Facebook Twitter Gplus RSS

Race and Genetics – Part 5

An ongoing review of race science, the focus in this installment continuing on Fritz Lenz and characteristic mental traits, including the jewish fondness for Lamarckism and the Nordic fondness for objectivity.

Excerpts taken once again from science historian Robert N. Proctor’s Racial Hygiene: Medicine Under the Nazis:

Most curious of all, perhaps is Lenz’s belief that the tendency toward “Lamarckism” is a genetically selected racial characteristic. The jew, Lenz writes, has a peculiar fondness for Lamarckism, the doctrine of the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Hand in hand with this, “there usually goes a dislike of Darwinism, of the doctine that the origin of species has been affected by the ‘cruel’ process of natural selection, not by way of the ‘peaceful’ inheritance of acquired characteristics.” Lenz’s explanation of the jewish inclination toward Lamarckism is remarkable:

The jewish inclination toward Lamarckism is obviously an expression of the wish that there should be no unbridgeable racial distinctions. For instance, it is extremely characteristic that Kammerer, who was himself both a jew and a Lamarckian, should write that “the denial of the racial importance of acquired characteristics favors race hatred.” I am personally acquainted with jews of high mental attainments who feel themselves to belong to the German people and to German civilization, and to whom, therefore, it is a great tragedy of their lives that they should be looked upon as aliens. If acquired characters could be inherited, then, by living in a Teutonic environment and by adopting a Teutonic culture, the jews could become transformed into genuine Teutons. This enables us to understand why the Lamarckian doctrine should make so strong an appeal to the jews, whose fate it is to exist everywhere among the Gentiles as a sharply differentiated minority. But this, of course, can make no difference to the fact that the Lamarckian doctrine is an illusion … jews do not transform themselves into Germans by writing books on Goethe.

More accurately, jews regard themselves as distinct from all others, and wish that those others do not. The attempt to pathologize opponents, especially in terms of “denial” and “hate” is characteristically jewish. Jews wish only that nobody notice that they do not wish to become Teutons, or anything else, because then they would no longer be jews.

Also from jewish ethnographer Raphael Patai’s The Jewish Mind:

Lenz’s attitude to the “jewish race” was unsympathetic but correct.

Lenz offers an ingenious explanation for the jewish fondness for Lamarckism.

This bit from Proctor, quoted last week, bears repeating:

Many jews, Lenz reports, in the process of adapting to essentially alien surroundings, have tried to imitate the customs and appearances of their hosts in order to blend in and appear less conspicuous. He considers this a typical case of “animal mimicry,” commonly observed “wherever a living creature gains advantages in the struggle for existence by acquiring a resemblance to some other organism.” It is for this reason, he argues, that jews are not just shrewd and alert, not just diligent and persevering, but possess as well an unusual sense of empathy – an ability to put themselves in the place of outhers and to induce others to accept their guidance.

Likewise this bit from Patai’s “The Myth of the Jewish Race”:

The systematic extermination of 6 million jews by Nazi Germany and its satellites was the culmination of the notion that the jews were a race, with distinct inherited physical and mental characteristics, alien to the Gentile population in whose midst they lived, and overtly or secretly inimical to it.

In other words, the notion that jews are distinct from Whites is bad for jews, because it leads to Whites realizing that jews are bad for Whites, which is bad for jews.

More from Proctor on Lenz’s evaluation of Nordic mental characteristics:

Lenz is confident that in most respects the mental powers of Nordic man exceed those of other races. He cites Fischer’s observations that the mentality of the Nordic includes industry, vigorous imagination, intelligence, foresight, organizing ability, artistic capacity, individualism, a willingness to obey orders, one-sidedness, an inclination toward meditation and flights of fancy, dislike for steady and quiet work, and devotion to plan or idea. To this Lenz adds the qualities of self-control, self-respect, respect for life and property, desire to know the unknown, a certain wander instinct, and fondness for the sea. According to Lenz, the Nordic mind strives above all else for clarity; Nordic idealism represents a “healthy realism,” a sense of the actual and the essential. He also maintains that the deficiency of historical and geographical knowledge one finds among the British and the Americans is typically Nordic: the Nordic has less a sense of particular occurences than of law and principle. This in turn he links with the Nordic’s individualism and also his natural tendency toward Protestantism over Catholicism. Selection has aided the Nordic – his cold northern climes have selected for intelligence and mastery of techniques. The same climate that among the the Mongols selected for freedom from wants and capacity to endure has selected in the Nordic a love of order and of cleanliness; a love of sport, of danger, and of war; and a certain need for distance or detachment from other men and things (what Lenz calls Nietzsche’s “pathos of distance”). Hence “objectivity is a Nordic racial trait.”

Such pronouncements may sound strange to the modern ear. Yet Lenz did in fact consider his science of race to be a neutral and objective science – indeed, he often warns against the dangers of “mixing values with science.” For Lenz, human racial variation is simply a fact that science is called on to analyze; the purpose of constructing a racial typology is not to rank the various races in any moral sense:

No race can be regarded as either “higher” or “lower” than another, because all such estimates of value imply the application of some standard of value other than that of race per se.

At several point Lenz takes pains to convince his reader that he is not an anti-semite. He suggests that “contrary to the opinion of the ‘anti-semite’,” the jews have played a constructive role in history: the jew tears down, but generally with the aim of building up.

Here is a fundamental distinction in mentality. In spite of the objective ideals of high-minded Whites, including race scientists like Lenz, the struggle amongst groups extends even into science – with jews ultimately tearing down the science of race specifically because they regard it as bad for jews.

The podcast will be broadcast and available for download on Tuesday at 9PM ET.

 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
Comments Off on Race and Genetics – Part 5  comments 

Race and Genetics – Part 4

Ernst Haeckel, Alfred Ploetz

Ernst Heinrich Philipp August Haeckel:

(February 16, 1834 – August 9, 1919),[1] also written von Haeckel, was an eminent German biologist, naturalist, philosopher, physician, professor and artist who discovered, described and named thousands of new species, mapped a genealogical tree relating all life forms, and coined many terms in biology

Alfred Ploetz:

(August 22, 1860 – March 20, 1940) was a German physician, biologist, eugenicist known for coining the term racial hygiene (Rassenhygiene) and promoting the concept in Germany. Rassenhygiene is a form of eugenics.

Alfred Ploetz introduces the term Racial Hygiene, from Hadding Scott’s National-Socialist Worldview:

Alfred Ploetz’ 1895 work, Die Tuechtigkeit Unserer Rasse und der Schutz der Schwachen (“The Competence of Our Race and the Preservation of the Weak”), is credited by Robert Proctor as the book that started the racial hygiene movement in Germany.

From Ploetz’ introduction:

Peoples and races are just organic life-forms, determined like beasts and plants through their component parts – cells here, men there – for which their environment is a complex of favorable or unfavorable conditions. And just as we have, by the combination of favorable conditions, created a hygiene for man, which, based ultimately on the life of his cells, teaches him how he may maintain health as long as possible and postpone death, so is it high time, based on the vital functions of men, to attempt the founding of a hygiene of the races and of all mankind, which teaches how an organic collectivity of men may keep itself as vigorous as possible and postpone its perishing as long as possible.

Discussion returns to Fritz Lenz, with selections from Robert Proctor’s Racial Hygiene: Medicine Under the Nazis, published in 1988.

Lenz co-authored a two-volume textbook with Eugen Fischer and Erwin Baur, Grundriss der menschlichen Erblichkeitslehre und Rassenhygiene (Outline of human genetics and racial hygiene), published in 1921. Proctor describes this work as:

a monument of scholarship and careful argumentation. The book strongly influenced German biomedical thinking and provided scientific legitimacy for many of the views that came to be favored in the Nazi era.

Referring to Lenz:

He repeatedly poked fun at Soviet attempts to “politicize” genetics by identifying the doctrine of the inheritance of acquired characteristics with socialist or proletarian science. Science, according to Lenz, was value free, and politics must not play a role in its development. Science, however, could and should inform the practice of politics. In 1930, in his celebration of Ploetz’s seventieth birthday, Lenz wrote:

Ploetz recognized as unsatisfactory from the very beginning the Marxist doctrine of historical materialism – a doctrine which, biologically speaking, derived from the principle of the omnipotence of the environment. The recognition that not all evil is determined by the environment, and that the roots of most evil lie instead in hereditary defects, became the motivating force in racial hygiene.

The concluding chapter of the 1927 edition of Lenz’s textbook is titled “The Inheritance of Particular Talents” and begins with series of questions:

Why is it that many persons are able, many others stupid, and the majority mediocre? Why are some people cheerful and others gloomy; some industrious and others slothful; some unselfish and others selfish?

Proctor recounts how Lenz attributed negro cruelty to a child-like lack of human sympathy and self-restraint, believed the Mongol greatly exceeded the Nordic man in mental development (“memory is stronger than intellect”, more a capacity “for imitation than for invention”), and distinguished the Alpine and Mediterranean races from the Nordic.

his most extraordinary remarks, however, are those concerning the jews, whom he classifies (along with Greeks and Armenians) as belonging to the “Near Eastern race”. Much of what he says about jews represents an attempt to explain, in biological terms, jewish desires to assimilate to German culture.

According to Lenz, jews can be recognized at once by their appearance, though the mental particulars of this race are even more distinctive than the physical. (He refers to the jews as “a mental race.”) Lenz imagines himself able “to recognize the literary work of a jew (scientific writing included) by the way in which the thoughts are developed and by the method of expression,” and then proceeds to list a wide range of examples for this thesis.

Many jews, Lenz reports, in the process of adapting to essentially alien surroundings, have tried to imitate the customs and appearances of their hosts in order to blend in and appear less conspicuous. He considers this a typical case of “animal mimicry,” commonly observed “wherever a living creature gains advantages in the struggle for existence by acquiring a resemblance to some other organism.” It is for this reason, he argues, that jews are not just shrewd and alert, not just diligent and persevering, but possess as well an unusual sense of empathy – an ability to put themselves in the place of others and to induce others to accept their guidance. The Near Easterner in general, and the jew in particular, has been selected not for the control and exploitation of nature, but for the control and exploitation of other men.

As contemporary stupidity requires, Proctor imagines that such ideas are purely imaginary. Today we’re not supposed to notice that jews are distinct from the rest of us, even as jews openly discuss such distinctions themselves.

Jews have distinguished between yiddishe kopf (which I mistakenly called “judishe kopf” in the podcast) and goyishe kopf long before White scientists began writing textbooks about race and racial differences.

Hungarian-Jewish ethnographer, historian, Orientalist and anthropologist Raphael Patai published The Jewish Mind in 1977. In the foreword Patai describes this as an outgrowth of his previous book, The Myth of the Jewish Race. In the introduction to that book he describes what is now the jewish view of race and racial science:

The systematic extermination of 6 million jews by Nazi Germany and its satellites was the culmination of the notion that the jews were a race, with distinct inherited physical and mental characteristics, alien to the Gentile population in whose midst they lived, and overtly or secretly inimical to it. Modern European racial anti-semitism, which in the years of World War II led to the largest genocide ever perpetrated, is a special sub-variety of a generic phenomenon known as “racism”, which was characterized by Ashley Montagu as “a malfunctioning of the mind which endangers human relations, a disease due to the infection of the mind by false ideas concerning the status of other groups of human beings.”

The most frightening thing about racism was, and is, that once its virus lodges in the mind it dims perception to the degree of making all persons appear not primarily as individual human beings but as members of a race. If an individual is perceived as belonging to a different race, he is stereo-typed as an alien, almost like a creature from another galaxy in modern science fiction, and as such an enemy whose capture, enslavement, immobilization, or murder lies in “our” interest. To the diseased racist mind there is, therefore, no such thing as mankind; there are only disparate races which, whenver they encounter one another, are destined to enter into a deadly struggle whose foreordained outcome is the victory of the master race.

Reflecting typical jewish double-think, Patai begins “Jewish Mind” as if it is in no way whatsoever related to his pronouncements on “diseased racist minds”:

Were we to set the peoples of the world in a series ranging from those who had the least exposure to outside influences to those who had the most, the jews would undoubtedly rank highest in the variety, intensity, and duration of such exposure. More than that, the difference in this respect between the jews and the Gentiles is not merely quantitative but also qualitative. This, in effect, places the jewish people in a category sui generis [[of its own kind/genus]]. Thus history has supplied a profound justification for the taxonomical dichotomy of mankind into jews and Gentiles which has been a fundamental feature of the jewish world view ever since antiquity, when the Bible put the prophetic words about Israel into the mouth of the pagan seer Balaam: “Lo, it is a people that shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the nations.”

Patai came to my attention because he refers to Lenz:

Lenz’s attitude to the “jewish race” was unsympathetic but correct.

Despite his nationalistic conceit, Lenz was a serious scholar whose work represented the best that German science produced until his time in genetics.

Patai’s description of this archetypical race scientist plainly contradicts his own boogeyman-like pathologization and demonization of race science.

Lenz even goes so far in his presentation of the similarity between jews and Germans that he attributes to it the “frequent outbreaks of enmity between Germans and jews” (read: the frequent anti-semitic attacks by Germans against jews); it is “the similarity in their respective gifts which leads to a strong competition like that which has again and again led the ruling groups of the Teutons into conflict with one another, each striving to establish power over the others.”

Compared to the White scientists I’ve been discussing for the past several installments, who thought and wrote forthrightly about race in the decades leading up to World War II, Patai is indeed like a creature from another galaxy. His jewish mind can’t help but try to supplant Lenz’s more objective view with one biased entirely in favor of jews, illustrating some of the techniques jews use to “induce others to accept their guidance”.

The podcast will be broadcast and available for download on Tuesday at 9PM ET.

 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
Comments Off on Race and Genetics – Part 4  comments 

Race and Genetics – Part 3

August Weismann, Fritz Lenz

Continued review of the history of the science relating to human biology, genetics and race.

More on Herbert Spencer and what Richard Hofstadter (and others concerned about the best interests of jews) retroactively identified and pathologized as Social Darwinism:

The name social Darwinism is a modern name given to the various theories of society that emerged in England and the United States in the 1870s, which, it is alleged, sought to apply biological concepts to sociology and politics.[1][2] The term social Darwinism gained widespread currency when used in 1944 to oppose these earlier concepts. Today, because of the negative connotations of the theory of social Darwinism, especially after the atrocities of the Second World War (including the Holocaust), few people would describe themselves as Social Darwinists and the term is generally seen as pejorative.[3]

Social Darwinism is generally understood to use the concepts of struggle for existence and survival of the fittest to justify social policies which make no distinction between those able to support themselves and those unable to support themselves. Many such views stress competition between individuals in laissez-faire capitalism; but the ideology has also motivated ideas of eugenics, scientific racism, imperialism,[4] fascism, Nazism and struggle between national or racial groups.[5][6]

Opponents of evolution theory have often maintained that social Darwinism is a logical entailment of a belief in evolutionary theory, while biologists and historians maintain that it is rather a perversion of Charles Darwin’s ideas

The argument that Nazi ideology was strongly influenced by social Darwinist ideas is often found in historical and social science literature.[40] For example, the Jewish philosopher and historian Hannah Arendt analysed the historical development from a politically indifferent scientific Darwinism via social Darwinist ethics to racist ideology.

The jews (and others concerned about the best interests of jews) didn’t directly attack “the concepts of struggle for existence and survival of the fittest” or “the ideas of struggle between national or racial groups” via science. Instead they imposed social and political taboos and sanctions.

William Bateson coined the term genetics in 1905, but the man regarded as the father of genetics is Friedrich Leopold August Weismann:

(17 January 1834 – 5 November 1914) was a German evolutionary biologist.[1] Ernst Mayr ranked him the second most notable evolutionary theorist of the 19th century, after Charles Darwin.

His main contribution was the germ plasm theory, according to which … inheritance only takes place by means of the germ cells—…such as egg cells and sperm cells. Other cells of the body—somatic cells—do not function as agents of heredity. The effect is one-way: germ cells produce somatic cells and are not affected by anything the somatic cells learn or therefore any ability the body acquires during its life. Genetic information cannot pass from soma to germ plasm and on to the next generation. This is referred to as the Weismann barrier.

Weismann was an opponent of Lamarckism, the inheritance of acquired characteristics, and was determined to discredit it:

Weismann conducted the experiment of removing the tails of 68 white mice, repeatedly over 5 generations, and reporting that no mice were born in consequence without a tail or even with a shorter tail.

In the conclusion of his description of this experiment, Essays upon heredity and kindred biological problems, published in 1889, Weismann writes:

the mutilations of certain parts of the human body, as practised by different nations from times immemorial, have, in not a single instance, led to the malformation or reduction of the parts in question. Such hereditary effects have been produced neither by circumcision, nor the removal of the front teeth, nor the boring of holes in the lips or nose, nor the extraordinary artificial crushing and crippling of the feet of Chinese women. No child among any of the nations referred to possesses the slightest trace of these mutilations when born : they have to be acquired anew in every generation.

In searching out Weismann’s original words on the matter I ran across the phrase “the jewish fondness for Lamarckism”. This turned out to be a fruitful lead to German geneticist Fritz Lenz. Lenz’s thoughts and work are described by Robert N. Proctor, Professor of History of Science at Stanford, in his book Racial Hygiene: Medicine Under the Nazis, published in 1988:

Lenz’s rejection of Lamarckian inheritance was part of the broader rejection by racial hygienists of any substantial role for the environment in shaping human behavior and social institutions. For Lenz, “environmentalism” could be upheld only on ideological, not scientific, grounds.

More on Lenz and racial hygiene next week.

The podcast will be broadcast and available for download on Tuesday at 9PM ET.

 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
2 Comments  comments 

Race and Genetics – Part 2

Thomas Malthus, Alfred Wallace, Francis Galton, Herbert Spencer

Continued review of the history of the science relating to human biology, genetics and race.

Anglican clergyman Thomas Malthus (through An Essay on the Principle of Population) influenced Alfred Russel Wallace as well as Charles Darwin.

Human differences and race were central concerns for early biologists and anthropologists. Debates and disagreements, then and now, regarding the nature of race, including how many races there are, are part of what is called the species problem, which is itself a type of classification problem.

Controversy over the difference between polygenism (which in Darwin’s time was a reflection of the dominant Christian dogma viewing races/species as distinct since creation) and monogenism (reflected, for example, in Darwin’s view that all life is related at some point in the distant past) eventually shifted to disagreement between the multiregional origin of modern humans theory and the recent African origin of modern humans theory (AKA “out of Africa”).

As previously mentioned, Carleton Coon was one prominent proponent of multiregionalism. Coon asserted that the human species divided into five races before it had evolved into Homo sapiens, and furthermore, that the races evolved into Homo sapiens at different times. Coon’s textbook, The Races Of Europe, published in 1939, was a rewrite of William Ripley’s book with the same title, published in 1899. Both men recognized the reality and significance of race not only in the coarse-grained, continental sense, but also in the finer-grained sense, taking note of racial distinctions even amongst Europeans:

Teutonic (Ripley’s term, Coon used the term Nordic) — members of the northern race were long-skulled (or dolichocephalic), tall in stature, and possessed pale hair, eyes and skin.

Mediterranean — members of the southern race were long-skulled (or dolichocephalic), short/medium in stature, and possessed dark hair, eyes and skin.

Alpine — members of the central race were round-skulled (or brachycephalic), stocky in stature, and possessed intermediate hair, eye and skin color.

Discussion moves then to two major, race-related developments which sprang from Darwinism. Francis Galton and eugenics, and Herbert Spencer and what Richard Hofstadter (and others concerned about the best interests of jews) retroactively identified and pathologized as “social Darwinism”.

The podcast will be broadcast and available for download on Tuesday at 9PM ET.

 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
2 Comments  comments 

Race and Genetics – Part 1

Robert Boyle, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, Gregor Mendel, and Charles Darwin

A review of the history of the science relating to human biology, genetics and race. From the 1600s, when what we now recognize as science was first taking shape, we track the thoughts of a series of eminent, distinguished White thinkers who accepted the biological reality of race as part of the reality of life that they observed and were determined to understand and explain.

Much of the critique of race concerns the broad use and significance of the term. A contemporary definition which fits the nature of the concept well enough has been stated by Steve Sailer:

A racial group is an extended family that is inbred to some degree.

That’s it—just an “extended family that is somewhat inbred.” There’s no need to say how big the extended family has to be, or just how inbred.

Race and genetics, at Wikipedia, expresses the more prevalent viewpoint today, acknowledging the genetic evidence, but euphemizing the concept of race, confining it to the crudest, coarsest possible sense:

Today it is possible to determine, by genetic analysis, the geographic ancestry of a person and the degree of ancestry from each region. Such analyses can pinpoint the migrational history of a person’s ancestors with a high degree of accuracy.

Discussion proceeds to Robert Boyle, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (and Lamarckism), Gregor Mendel (and Mendelian inheritance), Charles Darwin (and The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex).

The podcast will be broadcast and available for download on Tuesday at 9PM ET.

 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
Comments Off on Race and Genetics – Part 1  comments 

The Racial Roots of Europeans – Part 2

Continued reading from William Pierce’s Who We Are:

Upper Paleolithic Man

For roughly 20,000 years during the closing chapter of the Ice Ages — the period known to archaeologists as the Upper Paleolithic, or “late old stone age” — our ancestors lived as big-game hunters in Europe, ranging from the Mediterranean coast to the edge of the ice in the north. Their physical remains and those of their artifacts are relatively plentiful, giving us a great deal of information about them and their lifestyle. One of the most striking things about the Upper Paleolithic inhabitants of Europe was their physical homogeneity. Measurements made on their skeletal remains indicate a population more racially homogeneous than that of any European country today — and this population was spread over an enormous area throughout a span of time very long compared to that of all recorded human history.

As one would expect, the evidence of their art indicates a corresponding degree of psychic homogeneity. A remarkable similarity exists, for example, in cave paintings found at locations ranging from the Iberian peninsula all the way to the Urals, a distance of more than 3,000 miles.

Rugged, Brainy

Upper Paleolithic Whites had broad, rugged faces with large, wide jaws, prominent chins, and — judging from the nasal openings in their skulls — prominent noses of narrow-to-medium width. And they had large brains: nearly 100 cubic centimeters larger than the White average today.

They were predominantly dolichocephalic (long-headed, like modern Nordics and Mediterraneans), although this was one physical trait in which the Upper Paleolithic population showed substantial diversity, with a larger minority of mesocephalic and brachycephalic (round-headed, like modern Alpines) skulls in the west than in the east. Throughout the Upper Paleolithic this White proto-race lived not only in Europe but also in a band stretching across northern Asia to the Pacific. In Siberia and other eastern regions they were eventually displaced or absorbed by Mongoloid peoples, although isolated pockets of them have survived even until the present (the Ainu people of Japan seem to be an example, but even they show Mongoloid admixture).

Glacial Retreat

In Europe, when the Ice Ages came to an end, some of the White big-game hunters changed their way of life, and some did not, but instead followed the retreating glaciers northward as they shrank back toward their nucleus in the mountains of the Scandinavian peninsula.

Neither the Nordics nor the Alpines of today are physically identical to the Upper Paleolithic Whites, although both are ultimately related to them. In both the Nordic and the Alpine areas of Europe, however, one finds local populations which are essentially Upper Paleolithic in type. By selecting from these populations individuals whose skeletal measurements fit those of Upper Paleolithic fossils, we can gain a good idea of what the Ice Age hunters of 25,000 years ago looked like.

And from their artifacts we can gain a good idea of how they lived. Most of these artifacts are tools or weapons made of bone or stone, but there are also carved art-objects, paintings, hearths, and remnants of dwellings.

Craftsmen and Artists

They made a great variety of stone implements, prominent among which were long, thin blades struck from carefully prepared stone cores with a single, precise blow. Such stone blades were not entirely unknown during the preceding, Neanderthal stage of human development, but now they became much more common, and the tool-making technology associated with them took several strides forward.

Another distinguishing feature of Upper Paleolithic European culture was the extensive use of bone. It was carved into sewing needles, clothing fastenings and ornaments, statuettes, harpoon and spear heads, musical instruments, and many other items, using stone tools manufactured especially for the purpose.

The Upper Paleolithic economy was based on herd animals: horses, woolly mammoths, bison, and, especially, reindeer. These animals flourished on the tundra, and the people of Europe depended almost totally on them. From their flesh came food, from their hides clothing and coverings for shelters, and from their bones tools and implements.

Permanent Villages

Some groups of hunters apparently followed the herds on their seasonal migrations, but others established year-around settlements. Typically these settlements were occupied by from five to 20 families (from 20 to 100 individuals), and the habitations varied from single-family huts, probably covered with animal skins, to long, multi-family houses with gable roofs. One such Ice Age long house in southern Russia was nearly 450 feet long. Despite the harsh environment, the tundra supported large herds, and the hunters apparently had plenty to eat. They obviously had the leisure time — and the inclination — to devote themselves to non-essential pastimes, such as art and music.

Birth of Ceramics

These Ice Age Europeans were inventive people. In a few thousand years they introduced more cultural innovations than in all of mankind’s previous existence. They learned, for example, to use coal as a fuel. And they learned that by firing statuettes and other objects molded of clay, they obtained a much more durable. water-resistant product. Fired-clay objects recently found at Dolni Vestonice, in Moravia, and dated at 28,000 years ago represent man’s first use of the ceramic techniques which played such an important role in his later cultural development. Until quite recently, archaeologists had assumed that ceramic technology was first developed by farming peoples in the Middle East almost 20,000 years later.

There is also evidence that the Ice Age hunters carried on trade over distances of hundreds of miles, at least.

Ice-Age Archers

Two enormously significant inventions which date from the closing phase of the Wuerm Ice Age are the spear-thrower and the bow. Approximately 15,000 years ago Upper Paleolithic Whites learned to throw a hunting spear with much greater force by using the leverage provided by a piece of carved reindeer antler hooked over the butt. This invention gradually spread over the world, and the racially backward Australian aborigines still use spear-throwers for hunting today.

Some 11,000 years ago our European ancestors invented the world’s second propulsive weapon, the bow. Although the earliest bow which has been found (at Holmgard, Denmark) is only about 8,000 years old, collections of arrows 3,000 years older, with clearly identifiable notches for a bowstring, have been unearthed at Stellmoor, near Hamburg. The bow gave man an incalculable advantage in hunting, as he no longer had to creep up on his prey to within spear range.

Two gaps in Upper Paleolithic man’s cultural achievements are primarily responsible for the limitations in our knowledge of him and his ways: he did not write, and he seldom portrayed human beings in his prolific art.

Our First Kinsmen

Whether neoteny provides the correct explanation for the developments of the Upper Paleolithic period or not, it is clear that the race which hunted reindeer on the tundra of northern Europe from the second Wuerm glacial advance until about 10,000 years ago was essentially modern, not only physically but also psychically, and was, therefore, the first race to appear on this earth with whom we can feel the bond of full kinship.

Until now we have traced the development of a single, rather homogeneous racial group: the Whites of the Upper Paleolithic period who hunted the herds on the northern Eurasian plain, and their forest-and-coast-dwelling descendants in the Mesolithic period.

Mediterranean Subrace

But throughout the whole Upper Paleolithic period there was another subracial type on the southern and southeastern margins of Europe. Averaging about five inches shorter than the Upper Paleolithic Whites, with slenderer builds, smaller heads, narrower faces, and more delicate features, the male and female members of this southern subrace were quite similar in skeletal appearance. That is, they were a pedomorphic subrace, to use the ethnological term; the adults did not develop as strong a degree of sexual differentiation as did the Upper Paleolithic Whites. These were the ancestors of today’s small, dark, narrow faced, pedomorphic Mediterraneans.

Some 150,000 years ago, during the relatively mild Riss-Wuerm interglacial period, the ancestors of the Upper Paleolithic Whites first expanded from southern Europe into the northern Eurasian plain, as described in the third installment in this series. But some of their fellows remained behind, along both the northern and southern shores of the Mediterranean and in the Middle East. Those who went north and became big-game hunters went through the Neanderthaloid phase and eventually evolved into the Cro-Magnon type of the Upper Paleolithic. Those who remained in the south evolved under different conditions, becoming the Mediterranean type.

Upper Paleolithic

The Cro-Magnon subrace, which was the principal racial element in Europe during the Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic periods — i.e., from about 40,000 years ago until the introduction of farming 6,000-8,000 years ago — is represented today by groups of Upper Paleolithic survivors in Ireland, northern Germany, Scandinavia, and other parts of northern Europe. They were described and pictured in the fourth installment in this series. The Cro-Magnon homeland may be considered to be the vast northern European plain, stretching from the Alps in the south to the North Sea and the Baltic Sea in the north, and from Ireland in the west to the Urals in the east.

Alpine Subrace

The Alpine subrace, which was described in the fifth installment, has been derived from the Cro-Magnon subrace through a complex of genetic changes involving a reduction in stature, a decrease in relative head length, a slight decrease in sexual differentiation — and, perhaps, some Mediterranean admixture. The Alpine homeland is the mountain belt stretching across western and central Europe – i.e., it is in that region that Alpines have historically constituted the largest portion of the population.

And the various Mediterranean types, whose ancestors developed more or less separately from the Cro-Magnon subrace, have their homelands along the African and European shores of the Mediterranean Sea and in the Middle East.

Population Explosion

When men everywhere lived by hunting, fishing, and gathering natural vegetation, population densities were everywhere quite small: on the order of one person for every five square miles of habitable land. When they began living by farming and raising livestock, however, population densities rapidly increased more than a hundredfold.

We noted in the fifth installment that it was in the Mediterranean racial area, on Europe’s borders rather than in its interior, that the Neolithic revolution began. And, thus, beginning about 9,000 years ago, the Mediterraneans gained a strong numerical advantage over the Cro-Magnons and their Alpine relatives. Several groups of Mediterraneans, representing several varieties, were able to push northward and westward into Europe, initially swamping the sparse hunter-gatherer population.

Even though the Cro-Magnons themselves experienced a population surge when they became farmers, the initial advantage of the Mediterraneans resulted in a lasting Mediterranean numerical dominance in many areas which had formerly been Cro-Magnon. Most areas of Mediterranean penetration became racially mixed, with the ratio of Cro-Magnon to Mediterranean blood varying from place to place.

Tall, Blond Warriors

But the Mediterraneans were not the only ones to invade the Cro-Magnon areas of Europe during the Neolithic period. From the steppes of southern Russia, in the region between the Black Sea and the Caspian, came wave after wave of a subrace which differed from all the others we have encountered thus far. Not quite as ruggedly built as the Cro-Magnons, yet more so than the Mediterraneans, they were tall and fair.

They may have learned the arts of agriculture from earlier contact with a nearby Mediterranean group, or they may have developed farming on their own, but, whichever the case, they were already carrying these arts westward and northwestward with them nearly 6,000 years ago. Superb craftsmen as well as farmers and cattle breeders, they were, above all else, warriors. Wherever they went they conquered and ruled.

Nordics Take Lead

And their culture ruled also. Their language replaced the language of the conquered peoples everywhere, as did also their religion, their art, and their social customs. They were the Nordics.

The Old European civilization lasted about 3,000 years — i.e., until about 5,500 years ago — and then it disintegrated utterly. Its temples and gods, its towns, its language — all disappeared in an overwhelming disaster: the arrival of Bronze Age Nordic warriors from the east.

The creators of the Old European civilization were a blend of the Mesolithic Cro-Magnons originally in the Balkan area and the Neolithic Mediterraneans who infiltrated the area, beginning a little over 8,500 years ago. Most of these Mediterraneans were of a variety anthropologists call Danubian, and they were short, gracile, and pedomorphic. Because the Cro-Magnon population differed physically in so many respects from the Danubians, there were substantial geographical variations in racial type in Old Europe, depending on the proportions of the two basic stocks present in the blend. When the Nordics arrived, the geographical racial pattern became even more varied. The racial homogeneity which had existed in most of Europe during the Upper Paleolithic period was gone for good.

Soil-Bound Spirit

The religion of the people of Old Europe, like the religion of every race, was created in their own image, a spiritual reflection of their inner nature. They were farmers, Mediterranean and passive. They were a settled race, and their ties were to the soil. Although we can decipher none of their religious inscriptions, it seems safe to assume that, like other soil-bound peoples, their religion was centered on the concept of fertility. Certainly, this is suggested by the abundance of female figurines, stylized vulva symbols, and other evidences of a flourishing fertility cult which have been unearthed by archaeologists along with other remnants of the Old European culture.

The abundance of the life-giving soil, the seasonal death and rebirth of the green earth, the mating and birthing of their domestic animals: these were the essential mysteries, and it was around these that the religious concepts of their matriarchal society must have been formed. Theirs was the religion of the Earth Mother.

Warrior Religion

In contrast, the Battle-Axe People, the blond horsemen from the east, the conquerors of Old Europe, were a race on the move. Nordic, active, patriarchal, dominating, they, too, farmed and, bred livestock, but they were far less soil-bound in their outlook than the Mediterraneans. Warriors, explorers, rulers, they were less concerned with the mysteries of plant and animal reproduction and more concerned with valor, honor, and authority. Their spiritual focus was upward and outward, toward the sky and far horizons, rather than downward toward the soil and inward toward their own bodily functions, as in the case of the Mediterraneans. Theirs was the religion of the Sky Father.

Neolithic Europe, Wikipedia:

Basic cultural characteristics

Regardless of specific chronology, many European Neolithic groups share basic characteristics, such as living in small-scale, presumably egalitarian [citation needed], family-based communities, subsisting on domesticated plants and animals supplemented with the collection of wild plant foods and with hunting, and producing hand-made pottery, that is, pottery made without the potter’s wheel. There are also many differences, with some Neolithic communities in southeastern Europe living in heavily fortified settlements of 3,000-4,000 people (e.g., Sesklo in Greece) whereas Neolithic groups in England were small (possibly 50-100 people) and highly mobile cattle-herders.

The details of the origin, chronology, social organization, subsistence practices and ideology of the peoples of Neolithic Europe are obtained from archaeology, and not historical records, since these people left none. Since the 1970s, population genetics has provided independent data on the population history of Neolithic Europe, including migration events and genetic relationships with peoples in South Asia. A further independent tool, linguistics, has contributed hypothetical reconstructions of early European languages and family trees with estimates of dating of splits, in particular theories on the relationship between speakers of Indo-European languages and Neolithic peoples.

The podcast will be broadcast and available for download on Tuesday at 9PM ET.

 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
1 Comment  comments 

The Racial Roots of Europeans – Part 1

Carleton Stevens Coon

An overview of Europe prior to the Aryan invasions circa 4000 BC.

The Stone, Bronze, and Iron Ages (notes added):

Lower Paleolithic           2.5M - 200,000
Middle Paleolithic          200,000 - 40,000
Upper Paleolithic           40,000 - 8000 BC
Mesolithic/Epipaleolithic   ambiguous bounds
Neolithic                   8000 BC - 3000 BC
Bronze Age                  3000 BC - 1000 BC
Iron Age                    1000 BC - now

The Pleistocene is the geological epoch which lasted from about 2,588,000 to 11,700 years ago. The Holocene is an interglacial (relatively warmer) period lasting from about 11,700 years ago until today.

Doggerland, Wikipedia:

Doggerland is a name given by archaeologists and geologists to a former landmass in the southern North Sea that connected the island of Great Britain to mainland Europe during and after the last Ice Age, surviving until about 6,500 or 6,200 BCE and then gradually being flooded by rising sea levels. Geological surveys have suggested that Doggerland was a large area of dry land that stretched from Britain’s east coast across to the present coast of the Netherlands and the western coasts of Germany and Denmark.[2] Doggerland was probably a rich habitat with human habitation in the Mesolithic period.

Carleton S. Coon, Wikipedia.

Multiregional origin of modern humans, Wikipedia.

From the introduction to The Races Of Europe, by Carleton Stevens Coon, published in 1939:

We suggest that the ancestors of the whites in their major form developed during pluvial [rainy] periods of the Pleistocene in parts of what is now the arid zone reaching from the Sahara to northern India; that in post-glacial times many were forced out of these homes by desiccation, and that some of them originated agriculture and animal husbandry in northeastern Africa and southwestern Asia. From these centers agricultural pioneers followed post-glacial zones of climate into Europe, gradually encroaching upon the lands formerly glaciated. In most of the regions which they occupied they greatly outnumbered the descendants of the hunters and fishers whose ancestors had clung on since glacial times, and many of whom had followed the retreating ice toward its last melting nuclei.

At any rate, the main conclusion of this study will be that the present races of Europe are derived from a blend of (A), food-producing peoples from Asia and Africa, of basically Mediterranean racial form, with (B), the descendants of interglacial and glacial food-gatherers, produced in turn by a blending of basic Homo sapiens, related to the remote ancestor of the Mediterraneans, with some non-sapiens species of general Neanderthaloid form. The actions and interactions of environment, selection, migration, and human culture upon the various entities within this amalgam, have produced the white race in its present complexity.

From JR’s Rare Books and Commentary, Who We Are: a Series of Articles on the History of the White Race (PDF), by William Luther Pierce:

No people is morally and spiritually healthy unless it is imbued with a strong sense of its own identity. Essential to that sense of identity are an awareness and an understanding of all the qualities which the members of the people share in common.

It is doubly imperative that every man and woman who claims the privilege of membership in a community based on the bonds of common race and common culture knows and takes pride in his racial and cultural history, for in this history are all the elements which give his community its unique character and differentiate its members from all those who are not members.

When such knowledge and pride are lacking, a community is subject to a host of ills and cannot long endure. Solidarity and a sense of responsibility to the community give place to special-interest factionalism and alienation. A lack of a sense of identity blurs the distinction between compatriot and stranger, between friend and foe, and leaves the community prey to the greed or malice of aliens as well as of its own pathological members, who will grow mightily in numbers as loss of identity proceeds.

The podcast will be broadcast and available for download on Tuesday at 9PM ET.

 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
4 Comments  comments 

Who’s White? – Part 4

Kristoffer comments on Who’s White? – Part 3:

Cut through all the BS and simply use your commonsense, eyes, and the credo of David Lane: Who is white http://www.davidlane1488.com/whoiswhite.html

David Lane’s Pyramid Prophecy and Der Bruder Schweighen Archives:

Der Bruder Schweigen , or “The Order” as they were commonly known, was a White Nationalist organization that fought to reclaim America for the people whose ancestors struggled, sacrificed, and died to build it. They were men and women of different socioeconomic backgrounds bound together by the ideals of racial solidarity and the creation of an autonomous White homeland.

Who is White, by David Lane:

Those of you who have over the years or decades either observed or participated in the resistance to the murder of the White race know that provocateurs have attacked the racial purity of professed leaders to impugn their motives. In my opinion part of the reason this has successfully worked for the enemy is a mind set grown from an alien religion. A basic tenet of Judeo-Christianity and part of its fatal allure is that it allows inferior men to claim superior status without corresponding effort. A Judeo-Christian with an IQ of 90 and a dismal life history can get baptized, repeat a few ritualistic words and presto, suddenly proclaim divine status superior to that of a man a million times his superior in intellect and character. The “blue-eyed blond” syndrome is typical of this mentality. And I say this advisedly since I appear Nordic, tall, slender, blue-eyed blond. Yet I can only guess at the purity of my ancestry. My father of record sold my mother to his buddies and to strangers for booze money, so the Gods alone know all. What I do know is this. I look White. I fight for White. I recognize the achievements of the White race. I want to preserve our kind. I am horrified that the beauty of the White Aryan woman may soon perish from the earth forever. I suffer for each White child tormented in America’s inter-racial nightmare. I see beauty in a Celtic princess with brown or red hair and green eyes. I see beauty in the statuesque Nordic Goddess with blue eyes and golden hair. I see beauty in the freckle-faced Irish lass. I see heroism in Robert Jay Mathews and Richard Scutari with their dark hair and eyes of green or brown as well as in Frank DeSilva, a fair skinned Bruders with a French Portuguese name. Theirs is far greater nobility than 99% of those “Nordic Ideals,” I might add.

For those who boast of their “purity,” you have 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great grandparents and so on. Go back 500 years or so and you have a million ancestors. A few more generations and everyone who ever trod the lands of Europe is your ancestor, including Huns, Mongols and Moors. There are no 100% pure Aryans as per 10,000 years ago. But we still do exist as a distinct and unique biological entity. The cultures and civilizations we create are beyond comparison. The beauty of our women, blondes, brunettes, redheads, green-eyed, blue-eyed, brown-eyed, is the desire of all men and the envy of all women. So, we do not want to be derailed by gossip or speculation on who may be 1/16th Indian or have some Italian, Spanish or Portuguese blood. We are not going to debate over whether the collective remaining White gene pool is 95% or 97% pure Aryan.

Surely it would be a tragedy if the various divisions of our race lose their distinctive traits and beauty. And after we have secured the existence of our people and a future for ALL our children, hopefully we can take steps to preserve this diversity. But for now, we are going to accept the facts and circumstances as they exist. We are going to work together for the holy cause and we will not tolerate provocateurs, divisions or dissension. If someone looks White, acts White, fights White, then until their actions prove otherwise, they are our Folk. On the other hand, regardless of pedigree or appearance, those who oppose, criticize, hinder or fail to support our cause are no friends of ours.

The Order, Metapedia:

The nine founding members of the group swore an oath that began:

“I, as a free Aryan man, hereby swear an unrelenting oath upon the green graves of our sires, upon the children in the wombs of our wives, upon the throne of God almighty, sacred is His name, to join together in holy union with those brothers in this circle and to declare forthright that from this moment on I have no fear of death, no fear of foe; that I have a sacred duty to do whatever is necessary to deliver our people from the Jew and bring total victory to the Aryan race…”

We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children. – David Lane

The podcast will be broadcast and available for download on Tuesday at 9PM ET.

 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
5 Comments  comments 

Who’s White? – Part 3

Map of Indo European migrations from ca. 4000 to 1000 BC according to the Kurgan model.

Continued reading from Who’s White?, by John Law at Stormfront.

If someone were to say that they were 12.5% Amerindian then, as far as we’re concerned, that’s what they are, 1/8th non-White. This is something about which we can’t compromise. You’re either White or you aren’t.

After all, on an anonymous message board, we don’t have the person-to person contact that we do in the real world. We don’t have the visual clues, the body language, the vocal expressions, the facial expressions, the overall impressions that we can get in real person-to-person meetings. In personal encounters if someone looks White, sounds White, acts White, says they’re White, then we can pretty much assume they’re White. But on an anonymous message board we don’t have those visual and auditory clues. A poster can post a picture of anybody at all and claim to be that person but unless we have met that poster in person, we don’t know who they are. On an anonymous message board all we have is what a poster writes and if he writes that he is part non-White, then that’s what he is, part non-White.

Dr. William Pierce had this to say about the matter:

Who can say that he has no non-Aryan ancestry at all in his family tree? Not I. Most people can say who their parents and grandparents are. Only a few Americans can go back as far as four generations, however. I doubt that as many as one percent of Americans can go back six generations with any degree of certainty. Jews and liberals seize this fact to confuse people with the claim that we’re all mongrels, that there is no such thing as a “pure” race, etc. — therefore, it doesn’t do any good to try to preserve the White race, because it really doesn’t exist.

I’m sure that you are not fooled by that sophistry. We must be practical. We know that there is a White race, and that it is easy to select individuals from that race who constitute a relatively “pure” sub-group. I’m not an expert on Amerindian ethnology, but I do know that the Indians consisted of many tribes which were racially distinct, ranging from essentially Caucasoid to essentially Mongoloid. So if one has Indian admixture, it depends a lot on what tribe. As a very rough rule, if a person looks White and thinks of himself as White and is the kind of person our other members wouldn’t mind their sisters marrying-and if we know that he’s no more than one-sixteenth non-White, we consider him White.

As I said, that’s a rough rule. A person may believe that one of his grandparents was an Indian, because that grandparent lived on a reservation. But the fact is that many people who consider themselves Indians today and live on reservations are more White than Indian, due to earlier racial mixture between Whites and Indians.

This type of question, about being partly non-White, is asked endlessly on Stormfront. Some posters are asking an honest question but often others are anti-Whites desperately looking for ways to show that we are all mongrels, that there is no such thing as race, that miscegenation is good and natural, that we should all just go home and let things follow their course.

They may start with an extreme claim of some minuscule admixture, say 1/64th. Then, if we reject that for being non-White they say we are fanatics and if we accept them and their claim then we have started down the fatal slippery slope. If 1/64th is okay, they will ask, then 1/32nd must be okay too since there’s little difference between 1/64th and 1/32nd. And if 1/32nd is okay then 1/16th must be fine too. And so on down the slippery slope. Their agenda is to get us on that slippery slope because that slippery slope ends with “there’s only one race, the human race.” With that, the White race is defined out of existence.

Even after these antis are refuted, they come back a few days later asking the same question as if there had been no prior resolution in the hopes that they can snag a few newcomers and to plant the seeds of doubt. This continues on ad infinitum.

Another tactic of the egalitarian crowd is to try to reduce the basis of White Nationalism to something as absurd and as superficial as skin color. Our contention is that we are a distinct and unique people with our own culture, history and destiny. We have not only the right but the moral duty to perpetuate ourselves. To do anything less would amount to racial suicide. We go to great lengths to preserve bio-diversity, the spotted owls, snail darters, mountain gorillas, etc. etc. Are White Europeans any less worthy of preservation?

Another post that appears endlessly on Stormfront is the kind that denounces various European people as not being truly White. In answer to that false accusation, the National Vanguard has stated that:

Due to the generally deplorable understanding of race, it is necessary for us to emphasize that White people are the descendants of all historically European peoples, including the Irish, Slavs, Spaniards, Italians, Greeks, as well as the Germanic, Scandinavian, and Anglo-Saxon peoples, etc., so long as there is no discernible trace of non-White admixture. National Vanguard celebrates the cultural diversity of the White race. Our beautiful languages, traditions, and cultures are a strength. We are pan-European in our views and stand unconditionally opposed to conflicts between White peoples. Outside forces often exploit one White ethnicity against another. We do not excuse anti-White hatreds or historical “scores,” and will consistently work towards reconciliation and unity in places such as the Balkans and Northern Ireland. Our watchword is no more brothers’ wars.

So, again, in response to the question, “Who’s White?” we answer:

“Non-Jewish people of wholly European descent. No exceptions.” And if you tell us you’re not, we will believe you.

I’m John Law and thanks for listening.

Kurgan hypothesis:

The Kurgan hypothesis (also theory or model) … postulates that the people of an archaeological “Kurgan culture” (a term grouping the Yamna, or Pit Grave, culture and its predecessors) in the Pontic steppe were the most likely speakers of the Proto-Indo-European language. The term is derived from kurgan (курган), a Turkic loanword in Russian for a tumulus or burial mound. The Kurgan model is the most widely accepted scenario of Indo-European origins.

Urheimat is a:

German compound of Ur- “primitive, original” and Heimat “home, homeland”

Old Europe (archaeology):

Old Europe is a term coined by archaeologist Marija Gimbutas to describe what she perceives as a relatively homogeneous and widespread pre-Indo-European Neolithic culture in Europe, particularly in Malta and the Balkans.

In her major work, The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe: 6500–3500 B.C. (1982), she refers to these Neolithic cultures as Old Europe. Archaeologists and ethnographers working within her framework believe that the evidence points to migrations of the peoples who spoke Indo-European languages at the beginning of the Bronze age (the Kurgan hypothesis). For this reason, Gimbutas and her associates regard the terms Neolithic Europe, Old Europe, and Pre-Indo-European as synonymous.

According to Gimbutas’ version of the Kurgan hypothesis, Old Europe was invaded and destroyed by horse-riding pastoral nomads from the Pontic-Caspian steppe (the “Kurgan culture”) who brought with them violence, patriarchy and Indo-European languages.[2] More recent proponents of the Kurgan hypothesis agree that the cultures of Old Europe spoke pre-Indo-European languages but include a less dramatic transition, with a prolonged migration of Proto-Indo-European speakers after Old Europe’s collapse because of other factors.

Marija Gimbutas:

Marija Gimbutas (Lithuanian: Marija Gimbutienė) (Vilnius, January 23, 1921 – Los Angeles, United States February 2, 1994), was a Lithuanian-American archeologist known for her research into the Neolithic and Bronze Age cultures of “Old Europe”, a term she introduced, and for her Kurgan hypothesis, the current most widely accepted of the Proto-Indo-European Urheimat hypotheses among scholars. Gimbutas’s conclusions that Neolithic sites in Lithuania and across Europe pointed to long-term stable egalitarian societies with women at the center materially and spiritually earned a mixed reception by other scholars, but became a keystone of the matriarchal studies movement and the Goddess movement.

In 1956 Gimbutas introduced her Kurgan hypothesis, which combined archaeological study of the distinctive Kurgan burial mounds with linguistics to unravel some problems in the study of the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) speaking peoples, whom she dubbed the “Kurgans”; namely, to account for their origin and to trace their migrations into Europe. This hypothesis, and the act of bridging the disciplines, has had a significant impact on Indo-European studies.

Gimbutas gained fame — and notoriety — with her last three books: The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe (1974); The Language of the Goddess (1989), which inspired an exhibition in Wiesbaden, 1993/94; and her final book, The Civilization of the Goddess (1991), which based on her documented archeological findings presented an overview of her conclusions about Neolithic cultures across Europe: housing patterns, social structure, art, religion, and the nature of literacy.

The Civilization of the Goddess articulated what Gimbutas saw as the differences between the Old European system, which she considered goddess- and woman-centered (gynocentric), and the Bronze Age Indo-European patriarchal (“androcratic”) culture which supplanted it. According to her interpretations, gynocentric (or matristic) societies were peaceful, they honored homosexuals, and they espoused economic equality.

The “androcratic”, or male-dominated, Kurgan peoples, on the other hand, invaded Europe and imposed upon its natives the hierarchical rule of male warriors.

Every human language evolved from ’single prehistoric African mother tongue’:

Every language in the world – from English to Mandarin – evolved from a prehistoric ’mother tongue’ first spoken in Africa tens of thousands of years ago, a new study reveals.

The podcast will be broadcast and available for download on Tuesday at 9PM ET.

 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
8 Comments  comments 

Who’s White? – Part 2

Continued reading and commentary on a brief essay by Irmin Vinson, Racial Nationalism and the Aryans.

Traditionally Greek, Latin and Sanskrit were considered the closest languages to PIE, and much of the reconstructed Aryan proto-language is based on them. Modern Lithuanian, however, is the most archaic living language, closer to the original Aryan speech than any other. There is even an IE language, Tocharian, attested in Chinese Turkestan, which indicates that Aryans must have made an appearance in the Far East, a long-standing piece of linguistic evidence which has been recently confirmed by the discovery of the physical remains of a blond-haired people in China.

Perhaps the most famous proof for the prehistoric existence of PIE is the word for king: rex in Latin, raja in Sanskrit, ri in Old Irish, along with a host of other cognates. All are obviously variants of a common word for king. Since none of the peoples speaking these various languages were in physical contact with one another during the historical period — i.e. at a time for which written records exist — comparative philologists inferred that their respective languages must have evolved from a single proto-language, which is the only way of explaining the presence of the same word for “king” among such widely dispersed peoples. The Romans clearly didn’t borrow rex from the Irish or the Indo-Aryans; each had instead inherited their own word for “king” from a common ancestral language.

Philologists can also, moreover, safely conclude that the Aryans must have had kings prior to emigrating from their original homeland in southern Russia. In fact a fairly detailed body of evidence about prehistoric Aryan political organization, marriage practices, and religious beliefs can be reconstructed on the basis of the survival of common vocabulary in the various extant Indo-European languages: They worshiped a sky-god, they traced descent through the male line, they raised cattle, they drank meed [sic, mead], they used horse-drawn chariots (which they probably invented) as weapons of war, etc. Even the red, white and blue/green that appears in so many modern flags may have an Aryan pedigree. It is likely a survival from the Aryan tripartite social division of their communities into priests (white), warriors (red), and herders and cultivators (blue/green).

Aryans, or more specifically Indo-Aryans, make their first notable appearance in history around 2000-1500 BC as invaders of Northern India. The Sanskrit Rig Veda, a collection of religious texts still revered by modern Hindus, records (often enigmatically) their gradual subjugation of the dark-skinned inhabitants, the Dasyus: e.g. “Indra [=Norse Thor, Celtic Taranis] has torn open the fortresses of the Dasyus, which in their wombs hid the black people. He created land and water for Manu [=Aryan man]”; “lower than all besides, hast thou, O Indra, cast down the Dasyus, abject tribes of Dasas”; “after slaying the Dasyus, let Indra with his white friends win land, let him win the sun and water”; “Indra subdued the Dasyu color and drove it into hiding.”

With all-outstripping chariot-wheel, O Indra,

Thou, far-famed, hast overthrown the twice ten kings …

Thou goest from fight to fight, intrepidly

Destroying castle after castle here with strength. (RV 1.53)

The Aryans were remarkably expansionist, and almost everywhere they went they conquered and subjugated the indigenous peoples, imposing their languages and (to varying degrees) their religious beliefs on the natives, and receiving in turn contributions from the peoples whom they conquered. Aryan invasions — or more accurately, a long sequence of different invasions by speakers of Indo-European languages — swept across Old Europe beginning as early as the fourth millennium BC, and over time the conquerors and the conquered melded into specific peoples with distinctive languages. Most of the contemporary inhabitants of Europe, along with their respective early national cultures, are the result of interaction between successive waves of Aryan invaders and culture of the particular White people that they conquered and with whom they later intermarried, and as a result almost all modern European languages are members of the Western branch of the IE family tree.

The birth of a European culture, however, predates the arrival of the Indo-Europeans: The cave art of Lascaux, which some have identified as the first flowering of Western man’s creative genius, was the work of Old Europeans, as were Stonehenge in the North and the Minoan Palace culture of Crete in the South. A pan-European religious symbolism had already evolved, much of which was later incorporated into IE mythologies, including various regional adaptations of the ubiquitous Old European reverence for the Mother Goddess. Many of the principal figures in Greek mythology predate the arrival of Aryans, and during the course of ancient history Old European religious beliefs and practices continually reasserted themselves.

Europe is European because the conquerors and the conquered were members the same White race, different branches on the same family tree; India is a morass of poverty because the bulk of the conquered, with whom the Indo-Aryans eventually intermarried, were non-White Veddoids. The lesson is obvious. Even today high-caste Hindus can still be identified by their Caucasian features and light skin, and the poorest and most backward parts of India are generally the darkest.

As an aside, recent genetic studies have indicated that the Basques of Aquitaine and the Pyrenees are probably the purest form of Old Europeans as they existed prior to the arrival of Indo-European invaders. They evidently emerged from the invasions of Europe unconquered, and they remained sufficiently isolated to retain their own unique, non-IE language.

What Should We Call Ourselves?

The history of the Aryans, of which the preceding is a necessarily simplifying summary, is not merely an interesting curiosity; it has important implications for how we define ourselves. A German, for example, is Aryan only insofar as the original inhabitants of ancient Germany were conquered by invaders who spoke an Indo-European language. In no significantly genetic sense can he be called a pure Aryan. Even at the time of the Indo-European invasions of Old Europe the term had lost much of its original meaning as the name of a distinct ethnic group. During their successive migrations from their homeland the Aryans had absorbed other White populations and had acquired often distinctive physiognomies, along with mutually incomprehensible (though related) languages.

Racialist writing is often contaminated by a divisive Nordicism and a quasi-mystical adoration of the Aryan, and Hitler himself often used “Aryan” and “Nordic” interchangeably. But contrary to popular belief National Socialist race theorists never claimed that Germans were Aryans nor even that the bulk of the Germanic gene pool was Aryan. They argued, rather, that Nordics were more genetically Aryan than, say, Mediterranean Italians — a much more modest claim which has the additional virtue of being true. Northern Europe was sparsely populated prior to the Indo-European migrations into it, whereas Southern Europe already had an existing civilization and a much larger population. A Nordic German or Swede can thus rightly say that he is more Aryan than a Greek or a southern Italian, but he shouldn’t bother doing it, since the distinction is by now so immaterial that it only serves to divide Whites.

For the term Aryan to have any validity in a contemporary context, it can only denote members of the European cultures that arose from the interaction of IE-speaking (“Aryan”) invaders and the White Europeans who preceded them. It cannot mean Aryans proper, since no such people, in the strict sense, have existed for at least two thousand years.

An additional difficulty with “Aryan,” even if it is used in this loose sense, is that it still excludes a fair number of people most of us would consider White. In addition to Basque, Finnish and Hungarian are also not Indo-European languages, and neither Finns nor Hungarians are descendants of a people who spoke PIE. Yet both are obviously White.

“White” is thus preferable to “Aryan” as a name for the race whose existence we must secure, but White is also imperfect. We should never fetishize minor racial differences by turning insignificant gradations in “whiteness” into a hierarchy of relative degrees of racial purity. Most Italians, Greeks, and Spaniards are members of the Mediterranean branch of our White race, and they are generally somewhat darker than Nordics. Most Ashkenazi Jews are, conversely, physically more “white” than the average Greek. Yet these “white” Jews are the principal subverters of Western civilization, whereas Greeks, Italians, and Spaniards are among its principal creators.

What we really need is some classificatory term that indicates “non-Jewish people of European descent.” Unfortunately no such term exists. “White” and “Aryan” are acceptable substitutes only if we understand their deficiencies.

Euro-American racial nationalism differs markedly from the more ethnically based nationalisms of Europe. In Europe ethnic distinctions among Whites are a valuable political tool for preserving a “Europe of nations” against the forces of capitalist globalization and Third World immigration. But on this continent we are — for good or ill, and I think for good — an amalgam of different European ethnicities, despite our undoubted Anglo-Celtic cultural and legal core. It is inevitable, though unfortunate, that under these circumstances racialists will sometimes quibble among ourselves about the exact contours of the category “White,” that is, which ethnic groups are part of us and which are not. Yet what cannot be disputed, at least by anyone who wants to be constructive about the racialist movement on this continent, is that we all must define ourselves as Euro-American or perish. Otherwise we are simply an unconnected series of disparate ethnic groups, defenseless against a consciously anti-White “rainbow coalition” that aims to bury us all.

Also, Read this before asking, “Who’s White?”, from Stormfront, which is presented as Stormfront’s official position on the question. The original audio source is cited as White Hot Radio Podcast, November 3, 2006.

Good evening, I’m John Law, Stormfront Senior Moderator and National Vanguard member.

Tonight I’d like to address the first part of the term ‘White Nationalism’ and answer the question, “Who’s White?”

It’s a fair question, a fundamental question really. Our enemies have no trouble identifying us but sometimes people who are just becoming racially aware have difficulty answering this question. It’s the kind of question that can invite hair-splitting arguments or mind-numbing technical discussion. Those things are fine in their place but what folks really need to get started on this path of White Nationalism is a simple working definition that can be readily applied to almost any situation.

So in response to the question, “Who’s White?” we answer: “Non-Jewish people of wholly European descent. No exceptions.”

What comprises “European?” Those areas north of the Mediterranean and west of the Urals corresponding roughly to what was formerly known as European Christendom.

Note the word “wholly” — “of wholly European descent.” Sometimes a person might volunteer that he is some small part non-White, like 1/64th or 1/128th, and then ask if we still consider him White. The answer is that if a person identifies with his non-White part so much that he is concerned about it and feels compelled to tell us about it, then we consider him to be non-White.

The key point in both opinions, and my own, is that White is shorthand for people of European descent, with jews excluded.

The podcast will be broadcast and available for download on Tuesday at 9PM ET.

 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
5 Comments  comments 
© the White network