, many Whites and others believe that White people are indeed evil, and deserve their own displacement and dispossession.

    It is for this reason that I believe the fledging ethnocentric White nationalist movements are a healthy development, as a way of pointing out: “Hey, wait a minute, these characterizations of Whites are way out of line,” — but always with an eye on the fact that Whites evolved into disregard for ethnocentrism for a reason. Only perhaps now that White expansionism and fertility are stalling, increased ethnocentricity is yet another evolutionary tactic to solidify gains in freedom

    For example, I was very intrigued by this item on Occidental Dissent on “only White people care about the Constitution.”
    http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2010/07/06/leftist-logic-if-only-white-people-care-about-the-constitution-then-they-are-racists/

    If generally true, and there’s probably plenty of evidence to suggest that it is, the implications of that for America and for liberty and freedom from tyranny are huge.

  52. barb's Gravatar barb
    July 12, 2010 - 6:31 pm | Permalink

    “I am not suggeting that we accept the word “racist” and go about saying, “I am a proud racist!” I was trying to point out that Chris Moore is unhappy that Whites are characterized as “racists”, and was trying to defend them by saying they were not. He, like all of us, needs to get over that.”

    I found something that works. When I get called a racist, I say, “That’s boring. Now let me tell you WHY I think what I do.”

    The opponent is shocked that his magic shutter-upper incantation failed to work, and while his mouth is hanging open in astonishment, I get in a couple of hatefacts, which, because he’s vulnerable from the surprise, bypasses his pc mc-implanted crimethink stopper and burrows directly into his limbic system, where it will resurface late some long, lonely night to bedevil the poor fool with the undeniable truth of it all.

  53. barb's Gravatar barb
    July 12, 2010 - 6:12 pm | Permalink

    “Protestant Jeff Sessions, who has been able to pull together a really diverse group of White politicians including two or three Roman Catholics in opposition to the Jew agenda”

    Aye.

    In a healthy world where the Catholic Church wasn’t infested with termites, Sessions would be canonized.

    All hail St. Jeff!

  54. Jim's Gravatar Jim
    July 12, 2010 - 6:01 pm | Permalink

    I’m not sure that Catholics are the monolithic (and therefore easily categorized) group that the Jews are. Abortion surely puts them at odds with the Jews. When Mel Gibson made his controversial movie that pissed off ALL the jews, he was part of a ‘Charismatic’ Catholic group. Also, The zionist christian weirdos are mostly protestant, so when there’s collusion, it’s often in the form of protestant/jew. BTW, I’m protestant, not Catholic.

  55. bravetruth's Gravatar bravetruth
    July 12, 2010 - 5:35 pm | Permalink

    Is it as simple as these two retiring justices get a better book deal, more favorable press, and go to better parties by doing what they did?

    On the topic of Western or White as the better ‘banner’, why not just say ‘American’ or ‘Real American’. Everbody knows what it means or used to mean. People who look like Americans from the Fifties and Sixties, NASA people, Military people, boy scouts, farmers, inventors, small town people.

  56. Andrew's Gravatar Andrew
    July 12, 2010 - 5:12 pm | Permalink

    @Someday
    “Originally all races were very similar to each other because the first humans to enter Europe were probably very similar to Khoisan Bushman.”

    According to evolutionary thinkers, this is very true. However, this happened about 250K years ago (according to the most recent evidence we have today). The first humans to enter Europe were very much different than modern Whites. An honest biologist using classification methods would probably identify modern Europeans and Bushmen as two separate species, due to the vast differences between the two groups. As we mentioned, there is an incredible difference just in IQ, with the Bushman average of 54 versus the White 100 (Bushmen are extremely well adapted for their environment, and I am not suggesting that there is anything wrong with them, I am just noting the vast differences between 2 racial groups).

    Clark is discussing Whites from about 8000 BC versus Whites of today. Whites are very similar to their ancestors who lived 10K years ago, especially in appearance, and most probably in IQ and most behavior. Put one of the old Whites in a business suit and give him a haircut, and he is virtually indistinguishable from anyone else walking down main street. I think that Clark’s assertion that there has been evolution is valid, and I agree with you that the idea of what changes have happened in the meantime is fascinating.

    The problem comes in where Clark is looking at the intellectual capacity of modern hunter and gatherer groups, and although he doesnt mention this, I believe he is mainly looking at Bushmen and New Guinea islanders (possibly Aborigines as well). These racial groups are separated from Neolithic Whites by at least 200,000 years. This is a serious miscalculation, and skews much of his argument.

    Also, I think a lot of what he is talking regarding evolutionary changes has to do with IQ. The ability to acquire wealth strongly correlates with IQ, according to the Bell curve (IQ 125 individuals earn 8X what IQ 70 do). Likewise, rates of social dysfunction correlate strongly with IQ (less than 1% of IQ 125 individuals spend time in prison, as compared to 30% of IQ 70). I am not sure why Clark hardly even mentions the terms “IQ” or “intelligence” (if he ever does). One possibility is that he rejects the Bell Curve info, in which case he is working under a strong unintellectual bias. Another possibility is that he knows, but will not mention it due to breaking PC taboos, in which case he is open to suggestions of intellectual cowardice. I see some additional problems with some of the information he puts forward, but dont want to really get into it (such as using interest rates as evidence of higher intelligence, not recognizing that a better explanation is that the economic surplus had grown over time).

    ” an average of 6′2 suggests there was selection for size – for whatever reason – and the head may have got bigger as a side effect. Although they surely got slightly smarter than their small brained ancestors I doubt that the larger absolute head size is indicates a higher IQ then than now;”

    It would have been very advantageous for Cro Magnons to have very high IQs, perhaps an average of 120-130 or so (this is of course conjecture). A very rich diet would make this possible. The brain is biologically very expensive (burning 25% of metabolic calories), but the payoff would also be huge for a group if they could afford it.

    ” the Cromagnons had large brains but wolves have bigger brains than dogs and they are not smarter.”

    Wolves do have significantly larger brains than dogs do. It is very difficult/impossible to train a wolf, because they will stop a behavior as soon as the rewards stop (while a dog is easily trained to continue without reward). Wolves also lack the ability to read human faces, as well as other behaviors that are needed to survive in human settlements. But, wolves are significantly smarter than dogs, even the smartest domesticated breeds. Wolves have a much greater capacity to learn, and can be devilishly cunning. The wolf IQ makes them extremely well suited to surviving in the wild, and they learn numerous tricks to catch game that dogs are simply incapable of.

    “Unlike Dolph Lundgren Schwarzenegger does not have a particularly Cro Magnon like head but from what I’ve read of him he was always a very very hard worker who thought Americans lacked discipline.”

    Dolph Lundgren seems to be a good example of the old Norse, he apparently has an IQ of 160, and is a former Olympic athlete. I think we would find that both action heroes have very large head sizes. Chris Langan, the guy with supposedly the highest IQ in North America, apparently has a head size many standard deviations higher than average (a gigantic head=an astronomical IQ).

    ” A contrast to your stone age man who would be likely to have serious problems; how could he cope with alcohol, education or work without the necessary genetic adaptations which Clarke describes.”

    If a group had no previous experience with alcohol, it is likely that this could be a devastating problem for them, as we see with the American Indians. However, in regard to education, our brains take readily to the other intellectual tasks that society requires mainly based on IQ. The brain is very flexible. A high-IQ Cro Magnon could easily learn to read, and become a rocket scientist. Australian Aborigines (who never went through a period of agriculture or civilization) can read just fine, up to the competence of their IQs (62). The human brain’s capacity for visio-spatial reasoning can be used to conceive of a well-formed arrowhead or solve a complicated math problem; the very same brain cells can do both jobs very well.

    “Admittedly Europeans would be a bit better than this due to the need to store food for winter but I don’t think they would be able to fully cope with modern society. The reason we can is because of 10,000 years of selection for the qualities Clark describes.”

    Our detailed written records of European society only go back to about 800 BC or so, thus this is a question that is not easily solvable (there is earlier evidence but it is less useful for measuring individual intellectual ability). When we do go back to 800 BC, we see the ancient Greeks and their mythology and literature. In my opinion, their earliest literature shows minds that were in no way inferior to modern Whites’. Their later achievements by 400 BC are just stunning, and show monumental intellectual capacity. Other high-achieving groups such as the Minoans and Romans suggest that the Greeks were not alone. Clark suggests that a lot of the evolution happened during the Middle Ages, and uses evidence from 1250 on to suggest that this was a period of rapid evolution. Of course, even by 1250, the Greeks’ achievements had not been equalled yet. White societies at this time consisted of 90+% of the population being poor peasants, and much of what they were selected for was strong backs, not wealth-accumulating ability. This does not discount Clark’s assertion of evolution occurring, which I do agree with, but I think it was happening to a far lesser degree than he argues.

    “I linked to the Willets’ stuff on how special the English are because I believe they’re more unusual than Clarke realizes, especially elite WASPs . The tendency to self righteously stick it to their own people even if it costs them personally”

    I agree that there is a phenomenon of altruistic punishment, and I think this is related to peoples’ commitment to abstract principles, as well as being a method to regulate society. That tendency can be manipulated. I think altruistic punishment would better be described as a European genetic trait, not just a WASP cultural one though.

    “I wonder about the following :-

    Part of our task is to try to get over words like “racist”, to remove their power over us. We need to realize that our fear of them is in our mind, and thus has to do with our imagination

    What does that mean in practice Andrew, are you suggesting that we should accept or acquiesce in the characterization of our views as ‘racist’?”

    Generally, I am saying that we want to get to the point where we are immune from being paralyzed or distraught by being called “racist” or the other related PC terms (homophobic, sexist, fascist, etc.) Our fear of these terms is very much like any other irrational fear. Some people are scared to go out in public, others are frightened by cats and so forth. Such phobias are unhelpful for our being able to take necessary action.

    I am not suggeting that we accept the word “racist” and go about saying, “I am a proud racist!” I was trying to point out that Chris Moore is unhappy that Whites are characterized as “racists”, and was trying to defend them by saying they were not. He, like all of us, needs to get over that. We need to accept that we want to be separate, that we want to flock with birds of our own feather, and that this is a good thing, a moral thing, and we have every right to feel this way.

    Tactically, you dont agree that you are racist, but you should be free to say that you think your people and culture are great, that you are proud of your ancestry and heritage, that you wish to be part of a united people based on common ancestry and that you are most comfortable living around your kith and kin, people who share the same values and same culture.

    Some people like Spooky are apparently of the opinion that this is a bad idea, that you should not join together when under attack, because that would “just make things worse”. This seems to be European individualism at work, which although a great thing under certain circumstances, can be just as suicidal as WASP behavior, if not more so, when your people is facing dispossession and displacement in their own homeland.

  57. Tom's Gravatar Tom
    July 12, 2010 - 2:39 pm | Permalink

    @ Spooky & Barb

    I’ve got to tip my hat to Protestant Jeff Sessions, who has been able to pull together a really diverse group of White politicians including two or three Roman Catholics in opposition to the Jew agenda i.e. the Kagan nomination, illegal alien amnesty etc.

    It would be nice if Senate Democrats like Sherrod Brown of Ohio, and Jim Webb of Virginia would start to vote like Protestants—in public! Not the behind the scenes manuvering which they have been doing. I think they are both strong enough to resist big Jew money & big Jew media. Do Brown & Webb want to go down in the history books as stooges for the Jew homeland and the Jew agenda?

  58. barb's Gravatar barb
    July 12, 2010 - 1:12 pm | Permalink

    “political alliance in Congress is composed of Jews & Roman Catholics. The really crazy thing is that the Roman Catholics in Congress support the Jew agenda items even when it conflicts with expressed Roman Catholic interests!”

    Such has been true since Vatical II when John XXIII decided to make nice to the Jews.

  59. Someday's Gravatar Someday
    July 12, 2010 - 12:28 pm | Permalink

    Kennedy picked Byron White the only Supreme Court WASP of relatively recent times who actually became more conservative.

  60. Spooky's Gravatar Spooky
    July 12, 2010 - 12:24 pm | Permalink

    Tom, obviously nothing is working. But when we look around and wonder what paradigm, historically, has the chops, there is only one answer. And it’s the devil you love to hate. Sorry bro.

  61. Tom's Gravatar Tom
    July 12, 2010 - 11:09 am | Permalink

    @Jim

    As I have pointed out numerous times, the anti-White political alliance in Congress is composed of Jews & Roman Catholics. The really crazy thing is that the Roman Catholics in Congress support the Jew agenda items even when it conflicts with expressed Roman Catholic interests!

  62. Jim's Gravatar Jim
    July 12, 2010 - 10:10 am | Permalink

    Some additional thoughts: Someone mentioned the Kennedys. It’s hard to think of another family that has been, through it’s public life, so detrimental to the interests of whites in America. Is it possible that protestant discrimination against Catholics (like the Kennedys) in the late 19th/ early 20th centuries helped create this empathy for non-white immigrants/ethnic groups by Anglos over the last 60 years? I admire Dr. MacDonald’s courage and insight, but I’m not sure Jewish self interest can entirely explain the downfall of our ethnic group.

    I also think “affluenza” is a partial explanation. The path of least resistance, in reality, is very hard to argue with. As Spooky says, “Maybe because culturally we were given everything that mattered, and everything we fought and died for didn’t matter so much. So we ceded our moral authority to ideals which in fact had very little to do with our cultural patrimony.”

  63. Jim's Gravatar Jim
    July 12, 2010 - 9:31 am | Permalink

    Good riddance to the protestants on the supreme court. They went the way of their declining (in numbers) religious groups. The formerly mainstream Presbyterian and Episcopalian churches are now just fronts for liberal thinking that have abandoned any meaningful spiritual contributions to society. Social agenda is what they pursue.

    The Catholic church can still turn out consevatives, but much liberal thought resides there as well. Good luck getting any Baptist or non-denominational protestant on the Supreme court…they’re viewed as far too reactionary.

  64. Felix's Gravatar Felix
    July 12, 2010 - 9:03 am | Permalink

    It is possible to stand up for one’s Western identity (and if needs be one’s white identity) without becoming a klansman-like self-caricature. In fact, not to stand up for the group now is cowardly. We’re now under assault. There are those who want to take us down.

    But, it’s always better to go down with a fight than whining and whimpering like a coward. If anything the “Holocaust” and the Holdomor should have taught the world is that if you’re really going to die, at least die fighting instead of making it easier for or assisting your killers.

  65. Someday's Gravatar Someday
    July 12, 2010 - 4:41 am | Permalink

    Originally all races were very similar to each other
    because the first humans to enter Europe were probably very similar to Khoisan Bushman. Early upper paleolithic Europeans. I agree Europeans had diverged from other hunter gathers and their diet might have helped Cro Magnons reach their full potential height and intellect but an average of 6’2 suggests there was selection for size – for whatever reason – and the head may have got bigger as a side effect. Although they surely got slightly smarter than their small brained ancestors I doubt that the larger absolute head size is indicates a higher IQ then than now; the Cromagnons had large brains but wolves have bigger brains than dogs and they are not smarter.

    Unlike Dolph Lundgren Schwarzenegger does not have a particularly Cro Magnon like head but from what I’ve read of him he was always a very very hard worker who thought Americans lacked discipline. A contrast to your stone age man who would be likely to have serious problems; how could he cope with alcohol, education or work without the necessary genetic adaptations which Clarke describes.

    Human Evolution Is Continuing! ‘Harpending writes of his Bushmen friends:

    They weren’t very good at self-denial back in the early Neolithic period, and they aren’t very good at it even today: Efforts to teach Bushmen to become herders frequently fail when they eat all their goats.

    Admittedly Europeans would be a bit better than this due to the need to store food for winter but I don’t think they would be able to fully cope with modern society. The reason we can is because of 10,000 years of selection for the qualities Clark describes.

    I linked to the Willets’ stuff on how special the English are because I believe they’re more unusual than Clarke realizes, especially elite WASPs . The tendency to self righteously stick it to their own people even if it costs them personally, (‘altuistic punishment’) is the special WASP quality. They are still capable of doing a lot of damage so I wonder about the following :-

    Part of our task is to try to get over words like “racist”, to remove their power over us. We need to realize that our fear of them is in our mind, and thus has to do with our imagination

    What does that mean in practice Andrew, are you suggesting that we should accept or acquiesce in the characterization of our views as ‘racist’?

  66. Spooky's Gravatar Spooky
    July 12, 2010 - 1:00 am | Permalink

    Steven says: “Abstract thought? Principles? Ideals? Giving your life for ideals and truth? You are talking about the defining features of white people alone.”

    And you’re going to appeal to these people with a skin color argument?

  67. July 11, 2010 - 11:43 pm | Permalink

    Abstract thought? Principles? Ideals? Giving your life for ideals and truth? You are talking about the defining features of white people alone. That is why white nations alone of all the nations of the Earth are extremely low on corruption compared to all other nations. By definition corruption is putting desire before principles.

    This is also why we have science and freedom, and why Idealism as a philosophical school is European. I could go on an on. We need to know who we are and why that is important to save ourselves — by saying race does not matter, and that propositions matter and not the genetics that sustain the proposition, they destroy us easily.

    Great article.

  68. July 11, 2010 - 9:20 pm | Permalink

    I understand your point, and it’s a valid perspective, but there’s also an air of Stevens’ WASP high principles to it, as if its beneath Whites to get down into the trenches and slug it out with blacks, Jews and Hispanics. As we’re seeing, by being “above all that” they’re being totally displaced.

    On the other hand, if everyone starts playing that game, that’s no longer Western Civilization, and it becomes a chase to the bottom. But there’s got to be some kind of stick to wave in the faces of these ethnic demagogues to back them off, and maybe a respectable White nationalist movement would fit the bill.

  69. Spooky's Gravatar Spooky
    July 11, 2010 - 8:02 pm | Permalink

    However, by organizing white identity racial groups we would also be playing into the racial spoils system whereby we may end up simply being seen as another minority group. I want the whole culture, I want western values seen as cultural values, not honky values. If we’re white first at all, we risk ghettoization. Tell me they wouldn’t absolutely drool over recognizing whites as “stakeholders” in the cultural pie. Then we’re lost for good. If we accept that kind of dialectic, we’re done. That would be one ugly scenario.

  70. July 11, 2010 - 7:09 pm | Permalink

    I agree the Western heritage should be the primary focus, but I don’t think it hurts to have White identity groups countering the out-of-control White bashing. One reason organized Jewry has been so effective is that it established a kind of “zero tolerance” for criticism of Jews, and makes a big stink when it detects even a hint of Jew bashing in culture or media. On the other hand, White bashing and stereotyping has become part of the culture, which helps fuel the Left. If there were White identity groups raising hell when Whites were bashed and stereotyped in media and movies, we would see a lot less of it.

    The distasteful element of this is that it contributes to political correctness. But today, that’s the way the game is played, so by abstaining, it becomes open season on White bashing.

  71. Andrew's Gravatar Andrew
    July 11, 2010 - 6:45 pm | Permalink

    @Chris Moore
    “What is the psychology behind this White liberal insanity? It seems to be underpinned by a conviction that Whites are racists — which itself is a racist presumption. And what is racism itself, if not extreme ethnocentric tribalism?”

    As you note, the concept of “racism” relates to ethnocentrism and xenophobia, which are universal human traits and behavior patterns that make us what we are. We can no more remove our xenophobia than we can eliminate our “Fight or Flight” instinct. These things exist in everyone, have always been there and will always be there.

    Naturally, we fear people from other ethnic groups, however we might wish to hide this. When someone from a different group calls us a “Racist” when our actions betray our true attitudes (such as crossing the street when a thuggish-looking African is walking toward us or whatever), its ironic because the name-caller will almost certainly be harboring the standard ethnocentrism and xenophobia towards us subconsciously.

    It should be noted that while the epithet “racist” (and its relatives) does have a vague meaning, I am not sure if there actually is a definition for “racism”, except “bad”, because the word can mean pretty much anything, and of course a word that means anything means nothing. The word is more of a useful tool for gaining power over/dominating another person. The desire to dominate another person is very human.

    If I call you a “racist”, I am essentially saying “you are bad, you have now been shamed, now I have achieved the dominant position and you must assume submissive posture”, with my foot now on your neck and your face in the dirt. Social creatures use different behaviors to establish dominance, its an important part of social life in the animal world, from wolf packs to chimpanzee troops, although the method of gaining dominance and demonstrating submission differs. In gorilla tribes, the dominant male pounds his chest, roars and charges, while the submissive animal bows his head and averts his eyes. With dogs and wolves its about putting your fangs on the other creature’s neck.

    The reason that the term “racism” has such power is because being social animals, we are hard-wired to want others’ approval, and fear others’ dissapproval. Our conditioning plays a big part in this. For example, a lof of people have nightmares that they are walking around outside naked. If such an event happened in real life, it would be extremely traumatizing for most of us, because we would receive such extreme social disapproval, and we have been conditioned for such a long time that such behavior is taboo. Its not a problem for a baby, who thinks nothing of proudly waddling around in the buff, or for various primitive tribes where public nudity seems to be normal. Since they have not (yet) received the conditioning that the behavior is unacceptable, they have no problem with it.

    Part of our task is to try to get over words like “racist”, to remove their power over us. We need to realize that our fear of them is in our mind, and thus has to do with our imagination, not anything inherent in the word itself, or what it represents. Its similar to a person who has an irrational phobia (like fear of heights) and must unlearn his irrational fears (and this is not usually easy to do). Part of our recovery process relates to realizing that there is absolutely nothing wrong with our natural human instincts of xenophobia and ethnocentrism, which are not only normal, but universal. They are not immoral, in any way, shape or form. We have every right to favor our own kind, choose who we associate with, and avoid others based on race. In fact, immorality comes into play when others are forced by the state to surrender their freedom of association in the name of “Civil Rights”.

  72. Felix's Gravatar Felix
    July 11, 2010 - 6:13 pm | Permalink

    Western, not white, should be focus. Although the hope is that certainly the one will help the other.
    __________________________________________________________

    Well said. We need to teach about and recapture the greatness of our Graeco-Roman heritage, the Western tradition that’s made America and Europe the desired destinations for immigration for centuries now and given the world technology and traditions other cultures could only dream about.

    We need to begin shouting down the sob sisters who’ve made for themselves lucrative careers of vilifying the West and along with them “blaming it on whitey.”

  73. Andrew's Gravatar Andrew
    July 11, 2010 - 4:59 pm | Permalink

    @Someday

    “Gregory Clark’s latest draws on data from England to make his point:-
    As a whole these changes show societies becoming increasingly middle class in their orientation. Thrift, prudence, negotiation and hard work were imbuing themselves into communities that had been spendthrift, violent, impulsive and leisure loving”

    I think Gregory Clark puts forth some intriguing ideas, but I also believe that he seriously taints his argument by not recognizing race differences. He clearly believes that all races are very similar to each other, and discusses primitive black tribes with the assumption that neolithic White tribes were the same prior to the evolution they experienced in the Middle Ages. For example, he marks the lack of words for quantity among the Bushmen, which mirrors their very low IQs (in the 60s), and assumes that this inability to deal with large numbers would have applied to Neolithic Whites as well (who would have had IQs multiple standard deviations higher).

    Another element that he does not address is the need for high levels of protein to maintain a large brain size. The switch to agriculture during the Neolithic period resulted in a significant reduction in protein available to the population, when compared to hunter-gatherers. A peasant farmer generally consumes less calories, and less meat, than a hunter does, which selects for smaller-brained individuals.

    And in fact, there is strong evidence that Cro Magnons, who hunted the big Ice Age game and whose diet consisted of massive quantities of meat and protein, had significantly larger cranial capacities in comparison to modern humans (cranial capacity being strongly associated with IQ). Compared to the average White today, they were probably intellectual supermen, with much higher IQs. Sir Francis Galton believed, with good reason, that the ancient Greeks also had significantly higher intellectual ability than the average modern White person. The population of Athens was generally around 50,000 people, but their intellectual products are astounding, many times the per capita output of modern Whites. It is likely that the ancient Greeks had an average IQ that would dwarf that of modern Whites.

    The Norse probably represented individuals that had genes very similar to the ancient Ice Age hunter-gatherers. They had a protein-rich diet, mainly due to the wealth of the sea, and this is indicated by the fact that they were 2 inches taller than the average (such a diet probably insulated them from selection pressures for smaller-brained individuals that occurred elsewhere). When observing the exploits of the Norse, it is difficult to believe that their IQs or organizational abilities were lower than that of modern Whites. In relatively small groups, they travelled the earth conquering, enslaving, trading and building kingdoms among other ethnic groups, almost like blonde gods.

    Of course, IQ is only one aspect of Clark’s argument. He is discussing personality traits such as willingness to delay gratification for long-term gain, as well as abilities such as the talent to acquire and keep wealth, which are probably genetic in nature. It stands to reason that the requirements of the human environment between the Neolithic Age and 1800 would have created selection pressures that resulted in natural selection. This makes for interesting reading and is something to ponder.

    Its too bad that Clark imagines that stone-age African tribes (IQ of 70) also represent stone-age Whites (with an IQ probably higher than todays average of 100). This is a major problem, because he is using this for his assertion that older Whites were less capable and lazier than today (among other things). This seems unlikely, in light of the extremely difficult conditions of Ice Age Europe, which selected for intelligence and men of action. This is supported by our records of human activity and achievement during the Bronze and Iron Ages (the Romans, Phoenicians and many other groups were obviously extremely intelligent, active and capable).

    My expectation is that if you took a large group of Cro Magnon from 30K BC, or old Norse from 100 BC, and raised them as infants starting in 2010, upon reaching adulthood you would have a group of very capable individuals. I would expect them to not only achieve above-average success in our society, but also to be hard-core alpha males that were very energetic, and often rose to high-level leadership positions. They would probably demonstrate on average both higher IQs and superior athletic prowess, though they might be considered to have ADD, wanting to go out and hunt and explore rather than sitting about and reading (they would almost certainly not be lazy imbeciles without discipline who had trouble with math).

    In fact, have a pet theory that Arnold Schwarzenegger represents the old genes that by chance have combined in a modern child. He has a high IQ (135, apparently), a high level of athletic capacity, and boundless energy and drive (and an atypical, cave man skull shape). My guess is that such people were common among the ancient German tribes. Of course, I would describe his work as governor in terms of expletives and profane adjectives. However, his bad judgement in politics and elsewhere aside, he does seem to have good genes, and I think the ancients did as well.

  74. HA's Gravatar HA
    July 11, 2010 - 4:35 pm | Permalink

    You’re paying this lemming garbage more attention than it’s worth. If we controlled the culture JPS would happily sign the order expelling the Jews (if we’re that generous) . That’s not to say there’s nothing interesting about the WASP-just that it’s some generations back.

  75. Tom's Gravatar Tom
    July 11, 2010 - 3:35 pm | Permalink

    John Paul Stevens’ “principle”, as he might have expressed it to non-elite Whites, is: “F**k you losers, I got mine!” A typical elite WASP, he was a firm upholder, and even an author, of the current policy of genocide for his fellow Whites. The fact that he is going to be replaced by a Jewish lesbian doesn’t necessarily mean we should mourn his retirement.

    _________________

    LOL. :)

  76. Spooky's Gravatar Spooky
    July 11, 2010 - 3:11 pm | Permalink

    I just don’t think the “white thing” is going to fly with whites. Whites don’t suffer fools, and there are a ton of foolish whites. I think they’d rather free up the top end than lift up the bottom (which focusing on color alone will inevitably entail). There will always be a bottom but holding the top down is particularly painful (eg the wihte person who loses their spot at Harvard). I think blogs like this will inevitably “free up the top” by expanding the parameters of acceptable discourse. But focusing on white people is stifling.

    Western, not white, should be focus. Although the hope is that certainly the one will help the other.

  77. Spooky's Gravatar Spooky
    July 11, 2010 - 2:59 pm | Permalink

    Agree completely Chris Moore.

  78. July 11, 2010 - 2:44 pm | Permalink

    “It’s not that Stevens is anti-white. He’s anti-Western worldview, like most elite whites are, thanks to the takeover of academia.”

    I think anti-Westernism is implicitly anti-White and anti-Christian. It’s adherents may not openly argue that most Whites are inherently racist, but the inference is there, particularly vis-à-vis Whites who oppose systematic ethnic-networking and affirmative action. For example, to oppose Jewish over-representation on the Supreme Court gets one labeled an anti-Semite, anti-Semitism is racism, therefore those who oppose Jewish hegemony are racists (according to the narrative).

    So one need not actually espouse any racist doctrine to get labeled a racist; one need only oppose the concept of non-White racial identity politicking, or support the concept of White-identity politicking. It’s a kind of “heads I win, tails you lose” ideological jujitsu that implicates any Whites who opposes it as racist.

    So isn’t putting Whites in an ideological straight jacket like that a form of anti-White racism?

    I agree that academia has been a major force in constructing and imposing this intellectual climate.

  79. Spooky's Gravatar Spooky
    July 11, 2010 - 1:43 pm | Permalink

    It’s not that Stevens is anti-white. He’s anti-Western worldview, like most elite whites are, thanks to the takeover of academia. He’s sees cultural problems not as a result of individual behaviors, but as broad-based issues of social justice. So he’ll promote affirmative action and every element of the welfare state but deny the State’s interest in promoting decent behavior, like laws against abortion or pornography.

    I think it essentially comes from the Protestant emphasis on personal behavior over Truth – that you can’t judge someone else unless you pull the stick out of your own eye first (which is of course impossible). This results in a total inability to make any kind of value judgment that might benefit what you believe in – because you can’t trust your own eyes, so you really don’t believe in anything. So you fall for whatever the most current tripe coming down the pike tells you that good people are supposed to fall for.

    The only way to reframe the paradigm is to retake academia. People eat up the consensus of academia like they used to eat up the Truth of the Church. To retake Truth, we must retake what the People perceive to be the purveyors of Truth.

    I would say that academia is even more powerful than media. It is the new Church, and it is not in Western hands.

  80. July 11, 2010 - 1:35 pm | Permalink

    What is the psychology behind this White liberal insanity? It seems to be underpinned by a conviction that Whites are racists — which itself is a racist presumption. And what is racism itself, if not extreme ethnocentric tribalism? Jewry and the Left have dealt with their own racism by formulating a narrative that emphasizes and fixates upon historic examples of White racism like colonialism, and projecting the “guilt” onto all Whites. I think this has psychologically poisoned the minds of a lot of Whites against their own civilization.

    But I also think there have been economic forces compelling this process, too. For example, if we recognize that organized Jewry is financially profiting from this process, we can also see that Whites in the Left coalition who go along with it stand to financially benefit as well.

    Big Government-created economic incentives for Whites to sell their own people and civilization out is a huge problem. And of course, we know political Jewry’s modus operandi is to leverage Big Government against its enemies, and use it to extract maximum resources from society line their own pockets. But they’re not the only ones.

    So I would view Big Government Corporatist-Socialist looters like Bush/Cheney as equally culpable as liberal buffoons like Stevens, because they have been complicit in growing imperious government that is compelling this process forward.

  81. Kooler than Jesus's Gravatar Kooler than Jesus
    July 11, 2010 - 12:31 pm | Permalink

    MacDonald writes:

    “What strikes me is his strong sense of principle–even to the extent of making decisions that could not possibly be seen as helping his ethnic group. After all, that’s what being principled means: Doing something because you value an ideal, not because there is anything in it for you. If I don’t steal something because I am afraid of getting caught, it’s not a matter of principle. But if I refrain from stealing some money it even if there is no possibility of being caught and even if getting the money would mean a lot to me, then I am acting on principle.”

    Yes, but unfortunately there’s absolutely ZERO evidence that helping his ethnic group was ever a consideration for John Paul Stevens, even remotely. In fact, there’s every reason to think he got where he got in life precisely because he had no such concerns. Even a trace of something like that would surely have disqualified him.

    John Paul Stevens’ “principle”, as he might have expressed it to non-elite Whites, is: “F**k you losers, I got mine!” A typical elite WASP, he was a firm upholder, and even an author, of the current policy of genocide for his fellow Whites. The fact that he is going to be replaced by a Jewish lesbian doesn’t necessarily mean we should mourn his retirement.

  82. barb's Gravatar barb
    July 11, 2010 - 12:20 pm | Permalink

    “Feel free to write your ideas in an oblique, cryptic, or fictional format.”

    I think the problem will take care of itself.

    After all, we’re told by Jews that anti-semitism is just some sort of psychological pathology of Gentiles that periodically mysteriously arises, without any causal mechanism whatsoever, out of the ether.

    Surely, then, pogroms, do, too?

  83. barb's Gravatar barb
    July 11, 2010 - 12:15 pm | Permalink

    “Although the acronym WASP has “Anglo-Saxon” in it, this term generally refers to elite European/White Christians, who are most often Northern European protestants. ”

    Can’t we just coin a new term and start using it to refer to ourselves? WECH (Whites of European Christian Heritage) or something?
    WECH is lame, but surely someone among us pro-Whites can think of something accurate, flattering, pithy and catchy?

    I’ve been just saying White Americans lately, but that’s not really specific enough to indicate clearly that we consider Jews not-us (in view of the fact THEY consider THEMSELVES not-us and behave accordingly).

    I’ve heard “Euro-American Christians” used, but imo it’s too unwieldy and excludes those who are secular / agnostic, atheistic or pagan, but who are ours and on our side.

    If the word “heritage” were part of our acronym, it would clealy include people whose ancestors were both Euro AND Christian, even if they themselves are agnostic.

  84. TicTac's Gravatar TicTac
    July 11, 2010 - 12:12 pm | Permalink

    I was watching re-runs of The Ultimate Fighter, series 01 and Diego Sanchez who won the show said after his fight: “I did it for my people” Nice guy, eh ? He lives in America, was given a chance at a great career but he doesn’t even see Americans as his people! Could you imagine UFC legends such as Randy Couture or Chuck Liddell saying that ?

  85. Felix's Gravatar Felix
    July 11, 2010 - 11:00 am | Permalink

    For any group to survive, its members must recognize when circumstances, be they economic, historic, cultural etc., change. The circumstances have changed for our country putting us in peril from economic, cultural and social dangers. We need to recognize this and act accordingly.

    So, the first principle for anyone must be “Survive!” Even before fairness and openess must come group survival, and WASP’s need to recognize this.

  86. mark's Gravatar mark
    July 11, 2010 - 10:59 am | Permalink

    Dr. Macdonald has written an excellent assessment of John Paul Stevens and the looming Jewish and non-white oppression of Whites.

    Gentlemen, what are we going to do about it?????

    Feel free to write your ideas in an oblique, cryptic, or fictional format.

  87. Someday's Gravatar Someday
    July 11, 2010 - 10:36 am | Permalink

    Gregory Clark’s latest

    The Darwinian struggle that shaped human nature did not end with the Neolithic Revolution but continued right up until the Industrial Revolution. […] It created an accelerated period of evolution, rewarding with reproductive success a new repertoire of human behaviors – patience, self-control, passivity, and hard work – which consequently spread widely. And we see in England, from at least 1250, that the kind of people who succeeded in the economic system – who accumulated assets, got skills, got literacy – increased their representation in each generation.

    Interesting that ‘passivity’ was being selected for.

  88. TicTac's Gravatar TicTac
    July 11, 2010 - 10:35 am | Permalink

    “All the research shows that ethnically divided societies are prone to conflict and have less of a civic sense — for example, people in ethnically divided societies are less likely to contribute to public goods like health care”

    Agreed.

    People who support multiculturalism are setting the scene for conflict.

    I wouldn’t give nothing to any non-White causes.

  89. Someday's Gravatar Someday
    July 11, 2010 - 9:53 am | Permalink

    Although the acronym WASP has “Anglo-Saxon” in it, this term generally refers to elite European/White Christians, who are most often Northern European protestants.

    David Willett’s book points out how special England was even compared to France or Italy. Germanic ancestry made the WASPs’ Puritan forbears somewhat different from the beginning but that was not unique to England what did make England special was the social structure

    THIS distinction between extended and nuclear family structures has profound political implications according to Willetts. In the lands of extended families, “Helping relatives with contracts and jobs is not seen as corruption but as a moral obligation”. Moreover, “It means that voting is by clans: it is hard to have neutral contracts enforced by an independent judiciary when family obligations are so wide-ranging and so strong”.
    England’s roots as a unified nation state are more than 1000 years old. The common law emerged as a national institution more than 800 years ago:

    “But the Common Law is crucially not local law. You are bound by precedent, a body of case law that is consistent across the country. This what “common” means. … This makes it much harder to do special favors for kith and kin and so helps to ensure protection for the small nuclear family without extended networks of relatives.”

    Gregory Clark’s latest draws on data from England to make his point:-

    As a whole these changes show societies becoming increasingly middle class in their orientation. Thrift, prudence, negotiation and hard work were imbuing themselves into communities that had been spendthrift, violent,
    impulsive and leisure loving

    The English and the WASPs descended from them may be the result of an unusual degree of selection for impartiality. People from Stevens’ background lack that instinctual understanding of people’s tendency to favor their own which comes naturally to the non WASP. I’m sure they put this hereditary moral long-sightedness down to their superior rationality.

  90. Tom's Gravatar Tom
    July 11, 2010 - 9:41 am | Permalink
  91. Felix's Gravatar Felix
    July 11, 2010 - 9:38 am | Permalink

    FTA: “And now that the forces of liberal cosmopolitanism have won out, the WASPs — even the liberal ones — are being rapidly jettisoned by our new, substantially Jewish elite. The replacement of Stevens by Kagan is deliciously paradigmatic.”

    This is tragedy on a scale as grand as anything Aeschylus or Sophocles could have dreamt up. A WASP elite, dedicated to a proposition, the equality of all, is being replaced by an elite who is ethnocentric, obsessed with itself as a group superior through divine ordination to all others, and willing to unembarassedly and openly advance the interests of its own tribe to the detriment of everyone else.

    With such a group setting our the moral ethos, truly, we are doomed as a nation.

  92. July 11, 2010 - 9:18 am | Permalink

    “I suspect therefore that Stevens and Souter think, perhaps unconsciously, that the people who replace them will be just like them in the sense that they will uphold the same ideals. The republic will live on but with different faces–a utopian idea, to say the least.”

    Actually, that sounds like Johnson’s new piece on TOC, advising “White Nationalists” to give up their “decadent, backward looking, losing” pre-occupation with “the past” and “people who look like us” and culture and stuff and accept a dead, Dawkins world of biological materialism and pure chance [perversely styled as “positive” and “inspiring”] where the only matter for concern is the survival of genes.

    Wish you “racial realists” would make up your minds!

  93. Tom's Gravatar Tom
    July 11, 2010 - 9:16 am | Permalink

    Here’s a report on a WASP attorney named Edgar Steele being prosecuted by the Federal Government:

    http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=1154225&postcount=877

    Steele is a White Protestant who attends church.

  94. Andrew's Gravatar Andrew
    July 11, 2010 - 3:32 am | Permalink

    “(Most of these so-called “WASPs” are actually of German or French descent)”

    Although the acronym WASP has “Anglo-Saxon” in it, this term generally refers to elite European/White Christians, who are most often Northern European protestants.

    “Aren’t all these “WASP” ideals…simply masking a rather cold and brutal elitism?”

    In other words, you are suggesting that when people like Kennedy talk about high-minded principles such as ”the ideas of liberty and equality,” they are actually being disengenuous, that in reality they are just mean snobs. This is a difficult proposition, because their behavior and writings are typically very consistent in regard to their allegiance to those abstract principles. If we look at Souter or Kennedy’s essays, speeches and other evidence from grade school through college and then through their early and later careers, we will probably be inundated with what appears to be a commitment to principle, and will probably see relatively few indications of “cold and brutal elitism”.

    ” I think if these “ideals” were adversely affecting the “WASP” upper class in this country the way they do the middle and lower class they’d be dropped in a heartbeat.”

    You are suggesting that the principled-based beliefs and conduct exhibited by WASPs is shallow in nature, and would vanish if there were negative consequences. Yet there are very real negative consequences for WASPs, particularly through affirmative action and non-White ethnic nepotism, which significantly damage WASP education and employment opportunities, as well as that of their children. For example, they are largely squeezed out of elite schools that are essential for high-level careers. Only 25% of the student body of Harvard is White Christian (http://buchanan.org/blog/pjb-the-dispossession-of-christian-americans-241). The situation is similar in many elite occupations, from Law to elite government service. In this regard, WASPs suffer much more than middle and lower class Whites do from their adherence to high-minded principles such as freedom and equality. The fact is that principled people tend to hold on to their principles in spite of adversity.

    “In other words, perhaps their only ideal is to continue to live for what they’ve been tricked into sacrificing for and maintain some dignity, or admit they were tricked and be disgraced.”

    Highly principled and/or compassionate people have an achilles heel, they can be manipulated into behaving in ways that are not in their interests. Most WASPs probably do not understand the importance of race, which is a topic that is currently generally banned from public discourse. They have received their educations primarily in very liberal institutions, which do not include courses on ethnic interests, racial realism and the Culture of Critique. For most of them, as far as they know, they are acting in the best interests of humanity, willing to pay the costs of multiculturalism (affirmative action, etc.) for the good of mankind.

    We might agree that most WASPS are naive and deluded, that their behavior is ultimately suicidal, destructive and tragic. However, their motives are good, admirable and archetypically European. While a genetic trait of adhering to principle can be a grave, even potentially fatal weakness, it can also be an incredible strength. The early American Revolutionaries fought the war mainly on principles, the desire for freedom and self-government. They were willing to suffer extreme hardship for an extended period of time in the name of those principles. This will be critical for the ultimate success of the WN movement, which asks individuals to fight for and sacrifice for what are essentially abstract principles; the defense of their racial family and its future survival.

  95. Spooky's Gravatar Spooky
    July 11, 2010 - 12:03 am | Permalink

    Some Guy says: “I think if these “ideals” were adversely affecting the “WASP” upper class in this country the way they do the middle and lower class they’d be dropped in a heartbeat.”

    Unless dropping said “ideals” would entail admitting to yourself and your co-ethnics that, thanks to they themselves, they and their children have been enslaved in the country their forefathers founded.

    In other words, perhaps their only ideal is to continue to live for what they’ve been tricked into sacrificing for and maintain some dignity, or admit they were tricked and be disgraced.

    This is all a result of the loss of academia. The tragedy that was for our country cannot be overstated.

  96. Spooky's Gravatar Spooky
    July 10, 2010 - 9:12 pm | Permalink

    Somewhere along the line it has gotten into white genes that nothing worth fighting for is worth having; that only that which is given freely has value. Maybe because culturally we were given everything that mattered, and everything we fought and died for didn’t matter so much. So we ceded our moral authority to ideals which in fact had very little to do with our cultural patrimony. And we refuse to deal with the pain of this realization. So we conflate the two and make our situation even worse.

    Great article. Thanks.

  97. Some Guy's Gravatar Some Guy
    July 10, 2010 - 8:55 pm | Permalink

    Aren’t all these “WASP” (Most of these so-called “WASPs” are actually of German or French descent) ideals simply masking a rather cold and brutal elitism? I think if these “ideals” were adversely affecting the “WASP” upper class in this country the way they do the middle and lower class they’d be dropped in a heartbeat.

  98. me's Gravatar me
    July 10, 2010 - 6:02 pm | Permalink

    Stevens and Souter think, perhaps unconsciously, that the people who replace them will be just like them in the sense that they will uphold the same ideals
    how could they see the behavior of the jewish elite on a day to day basis and still think this? it boggles the mind

8 Trackbacks to "John Paul Stevens as a prototypical WASP"

  1. on August 19, 2011 at 5:28 pm
  2. on February 24, 2011 at 12:32 pm
  3. on February 16, 2011 at 10:23 am
  4. on July 27, 2010 at 1:18 pm
  5. on July 22, 2010 at 2:25 pm
  6. on July 13, 2010 at 12:24 pm
  7. on July 13, 2010 at 10:08 am
  8. on July 10, 2010 at 3:17 pm

Comments are closed.