A Thousand Points of White: One Strategy for Achieving White Nationalism

This essay is intended as a response and follow-up to the excellent recent article by Giles Corey, “American Roulette.”  Corey’s piece is passionate, clear, and well-written.  He makes a powerful and inspirational case, in a short space.  My intent here is to build on his ideas and add some needed details.  The chaos of the past few months has given us new opportunities to move forward.  In the spirit of Corey’s piece, I will be concise and blunt; the time for niceties is fast coming to an end.

Herewith is a brief outline of an argument and a strategy for establishing a functional form of White Nationalism.  For sake of clarity, I will express it in a series of numbered paragraphs.  Let’s start with the big picture:

  • The United States is irredeemably corrupt. It cannot be salvaged and it cannot be saved.  The entire political and economic infrastructure is lost.  We have neither a democracy nor an oligarchy, but rather a Judeocracy: rule by Jewish power and Jewish money.  Jews are assisted at all levels by Whites (and others) who act as their willing front-men, and who thus disguise the deeper workings of the system.  Republicans, Democrats, Greens, Libertarians—they’re all the same.  No party has the guts to confront the Jewish power structure.  The media, of course, is also hopelessly corrupted by Jewish influence; witness the battle between CNN, MSNBC, and even Fox News, to see who can display greater fealty to Jewish interests.[1]  Thus we can expect nothing but biased and malicious reporting from any of them.  The American system cannot be reformed; we should not even try.[2]
  • American corruption can work to our advantage. As the US continues on its path of decay and decline, more and more opportunities will emerge for White nationalists.  The American Judeocracy will inevitably destroy itself; it’s only a question of time.  Jewish misanthropy and kleptomania will consume itself and the whole federal infrastructure in the process.  However, the American system will likely not collapse in a sudden, catastrophic paroxysm.  Rather, it will be a slow and steady loss of integrity, of stability, of coherence, and of credibility.  This is what has happened in the latter stages of most all imperial-like political entities in history.  Eventually, the political system and the ruling authorities simply lose the willpower and ability to intervene against rebels or invaders.  We are seeing precursors of this in the Seattle “autonomous zone.”  This works massively to our benefit.
  • White Nationalists should assist the process of decline. The more ethnic diversity, more economic disruption, more political division, and more crime that we experience, the faster will be the process of decline.  As bad as it looks, “Black Lives Matter” is doing us a favor.  Arsonists and looters are doing us a favor.  The moronic liberal elites who defend these low-lifes are too ignorant to realize that such actions are undermining their very system of power.  Recent events are making clear to millions of Whites that a multiracial, Jewish-run America will be a catastrophe in the future.  And they can’t be too happy about it.

So, let’s help the process along:  More Latino and Asian immigration!  More Blacks in corporate America!  More Jews in Washington!  More aid for Israel!  More affirmative action!  More leftist street marches!  Defund the police!  More looting!  More arson!  We can use the liberal Zeitgeist against itself—use its own logic to drive it into the ground.

  • Washington is rapidly losing the moral and political basis for effective action. Trump’s various stupid proclamations and (in)actions and the paralysis in Congress are all good signs.  We are seeing federal dysfunction at all levels: in the response to the coronavirus, in various military conflicts around the globe, and in international relations.  The US is being pushed around by hostile nations, and our allies—even the Jewish-dominated ones in Europe—are increasingly ignoring us.  Again, this is all good news.
  • Whites deserve, and have the right, to self-rule. There is no good reason why Whites anywhere should submit to rule by Jews, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, or any combination of these.  This is not because such people are “inferior”; rather, every race and every ethnicity has its own values and its own culture, rooted in genetics, and these should not be imposed on unwilling Whites.  Whites have the right to be proud of their values and their cultural achievements, which comprise the highest and greatest achievements in human history.  Let the other races build their own nations and their own cultures, in their own lands.[3]  And let them live with the consequences.
  • White self-governance cannot be achieved at a national level in the US—not for a century, at least. We need to give up on Washington.  The federal system needs to end, and governance rebuilt at the local level.  A nation of 330 million is ungovernable, even of a single ethnicity; a multiracial nation of this size is utterly unsustainable.  Perhaps someday, many decades down the road, a kind of White American coalition or confederation will be possible; but not in our lifetimes.  Again, this is not bad news.
  • Start local, start small. Given that there will not be a federal White nationalist movement or party, we need to look for local or state-level groups advocating White self-rule—or at first, White identity and White self-interest.  Here’s one suggestion:  Start a local “White Lives Matter” group.  What’s good for the goose…  This process can be very small and very simple.  One person can reserve a room in a library, school, or church basement.  One person can reach out to friends, spread the word on social media, or print up flyers to post around town.  Pick a day and time, book a room, advertise—and see who comes.  Even a small turnout is a start.  We ought not forget that, in Germany many years ago, National Socialism began with weekly meetings of just seven or so men (“the same old seven,” lamented Hitler)[4].  If you get seven at first, consider it a victory.
  • “It’s just a club.” At first, any such “WLM” group will likely be a mere discussion group:  politics, news, local developments.  Think of it as a social club:  like-minded Whites getting together, on a regular basis, to discuss issues of common interest.  This alone, as innocuous as it might seem, is a radical step in today’s climate.  The sheer existence of a WLM group will likely draw negative attention; be prepared, stay cool, stay calm, stay rational.  You have a right to your own self-interest.  Use negative publicity to your advantage.  Remember: Anyone who accepts BLM but rejects WLM is an evil “racist.”
  • Become politically active. As the group grows, establish some structure:  take attendance, collect modest annual dues, have officers.  Watch out for spies and moles; they are inevitable, but can be managed.  Once the group is stable, then you are in a position to engage in local politics.  Write op-eds or post things on a local blog.  Make yourselves known; be open, be public.
  • Have definable and clear local objectives, moving toward a White society. It doesn’t matter if you live in a city, suburb, or rural area:  establish a group, meet regularly, and get engaged.  If your area is already mostly or all White, there should be little resistance.  If it is majority-minority, consider moving.  If your area, like mine, is a mostly-White suburb but with encroaching non-whites, put up resistance.  The larger objective is for White self-determination and self-rule, and this starts by making non-whites realize that they are no longer welcome here.  Pick a local geographic region—neighborhood, city, or county—and declare it White.  Don’t hold a vote, don’t look for a majority—just declare it.  This is essentially what a bunch of Seattle hooligans and degenerates recently did; again, that blade cuts both ways.  How outrageous!—a dozen (say) local folks declare their neighborhood or city to be White!  And then they have the nerve to say, publicly, that non-whites are not welcome, and should leave!  Revolutionary!  But that’s what it takes.  No ugliness, no violence, no cross-burnings.  Just a polite and civil statement:  This is now a White area, and non-whites are no longer welcome. Orania in America.
  • Develop a local identity. This will likely mean creating your own distinctive logo or slogan.  Put them on stickers, letterhead, flyers, T-shirts, flags, yard signs.  Spread them around.  You want to see these things on cars, houses, neighborhood kiosks, etc.  Even people who won’t attend a meeting might be sympathetic and put a sign in their window.  Public visibility has a tremendous effect.

Let’s pause here a moment.  By the above simple and elementary acts, Whites everywhere can take concrete steps to reassert their right to self-governance.  Groups need not adhere to any specific ideology, nor align with any particular White movement.  To be counted under the broad heading of “White nationalist,” groups need only endorse something like the follow general precepts:

  • The White race is of inherent value to humanity, and as such deserves protection and defense.
  • Whites have an intrinsic right to self-rule and self-governance.
  • Whites everywhere are under threat due to (a) declining numbers, (b) declining physical, mental, and moral health, and (c) loss of political autonomy and self-government. These threats are various and complex, and require action on several fronts to address.
  • The chief threat to White well-being comes from the global Jewish lobby, which has an inherent interest in seeing a general decline in White prosperity and a loss in White political power. Jews must therefore be confronted and challenged at all levels of society.
  • All humans are, by nature, best suited to live in social and environmental settings from which they evolved—societies that are broadly uni-racial and monocultural. Humans have little or no evolutionary experience living with diverse races or ethnicities, and doing so causes inevitable problems.  Therefore, racial and cultural diversity have profound negative effects on society.
  • The only long-term solution for many present-day problems is to restore human society to its natural and original conditions—uni-racial and monocultural, broadly speaking. This entails political separation and/or expatriation of minority peoples.
  • As a rough provisional goal, White regions of self-governance ought to aim for a minimum of 95% White populations, with all non-White minorities numbering, collectively, less than 5%. Jewish numbers ought to be severely limited, amounting to not more than 0.5% under any circumstances.
  • Only Whites will be fully enfranchised—that is, possess the right to vote, and to hold public office. All others will have minimal civil rights, perhaps on par with a foreign tourist today—basic legal protections, but little more.

Most any sane White person who wishes to live in a stable, secure, and prosperous community ought to accept these points.  Those who do not are likely either (a) paid to oppose them, or (b) brainwashed by our present Judeo-centric culture and academia.  The brainwashed can be educated, but the sell-outs, especially the White ones, are utterly contemptible; they deserve the harshest punishment we can muster.

Additionally, we need not worry excessively about who “counts” as White.  In the vast majority of cases, it is obvious:  those whose ancestry derives from indigenous European peoples and nations.  There are ambiguous cases, such as Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia, that deserve more discussion.  More important, though, is who is not White:  Jews are not White, despite their own frequent proclamations to the contrary.  Arabs or other Middle Easterners are not White.  Hispanics and Latinos are not White.  ‘White’ is not simply a matter of skin color; it is also a question of heritage, of worldview, of culture, and of values.  Don’t be fooled by light skin or blond hair.[5]

This said, we can console ourselves in the fact that America is still a predominantly White nation, and will be so for many years to come.  White Americans currently number about 195 million, in a nation of nearly 330 million.  And even though our numbers are projected to decline slightly in the coming decades, we will still long be the numerically-dominant ethnicity.  Hispanics here could top 100 million by 2050, but that is roughly half of White numbers; Blacks will not number more than 55 million or so, and Asians not more than 45 million.  And we mustn’t forget that American Jews number only some 6 million.  One of our strengths is our numbers, and we must always bear this in mind.  Jews and other non-Whites certainly know it, and they fear it.  Large numbers of active Whites spell doom for them.

Still, based on combined effects, America will be a ‘majority-minority’ nation at least by 2045, and coalitions of non-Whites, led by Jews, could soon exercise even more power than they do at present.  And the trends for the end of this century are even more dire.  This is unacceptable, hence the urgent need for White action on many fronts.

Let’s conclude with a few final points, in our drive for White nationalism.

  • Gradually assume more power, quietly and nonviolently. As local White or WLM movements grow, and as intimidated non-Whites move out, White groups will be able to assume a greater civic role, just by default.  Volunteer groups can provide social services, self-police, and participate in local schools.  White nationalists will then naturally come to gain power in local politics, exercising yet more autonomy.  All the while, the autonomous zones should continue to grow, by declaration.
  • The biggest threat will come from local and state police, and potentially state National Guards. Small, decentralized White autonomous zones generally need not fear the feds.  Yes, we all remember Waco and Ruby Ridge, but those were anomalies of the past.  With a degraded federal justice system, and with (hopefully) dozens of White zones popping up around the country, the feds will be in no position to confront them.  The larger threat, I think, is from local and state authorities.  Fortunately, these groups are now being alienated on a large scale.  As current policemen resign in disgust, less and less qualified people will take their places, resulting in growing inefficiency and incompetence.  Eventually they will be unable to, or chose not to, take action against peaceful civilian groups who only seek self-governance.  Remember, the goal here, at least initially, is to create White autonomous zones which are self-governing and relatively independent from state or federal authorities.  The central tactic is to ‘walk away slowly,’ rather like you might do when confronted by a maniac with a large knife.  Don’t antagonize, don’t threaten—just walk away.
  • Undermine Jewish financial power. Jewish power derives almost exclusively from their vast wealth; 6 million American Jews control some $50 trillion in assets.[6]  But this is denominated in corrupt, inflated, debt-ridden, and intrinsically valueless US dollars.  Therefore, we need to declare the US dollar worthless, and move our financial assets into new, local currencies—perhaps something we might whimsically call ‘Aryan Bucks.’  AB’s could, by law, be held and spent only by Whites.  They would be declared worthless and illegal in the hands of Jews or other non-Whites.  At first, both currencies would have to circulate in parallel, but as quickly as possible, Whites would want to migrate to their own financial system.  The political and economic benefits from this step alone would be enormous.[7]
  • Accelerate growth of autonomous zones. As White zones grow, and as disaffected Whites move into the newly-declared regions, the remaining areas will grow darker in complexion.  This will only accelerate the decline of multiracial America.  Ideally, a positive feedback situation will emerge in which Whites rapidly move into local safe-zones as the other regions collapse.  This makes expansion all the easier.

Numerous local White zones, incidentally—meaning, several in each state or large city—make for a much more practical strategy than, say, picking a few large rural areas.  There aren’t many White Montanans or Californians ready to move to rural Arkansas, but they might be willing to move an hour or two away to a local zone in a familiar area.

  • Be prepared to fight, as a last resort. If we are smart, we can achieve nearly everything we want non-violently.  But sadly, that may not always be the case.  Therefore, as Corey states, we will need to be armed.  At present, something like 35 million White households own at least one gun; presumably, most by the man in the family.  So let’s say we have 35 million armed White males in this country—an awesome force, indeed.  If there is one thing Jews and Blacks fear more than White men, it’s White men with guns.  I wouldn’t hesitate to state that armed White American civilians constitute the most formidable fighting power on Earth.  No one—not even the Jewish-run American military—could defeat them.  If the US military can’t subdue a few thousand low-IQ Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan, they haven’t a prayer against millions of pissed-off Whites.  This is our ace-up-the-sleeve.  But we need to use it judiciously.

Ideally, White autonomous zones would pop up like mushrooms around the country:  a few in each major city, several in the rural areas of each state.  Under good circumstances, they might grow and join together, combining their collective power.  These “thousand points of White,” as I like to think of them, would pose an insurmountable problem for federal and local authorities, especially if they were peaceful, and especially at the early “club” phase.  Being decentralized, there is no single pressure point for the feds to squeeze; they would have to address multiple, simultaneous local issues at once.  And if there were still on-going riots, or economic chaos, or some new pandemic, …well, the authorities will quickly reach the end of their rope.  And then we win.

Thomas Dalton, PhD, has authored or edited several books, including a new translation series of Mein Kampf, and the book Debating the Holocaust (4th ed, 2020).  For all his works, see his personal website www.thomasdaltonphd.com


[1] Sean Hannity of Fox is particularly pathetic in this regard.  His repeated and unconditional defense of Israeli and Jewish interests is utterly appalling.

[2] Throughout the South, they have signs saying “Pray for America.”  What they should say is “Pray for America’s destruction—and soon.”

[3] Just recently, CNN reported on the nation of Ghana, which is inviting Black Americans to “come home” and resettle there.  An excellent plan, for all concerned!

[4] Mein Kampf, volume one, section 12.11.

[5] Mixed-race individuals are also problematic, but again, they are a small minority.  Roughly speaking, we can say that anyone with three-quarters or more of White heritage counts as White, presuming that they do not adhere to non-White values or culture.

[6] See my article here.

[7] The idea of local currency is well-established in the US.  Wikipedia lists over 100 active local currencies.

The Tale of Bob Mathews

In 1983, The National Alliance—a white activist organization founded and headed by William Pierce—held its annual convention in Washington, D.C.  A young mine worker from the Pacific Northwest by the name of Bob Mathews was scheduled to give a talk at the convention.  Mathews had been an Alliance member for three years and actively recruiting new members for the organization among the farmers and ranchers and working people around where he lived in Washington State.  Dr. Pierce asked Bob to tell the people at the convention how his efforts were going, and about the situation generally in his part of the country.  Bob wrote out his speech on his dining table at home and flew out to D.C. for the conference.1

The Bob Mathews those in attendance saw at the podium was a boyish-looking man thirty years of age.  He was about 5’7” and had a trim muscular build.  He was good-looking with even facial features.  His dark brown hair was short and parted to the side and fell forward onto his forehead.  Those who knew Bob said he had hazel eyes that shone with intensity and purpose.  They saw him as a serious and forceful person.  Even those who disliked his politics liked Bob the man.   In pictures I have seen of him, he reminds me of an army enlisted man home on leave, or the young working-class fathers I see walking past the stores in shopping malls with their wives, their young children in strollers.

An audio tape exists of Bob’s talk. His voice is youthful. There is a tension and fervor in his delivery that gives a sense of immediacy and electricity to the occasion.  Bob talked about ten minutes, not long.  An excerpt from what he had to say that day in the late summer of 1983 gives a sense of his message:

My brothers and sisters, from the mist-shrouded forested valleys and mountains of the Pacific Northwest I bring you a message of solidarity, a call to action, and a demand for adherence to duty as members of a vanguard of an Aryan resurgence and, ultimately, total Aryan victory.  The signs of awakening are sprouting up across the Northwest, and no more than among the two-fisted farmers and ranchers.   The task is not going to be easy.  TV satellite dishes are springing up like poisonous mushrooms across the domain of the tillers of the soil.  The electronic Jew is slithering into the living rooms of even the most remote farms and ranches.  The race-destroying dogs are everywhere.  In Metaline Falls [the town where he lives], we have broken the chains of Jewish thought.  We know not the meaning of the word “mine.”  It is “ours”: our race, the totality of our people.  Ten hearts, one beat!  One hundred hearts, one beat!  Ten thousand hearts, one beat!  We were born to fight and die and to continue the flow of our people.  The future is now!  Stand up like men and drive the enemy to the sea!  Stand up like men and swear a sacred oath upon the green graves of our sires that you will reclaim what our forefathers discovered, explored, conquered, settled, built, and died for!  Stand up like men and reclaim our soil!  Look toward the stars and proclaim our destiny!  In Metaline Falls we have a saying: Defeat, never!  Victory, forever!

Bob’s talk received a standing ovation.  He would be dead in a little over a year.

*  *  *

Robert Jay Mathews was born in Marfa, Texas in 1953 and grew up in Arizona around Phoenix.  From the time he was a teenager, Bob had a fierce racial pride in being a Caucasian.  It wasn’t primarily a matter of prejudice against minorities—harboring antagonistic feelings toward them, resenting them—as is usually attributed to whites who hold strong racial views.  Bob wasn’t so much against anything as he was for something: white people.  He held the conviction that it was white men who had created the greatness that is Western Civilization.  He was convinced that America was in a decline and that whites were being brought down to far less than they once were, and that they had to do something about it.

When still a teenager, Bob joined the ultra-conservative John Birch Society, and he tried to start a survivalist-type group called the Sons of Liberty, but that didn’t get very far.  He also got involved with a tax-protest movement in Arizona.  He wound up getting arrested and put on probation for not paying his taxes.

After high school, Bob didn’t go on to college, much to the disappointment of his parents.  He told them that he didn’t want to go through all the liberal propaganda they shove down your throat in college, and anyway, he wanted to get on with his life.  He wanted to get out of Phoenix, that was for sure.  There were too many laws, too many urban problems, too many minorities, and just too many people in general.

Bob got out a map of North America and started running his finger over it.  His finger came to rest on an isolated village in Washington State, Metaline Falls, the last town before the Canadian border.  Bob loaded up his pickup and drove to Metaline Falls to begin a new life.  Right away, he found a laboring job in a lead and zinc mine.  It wasn’t long before he could afford to buy fifty acres of land and put a mobile home on it.

A writer describes the place Bob went to:

Minorities were virtually absent from the Metaline Falls area, and a white man living there could imagine that he was existing in a country that wasn’t ethnically diverse or full of crowded, complicated cities.  A man could dream of starting over here, of rebuilding his life from scratch.  Mathews loved the landscape the town was set in.  Canada’s Selkirk Mountains rose in the distance.  At dawn, deer walked across the main street of Metaline Falls.  Heavy snow only made the hills and evergreens more beautiful.  God’s country.  It was the kind of climate one would find in northern Europe, where the Aryan people had flourished before their heirs came to America.  In centuries past, those ethnic groups had given rise to Norse and Viking sagas, grand tales of the courage and strength of northern warriors in battle.   They had no fear of death: if they perished heroically, the Valkyries (the handmaidens of Odin, the Supreme Being of Norse mythology) would whisk their souls away to Valhalla, where they’d be enshrined in the great hall of immortality.  A modern-day religion, Odinism, has sprung from these sagas.  Bob Mathews was familiar with it and liked it.  He regarded it the same way he regarded the Northwestern Passage—both could inspire a man to become a hero.2

Bob wanted to start a family, and he met his wife in an unconventional way, through an ad in the nationally circulated Mother Earth News.  His ad read, “Looking for a mature, intelligent woman, 18-25, to share my life and land in Washington.”  One-hundred-thirty women replied.   The letter that most caught Bob’s attention was from a Kansan who had moved to Wyoming after college by the name of Debbie McGarrity.  Debbie wrote Bob that she thought the most important job a woman could do was to raise children.  “You can’t have a good society unless the home is a decent place,” Debbie wrote.  Bob drove to Wyoming to meet Debbie.  She moved to Metaline Falls and they were married in 1976.  Debbie and Bob didn’t have children of their own, but they adopted a son.

Bob had really taken to Dr. Pierce’s book The Turner Diaries.3  He pored over every word in the book and gave it to his friends along with his highest recommendation.  But the thing about Bob was that he wasn’t content to just read the book and agree with what it said.  Bob was a man of action.  He had a fire burning inside him.   He was going to create an Order of his own like the one in the book, and start a revolution like the one he had read about.  Bob meant business.

Right after Bob returned home from his speech at the National Alliance convention, he gathered together eight men in a barracks-like structure he had erected near his mobile home.  “I’ve asked you to come here because I think we share a common goal.”  Earlier, he had talked to them about forming an Order like the one in The Turner Diaries, a group of racial kinsman who would let their deeds do their talking for them.  The goal Bob had in mind was to carve out a part of eastern Washington as a homeland for the white race, purged of Jews and minorities.  They would use The Turner Diaries as a blueprint for getting that done.  “I’m telling you now,” Bob said, “if any of you don’t want to get involved in this, you are free to leave.”

No one left.

“I’m going to ask each of you to take an oath that you will remain true to this cause.  I would like to remind all of you what is at stake here.   It is our children and their economic and racial survival.  Because of that, I would like to place a white child before us as we take this oath.”  A six-week-old daughter of one of the men was placed in the center of the circle as a symbol of a Caucasian future they were about to pledge to create.  She stared up at the figures looming above her in the glow of the candles.

The men clasped hands and recited an oath of loyalty and commitment to their race and to their cause Bob had written:

I, as an Aryan warrior, swear myself to complete secrecy to the Order and total loyalty to my comrades.

Let me bear witness to you, my brothers, that should one of you fall in battle, I will see to the welfare and well-being of your family.

Let me bear witness to you, my brothers, that should one of you be taken prisoner, I will do whatever is necessary to regain your freedom.

Let me bear witness to you, my brothers, that should an enemy agent hurt you, I will chase him to the ends of the earth and remove his head from his body.

And furthermore, let me bear witness to you, my brothers, that if I break this oath, let me be forever cursed upon the lips of our people as a coward and an oath breaker.

My brothers, let us go forth by ones and twos, by scores and by legions, and as true Aryan men with pure hearts and strong minds face the enemies of our faith and our race with courage and determination.

We hereby invoke the blood covenant and declare that we are in a full state of war and will not lay down our weapons until we have driven the enemy into the sea and reclaimed the land which was promised to our fathers of old, and which through our blood becomes the land of our children to be.

The group obtained a trail-clearing contract with the U.S. Forest Service, but that didn’t bring in enough money fast enough.  Bob and two others in the group robbed a porn shop in Spokane, Washington.  One of Bob’s partners slugged one of the clerks.  Their take was $36.

Bob went into a Seattle branch of Citibank, handed the teller a note and walked off with almost $26,000.  A snapshot exists of a smiling Bob Mathews in a long-sleeve flannel shirt holding a Halloween trick-or-treat bag containing the money.

The group captured the courier of an armored car while it was parked in front of a Fred Meyers department store and made off with $43,000.

They hit another armored car, this one parked in front of a Bon Marché food market outlet.  The take in this one was a half-million dollars.

The Order bombed an adult movie theater in downtown Seattle and a Boise, Idaho synagogue.  Neither bomb did much damage.

The group talked about people to assassinate.  Names thrown out included Henry Kissinger, David Rockefeller, and Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Law Center.  The person they wound up taking out was a Jewish radio call-in host in Denver named Alan Berg.  The killing inspired part of the film Talk Radio.  One of the Order had lived in the Denver area and was very put off by Berg, who went off on monologues about the joys of oral sex, the flaws in Christianity, why whites were afraid of blacks, and how white women fantasize about sleeping with black men.

Bob and several others of the Order drove to Denver.  They ambushed Berg getting out of his car in front of his apartment.  One of the members of the Order, not Bob, started firing from close up.  Bullets hit Berg in the face, neck, and torso.  The garage door behind Berg splintered from the spray of bullets.  When Berg was found lying face up in a pool of blood, the cigarette he had been holding was still lit.  Autopsy reports couldn’t be sure how many shots there were because Berg was twisting at the time he was shot, although it was probably around twelve.  Two slugs struck near Berg’s left eye and exited on the right side of his neck.  Others hit the left side of Berg’s head and exited from his neck and the back of his skull.

The armored-car stick-ups continued.  The biggest one took place on the side of a highway near Ukiah, California, in the northern part of the state.  Bob and 11 others in two pickup trucks forced a Brinks truck to stop and jumped out of their trucks wearing bandannas over their faces.  One of them held up a sign that read “Get Out or Die.”  Bob jumped onto the front bumper of the truck and shouted for the two guards to get out, but they seemed frozen and didn’t move.  One of the robbers blew dime-sized holes in the windshield with an automatic weapon.  That did the trick—the guards opened the door and scrambled out.  

All this was happening with traffic going by on the highway.  People gawked as they went by, and some stopped their cars.  It must have seemed unreal to the passers-by, like a movie.  The group started a chain to unload the bags of money out of the money compartment in back of the armored truck.  They had given themselves five minutes to complete the job, and it was approaching seven minutes.   Somebody could have called the highway patrol.  A traffic jam—they hadn’t thought of that until now—could block their way out.  They had to get out of there!

Bob was inside the truck frantically scooping up money bags and passing them on.  In all the excitement, he didn’t notice that the 9mm pistol he was carrying had fallen out of his pocket.  It turned out to be a fateful error, because the gun was traced to him and the FBI knew whom it was looking for.

Finally, the men jumped in their pickups and sped away, tossing nails out of the back to slow down anyone chasing them.

The Order made a clean getaway (except for the gun left behind), and when they counted up the money they found that the take was a whopping 3.6 million dollars.  They used some of the money for salaries, and most of them quit their regular jobs.  Money went into things like mobile homes and a ski condo.  They purchased 110 acres in Idaho and 106 acres in Missouri to use as paramilitary camps.  Money went for all-terrain vehicles and guns and ammunition.  Two members of the group formed a company called Mountain Man Supply Company with the intention of using it to provide supplies to the Order.

Like the fictional Order in The Turner Diaries, Bob Mathews’ Order counterfeited money.  Along with the dropped pistol, the counterfeiting activity turned out to be Bob’s downfall.  One of the people who passed the money got caught.  In return for the FBI going easy on him, he told them when he was scheduled to meet Bob at a Sheraton Motel in Portland, Oregon.

On the day of the meeting, FBI agents and Portland city SWAT team members converged on the motel.  Bob was in room 24.  The other guests were herded into the motel’s small lounge and told to keep their heads down.  Bob went outside his room to stretch and spotted a man hiding in the bushes and realized what was up and bolted down the stairs past a female agent who fired a shot at him.  The shot missed Bob, and the slug smashed through the window of the lounge where the other guests were crouched down and ricocheted off a stone fireplace.

Bob ran two blocks down the street and got behind a concrete pillar next to an apartment complex.  Bob later reported that it was at this point he decided to stop being the hunted and become the hunter.  A couple of officers chasing him ran up to the pillar and Bob fired, wounding one of them in the shin and foot.  Bob later said that he first had aimed at the officer’s head, but when he saw that he was a white man he lowered his aim.  The other officer blasted a shotgun and the pellets smashed into Bob’s exposed gun hand and searing pain shot up his arm and blood shot from the wound.  Bob escaped, but the hand injury would throb for the remaining weeks he had left to live.

Bob made it to a house on Whidbey Island near Seattle.  There he wrote up a “declaration of war”:

It is now a dark time in the history of our race.  All about us lie the green graves of our sires, yet in a land once ours we have become a people dispossessed.

By the millions, those not of our blood violate our borders and mock our claim to sovereignty.  Yet our people only react with lethargy.

A great sickness has overcome us.  Why do our people do nothing?  What madness is this?  Has the cancer of racial masochism consumed our will to exist?

Our heroes and our culture have been insulted and degraded.  The mongrel hordes sever us from our inheritance.  Yet our people do not care.

Throughout this land our children are being coerced into accepting non-whites as their idols, their companions, and, worst of all, their mates, a course taking us straight to oblivion.  Yet our people do not see.

Not by accident but by design these terrible things have come to pass.  It is self-evident to all who have eyes to see that an evil shadow has fallen across our once fair land.  Evidence abounds that a vile, alien people have taken control of our country.  

All about us the land is dying.  Our cities swarm with dusky hordes. The water is rancid and the air is rank.  Our farms are being seized by usurious leeches and our people are being forced off the land.

They close the factories, the mills, the mines, and ship our jobs overseas.  Yet our people do not awaken.

Do you hear the approaching thunder?  It is that of the awakened Saxon.  War is upon the land.  The tyrant’s blood will flow.

From this day forward, we will no longer submit to the tyranny placed upon us by Tel Aviv and their lackeys in Washington.   Our people are being put into a lobotomized, lethargic state of blind obedience and we will not take part in collective racial suicide.

This is war!

This “declaration of war” was followed by an “open letter to Congress.”

All of you together are not solely responsible for what has happened to America, but each of you, without exception, is partly responsible.  The day will come when each of you will be called to account for that responsibility.

The day will come when your complicity in the betrayal of the 55,000 Americans who were sacrificed in Vietnam will be called to account.

The day will come when your subservience to the anti-American “Israel Lobby” will be called into account.  Your votes to strip American arsenals so that Zionists can hold on to stolen land and your acquiescence in a policy which has turned our Arab friends into enemies—those things are inexcusable.

The day will come when you will pay for betraying your race.  You may say you are against the forced racial busing of school children, that you are against the “reverse discrimination” which takes jobs away from Whites and gives them to Blacks, that you are against the flooding of America with illegal immigrants, because you know these things are unpopular.  But you brought every one of these plagues down on our heads.  You passed the “civil rights” laws which gave us busing in the first place, and then you refused repeatedly to outlaw this monstrous crime against our children.  It was your scramble for Black votes and your cowardice in the face of the controlled news media which allowed our cities to become crime-infested jungles.  You set up the requirements that employers had to meet racial quotas.  And you passed the immigration laws which started the flood of non-White immigrants into America—a flood that is out of control.

We hold you responsible for all these things: for every White child terrorized in a racially-mixed school, for every White person murdered in one of our urban jungles, for every White woman raped by one of the arrogant “equals” roaming our streets, for every White family hungry and desperate because a White worker’s job was given to a Black.  Each day the list grows longer, but the day will come when the score will be settled and you will pay every one of these debts in full.

On November 25th, 1984 Bob wrote a letter to a small weekly newspaper in Newport, Washington that included: “It is logical to assume that my days on this planet are rapidly drawing to a close.  I have no fear, for the reality of life is death.  I have made the ultimate sacrifice to secure the future for my children.”

*   *   *

On December 7th, one hundred FBI agents surrounded the Whidbey Island house.   Bob was alone inside.

They cut off his electricity.

They attempted to negotiate through a bullhorn—”Come out and we won’t harm you.”

His hand mangled and throbbing, Bob opened fire with an automatic weapon.

A standoff lasted through the night and into the next day.  The press converged on the site.

The FBI lofted in tear gas.  Bob must have had a gas mask.  He continued to fire—da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da.

“Give up or we’re coming in to get you.”

More automatic weapon fire from Bob.

At 3:00 p.m. on December 8th, a SWAT team stormed into the house. When they got inside, bullets rained down on them through the ceiling from the floor above.  The SWAT team returned fire as they retreated.

After it had gotten dark that evening, a helicopter flew over the house and dropped white phosphorous illumination flares onto the roof.  The house ignited, and flames shot one hundred feet into the air.

Bullets ripped from inside the burning house—Bob was still firing away!   The agents kept down as the slugs whistled through the night air and split the trees above them.

Then everything was still.

The next morning, in the charred ruins of the house they found a body burned beyond recognition.  Dental records determined it to be that of Bob Mathews.


Endnotes

  1. This account is taken from my book, Robert S. Griffin, The Fame of a Dead Man’s Deeds: An Up-Close Portrait of White Nationalist William Pierce (1stBooks Library, 2001).
  2. Stephen Singular, Talked to Death: The Life and Murder of Alan Berg (Beech Tree Books, 1987).
  3. Andrew Macdonald [William Pierce’s pen name], The Turner Diaries (National Vanguard Books, 1978).

American Roulette: Imagining a Dark Future and How to Deal with It

We are witnessing the beginning of our descent, quickening apace, into hard, explicit “minority” rule. In the name of abolishing hierarchy, a new one is being erected. Whether police departments are “defunded”, “abolished”, “reorganized”, or “reimagined”, one thing is for certain — it is time to say goodbye to White law enforcement officers. Cursory research into any majority-Black police department in America will reveal widespread murder for hire, drug trafficking, extortion, kidnapping, rape, and other atrocities. Of course, these behaviors are not limited to Blacks; witness our cartel-infiltrated Border Patrol. Even where the footsoldiers of the State are White, they cannot necessarily be counted on; as we know, they are agents of the State, and only the State, and will generally follow whatever orders they are given. From the recent behavior of the military brass, it is readily apparent that Barack Hussein Obama did his job well in compromising that institution.

From this moment in time, we have at least six possible fates. First, we might go the way of the Third Reich, with a glorious rise as a phoenix from the ashes of this steroidal egalitarian Weimar Regime, followed by a catastrophic war which left us essentially annihilated. This fate seems unlikely, as the conditions for such a rise do not presently exist, and though our Semitic, corporatocratic Enemy controls the levers of culture and government, a war cannot occur if one side refuses to muster. When many on the “mainstream” Right entertain the notion of civil war, they often laugh dismissively and say something along the lines of, “Well, we have all the guns. They’ve just got fatass pink-haired protesters.” Nothing could be further from the truth; our Enemy is the State, which still retains a monopoly on military-level force.

Second, we might go the way of the Confederate States of America, with legal secession and a horrific war of independence, followed by crushing defeat, tyrannical martial law, economic slavery, and eventual cultural erasure. Again, the idea of organized large-scale resistance at this late hour seems fanciful. Though Reconstruction was an early experiment in Black rule over the Southern States, the people of Dixie were, within a decade, able to reclaim at least nominally semi-autonomous governance within the radically-altered Statist Federal Leviathan. After the Radical generation of Black Republicans, the new United States government opted for reconciliation with its Southern cousins; this is the period wherein most of the Confederate monuments were built. In 1925, the United States Mint released a commemorative silver half-dollar coin to raise money for Stone Mountain, a gorgeous landmark that, I fear, will soon go the way of the Bamiyan Buddhas. In 1929 and 1958, Congress declared that Confederate veterans were not traitors, but rather American veterans. This period of Federal reconciliation ended during the Egalitarian Revolution of the 1960s, and the Southern States were once again reduced to vassalage. During this American Kristallnacht, innumerable Confederate monuments have been toppled and defiled, including a figure of Jefferson Davis in the Confederate capital, Richmond; in Portsmouth, Virginia, one of the monuments cracked the skull of a rioter who participated in pulling it down, in what might be the only bright spot of the past two weeks. As one of my friends wrote, “Johnny Reb gets one last Yankee scalp.” Another friend noted that this is the consequence of losing a war. And he is exactly correct; if a war occurs, and if we lose said war, we will simply be exterminated. The postbellum condition of the former Confederacy is historically specific, and thus unlikely to be repeated.

Third, we might go the way of the Afrikaners, whose spineless politicians voluntarily murdered South Africa by turning it over to Black rule. We need not dwell on the unspeakably grotesque horrors that befall the remaining Afrikaners today, as we are already aware. Chris Roberts recently aggregated a collection of news stories documenting the plight of the White South African. It is with sad irony that we note that Marike de Klerk, the ex-wife of F.W. de Klerk, the last White President of South Africa, the man who signed the death warrant of his people, was raped and murdered by a Black security guard at her Cape Town apartment in 2001. Today, the State facilitates through complicity, and even participates in, White genocide; we see rumblings of this now—our fallen monuments are the clear symbols of what will soon become of us.

Fourth, we might go the way of the Amerindians, those merciless Indian savages subdued and conquered by our triumphant White forefathers. That once-proud people has been reduced to crippling alcoholism, drug addiction, poverty, and vice, a totally deracinated and vanquished race. Just as “the only good Indian is a dead Indian”, the Black Lives Matter terrorists doing the work that the State isn’t willing to dirty its hands with (yet) openly proclaim that the only good Whitey is the dead Whitey.

We currently appear to be headed for a hybrid of the Afrikaner and the Amerindian experience, with the specter of Saint Domingue looming over the proceedings for good measure. Aside from our rapidly receding numbers, we are entirely disorganized, with a dwindling number of online spaces, to say nothing of the paucity of opportunities for physical coordination. We are, as they say, a day late and a dollar short. The Republican Party has finally shown its true colors, leading the charge of White dispossession along with organized Christianity. The subverted and corrupted trait of White altruism, coupled with the United States Constitution, were used against us; now that their usefulness has been exhausted, they are going to destroy everything that we have ever held dear. Our ethnomasochist rulers, the bipartisan Sonderkommandos of the Zionist Occupied Government, will sign us over to the cruel caprice of their POC barnacles for one minute of favorable television coverage. White despair already reigns ascendant throughout the land, from collapsing sperm counts, to over three-quarters of a million opioid deaths in a decade, to dramatically rising suicide rates. The signs of defeat are manifest, even if capitulation has not yet been officially declared.

The fifth fate that may lay in store for us is, of course, success. Two solutions are possible; the first, as we already know, involves much bloodshed. The second must be achieved through political revolution, which itself almost undoubtedly, if not necessarily, leads back to the first solution. Both involve the evisceration, razing, and rebuilding of every single institution that was taken from us by the century-long Jewish coup that is responsible for nearly all of the afflictions we are yoked under, including the viral egalitarian infection that has forever ruined the minds of the contemptible and damned White ethnomasochists that disgrace our race every day. We must never forget the fact that the Enemy is Jewish; all else is a distraction.

That being said, that “else” is the most immediate problem that we must solve. How can we do so? As aforementioned, any fantasies we may entertain of a national organized counterrevolution or even a sizable armed faction are just that — fantasies. We have essentially no money. We have no leadership. Though our ideological diversity is a partial handicap, that handicap can probably be overcome by our more simplified goal of a White ethnostate. Though we will never get a majority of Whites to follow us, this is not much of a problem either, as most nations are pushed and pulled by small vanguards who, through victory, acquire the masses. But how can we begin to contemplate victory in the pitiful state in which we now find ourselves, mired in quicksand? We simply do not know how to organize massive resistance for the twenty-first century; otherwise, we would not be where we are. However, we most certainly can contemplate some practical next steps.

First, we must recognize that our safety is in our own hands. There is no one rushing to our aid; our distress signals fall on obsolete receivers. They laugh as we die. We obviously cannot place our faith in any State apparatus as it now stands. The most practicable next step for our movement is to start locally, as all great movements do. We must organize neighborhood and community watch militias, first buying as many guns and as much ammunition as we legally can; as these laws will start to tighten like a vise faster than we can be made aware of the changes, now is the time to secure the means for our self-defense. These militias should be modeled on those of the Founding generation, and should drill constantly. These militias should only include those who can be trusted, who have the fortitude to fight but are not loose cannons, and who are at the very least ideologically sympathetic fellow-travelers. It is important that, at least initially, we retain the moral high ground and reserve the application of violence for reactive defense only. Start simply by talking, carefully, with your neighbors or nearby community-members; if you live in an urban hellscape without many Whites, abandon ship and go somewhere else, a factor that we will address later. And, whether you live in a White neighborhood or not, we must remain armed at all times.

Second, now is the time to be open. Speak out. Do not live in fear of being doxed; fear is precisely how they win. We think we are being careful when we use pseudonyms, when we cover our tracks, when we slink about under cover of darkness, but in reality, we are ceding more and more ground to the Enemy. What is the point of being so secretive? So that when they have finally fundamentally transformed our nation into a post-anarcho-tyrannical totalitarian State, when Whites have finally been conquered, we dissidents will be safe? That is the circular logic of defeatism, and it keeps us in chains. By that day, all will be lost. They will kill us anyways. The excommunicative Two Minutes’ Hate ritual that we are by now all too familiar with only has effect, both economically and socially, while we remain isolated. When enough of us become lightning rods, the storm will dissipate. They cannot take us all down at once; we are only conquered while we are divided. Now is the time to leave the shadows and cease behaving as if we are drug dealers, doing something immoral. We must exercise our birthright, and stand while we still can. Cowardice is not a virtue. By hiding online, you are not being smart, or strategic, or “playing the long game.” You are disabling yourself, rendering yourself worthless to our cause.

Third, in order to exorcise the isolation that has been imposed upon all of us, we must begin to physically concentrate in rural States that still have abundant land, that still remain remote and rugged. Those of us with the means to do so have a duty to begin, or continue, to purchase as much land as possible; by whatever arrangement these “landlords” may desire, White families can begin homesteading on said land, founding organic agrarian communities disconnected from the vicissitudes of the global “market” that wholly and solely benefits the Enemy. Wherever possible in our current lives, we must not give any more money to these evil entities. We must be as self-sufficient and community-centered as we can practicably be. These homestead communities are entirely feasible, by no means farfetched; that is what secession looks like. All we need do is literally occupy and build our own “autonomous zones”, for secession need not require official legislative or judicial action. The State is lost to us anyways. To further effectuate this racial secession, we must stop paying taxes. The American system of taxation is a Jewish (therefore, “usurious” would be a redundancy) extortion scheme by which our wealth is stolen from us in order to finance the worthless lifestyles of the Black and Brown horde marauding through our homeland. How long has it been since our taxes actually benefited us? Our taxes also finance the Administrative Deep State, every department of every agency of every bureau of which serves to accomplish nothing but the furtherance of our genocide. The IRS cannot pursue all of us at once.

Hopefully, these meager, relatively easily practicable suggestions will at least stimulate further serious and sober discussion. What is now beyond debate is that it is time to stop sermonizing, and time to start acting. We are living through the greatest crisis to have ever faced our White race, our White civilization; this is no coincidence, for, whether or not you are a Christian like myself, we must recognize that we were placed here, in this time, for a reason. It is time to fulfill our duty. We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children. I will stop just shy of stating that we must totally abandon the political process, but we absolutely must now prepare for what increasingly, with each passing second, appears to be inevitable.

Finally, I am obliged to wholeheartedly state that we deserve to die if we do not fight back now. Recall those striking words of Oswald Spengler: “We are born into this time and must bravely follow the path to the destined end. There is no other way. Our duty is to hold on to the lost position, without hope, without rescue, like that Roman soldier whose bones were found in front of a door in Pompeii, who, during the eruption of Vesuvius, died at his post because they forgot to relieve him. That is greatness. That is what it means to be a thoroughbred. The honorable end is the one thing that cannot be taken from a man.”

A Suggestion to American White Advocates: Root Your Arguments in This Country’s Core Political and Cultural Ideals

The cause of white people has historically been linked to the far-right end of the social/political spectrum, which I find problematic both philosophically and practically.  For my taste, the far right is too authoritarian and statist.  By authoritarian, I refer to somebody calling the shots at the cost of someone’s else’s personal freedom and self-determination, and that person going along with it.  Statism gets at government overreach in its control of social and economic affairs.  Apart from any of that, I see taking on a right-wing identity as the wrong card to play if you are trying to, as Dale Carnegie put it, win friends and influence people, or aiming to get things accomplished rather than just talk a good game.

Something that informs me and gives me direction these days (I write this in mid-June, 2020) has been right under my nose all along—my American nose, that is—the constitutional republic set up by the Founders of this country in the late 1700s and its basic ideals.  At its core, this political arrangement is the antithesis of authoritarianism and statism.  It is an experiment in personal freedom and responsibility: let’s see what free people can make out of their lives if the state isn’t dictating to them.  It should be noted that whites did very well under this arrangement until the post-World II period, when individuals and organizations effectively shot holes in it.

The Constitution of the United States: Limited and prescribed governmental prerogatives, all written down.  Oops, we forgot to spell out our commitment to individual rights and freedoms.  We can get that done in the first ten amendments.  Let’s call them the Bill of Rights—catchy.   We can make the first one about the free exercise of religion (during the COVID-19 hysteria: “Didn’t I just tell you not to hold church services?  What part of that don’t you understand?); and freedom of speech (“You went up against the Surgeon General; you have to zip it”); and the right of people to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances (“Anybody that protests my orders as governor is a racist,” along with no reference to this foundational American right, and responsibility, in response to the savagery of the recent George Floyd riots).  And we can get in that the enumeration of certain rights should not be construed as denying or disparaging others retained by the people.

Here’s a homework assignment for you.  Read these three things and think about what they imply for the stated focus of this magazine: white identity, interests, and culture.

  1. The Constitution of the United States. With all the amendments. It’s surprisingly brief and straightforward.1
  2. The Federalist Papers.2 A collection of 85 articles and essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay under the pseudonym “Publius” and published in New York newspapers to promote the ratification of The United States Constitution, which took place in 1788.  Until the twentieth century, this collection was known as The Federalist.  Essentially, it says, “Here’s what’s up with this constitution, and it’s solid.”
  3. A biography of Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826), American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson.3 Jefferson was the third president of the United States (1801–1809) and the principal author of the Declaration of Independence in 1776. He was many things: a statesman, diplomat, architect, and, the focus here, philosopher.

If you ground yourself in those three sources—rather than, say, Mein Kampf—where does it take you?   Here is where it takes me:

To middle-of-the-road politics.  Not left, not right—in the middle.  My take on it is that white advocacy shouldn’t label itself politically.  Rather, come on as tacitly centrist, or apolitical, and offer its truths and criticize both the left and right when they deserve it.  Don’t assume an identity that will turn people away and detract from your message and disempower you and get you and yours hurt, as presenting yourself as far right will do.

It may not seem glamorous, but the action in society is in the middle, and advocates and activists who have been successful in this country have realized that.  Whatever he really believed and wanted, Martin Luther King avoided a leftist label, as have the women’s movement and gays and Jews.  They were, so they pitched their arguments, on the side of fundamental American ideals—freedom, equality, fairness.   White racial advocates can learn from that.

To a focus on the individual human being—this one, that one, and that one over there.   This in contrast to abstractions—the West, the white race, and so on.  It is the recognition that the white race is what we call this white person, that white person, and that other white person, and that other one, and so on and so on and so on and so on.  The white race is a word, or concept, an abstraction, and indeed an important abstraction to be used as the basis for analysis and theorizing, as well as for organization and collective action.  But let’s not lose sight of the concrete reality behind that abstraction—a particular white person making his way toward his inevitable rendezvous with eternity.

When you look at human beings one at a time, what becomes salient?

Race is but one of his identities.  This person is white, let’s say.  But this person is also male or female, middle or lower class, rich or poor, of English or Polish descent, a son or daughter, a brother or sister, a friend and neighbor, a conservative or liberal, old or young, a Protestant or Catholic or agnostic or atheist, a student or carpenter or stock analyst, single or married, a father or mother, and from Maine or Mississippi.

If this individual is to live well, he (or she) has to integrate multiple identities and perspectives and responsibilities into a harmonious whole.

He has to attend to his personal welfare, his health and happiness, his career.   He needs to be selfish, self-ish.

He needs to look out for his own—mother, father, siblings, wife, children.  He has a private identity and responsibility.

He also needs to look out for his neighborhood, community, state, and nation, his profession, and his ethnicity, and yes, his race.  He has a public and collective identity and responsibility.

Is he individualistic?  Yes.  Is he collectivistic?  Yes.  Is he particularistic?  Yes.  Is he universalistic?  Yes.  Life as it is lived productively and honorably isn’t this or that, it’s this and that.  The concept of republican citizenship in this country’s early writings is consistent with this idea: a good citizen is one who effectively attends to both his private and public responsibilities, and does it in a way that all the pieces fit together in a complementary and mutually enhancing way.

When you look at this unique, one-of-a-kind human being it becomes clear that he is more or less capable of getting his life done well.  He is just so smart and insightful and wise, just so mentally and physically fit, just so efficacious, and just so socially, occupationally, and geographically well-placed (or misplaced).

And he is just so free to determine the direction to take in his life.  If you read through the U.S. Constitution and The Federalist Papers and the Jefferson biography, freedom—liberty—becomes a major, if not the, central concern.   Jefferson declared that “everyone comes into the world with a right to his own person and using it at his own will.”   Of course, Jefferson was the primary author (at just 33 years of age) of the Declaration of Independence in 1776.  Joseph Ellis in his American Sphinx biography of Jefferson wrote: 

The explicit claim [in the Declaration of Independence] is that the individual is the sovereign unit in society; his natural state is freedom from and equality with all other individuals; this is the natural order of things.  The implicit claim is that all restrictions on this natural order are immoral transgressions, violations of what God intended; individuals liberated from such restrictions will interact with their fellows in a harmonious scheme requiring no external discipline and producing maximum human happiness.

Biographer Ellis notes that Jefferson was taken by the way of life in Saxony during the Middle Ages, where, as he saw it, small communities of people managed their own affairs free from dictates from on high.   In a letter written late in his life, Jefferson wrote, “God send that our country may never have a government which it can feel.”  If government is anything in our time, it is felt, and bent on being more felt, and still more, and more, and more, and more. James Madison and the other framers of the Constitution, within practical limitations, created a governing apparatus consistent with Jefferson’s hope.

Much more to be said, but space is running out here, so I’ll get to some ways this perspective has affected my writing:

A concern for individual people.  My second book, after one about the white advocate William Pierce,4 One Sheaf, One Vine, was not about “how it all is” with whites as a whole, but instead a collection of interviews with average white people about how it all is for each of them individually around race.5  From the back cover:

The men and women you will meet in this book aren’t public figures or leaders of organizations. They are everyday people, a postal worker from Philadelphia, a college student from Texas, an attorney from New York City, a bookstore owner from Washington State, an appliance repairman from Connecticut, a teacher from Chicago, and so on.

At this writing, the death in Minneapolis of a black man after a white police officer knelt on his neck to hold him down when he allegedly resisted arrest has resulted in massive rioting and looting in multiple cities across America.  I grew up in the Twin Cities, Minneapolis and Saint Paul.  I lived in Minneapolis—this was the late 1960s and early ‘70s—when I was a graduate student and taught at the University of Minnesota.  I remember what a truly great city virtually-all-white Minneapolis was then.  I left for a university job in Vermont in 1974.  It has saddened me that demographic changes since that time have transformed Minneapolis from a beautiful, culturally cohesive, and safe city to a cluttered, shattered, and dangerous place known as “Murderapolis.”

This most recent nation-wide destruction and thievery has reminded me of Jefferson’s assertion that blacks and whites “cannot live in the same government . . . nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them.”   Whether or not that is the case, a concern for individual people does highlight one way for whites to deal with the race problem: pack up the wife and kids and move to North Dakota.

If they stay, individually they could do what I wrote about here back in 2016: “The answer to the current state of black-white relations for white people?  Exit.”6 Individuals could secede in place, as it were.  Right here, right now, they could shut it down with regard to blacks.  No animosity, no explanations, no dialogue, no do-gooding (or “do-badding”), nothing; not a word, here but not here, gone.   Enough of this, enough of you, I’ve had it.

Another individual solution, if the government won’t protect them and their property, they could—perhaps with the help of a few compatriots—protect themselves in whatever way is necessary.   I remember when I was in the army what a guy who committed “b&e’s”—breaking and enterings, going into people’s houses and businesses to rob and vandalize—told me.  “You know what really scares me about doing that?”  “No, what?” I replied.  “Somebody coming around the corner with a gun and shooting my ass.”   In fact, he said, that got to be such a problem for him, he stopped his b&e activity.

Something else individuals can do is hold on to their power of judgment, let no one take that away from them.  What is called racism toward blacks is, very often, disrespect for them.  It’s not irrational animus or a desire to hurt or exploit or dominate blacks.  Rather, it is a considered judgment.  Whites observe black behavior—including blaming others for their lot in life and arson and looting—and disrespect them for it, and, if they can manage it, get themselves and their families away from them.  The truth is, you can’t, in the long run anyway, demand respect, or shame people into respecting you, or threaten and attack people into respecting you; you have to earn respect by the way you conduct your life.  Individual whites should never cede their power of discernment to anyone.

“I-you” writing.   I am aware that, right now, I am writing these words, as the person that I am and in the context of all that is going on in my life.  And I am aware that you—you—are reading this.  I’m not simply expressing myself, or addressing the TOO readership; I’m talking to one person.  Of course, I don’t know who you are or what you are like, but nevertheless, I’m addressing you.

The view that while race is vitally important, it isn’t everything.  I ended a recent article with this depiction of a type of white racial advocate I’d like to see more of:

Race would be vitally important [to this white advocate], but so too would be honorable and productive work and honest self-expression, and place and love and family and friendship and service to others, and leisure and fun, and the fact that we are going to die.7

Wishing all human beings well.  I realize that every human being is their parents’ child and, with rare exceptions, means well, and with no exceptions, this person’s life will end, just as mine will.  I’m not taking any crap from anybody, and I will do all I can to protect my people, white people, and I will encourage white people to stand up for their interests.  But I don’t want to see anybody hurt or unhappy.  No human being is my enemy.

A focus on small groups.  A recent article of mine, “Who Shall Remain Nameless: Al Hanzel and Democracy in Action,” dealt with the efforts of one Al Hanzel—who is what his name sounds like, a real nice white guy—to organize a group of his fellow whites to oppose minority efforts to change the name of his and my old high school in Saint Paul, Minnesota.8   While Al wasn’t paying attention, there had been big demographic changes occurring right around him.  In 1970, when Al was young, whites were 95% of the population of Saint Paul; now they are less than half.  (The Great Replacement isn’t real?)  The name of Monroe High School had to go—James Monroe, this country’s president from 1817 to 1825, owned slaves—and it did go, and Al was written off as “an old white racist.”

A lot of other names went too.

These days, name changes are getting to be common practice in the Twin Cities, Minneapolis and Saint Paul.   The old (Daniel) Webster Elementary is now Barack and Michelle Obama Elementary.  Patrick Henry High School’s Principal Yusuf Abdullah is heading up a group looking into changing that school’s name. [In the old days, principals were named Johnson.]  I went swimming in Lake Calhoun (John C.).   Now it’s Lake Bde Maka Ska, a Dakota Indian name.  Alexander Ramsey Elementary is no more.  Ramsey was Minnesota’s second governor from 1860 to 1863.  In response to attacks by the Sioux Indian tribe in 1862 resulting in the deaths of 800 white settlers, Ramsey declared, “The Sioux Indians of Minnesota must be exterminated or driven forever beyond the borders of the state!”  The school is now named Justice Alan Page Middle School after Minnesota’s first black state supreme court justice.  Page first gained renown as one of the “Purple People Eaters,” a supremely talented defensive line of the Minnesota Vikings team in the National Football League.

I have a hope that in the future small groups of racially conscious and committed white people will look out for themselves and their race from day one.  This rather than what happened with Al, who was slowly cooked like a frog in a pot of water unaware of what was happening to him—and actually going along with it (“I like this diverse water!”)—and then, when the pot started to boil, went, “Hey, what’s going on?”  Too late.

A concern for personal health.  I wrote an article posted here called “Addictions: An Example of the Interplay of the Public and Private” 9:

Almost exclusively, white racial discourse has focused on public concerns: white identity and culture, historical and current realities, philosophical and ideological concepts, and proposals and strategies for collective action.  And that’s all well and good, keep it going.   But the argument here is that at the same time we’re doing that, let’s give attention to the opposite of a public focus: let’s look at things from a private, or personal or individual, frame of reference; and take note of the interplay of the public and private, how each affects the other.

The private concern I shine a light on here is addiction.  Not addiction as a problem for the society and culture as a whole — though it is good to look at it from that angle — but rather as a problem for individual people: for him and her and you and me.

When I was writing the William Pierce book, a man named Bob DeMarais, who lived on Pierce’s compound in West Virginia, told me, “If you are going to be one of us, you are going to have to get in top mental and physical shape so you are good at fighting up close.”  Back to the idea of Republican citizenship, a good citizen has it personally together enough to be able can get things done in both the personal and public dimensions of his life.

Donald Trump isn’t my guy.  Trump is—or was anyway, his luster is fading—the guy to a lot of white advocates when he was running for president in 2016.  Not me.  Article II, Section I, of the Constitution says “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”  Executive, as in execute, as in implement laws passed by Congress (Article I, Section I, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives”).   The president’s job under our system is to serve the people and their elected representatives, not to call attention to himself and—something Trump has said about himself numerous times—run the country.  More, in my book, there is an implied dignity and decorum requirement for the presidency. Neither George Washington nor John Adams made pronouncements about the size of his penis or got caught talking about grabbing women by the pussy.

Who can I get behind?  I’d prefer a president, as well as more leaders of the white racial movement, to be like the soft-spoken, unassuming, morally upright, white racially conscious U.S. president (1924-1929), Calvin Coolidge.  In a 2019 article, I offered that the white racial movement would benefit from more Coolidge-type advocates.  Modern-day Coolidges would bring a slant to things that deserves a place in white racial discourse (you’ll see this article in this list of attributes):

  • Such a person would stay clear of labeling himself as a rightist, and the overall movement as an enterprise of the right. No alt-right, no dissident right.  He’d present white advocacy as mainstream, centrist.
  • He’d be rooted in this constitutional republic, and he would think of himself as connecting with and continuing the American story.
  • He’d be grounded in Thomas Jefferson more than Guillaume Faye.  He’d refer often and favorably to liberty.  The words “individual” and “individualism” wouldn’t have negative connotations.  He would assert that personal freedom and individualism contribute to, complement—not contradict—white racial consciousness and commitment.   He would advocate the creation of small, intimate, supportive, white communities and networks.
  • He would exemplify and promote civility, tolerance, generosity, kindness, and self-sacrifice (he wouldn’t equate altruism with foolishness).  He wouldn’t set white loyalties off against a love for all people.  At the same time, he would recognize threats to our race and culture and country and the need to vigorously resist them.10

Do I think everybody ought to approach things as I favor?  I’m not so presumptuous as to believe that, absolutely, I know how you should take up the cause of white people.   Indeed, for you, white advocacy may best be a right-wing endeavor; but it doesn’t automatically have to be, that’s my point.  We are free to be anything.  Sitting here typing this up in old age, the disgust and rage I experience at this moment in response to all the haranguing and rioting and destroying that’s going on in my country–including the parasitic take-over of the wonderful Capitol Hill section of Seattle where I have spent a lot of time—has prompted the thought that if I were young now, I would think seriously about being a raging bad-ass racial warrior rather than the wordy nice guy I chose to become.  Each of us has to think it through and decide the best way forward for us as an individual, with reference to race and everything else.  If you look hard for it, you’ll find your unique path in life, and it will be “walkable,” and at the end of your time on this earth you will feel gratification and peace.  One thing I have learned in a very long life is that it is indeed a benevolent universe.  Seek and you will find.

Endnotes

  1. The Constitution is online. https://constitutionus.com
  2. The Federalist Papers is online,

https://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf

  1. Joseph Ellis, American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson (Knopf, 1997).
  2. Robert S. Griffin, The Fame of a Dead Man’s Deeds: An Up-Close Portrait of White Nationalist William Pierce (1stBooks Library, 2001).

5. Robert S. Griffin, One Sheaf, One Vine: Racially Conscious White Americans Talk About Race (1stBooks Library, 2004.

  1. “Blacks as Emotional Abusers of Whites,” The Occidental Observer, Author Archives, posted August 4, 2016.
  2. “Where is Calvin Coolidge When We Need Him?” The Occidental Observer, Author Archives, posted March 30, 2019.
  3. “Who Shall Remain Nameless: Al Hanzel and Democracy in Action,” The Occidental Observer, Author Archives, posted June 25, 2019.
  4. “Addictions: An Example of the Interplay of the Public and Private,” The Occidental Observer, Author Archives, posted November 8, 2017.
  5. “Where is Calvin Coolidge When We Need Him?” op. cit.

INDIVIDUALISMO E TRADIZIONE PROGRESSISTA OCCIDENTALE: INDICE DEI CAPITOLI

INDIVIDUALISMO E
TRADIZIONE PROGRESSISTA OCCIDENTALE.
Origini evolutive, storia e prospettive future.
traduzione italiana di Marco Marchetti

INDICE DEI CAPITOLI

 

PREFAZIONE.

 

  1. RICERCHE RECENTI SULLA GENETICA DELLE POPLAZIONI.

Tre distinti movimenti di popolazioni nell’Europa preistorica.

Percentuali della mescolanza di CROc, AA e IE.

La Cultura del Vasellame Bucherellato delle coste scandinave.

Ulteriori prove della variazione clinale nord-sud per i geni dei CROc e degli AA.

Selezione dell’abilità cognitiva generale e dei tratti fisici.

Differenze nella mappa genetica dell’Europa contemporanea.

Dati relativi ai cromosomi sessuali.

Conclusione.

Note al cap. 1

 

  1. IL RETAGGIO CULTURALE INDOEUROPEO: L’INDIVIDUALISMO ARISTOCRATICO.

Cultura indoeuropea.

Progressi tecnologici.

L’addomesticazione del cavallo.

Carri sofisticati.

La rivoluzione dei prodotti derivati.

Pratiche socio-culturali.

La cultura militarizzata degli IE.

La reciprocità come caratteristica della cultura IE.

La demolizione dei vincoli di parentela.

Le ricompense per il successo militare.

L’indoeuropeismo come cultura individualista e di libero mercato.

Sippe e Männerbünde.

L’individualismo aristocratico nell’antica Grecia.

L’individualismo aristocratico tra i popoli germanici dopo la caduta dell’Impero d’Occidente. Qual era il grado di omogeneità etnica dei gruppi germanici nell’Europa della Tarda Antichità e dell’Alto Medioevo?

Conclusione.

Note al cap. 2.

 

APPENDICE AL CAPITOLO 2: LA CULTURA ROMANA: MILITARIZZAZIONE, GOVERNO

ARISTOCRATICO E APERTURA VERSO I POPOLI CONQUISTATI.

Le radici indoeuropee della civiltà romana: l’ethos militare della Roma repubblicana.

La famiglia romana.

La religione pubblica romana.

Il governo aristocratico e non dispotico di Roma.

L’apertura della società romana: mobilità sociale e incorporazione di popoli diversi.

Mobilità ascendente dei plebei.

Mobilità sociale ascendente dei popoli assimilati.

Conclusione: Roma, una strategia evolutiva di gruppo fallimentare.

Note all’Appendice al cap. 2.

 

  1. IL RETAGGIO CULTURALE DEI CACCIATORI-RACCOGLITORI OCCIDENTALI IN

EUROPA: L’INDIVIDUALISMO EGUALITARIO.

L’egualitarismo come componente riconoscibile della cultura occidentale.

La tesi ecologica sull’individualismo dei CR.

La complessità sociale dei CR nordeuropei.

L’egualitarismo come tratto fondamentale dei CR settentrionali.

L’esogamia come caratteristica del matrimonio occidentale.

L’amore come elemento centrale del matrimonio occidentale.

Differenze psicologiche tra le popolazioni WEIRD e le altre.

Scambio sociale e punizione altruistica.

Altre tendenze psicologiche delle popolazioni WEIRD.

Ragionamento morale.

Differenze cognitive.

Conclusione.

Note al cap. 3.

 

  1. LE BASI FAMILIARI DELL’INDIVIDUALISMO EUROPEO.

Il matrimonio nell’Europa occidentale: alcune differenze fondamentali.

Dati descrittivi sui modelli di famiglia nell’Europa nordoccidentale e in quella meridionale. Caratteristiche del sistema familiare moderatamente individualista dell’Europa  nordoccidentale.

Datare le origini della famiglia individualista.

Svantaggi della famiglia individualista.

Influenze contestuali proposte come cause dell’individualismo moderato.

Il collettivismo moderato dell’Europa meridionale contrapposto all’individualismo moderato dell’Europa nordoccidentale.

Tendenze egualitarie nell’Europa nordoccidentale.

Le aree non feudalizzate dell’Europa nordoccidentale.

Parentela germanica e parentela irlandese.

Parentela germanica.

La parentela irlandese.

L’argomento etnico.

L’individualismo estremo a sostegno statale della Scandinavia.

Conclusioni.

Note al cap. 4.

 

  1. LA CHIESA NELLA STORIA EUROPEA.

Processo implicito ed esplicito: come l’ideologia motiva il comportamento.

Ideologia e controllo sociale a sostegno della monogamia nell’Europa occidentale.

La rivoluzione papale: la creazione dell’immagine della Chiesa come istituzione altruista.

La rivoluzione papale: il potere della Chiesa sulle élite secolari.

Il collettivismo ecclesiastico medievale.

Controllo sociale e ideologia per il mantenimento della monogamia socialmente imposta.

Il controllo del comportamento sessuale nel Medioevo e oltre.

Ideologie a sostegno della monogamia.

Conclusione.

Effetti della monogamia.

La monogamia come precondizione al profilo demografico “a bassa pressione” dell’Europa e alla rivoluzione industriale.

Monogamia e investimento nella prole.

Il cristianesimo in contrapposizione all’antico ordine sociale aristocratico greco-romano.

Il cristianesimo nell’Europa post-romana.

La Chiesa alla ricerca del potere.

L’ideologia dell’egualitarismo morale come strumento di espansione del potere ecclesiastico.

La politica ecclesiastica di contrasto al potere dei gruppi di parentela estesa.

Il sostegno ecclesiastico alla diversificazione dei centri di potere.

Il cristianesimo e la tradizione razionale dell’Occidente.

Il dibattito tra realismo e nominalismo.

Il cristianesimo e l’Europa post-medievale.

Conclusione: la Chiesa facilitò l’individualismo occidentale, ma non ne fu la causa.

Note al cap. 5.

 

  1. IL PURITANESIMO:     L’ASCESA     DELL’INDIVIDUALISMO EGUALITARIO      E

DELL’UTOPISMO MORALE.

Il puritanesimo come strategia evolutiva di gruppo.

La strategia di gruppo di Giovanni Calvino.

Il puritanesimo nel New England.

Le famiglie puritane.

Pratiche educative per i bambini.

Intelligenza e importanza dell’educazione.

I nomi puritani come indicatori di appartenenza al gruppo.

Il controllo comunitario del comportamento individuale: il collettivismo puritano.

Il puritanesimo fu una strategia evolutiva di un gruppo chiuso?

Il deterioramento dei confini del gruppo puritano.

La rivoluzione puritana in Inghilterra.

La rivoluzione puritana negli Stati Uniti.

Le tendenze intellettuali del XIX secolo di ispirazione puritana come versioni secolari dell’utopismo morale.

Il trascendentalismo come movimento di intellettuali di origine puritana.

Trascendentalisti famosi.

Orestes Brownson (1803-1876).

George Ripley (1802-1880).

Amos Bronson Alcott (1799-1888).

Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882).

Theodore Parker (1810-1860).

William Henry Channing (1810-1884).

L’attivismo trascendentalista in nome della giustizia sociale.

Il trascendentalismo: un riepilogo.

La difficile associazione tra individualismo e identità etnica anglosassone nel XIX secolo.

Interesse personale e ideologia progressista.

Altre correnti intellettuali progressiste del XIX secolo.

Anarchismo libertario.

Il protestantesimo liberale.

Il determinismo culturale accademico e l’antidarwinismo.

La sinistra laica.

Il periodo della difesa etnica: 1880-1965.

Conclusione.

Note al cap. 6.

 

  1. L’IDEALISMO MORALE NEL MOVIMENTO ANTISCHIAVISTA BRITANNICO E IL

“SECONDO IMPERO BRITANNICO”.

Il contesto dell’Età della Benevolenza.

La psicologia dell’altruismo e dell’universalismo morale.

Il sistema empatico della personalità.

Idealismo morale e ideologia dell’universalismo morale.

Precedenti filosofici.

Empatia e abolizionismo.

Empatia e opposizione ideologica allo schiavismo: quaccheri, anglicani evangelici e metodisti.

I quaccheri.

Gli anglicani evangelici.

I metodisti.

Il puritanesimo come prototipo dell’“Età della Benevolenza”.

“Il secondo impero britannico” nel XIX secolo: un luogo più gentile e più mite.

La ribellione di Morant Bay in Giamaica e i suoi sostenitori in Inghilterra.

David Hackett Fischer: il “secondo impero britannico”.

La libertà di parola negli Stati Uniti e in Nuova Zelanda.

La rivoluzione emotiva in Inghilterra: un’ipotesi etnica.

Le origini etniche e il declino dell’ethos aristocratico in Gran Bretagna.

Conclusione.

Note al cap. 7.

 

  1. LA PSICOLOGIA DELLE COMUNITÀ MORALI.

I processi dell’identità sociale come adattamento alle comunità morali.

Il ruolo dell’empatia nelle comunità morali: altruismo e altruismo patologico.

Il controllo dell’etnocentrismo: processo implicito e processo esplicito.

Comunità bianche implicite.

Gestire l’etnocentrismo bianco: il problema dell’identità bianca non esplicita.

Differenze razziali nella personalità.

Alcuni sistemi elementari della personalità.

Il sistema dell’approccio comportamentale (SAC).

Il sistema amore / cura del legame di coppia.

Il controllo esecutivo prefrontale (CEP).

Le differenze razziali nella personalità di Richard Lynn: i bianchi sono più generosi ed empatici rispetto alle altre razze.

La teoria delle storie di vita.

Sfide psicologiche allo sviluppo di una cultura esplicita dell’identità e degli interessi dei bianchi.

L’interesse personale e le strutture anti-bianche.

La teoria dell’apprendimento sociale: conseguenze per chi non domina la cultura.

Benefici e rischi della coscienziosità.

La dissonanza cognitiva come forza di inerzia psicologica.

Meccanismi psicologici per un rinascimento bianco.

La consapevolezza del rischio di diventare una minoranza alimenta l’etnocentrismo bianco.

Le espressioni di odio nei confronti dei bianchi promuovono l’etnocentrismo bianco.

I processi dell’identità sociale.

L’estremismo della cultura scandinava: egualitarismo, fiducia, conformismo e processi decisionali basati sul consenso.

Il caso speciale della Finlandia.

Conclusione: l’importanza di modificare la cultura esplicita.

Note al cap. 8.

 

APPENDICE AL CAPITOLO 8: IL RECENTE DETERIORAMENTO CULTURALE: ALCUNE

CORRELAZIONI CULTURALI RIGUARDO ALL’ASCESA DI UNA NUOVA ÉLITE.

Il generale declino culturale in America a partire dagli anni Sessanta.

Conclusione: l’effetto trasformativo della rivoluzione controculturale degli anni Sessanta.

Note all’Appendice al cap. 8.

 

  1. TRADIZIONE PROGRESSISTA E MULTICULTURALISMO.

L’individualismo come fattore predisponente alla scienza e al capitalismo.

L’individualismo come fattore predisponente alla scienza.

L’individualismo come fattore predisponente al capitalismo.

Cosa è andato storto? La nuova élite e la sua avversione per la nazione che essa governa. I movimenti intellettuali di sinistra hanno approfittato della tradizione progressista occidentale.

L’argomento morale a sostegno degli interessi dei bianchi.

Conclusione: l’incerto futuro dell’Occidente.

Note al cap. 9.

INDIVIDUALISMO E TRADIZIONE PROGRESSISTA OCCIDENTALE: PREFAZIONE

KEVIN MACDONALD

 

 

INDIVIDUALISMO E  

TRADIZIONE PROGRESSISTA OCCIDENTALE.

Origini evolutive, storia e prospettive future.

traduzione italiana di Marco Marchetti

Dichiarazione del traduttore

La presente traduzione italiana dell’opera: Kevin MacDonald, Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition, Kindle Direct Publishing Edition, 2019 è stata realizzata nel 2020 per uso personale e senza scopo di lucro.  Le note del traduttore sono incate con “n. d. t.”

Translator’s Disclaimer

This italian translation of the book: Kevin MacDonald, Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition, Kindle Direct Publishing Edition, 2019 was made in 2020 for personal use and not for profit.

Translator’s notes are marked with “n. d. t.”

PREFAZIONE.

 

Le origini di questo libro risalgono ai primi anni Ottanta, quando trascorsi un anno come Ph. D. privo di impiego. Munito della teoria evoluzionistica cominciai a leggere testi di antropologia e scoprii sostanzialmente che man mano che le società creavano livelli più alti di produzione economica, gli uomini ricchi e potenti erano in grado di controllare un numero crescente di donne. La cosa interessante era che, in generale, ciò non si verificava per l’Europa occidentale. La questione ebbe come conseguenza un certo numero di articoli sulla nascita e il mantenimento della monogamia nelle società occidentali (citati nel cap. 5) e, per ultimo, questo libro.

Certamente i problemi fondamentali sono cambiati nel corso degli anni. Gli argomenti critici sono, attualmente, perché l’Occidente abbia avuto tanto successo (la monogamia è parte di questa storia) e perché, negli ultimi decenni, sia tanto incline all’autodistruzione. La risposta breve a tutto ciò è l’individualismo, ma il mio tentativo di rispondere a queste domande richiede alcuni lunghi percorsi attraverso la genetica delle popolazioni, la storia e la preistoria europee, il mutamento delle élite in Occidente, specialmente dopo la Seconda Guerra Mondiale, come pure attraverso la ricerca psicologica. La lente teorica generale utilizzata è la psicologia evoluzionistica: io accetto il principio generale che gli esseri umani possiedano un insieme di meccanismi psicologici che influenzano il loro comportamento e che la variazione genetica fornisce un importante contributo a tali influenze.

Ma questo non implica ciò che solitamente si indica in modo irrispettoso come “determinismo genetico”. La storia umana è troppo complessa per accettare spiegazioni espresse esclusivamente in termini genetici. In diversi capitoli svilupperò le basi psicologiche delle influenze culturali e ideologiche basate sulle ricerche relative ai centri cerebrali superiori, tipicamente collocati nella corteccia prefrontale. Questi meccanismi sono incredibilmente elaborati negli esseri umani e, in un senso molto concreto, sono ciò che ci rende umani. Pertanto le ideologie e i controlli sociali che influenzano il comportamento umano giocano qui un ruolo centrale, tutavia non si sostiene che tali influenze siano un risultato deterministico della psicologia umana che interagisce col mondo sociale e materiale.

Inoltre, la storia umana è costellata di eventi contingenti e non può essere definita a priori o anche a posteriori in ogni dettaglio da una qualsiasi teoria. Ne sono consapevole, certo non tramite una psicologia evoluzionistica che postula quale strumento esplicativo un unico insieme di moduli universalmente disponibili, frutto dell’evoluzione1. La storia è piena di giri e di svolte che spesso dipendono dall’esito di particolari battaglie o conflitti politici, influenzati a loro volta da una schiera di fattori psicologici e contestuali. Per esempio, il capitolo 5 discute l’influenza culturale della Chiesa Cattolica e i meccanismi psicologici che soggiacciono a tale influenza, ma anche le ideologie e i controlli sociali così essenziali al suo successo nel corso dell’Alto Medioevo. C’è molto materiale, qui, sulle conseguenze dell’ascesa del Protestantesimo in Inghilterra, ma nessun tentativo di fornire una spiegazione esatta del perché ciò accadde. I resoconti storici hanno il vantaggio del senno di poi, ma restano pur sempre resoconti, decisamente lontani dal fornirci una spiegazione completa. Pazienza.

Come entra nel discorso, dunque, la psicologia evoluzionistica? Essenzialmente, la tesi è che le influenze etniche sono importanti per comprendere l’Occidente, e che l’invasione preistorica degli Indoeuropei ebbe un effetto trasformativo sull’Europa, inaugurando un lungo periodo di ciò che verrà indicato come “individualismo aristocratico”, risultante da variazioni nella genetica indoeuropea e nell’influenza culturale (capitolo 2). Comunque, a cominciare dal XVII secolo si affermò una nuova cultura detta “individualismo egualitario” che gradualmente divenne dominante, essa stessa influenzata dalle tendenze etniche dei cacciatori-raccoglitori settentrionali che erano rimaste relativamente sommerse durante il periodo della dominazione aristocratica. L’individualismo egualitario diede inizio al mondo moderno e noi viviamo oggigiorno con le sue conseguenze. Come per l’esito di particolari battaglie o conflitti politici, l’ascesa di questa nuova popolazione e di questa nuova cultura non è prevedibile nei dettagli, ma possiamo certamente, col senno di poi, delinearne le conseguenze.

Questo libro ha tratto beneficio, nel corso degli anni, dall’interazione con molti altri. In tempi recenti, desidero segnalare F. Roger Devlin, che ha rivisto il manoscritto e corretto diverse imperfezioni stilistiche. Voglio inoltre ringraziare Simon Ström, la cui competenza nel campo della genetica delle popolazioni è stata molto utile, e Luke Torrisi, la cui competenza riguardo al millenarismo protestante ha contribuito molto al materiale sull’America del XIX secolo.


Note

[1] Kevin MACDONALD, Mechanisms of Sexual Egalitarianism in Western Europe, in “Ethology and Sociobiology”, 11, 1990: 195-238.

 

 

 

 

 

 

INDIVIDUALISMO E TRADIZIONE PROGRESSISTA OCCIDENTALE: Capitolo 1, RICERCHE RECENTI SULLA GENETICA DELLE POPLAZIONI

INDIVIDUALISMO E
TRADIZIONE PROGRESSISTA OCCIDENTALE.
Origini evolutive, storia e prospettive future.
traduzione italiana di Marco Marchetti

RICERCHE RECENTI SULLA GENETICA DELLE POPLAZIONI.

Questo libro cerca di proporre una visione della cultura e della civiltà occidentali fondata sulla biologia, concentrandosi in particolare sull’individualismo, un tratto che, come tutti quelli che interessano gli psicologi, ha una base genetica1. Appare pertanto corretto cominciare tracciando la storia genetica dell’Occidente.

La base genetica di un carattere può evolvere mediante mutazioni vantaggiose o mediante plasticità fenotipica (vale a dire cambiamento come risultato dell’esperienza). In un organismo con un certo grado di plasticità gli eventi ambientali possono avere come risultato dei cambiamenti nel fenotipo. Se tale fenotipo è vantaggioso, l’organismo tenderà ad accumulare mutazioni che renderanno lo sviluppo del fenotipo più affidabile e avranno per risultato una influenza genetica ovvero un controllo su quel carattere2. Ciò viene talvolta indicato come evoluzione per “primato del fenotipo” (phenotype first evolution) perché i mutamenti genetici si verificano dopo che il carattere è originariamente apparso nella popolazione come risultato della plasticità3.

La plasticità evolutiva apre una via relativamente veloce alla produzione di fenotipi adattabili rispetto alla graduale accumulazione di mutazioni vantaggiose. Ciò nonostante, viene oggi accettato il fatto che l’evoluzione tramite l’una o l’altra via possa verificarsi entro intervalli di tempo storici4.

Grazie alla loro intelligenza gli esseri umani sono stati capaci di creare nuovi ambienti, ad esempio addomesticando gli animali e potendo in tal modo utilizzare i latticini come fonte di sussistenza. Questi nuovi ambienti, a loro volta, possono selezionare differenti mutazioni e, alla fine, tratti differenti, come la tolleranza al lattosio in un’economia basata sui latticini, o una minore statura risultante dall’adattamento ad una dieta agricola di bassa qualità (si veda più avanti). Come risultato, sostenere una base psicologica dell’individualismo occidentale non richiede che se ne documenti l’esistenza lungo un linea diretta a partire dalla popolazione che per prima visse in Europa circa 45.000 anni fa, e neppure da una molto più recente. Un tema di questo volume è che in Europa esiste un gradiente genetico e psicologico che va da nordovest a sudest, dove l’individualismo è più comune tra le popolazioni storiche dell’Europa nordoccidentale. Comunque, influenze genetiche su tratti collegati all’individualismo possono essersi sviluppate, continuando a subire una pressione selettiva positiva o negativa fino ai giorni nostri.

Ne deriva che diventa importante documentare le prime tracce dell’individualismo compiendo ricerche sulle più antiche popolazioni i cui profili comportamentali sono meglio conosciuti. I successivi capitoli documentano le tendenze individualistiche in quelle che furono più antiche e importanti influenze sull’individualismo europeo, ossia le culture indoeuropee (cap. 2) e quelle dei cacciatori-raccoglitori dell’Europa nordoccidentale (cap. 3). Appare evidente, da quanto segue, che almeno qualche influenza genetica da parte di quelle popolazioni continua ad essere presente nell’epoca contemporanea.

 

Tre distinti movimenti di popolazioni nell’Europa preistorica.

 

Vi è un consenso emergente riguardo a tre distinti movimenti di popolazioni verso l’Europa in epoca preistorica: 1) i cacciatori–raccoglitori occidentali (CROc), 2) gli agricoltori provenienti dall’Anatolia, noti come antichi agricoltori (AA) e 3) gli indoeuropei (IE), originatisi dalla cultura di Yamnaya della Steppa Pontica, nelle attuali Ucraina e Russia meridionale5.

  • I CROc sono la popolazione europea primordiale, che giunse in Europa circa 45.000 anni fa. Jones et al. suggeriscono il seguente scenario di un’antica separazione dei CROc da altri gruppi di migranti nel corso dell’originario esodo dall’Africa:

 

Data la loro origine geografica, sembra probabile che i cacciatori-raccoglitori del Caucaso (CRC) e gli AA siano discendenti di antichi coloni provenienti dall’Africa che si fermarono a sud del Caucaso, in un’area che si estende a sud e verso levante e forse anche ad est verso l’Asia centrale e meridionale. I CROc, d’altro canto, sono probabilmente i discendenti di un’ondata che si espanse ulteriormente in Europa6.

 

Entrati in Europa, i CROc sostituirono i Neanderthal, ma raccolsero una piccola quantità del materiale genetico di questi ultimi attraverso unioni miste7. Sulla base dell’esame di scheletri rinvenuti dalla Spagna all’Ungheria e datati al periodo Mesolitico (tra gli 11.500 e i 6000 anni fa circa) questa popolazione costituiva «un gruppo relativamente omogeneo»8.

In Scandinavia un sottogruppo distinto noto come cacciatori-raccoglitori scandinavi (CRS) si evolse a partire dai CROc, ma rimane incerto se tale sottogruppo abbia contribuito al patrimonio genetico dei moderni scandinavi.

  • Gli AA arrivarono dall’Anatolia intorno agli 8000 anni fa, introducendo l’agricoltura e definendo la transizione al Neolitico. Geneticamente essi non assomigliano agli attuali anatolici9.
  • Per finire, gli IE arrivarono dalla regione della Steppa Pontica durante la prima Età del Bronzo (ca. 4500 anni fa). I proto-IE, noti anche come Yamnaya, sono un amalgama composto da popolazioni vicino-orientali di “tipo armeno” (48-58%)10 e da tre gruppi di cacciatori-raccoglitori: quelli del Caucaso (CRC), gli antichi eurasiatici del nord (AEN), che comprendono a loro volta i cacciatori-raccoglitori della Siberia (AEN veri e propri) e quelli orientali (CROr). Gli AEN sono collegati agli indiani del Nordamerica11, mentre i CROr sono la propaggine orientale di uno spettro genetico di cacciatori-raccoglitori che va da oriente a occidente12.

Il quadro generale è che le popolazioni dell’Europa occidentale erano relativamente distinte l’una dall’altra, dal punto di vista genetico, nella prima Età del Bronzo, ma si mescolarono in maniera crescente in seguito all’influenza indoeuropea producendo come risultato una differenziazione minore (sebbene ancora significativa) nell’Europa contemporanea.

 

 

 

 

Abbreviazioni utilizzate nel capitolo:

AEN Antichi Eurasiatici del Nord
CRC Cacciatori-Raccoglitori del Caucaso
AA Antichi Agricoltori dell’Anatolia
CROr Cacciatori-raccoglitori Orientali
IE Indoeuropei
CR Cacciatori-Raccoglitori
CRS Cacciatori-Raccoglitori Scandinavi
CROc Cacciatori-Raccoglitori Occidentali

 

Percentuali della mescolanza di CROc, AA e IE.

 

La migrazione dall’Anatolia degli AA, che segna l’inizio del Neolitico, ebbe come conseguenza iniziale una «quasi completa sostituzione», nell’Europa meridionale, della precedente popolazione di CROc, che si ridussero ad una quota del 7-11% del genoma risultante. Comunque, in seguito vi fu un nuovo incremento del retaggio dei CROc fino al 23-28% nella prima Età del Bronzo13. Anche Haak et al. notano una «rinascita» della rappresentanza genetica dei CROc intorno a quest’epoca14.

Fatto importante per ciò che verrà discusso nel cap. 4, l’eredità genetica degli AA continua ad essere prevalente nell’attuale Europa meridionale, risultando massima in Sardegna (ca. 90%), mentre il contributo dei CRC e dei CROr (attraverso gli IE) prevale maggiormente nell’Europa settentrionale e centrale. Secondo Jones et al.:

 

I CRC, o una popolazione ad essi vicina, contribuirono al patrimonio genetico degli individui della cultura Yamnaya, considerati i vettori della profonda influenza degli antenati della Steppa Pontica che si diffusero ad occidente in Europa e ad oriente in Asia centrale insieme alla metallurgia, all’equitazione e, probabilmente, alle lingue indoeuropee nel terzo millennio a. C.15

 

Anche Allentoft et al. hanno studiato la penetrazione degli IE di derivazione Yamnaya in Europa durante l’Età del Bronzo, cominciata intorno ai 4500 anni fa con la cultura della Ceramica Cordata (rinvenuta tra i fiumi Reno e Volga e nella Scandinavia meridionale), come pure le prove di una più tarda presenza indoeuropea in Italia16. I DNA della Ceramica Cordata e degli Yamnaya formano un clade (un gruppo con un antenato comune) con esclusione degli armeni dell’Età del Bronzo, ad indicare che la mescolanza “di tipo armeno” degli Yamnaya notata in precedenza «ha origine nelle steppe piuttosto che nel Caucaso meridionale», vale a dire, non proviene veramente dall’Armenia17.

L’espansione degli IE portò i geni Yamnaya attraverso grandi distanze, dalla Scandinavia all’Asia meridionale. Ma è importante notare che le incursioni Yamnaya in Iran e in India non ebbero come risultato società individualiste, probabilmente perché le popolazioni locali conquistate rimasero fortemente collettiviste. Inoltre, come sottolineato nel cap. 2, gli IE mostravano notevoli tendenze all’individualismo, ma il loro metodo generale non era quello di estirpare i popoli conquistati; li dominavano, si servivano del loro lavoro, ecc., e alla fine si mescolavano con loro.

Haak et al. forniscono un sostegno alla componente indoeuropea dell’ascendenza degli europei trovando le prove di una «massiccia migrazione» degli Yamnaya in Europa iniziata circa 4500 anni fa e associata alla cultura della Ceramica Cordata18. Circa il 75% dell’ascendenza degli individui appartenenti a tale cultura rinvenuti in Germania proviene dagli Yamnaya, così come il 60% dei cromosomi Y, cosa che sta ad indicare come gli individui maschi conquistatori avessero un successo riproduttivo relativamente alto in confronto a quello degli abitanti maschi precedenti. Fu un influsso di carattere improvviso, che suggerisce un’invasione piuttosto che una diffusione culturale, idea che corrisponde bene alla cultura fortemente militarizzata dei proto-IE di cui si parla nel cap. 2.

Oltre al 75% circa di ascendenza Yamnaya, Haak et al. stimano per gli individui della Ceramica Cordata un

4% circa di CROc e un 17% di AA. Tra gli europei moderni il più elevato patrimonio genetico di ascendenza Yamnaya si osserva nei norvegesi, con un valore intorno al 55%; le percentuali decrescono nell’Europa meridionale e orientale (la più bassa si ha in Sardegna, col 10%). I loro risultati indicano dunque una direttrice di variazione nord-sud per il patrimonio genetico derivante dai CROc. La percentuale più elevata tale patrimonio si trova negli Stati Baltici (Lituania ed Estonia, col 40% circa) mentre essa è nulla in Spagna e in Italia. La Norvegia e l’Islanda contemporanee hanno una percentuale del 17-20% all’incirca. Questo indica che dopo il periodo della Ceramica Cordata dell’Europa centrale (tra i 4900 e i 4400 anni fa) vi fu una ripresa del contributo genetico dei cacciatori-raccoglitori in tutta l’area europea.

Haak et al. concludono:

 

I nostri risultati forniscono appoggio ad una visione della preistoria europea contrassegnata da due principali migrazioni: prima l’arrivo dei primi agricoltori (AA), all’inizio del Neolitico, dal Vicino Oriente, poi l’arrivo dei pastori Yamnaya dalle steppe, nel corso del tardo Neolitico. I nostri dati mostrano inoltre che entrambe le migrazioni furono seguite da una ripresa delle popolazioni precedenti: la prima durante il Neolitico medio, quando il patrimonio genetico dei CR tornò a crescere dopo il declino dell’inizio del Neolitico; la seconda tra il tardo Neolitico  e l’epoca attuale, quando il patrimonio degli AA e dei CR aumentò dopo il declino avvenuto alla fine del Neolitico. La seconda ripresa deve avere avuto inizio proprio nel periodo del tardo Neolitico – Età del Bronzo, poiché i gruppi umani delle culture del Vaso Campaniforme (ca. 4800-3800 anni fa) e di Unetice (ca. 4300-3600 anni fa) possedevano un retaggio genetico Yamnaya ridotto se confrontato con quello dei primi individui della Ceramica Cordata, e paragonabile a quello di alcuni europei odierni […]. Oggi il patrimonio genetico di origine Yamnaya è minore nell’Europa meridionale e maggiore in quella settentrionale.

 

Oltre ai ritrovamenti di Haak et al. menzionati in precedenza, Lazaridis et al. osservano che gli AEN (che arrivarono nel’Europa occidentale attraverso l’influenza genetica degli IE) sono rappresentati tra i moderni europei per un massimo del 20%19. Essi deducono dai loro dati che gli europei meridionali contemporanei ereditarono il loro patrimonio genetico proveniente dai CR principalmente attraverso gli AA, come risultato della mescolanza di questi ultimi con i CROc nel sud dell’Europa. D’altro canto gli europei del nord acquisirono fino al 50% del loro patrimonio derivante dai CROc attraverso i CROc dell’Europa settentrionale, vale a dire che il loro patrimonio collegato ai CR fu superiore a quello derivante dai loro antenati AA. Questo indica che i CROc dell’Europa settentrionale non furono semplicemente rimpiazzati dagli AA o dagli IE, ma finirono per mescolarsi con questi gruppi. Haak et al. notano inoltre come in generale gli europei abbiano una porzione di patrimonio genetico derivante dai CROc maggiore rispetto a quella dovuta agli AEN. Quest’ultima era assente prima della transizione neolitica all’agricoltura, tanto nei CROc quanto negli AA, una scoperta coerente col fatto che gli AEN diedero il loro contributo genetico alla cultura Yamnaya, a sua volta implicata nell’invasione indoeuropea che cominciò all’inizio dell’Età del Bronzo.

 

La Cultura del Vasellame Bucherellato delle coste scandinave.

 

La scoperta di un patrimonio genetico derivante dai CROc maggiore e più duraturo di quello fornito dagli

AA che con essi si erano mescolati nella loro migrazione verso nord è concorde con i ritrovamenti di Malmström et al. relativi alla cultura neolitica del Vasellame Bucherellato della Scandinavia meridionale (ca. 5200-4300 anni fa)20. Questa cultura coesistette sia con quella del Bicchiere Imbutiforme (derivata dagli AA) che con quella della Ceramica Cordata (dominata dagli IE). La Cultura del Vasellame Bucherellato, insieme a quella tardo mesolitica di Ertebølle, era una cultura di CR che viveva presso il mare e la cui dieta si basava principalmente su molluschi e altri alimenti d’origine marina, come pure sulla caccia e la raccolta. Come si vedrà nel cap. 3, queste comunità erano sedentarie almeno per la maggior parte dell’anno e svilupparono ampie società con una struttura complessa.

I ritrovamenti relativi alla Cultura del Vasellame Bucherellato comprendono una quantità di aplotipi mitocondriali unici (in particolare gli aplotipi U e K) che non si trovano nei campioni relativi alla Cultura del Bicchiere Imbutiforme (derivata dagli AA) né in quelli della Ceramica Cordata (derivati dagli IE) e formano un gruppo con i campioni mesolitici relativi ai CR provenienti dall’Europa centrale e dalla Penisola Iberica. Basandosi sulle notevoli differenze nella prevalenza degli aplotipi mitocondriali tra i CR del Vasellame Bucherellato e gli altri gruppi, Malmström et al. hanno concluso che quei CR possano aver contribuito per una porzione variabile tra 0 e il 60% agli aplotipi mitocondriali della popolazione svedese contemporanea, pur non potendo respingere un contributo degli individui del Bicchiere Imbutiforme, fino a una completa sostituzione dei CR del Vasellame Bucherellato. Collegandosi ai dati di Lazaridis et al. circa il contributo unico fornito al patrimonio genetico dai CROc del nord, al di là di quello risultante dalla mescolanza tra AA e CROc nell’Europa meridionale, appare probabile, per l’attuale popolazione svedese, un contributo diretto derivante dai CR del Vasellame Bucherellato, o almeno da qualche altro gruppo settentrionale di CR. Malmström et al. osservano che la possibile continuità tra la cultura tardo mesolitica di Ertebølle e gli scandinavi attuali rimane una questione aperta. Tenendo conto di quanto si dice nel cap. 3 riguardo alla cultura di Ertebølle, questo rimane un tema importante per la ricerca futura.

Inoltre, esiste una continuità genetica tra i CRS e la popolazione del Vasellame Bucherellato. Mittnik et al. hanno osservato come i CRS non abbiano fornito un contributo genetico alla popolazione della Svezia meridionale agli inizi del Neolitico. Comunque i loro risultati relativi al Neolitico medio hanno mostrato una continuità genetica tra CRS e popolazione del Vasellame Bucherellato nella stessa area, proponendo un modello biunivoco tra il contributo genetico derivato dai CRS (74±6%) e quello derivato dagli AA (26±6%). Per il tardo Neolitico e la prima Età del Bronzo i loro risultati sono coerenti con alcune mescolanze locali tra AA e CRS: «La popolazione neolitica di CR del Vasellame Bucherellato mostra una notevole continuità genetica con i CRS»21.

Pertanto, un contributo diretto dei CRS al patrimonio genetico dell’attuale popolazione svedese rimane possibile, sebbene i dati ottenuti finora siano anche coerenti con l’ipotesi che il contributo genetico pari a circa il 20% derivante agli attuali svedesi dai CR (si veda sopra) provenga completamente dai CROc, sia attraverso la mescolanza con gli AA che indipendentemente da essa.

 

Ulteriori prove della variazione clinale nord-sud per i geni dei CROc e degli AA.

 

Il gradiente nord-sud nei geni dei CROc è il tema di uno studio compiuto da Pontus Skoglund et al. sui resti di tre CR antichi di 5000 anni e di un AA della stessa epoca, tutti ritrovati nell’attuale Svezia22. Confrontati aìcon campioni europei e levantini contemporanei, i tre CR neolitici sono apparsi molto al di fuori della distribuzione dei campioni moderni, ma nella direzione dei finlandesi e di altri individui europei settentrionali contemporanei. D’altro canto, l’agricoltore svedese si accostava agli europei meridionali contemporanei. Skoglund et al. hanno stimato che gli svedesi odierni abbiano la seguente percentuale di patrimonio genetico collegato agli AA con un gradiente nord-sud: 31±6% (al nord), 36±7% al centro e 41±8% al sud. La componente derivante dagli AA decresce complessivamente dal 95±13% dei sardi al 52±8% negli individui di discendenza europea nordoccidentale. Skoglund et al. suggeriscono la presenza di ostacoli al flusso genetico che gradualmente si ridussero, e che gli europei odierni si collochino in una posizione intermedia tra la popolazione primordiale dei CROc e gli agricoltori che entrarono in Europa da sudest durante la transizione al Neolitico, evidenziando ancora una volta il contributo dei CR al patrimonio genetico dell’Europa contemporanea, particolarmente di quella settentrionale23.

Un ulteriore studio di Skoglund et al. relativo ad un CR mesolitico, sei CR neolitici e quattro agricoltori neolitici, ha evidenziato una continuità genetica tra i CR mesolitici e quelli neolitici, come pure una differenza genetica rispetto agli agricoltori neolitici24. A corroborare le precedenti scoperte, gli agricoltori neolitici (AA) si avvicinano geneticamente alle popolazioni europee centrali e meridionali odierne, mentre i CR, sebbene al di fuori della variazione delle popolazioni europee contemporanee, risultano più vicini alle popolazioni nord-europee, e in particolare ai lituani, mentre gli odierni gruppi svedesi si trovano in posizione intermedia tra gli agricoltori e i CR neolitici, ma più vicini a questi ultimi. Il CR mesolitico utilizzato come termine di confronto non presentava tracce di geni derivanti dagli agricoltori, sebbene fosse vissuto assai dopo l’introduzione dell’agricoltura nell’area, mentre gli agricoltori neolitici mostravano una significativa discendenza dai CR, probabilmente come risultato di una mescolanza avvenuta nel corso della loro espansione verso nord, nelle zone precedentemente occupate dai CR. In questo studio la distanza genetica tra agricoltori e CR risulta maggiore di quella tra qualsiasi popolazione europea contemporanea (dove è massima tra i finlandesi e gli italiani meridionali)25.

Un altro studio sui CR mesolitici ha utilizzato la saliva presente nel cibo masticato da tre individui26, trovando che questi si collocavano geneticamente tra i CROr e i CROc, ma nella direzione dei secondi e più vicini alle popolazioni europee settentrionali contemporanee, se confrontati con quelle dell’Europa occidentale e centrale; essi presentano la maggiore distanza dalle popolazioni dell’Europa meridionale e orientale. Gli individui mesolitici rinvenuti in Norvegia erano più vicini al gruppo dei CROr, mentre quelli rinvenuti in Svezia (compresi i tre individui dello studio in questione) erano più vicini al gruppo dei CROc. Quest’ultima scoperta conferma quelle precedenti, secondo le quali la penisola Scandinava venne popolata a partire dalla fine dell’ultima epoca glaciale attraverso due distinte migrazioni, una dal sud (ca. 11.500 anni fa) composta da CROc e una dal nordest (ca. 10.300 anni fa) composta da CROr.

 

La conclusione che ne traggo è che in Europa esiste un gradiente genetico nord-sud, dove i geni degli AA sono assai più comuni al sud e i geni dei CROc (comprendenti quelli dei CRS) e degli IE risultano prevalenti al nord. Ciò implica che ogni contributo psicologico di origine genetica derivante dai CR e dagli IE sarà più comune tra gli odierni europei settentrionali che tra quelli meridionali, mentre gli analoghi contributi derivanti dagli AA saranno più comuni nell’Europa del sud.

Comunque, come osservato all’inizio di questo capitolo, queste continuità genetiche e variazioni clinali sono probabilmente influenzate anche dalla selezione in situ, ossia le differenze genetiche che sono continue rispetto a questi clinali preistorici seguitarono probabilmente ad evolvere nella misura in cui le popolazioni miste lungo il clinale tra l’Europa meridionale e quella settentrionale rimasero separate per diverse migliaia di anni. Ad esempio le predisposizioni psicologiche o i caratteri fisici di derivazione genetica in origine più pronunciati in uno dei tre gruppi poterono essere selezionati senza effetti importanti sull’intero autosoma. Dunque, se i tratti che predispongono all’individualismo erano più pronunciati tra i CR e gli IE che tra gli AA (come sembra appunto essere), questi geni poterono diffondersi nella popolazione senza un effetto rilevante sul contributo autosomico generale degli AA. La stessa cosa potè verificarsi per le caratteristiche fisiche, come la pelle chiara, i capelli biondi e gli occhi azzurri, dato che questi tratti possono essere stati più vantaggiosi nelle latitudini settentrionali, come pure aver costituito aspetti selezionati per via sessuale dell’attrazione fisica nel matrimonio individualista (cfr. paragrafo seguente e cap. 3). In ogni caso, un tema dei capitoli seguenti è che vi sono differenze psicologiche collegate all’individualismo che riflettono questa variazione genetica clinale nord-sud.

 

 

 

 

Selezione dell’abilità cognitiva generale e dei tratti fisici.

 

Michael Woodley et al. hanno compiuto degli studi di associazione genome-wide confrontando la frequenza dei geni che sono stati collegati all’abilità cognitiva generale (ACG) nelle popolazioni contemporanee con gli stessi geni degli europei che vissero tra i 4500 e i 1200 anni fa27. I risultati hanno mostrato una selezione per i geni collegati all’ACG nel corso di questo periodo.

Inoltre, come discusso nel cap. 8, malgrado la loro radice proto-indoeuropea, le parole fair e fairness27a compaiono soltanto nelle lingue dell’Europa nordoccidentale, dove originariamente si riferivano solo al comportamento all’interno della tribù. Questo è chiaramente un segno dell’importanza della reputazione morale all’interno del gruppo e suggerisce una selezione di questi tratti nell’Europa nordoccidentale, ma non altrove nelle vaste aree conquistate dagli IE. Questo elemento culturale e la sua base genetica potrebbero dunque essere il risultato dell’assimilazione dei conquistatori IE con i più egualitari CR del nordest dell’Europa. Malgrado le tendenze individualiste tanto degli IE quanto dei CR nordoccidentali, gli IE non si caratterizzano precisamente in quanto egualitari. Essi erano marcatamente gerarchici, e il loro egualitarismo si manifestava soltanto all’interno dell’élite militare aristocratica (cap. 2).

Riguardo ai tratti fisici, il gene del colore chiaro degli occhi apparteneva al 100% ai CR dell’Europa nordoccidentale28. Sebbene i più settentrionali CRS della regione che oggi è la Svezia possedessero il gene della pelle bianca, altri CROc rinvenuti in Spagna e in Lussemburgo non avevano l’allele della pelle chiara, che è praticamente fisso nelle attuali popolazioni europee, mentre i campioni provenienti dagli AA erano omozigoti per questo allele. Questi risultati indicano una selezione negativa per la pelle scura nell’Europa meridionale dopo l’arrivo degli AA29. Il ritrovamento dei geni della pelle chiara in questi resti scheletrici suggerisce che questa mutazione possa essere stata presente in alcune popolazioni di CROc, particolarmente nell’Europa del nord, e cioè nelle popolazioni con le quali più probabilmente i nordeuropei attuali presentano continuità genetica. In effetti un altro studio sui CRS ha osservato come questi possedessero i geni sia degli occhi chiari che dei capelli chiari30.

Riguardo ai proto-IE, i geni della pigmentazione chiara della pelle erano relativamente poco frequenti nei campioni di DNA antico provenienti dalla regione della Steppa Pontica, se confrontati con campioni tratti dai moderni ucraini, cosa che indica una selezione avvenuta man mano che gli IE si espandevano verso nord. I ricercatori hanno attribuito questi risultati a «una combinazione di pressioni selettive associate alla vita nelle latitudini settentrionali, all’adozione di una dieta agricola [vale a dire povera di vitamina D, che aumenta la pressione selettiva in favore di una pigmentazione più chiara] e all’accoppiamento selettivo [cioè preferenza, nell’accoppiamento, per compagni con la pelle chiara] che possono spiegare sufficientemente i cambiamenti osservati dal fenotipo più scuro dell’Eneolitico / Età del Bronzo ad uno in generale più chiaro tra gli europei orientali moderni, sebbene altri fattori selettivi non possano essere esclusi»31.

Come discusso nel cap. 3, il matrimonio individualista comporta in misura assai maggiore l’accoppiamento selettivo sulla base dei tratti del compagno, e ciò a causa della scelta individuale di quest’ultimo. La possibilità di un accoppiamento selettivo implicherebbe che la pelle chiara fosse considerata attraente in un potenziale compagno, così che uomini e donne di elevato valore sessuale avrebbero scelto compagni dalla pelle chiara. Per contro, nelle culture collettiviste i matrimoni avvengono spesso tra parenti e sono combinati dalle famiglie in quanto aspetto delle strategie familiari all’interno di gruppi di parentela estesa. In questo regime (che spesso comporta l’unione tra cugini primi) i matrimoni non riflettono necessariamente le preferenze degli sposi.

Il punto è che per una varietà di ragioni possibili, in Europa, dopo le migrazioni degli AA e degli IE, si verificò una selezione favorevole ad una pigmentazione chiara degli occhi, dei capelli e della pelle. Vi fu pertanto una fissazione della frequenza di un gene associato al colore bianco della pelle tra il Mesolitico e l’Età del Bronzo, un periodo durato più di 3000 anni32. Il gene degli occhi azzurri era già presente nelle popolazioni mesolitiche (come osservato in precedenza) ma è assente tra i proto-IE.

Inoltre, il gene della tolleranza al lattosio può aver avuto origine tra i proto-IE33. Questo gene doveva essere stato molto adattabile in una cultura basata sulla pastorizia e sui latticini come quella Yamnaya. Comunque, questo gene è stato trovato soltanto nel 5% degli europei dell’Età del Bronzo, per quanto il valore più alto si rilevi negli individui della Cultura della Ceramica Cordata (20%) che si ritiene sia derivante  dalla migrazione Yamnaya (il 28% dei resti degli individui di questa cultura presenta quel gene).

Vi è anche un gradiente nord-sud per quanto riguarda la statura, dove gli europei sono più alti al nord. Mathieson et al. rilevano queste differenze nell’Europa neolitica, suggerendo che la statura superiore derivi da un’influenza IE che è più forte al nord ed è associata ad una dieta ricca di latticini; osservano inoltre una selezione favorevole ad una statura più bassa nell’Europa meridionale come adattamento ad una dieta agricola di qualità relativamente inferiore34. Questo gradiente per la statura permane fino all’epoca moderna e riflette un gradiente genetico (e culturale) che ancora esiste in Francia (cfr. cap. 4).

 

Differenze nella mappa genetica dell’Europa contemporanea.

 

Esistono differenze genetiche tra gli europei contemporanei che presentano una evidente distribuzione geografica35. Malgrado il livello generale di variazione genetica in Europa sia basso, gli individui di una stessa area formano tra loro un gruppo, ad esempio anche all’interno delle aree germanofona, francofona e italianofona della Svizzera36. Un’analisi delle componenti principali rivela un’adeguata soluzione a due componenti. Dei due assi, quello che va da nord-nordovest a sud-sudest permette di spiegare il doppio della variabilità (30%) rispetto al secondo (da nord-nordest a sud-sudovest)37.

Nelis et al. hanno anche trovato un gradiente nordovest-sudest in cui la Finlandia rappresenta un’eccezione a nordest e la Svezia il paese più vicino alla Finlandia nell’Europa occidentale38. I risultati sono compatibili con la proposta avanzata nel cap. 4, secondo cui le differenze nella struttura familiare in Europa sono influenzate da un gradiente genetico che va da nord-nordovest a sud-sudest.

Nell’ambito della Scandinavia, Norvegia e Svezia sono chiaramente distinte dalle popolazioni germaniche del continente, mentre la Danimarca rientra in queste popolazioni; la Finlandia è un’eccezione posta più a nord e più a est. Gli autori mettono in guardia sul fatto che i loro risultati possano sottostimare le differenze genetiche tra le aree europee perché alleli relativamente poco comuni non sono sufficientemente campionati. I medesimi risultati sono stati ottenuti da Lao et al.39, che hanno nuovamente trovato due componenti principali correlate alla geografia, la prima delle quali spiega il 31.6% della variabilità, mentre la seconda il 17.3%.

Ancora una volta la Norvegia e la Svezia (ma non la Danimarca) costituiscono gli estremi settentrionali della distribuzione, insieme alla Finlandia (per quanto quest’ultima rappresenti un eccezione). Fatto interessante, visti i dati sulla struttura familiare esaminati nel cap. 4, l’Italia meridionale si colloca all’estremo sud del profilo genetico e si distingue in maniera notevole dall’Italia settentrionale, più germanica (dati rilevati anche da Nelis et al.)40. Lao et al. hanno anche rilevato differenze nord-sud in Spagna e in Germania. D’altro canto, i loro dati relativi alla Francia si basavano su un solo campione proveniente dall’area sudorientale; essi hanno trovato che questo campione era sostanzialmente separato dalle popolazioni germaniche, fornendo così una base genetica al clinale nord-sud relativo alla struttura familiare in Francia, che gioca un ruolo centrale nei dati discussi nel cap. 4.

 

Dati relativi ai cromosomi sessuali.

 

Sulla base del materiale sugli IE presentato nel cap. 2, ci si potrebbe aspettare che le migrazioni IE siano state fortemente sbilanciate in favore degli individui di sesso maschile, e ciò per diverse ragioni. Tra le più importanti, il fatto che una struttura di base della cultura IE era il Männerbund, una banda di guerrieri composta di soli maschi che andava alla ricerca di fama e di fortuna conquistando altri territori. Ora, non vi sono prove che queste culture IE abbiano estirpato i popoli che erano giunte a dominare; esse usavano la loro posizione per ottenere servigi attraverso la riduzione in schiavitù ovvero con un sistema più mite, paragonabile al servaggio medievale. Le donne venivano prese come compagne mentre i maschi erano utilizzati come forza lavoro. Sul lungo periodo divenne possibile una mobilità sociale ascendente per i maschi del gruppo conquistato (p. es. per quelli dotati di talento militare) e le barriere alla mescolanza si fecero gradualmente più deboli, dando come risultato una popolazione mista. Inoltre, le culture delle steppe erano fortemente caratterizzate in termini sessuali, dove la parte maschile dominava in ambiti quali le sepolture, le divinità e la terminologia relativa alla parentela41.

Malgrado queste considerazioni, le prove genetiche di una predominanza di cromosomi Y di origine Yamnaya sono contrastanti. Come osservato in precedenza, circa il 60% dei cromosomi Y derivanti da individui della Cultura della Ceramica Cordata derivano a loro volta dagli Yamnaya, ad indicare che i maschi conquistatori ebbero un relativo successo riproduttivo. Recentemente, Goldberg et al. hanno fornito prove che le migrazioni dalle steppe42 erano fortemente sbilanciate dal punto di vista sessuale, e hanno difeso i loro risultati contro le critiche43. Viste le considerazioni di carattere culturale fatte in precedenza e questi nuovi dati, sono incline ad accettare che la migrazione dalle steppe fosse fortemente sbilanciata in favore degli individui maschi. Inoltre un simile scenario sarebbe altamente compatibile col ritrovamento di alcuni cromosomi Y derivanti da genti che popolavano l’Europa prima della migrazione proveniente dalle steppe, visto che i maschi delle popolazioni conquistate erano utili ai conquistatori come forza lavoro e per altri servizi.

 

Conclusione.

 

Nel cap. 2 discuto la cultura IE in quanto basata sulla conquista militare e sulla dominazione dei popoli conquistati, ma anche in quanto caratterizzata da importanti aspetti dell’individualismo, come quello, ad esempio, di aver creato una cultura di libero mercato nella quale i legami di parentela avevano un’importanza ridotta, mentre i talenti e i risultati individuali erano apprezzati.

Comunque, l’espansione IE in gran parte dell’Asia (le loro conquiste raggiunsero l’odierna Cina occidentale, l’Iran e il subcontinente indiano) non produsse culture individualiste. Similmente, le conquiste dell’antica Macedonia e di Roma in Medio Oriente non ebbero conseguenze durature sull’organizzazione sociale collettivista e basata sulla parentela estesa che rimane tipica di quell’area anche oggi (cfr. cap. 4). Anche la secolare dominazione dell’impero romano (una derivazione della cultura IE, cfr. l’appendice al cap. 2) nell’Europa meridionale non ebbe come risultato l’individualismo, almeno nella stessa misura che nell’Europa nordoccidentale. In effetti, più si risale indietro nel tempo, più la struttura familiare nell’Europa meridionale appare collettivista, e tale modello sopravvive nell’epoca presente (cfr. cap. 4).

Ciò implica che nell’Europa nordoccidentale debbano esserci state tendenze all’individualismo preesistenti alla conquista IE, oppure che nell’ambiente naturale di quella regione vi fosse qualcosa di peculiare che ebbe come risultato l’evoluzione dell’individualismo in quell’area a partire dalla conquista IE, e tuttavia non nelle altre aree  che gli IE conquistarono, cosa che sembra improbabile. Tali tendenze individualiste non appaiono tra gli AA, la cui eredità genetica è assai più forte nel sud dell’Europa che nel nordovest individualista, il che implica che le ricerche debbano focalizzarsi sui CROc (inclusi probabilmente i CRS). Come osservato in precedenza, il contributo della cultura tardo-mesolitica di Ertebølle (una complessa cultura di CR basata su una dieta marina) alla struttura genetica delle popolazioni contemporanee rimane una questione aperta. Lo stesso vale per la cultura che le succedette, quella del Vasellame Bucherellato, e per i CRS in generale.

Tali caratteristiche ambientali atte a promuovere l’individualismo dovevano essere assenti non soltanto dall’Europa meridionale, ma anche da quella orientale, incluse l’Europa nordorientale e la Russia. Anche queste regioni furono conquistate da popolazioni provenienti dalle steppe, ma rimasero più inclini ad una struttura familiare collettivista, malgrado possedessero un clima temperato (cap. 4).

Come discusso nel cap. 3, un possibile aspetto legato all’ambiente può essere stata la capacità dei CR europei nordoccidentali di sviluppare culture complesse basandosi su una ricca dieta marina, che tuttavia richiedeva un ritorno stagionale ai piccoli gruppi su base familiare caratteristici dei CR. Società complesse di CR erano comuni in diversi luoghi: «sono ora disponibili prove abbastanza consistenti di società di CR politicamente complesse che durarono per secoli in diversi continenti»44. Come la cultura di Ertebølle, queste società complesse di CR tendevano a raggrupparsi in aree marine o fluviali ricche di risorse.

Come osservato all’inizio, il clinale genetico qui descritto potrebbe anche essere stato influenzato da una selezione locale successiva ai principali eventi migratori, ossia le differenze genetiche provenienti da questi clinali preistorici possono essersi evolute ulteriormente, nella misura in cui le popolazioni miste del sud e del nord Europa rimasero separate per lunghi periodi. Ad esempio, predisposizioni psicologiche o caratteri fisici di derivazione genetica originariamente più pronunciati in uno dei tre gruppi più importanti possono aver subito una selezione positiva nell’Europa nordoccidentale.

Inoltre la base genetica di tali tratti può aver coinvolto un numero relativamente piccolo di geni, senza effetti rilevanti sulle differenze genetiche tra gruppi nell’autosoma complessivo. Quando i genetisti esaminano le differenze genetiche tra due popolazioni, essi si concentrano non soltanto sui geni adattivi o maladattivi, ma anche su quelli che sul piano adattivo sono neutri. In effetti, una grande percentuale delle mutazioni genetiche umane è adattivamente neutra, o solo leggermente deleteria (secondo le stime di Boyko et al. rispettivamente il 27-29% e il 30-42%)45. Le percentuali autosomiche possono dunque generare stime fuorvianti circa il contributo di un particolare gruppo a particolari tratti. Come osservato in precedenza, vi sono prove di una selezione favorevole alla pigmentazione chiara delle pelle e probabilmente al colore chiaro degli occhi che avrebbe coinvolto assai pochi geni. Questa selezione avrebbe avuto un effetto minimo sulle distanze genetiche complessive tra le popolazioni studiate.

Dunque, se i tratti che predispongono all’individualismo erano più pronunciati tra i CROc e gli IE rispetto agli AA, questi geni avrebbero potuto diffondersi nella popolazione senza un effetto rilevante sul contributo autosomico complessivo degli AA, così che, ad esempio, il contributo autosomico dei CROc al patrimonio genetico degli europei contemporanei potrebbe sottostimare la loro influenza sulle basi genetiche delle predisposizioni psicologiche relative all’individualismo. La stessa cosa sarebbe potuta accadere anche per tratti fisici come la pelle chiara, i capelli biondi e gli occhi azzurri, visto che tali tratti avrebbero potuto essere selezionati per via sessuale quali aspetti dell’attrattività individuale nel matrimonio individualista (cfr. cap. 3). In ogni caso, un tema dei successivi capitoli è che esistono differenze psicologiche relative all’individualismo che riflettono il clinale genetico nord-sud.

A tale riguardo, come discusso nel cap. 3, è interessante il fatto che la popolazione finlandese abbia sviluppato tratti alquanto simili a quelli dei suoi vicini svedesi, pur rimanendo geneticamente distinta da essi (con qualche mescolanza, in particolare nella Finlandia occidentale) e rappresentando in generale un’eccezione rispetto agli europei occidentali, cosa che suggerisce una selezione in situ nel nordovest europeo.

 

In sintesi, le prove attualmente disponibili sono compatibili con la presenza di una popolazione primordiale di CROc a partire da circa 45.000 anni fa. Nell’Europa settentrionale, non più tardi di 8000 anni fa (datazione dei campioni di Motala in Svezia) una parte di questa popolazione si evolse in un gruppo distinto di CRS con pelle bianca e occhi azzurri. Nell’Europa meridionale i CROc aveva pelle scura e occhi chiari. Gli AA provenienti dal levante, con pelle bianca e occhi castani penetrarono in Europa circa 8000 anni fa, eliminando i CROc dalla pelle scura dall’Europa meridionale (con qualche mescolanza) e mescolandosi in misura minore con i CROc e forse i CRS nel nord. In fine, popolazioni dalla pelle bianca e dagli occhi castani provenienti dalle steppe Pontiche emigrarono in Europa attorno al 4500 a. C. sottomettendo militarmente gli altri gruppi già presenti (cap. 2) ma finendo poi per mescolarsi con essi.

Una considerevole rappresentanza genetica dei CROc (e probabilmente dei CRS) permane comunque fino ai nostri giorni. E’ stata già menzionata una ripresa della componente genetica dei CR nella prima Età del Bronzo. La tesi che verrà sviluppata nei capitoli seguenti è che vi sia stata una risorgenza dei CR non dal punto di vista genetico, ma da quello culturale, e cioè che alcune versioni dell’egualitarismo dei CR siano via via diventate dominati a partire dal XVII secolo, con il sorgere del puritanesimo in Inghilterra, e che tale cultura predomini tra gli europei dell’epoca attuale e specialmente nelle società derivate dall’Europa nordoccidentale. I due capitoli seguenti sono dedicati alla descrizione delle culture, tra loro assai diverse, di questi due gruppi individualisti: gli IE aristocratici e i CR egualitari.


Note.

  • Peter FROST, The Hajnal Line and Gene-Culture Coevolution in Northwest Europe, “Advances in Anthropology” 7 (2017): 154-174.
  • Mary Jane WEST-EBERHARD, Developmental Plasticity and Evolution, New York, Oxford University Press, 2003; si veda anche: Peter LA FRENIERE, Kevin MACDONALD, A Post-genomic View of Behavioral Development in Adaptation to the Environment, “Developmental Review” 33, n. 2 (2013): 89-102.
  • WEST-EBERHARD, Developmental Plasticity and Evolution.
  • Gregory COCHRAN, Henry HARPENDING, The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution, New York, Basic Books, 2010.
  • Iosif LAZARIDIS et al., Ancient Human Genomes Suggest Three Ancestral Populations for Present-day Europe, “Nature” 513, 409-413 (2014).
  • Eppie JONES et al., Upper Palaeolithic Genomes Reveal Deep Roots of Modern Eurasians, “Nature Communications” 6, November 17, 2015: 1-8, 4.
  • COCHRAN, HARPENDING, The 10,000 Year Explosion, 36-63.
  • Eppie R. JONES et al., Upper Palaeolithic Genomes Reveal Deep Roots of Modern Eurasians. La data della fine del Mesolitico è diversa nelle diverse parti d’Europa perché essa è definita dall’arrivo dell’agricoltura con gli AA, evento verificatosi prima nel sud e successivamente nel nord.
  • Iain MATHIESON et al., Genome-Wide Patterns of Selection in 230 Ancient Europeans, “Nature” 528, 2015: 499-503.
  • Ibid.; si veda anche Morton E. ALLENTOFT et al., Population Genomics of Bronze Age Eurasia, “Nature” 522, June 11, 2015: 167-172.
  • LAZARIDIS et al., Ancient Human Genomes Suggest Three Ancestral Populations for Present-day Europeans; Wolfgang HAAK et al., Massive Migration from the Steppe was a Source for Indo-European Languages in Europe, “Nature” 522, June 11, 2015: 207-211.
  • HAAK et al., Massive Migration from the Steppe was a Source for Indo-European Languages in Europe. [13] JONES et al., Upper Palaeolithic Genomes Reveal Deep Roots of Modern Eurasians; si veda anche: Pontus SKOGLUND et al., Origins and Genetic Legacy of Neolithic Farmers and Hunter-Gatherers in Europe, “Science” 336, April 27, 2010: 466-469.
  • HAAK et al., Massive Migration from the Steppe was a Source for Indo-European Languages in Europe.
  • Ibid., 4.
  • ALLENTOFT et al., Population Genomics of Bronze Age Eurasia.
  • Ibid., 169.
  • Wolfgang HAAK et al., Massive Migration from the Steppe was a Source for Indo-European Languages in Europe, 207.
  • LAZARIDIS et al., Ancient Human Genomes Suggest Three Ancestral Populations for Present-day Europeans.
  • Helena MALMSTRÖM et al., Ancient Mitochondrial DNA from the Northern Fringe of the Neolithic Farming Expansion in Europe Sheds Light on the Dispersion Process, “Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society”, B 370, January 19, 2015: 11-10.
  • Alissa MITTNIK et al., The Genetic History of the Baltic Sea Region, “Nature Communications” 9. n.

442, January 30, 2018: 1.11.

  • Pontus SKOGLUND et al., Origins and Genetic Legacy of Neolithic Farmers and Hunter-Gatherers in Europe, “Science” 366, 2012: 466-469.
  • Si veda anche DAVIDSKI, On the Modern Genetic Affinities of Ice-Age Europeans, “Eurogenes Blogspot”, May 5, 2016.
  • Pontus SKOGLUND et al., Genomic Diversity and Admixture Differs for Stone-Age Scandinavian Foragers and Farmers, “Science”, 344, n. 6185, May 16, 2014: 747-750.
  • Oscar LAO et al., Correlation between Genetic and Geographic Structure in Europe, “Current Biology”, 18, August 26, 2008: 1241-1248.
  • Natalia KASHUBA et al., Ancient DNA from Mastics Connects Material Culture and Genetics of Mesolithic Hunter-Gatherers in Scandinavia, “Communications Biology, 2, n. 1, 2019.

https:// www.nature.com/articles/s42003-019-0399-1

  • Michael WOODLEY OF MENIE et al., Holocene Selection for Variants Associated with General Cognitive

Ability: Comparing Ancient and Modern Genomes, “Twin Research and Human Genetics”, 20, n. 4, August, 2017: 271-280.

[27a] N.d.T.: l’aggettivo fair significa sia biondo (chiaro di capelli) che giusto, corretto, imparziale; così il sostantivo fairness significa chiarezza, candore (di pelle) come pure correttezza, onestà, equità. Da ciò il collegamento tra caratteri fisici e caratteri morali espresso da tali termini.

  • MATHIESON et al., Genome-Wide Patterns of Selection in 230 Ancient Europeans; LAZARIDIS et al., Ancient Human Genomes Suggest Three Ancestral Populations for Present-day Europeans.
  • LAZARIDIS et al., Ancient Human Genomes Suggest Three Ancestral Populations for Present-day Europeans.
  • MITTNIK et al., The Genetic History of the Baltic Sea Region.
  • Sandre WILDE et al., Direct Evidence for Positive Selection of Skin, Hair and Eye Pigmentation in Europeans during the Last 5,000 Y, “Proceedings of the National Academy of Science” 111, n. 13, April 1, 2014: 4832-4837, 4835.
  • ALLENTOFT et al., Population Genomics of Bronze Age Eurasia. Casidy et al. (2015) hanno scoperto che un campione di tre individui provenienti dall’Irlanda dell’Età del Bronzo possedeva geni collegati agli Yamnaya (ca. 32%) mentre in un agricoltore neolitico irlandese tale influenza genetica non è stata rinvenuta.

Questi individui erano almeno eterozigoti per gli occhi azzurri, sebbene uno di loro avesse occhi marroni. Presumibilmente il gene per gli occhi azzurri derivava dall’influenza dei CR, che rimaneva consistente (ca. 26%). L’individuo appartenente agli AA aveva capelli scuri e occhi marroni; Lara CASSIDY et al., Neolithic and Bronze Age Migration to Ireland and Establishment of the Insular Atlantic Genome, “Proceedings of the National Academy of Science” 113, n. 2, January 16, 2016: 368-373.

  • ALLENTOFT et al., Population Genomics of Bronze Age Eurasia.
  • MATHIESON et al., Genome-Wide Patterns of Selection in 230 Ancient Europeans.
  • John NOVEMBRE et al., Genes Mirror Geography within Europe, “Nature Letters” 456, November 6, 2008: 98-101. Novembre et al. hanno trovato un FST (una misura della distanza genetica) di 0.004, che indica un grado molto basso di separazione genetica.
  • LAO et al., Correlation between Genetic and Geographic Structure in Europe. Lao et al. hanno anche trovato, in generale, una bassa variabilità genetica in Europa, rilevando un clinale nord-sud per la diversità genetica. Si è scoperto che gli europei del nord erano più strettamente imparentati tra loro di quelli del sud. [37] Si veda anche Michael F. SEDLIN et al., European Population Substructure: Clustering of Northern and Southern Populations, “PLOS Genetics”, 2006 (senza nn. di pag.). Sedlin et al. hanno trovato «chiare prove di ampie differenze nella struttura della popolazione tra gli europei del nord e quelli del sud». I campioni provenienti dall’Italia e dalla Spagna formavano un gruppo separato rispetto a quelli di altre popolazioni europee, e cioè dell’Europa occidentale, centrale, orientale e della regione scandinava. Tale contrasto è risultato evidente anche all’interno degli stessi campioni italiani e spagnoli, laddove quelli provenienti dalle zone settentrionali erano più simili a quelli delle regioni nordeuropee rispetto a quelli provenienti dalle zone meridionali (http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.0020143).
  • Mari NELIS et al., Genetic Structure of Europeans: A View from the North-East, “Plos One” 4, n. 5, May, 2009 (senza nn. di pag.; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0005472).
  • LAO et al., Correlation between Genetic and Geographic Structure in Europe.
  • NELIS et al., Genetic Structure of Europeans.
  • Amy GOLDBERG et al., Ancient X Chromosomes Reveal Contrasting Sex Bias in Neolithic and Bronze

Age Eurasian Migrations, “Proceedings of the National Academy of Science” 114, n. 10, March 7, 2017:

2657-62.

  • Ibid.
  • Iosif LAZARIDIS, David REICH, Failure to Replicate a Genetic Signal for Sex Bias in the Steppe Migration into Central Europe, “Proceedings of the National Academy of Science” 114 n. 20, May 16, 2017:

E3873-E3874; Amy GOLDBERG, Torsten GÜNTHER, Noah A. ROSENBERG, Mattias JAKOBSSON, Reply to Lazaridis and Reich: Robust Model-based Inference of Male-biased Admisture during Bronze Age Migration from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe, “Proceedings of the National Academy of Science” 114 n. 20, May 16, 2017: E3875-E3877.

  • Jeanne ARNOLD et al., Entrenched Disbelief: Complex Hunter-Gatherers and the Case for Inclusive Cultural Evolutionary Thinking, “Joutnal of Archaeological Method and Theory 23, 2016: 448-499, 449.
  • Adam R. Boyko et al., Assessing the Evolutionary Impact of Amino Acid Mutations in the Human Genome, “PLOS Genetics”, May 30, 2008 (senza nn. di pag.); https:// journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1000083.