Category: European Race

Dishonest Durocher

Play the piano, Durocher, play it well.

For if the early twentieth century’s racial science, however flawed, was more accurate than the blank-slatist ideas that have become culturally hegemonic in the West since 1945, then there would need to be a radical and far more nuanced reassessment of Hitler. Indeed, it is now documented that many of the founding fathers of the blank-slatist consensus, namely Franz Boas, Theodor Adorno, and Stephen J. Gould, were ethnically-motivated pseudoscientific fraudsters.

“ethnically-motivated pseudoscientific fraudsters.”  Like Jayman?  

You want pseudoscience?  Look at all the HBDers.  How about real racial science instead?

The nations of Europe, including the Germans, form identifiable genetic sub-clusters, being in effect intra-continental sub-races only somewhat blurred on the edges.

How about looking at the original paper instead of a 23andme blog post?  The “blurred edges” are so large that Germans are not “in effect” an “intra-continental sub-race.”  Looking at the broad North/South and East/West distinctions within Europe could indeed identify such significant sub-races, but not at the national level, you idiot.  Can you say that “DE” really is a separate sub-race based on this figure?

Do you have any idea how close the genetic distances are? If you are going to make such fine distinctions, while ignoring “blurred…edges” than you can call Northern vs. Southern Germany as “separate sub-races” – what would Saint Adolf think of that?

Survivors of the Ice Age have left a genetic imprint, particularly in northern Europe. In the words of one scientific publication: “Scandinavians are the earliest Europeans.”

And the next words from that publication that the fundamentally dishonest Durocher doesn’t quote for you are:

However, the genome also indicates that many European traits, including those from the Middle East, were already present in the first Europeans.

Durocher continues: 

…and the enduring interest in the so-called Hajnal Line

If by “enduring interest” you mean by anti-WN HBDers like HBD Chick, triracial Jayman, “actor on the stage of history” Frost, and  “creative genius” Cochran, yes. Otherwise….

And of course, resistance to immigration in Europe today, and the rise of anti-immigration parties, does not strictly follow the “Hajnal line” – said line being interpreted by HBDers in ways that I doubt Hajnal himself would consider scientifically valid.

The geographical extent of the Yamnaya migration is not clear, but the researchers note that the eastern migrants could have completely replaced existing populations, at least in what is now Germany. 

This does not mean, as Durocher slyly implies with that quote, that Germans are fully descended from that population. Only that locally, certain pre-existing populations were replaced. Germans show the genetic signature of not only this population but of the Paleolithic hunter-gatherers and the Neolithic farmers as well. To say Germans are enriched in the Yamnaya ancestry compared to other groups, yes, that is likely correct.
That a leading proponent of “mainstreaming” is now citing the anti-White anti-Salter non-White HBDer “Jayman” as well as the pro-Jewish Frost, and is trying to justify bizarre Nazi pseudoscience through the strawman argument that it is better than “blank slatism” is not surprising.
One shifts from starry-eyed admiration for extreme moderates like Orban to fanboy rock star admiration for the extreme radical Hitler. This on the surface makes no sense, unless there is an intent to disrupt and mislead.

Any sane White ethnostate would put Durocher on trial and execute him.

European Ingroup

Answering anti-White trolls.

I note that certain concern trolls are starting their usual song-and-dance on certain blogs. In response, I’d like to make a few comments.
One can say this about a European ingroup: Europeans form a broad continental population group with respect to genetics/biology andthey share a core civilizational history/High Culture.
That “and” is crucial; it is not one or the other in isolation, but both aspects of Identity in combination.
Let us consider the history of the EU. Let us put aside the fact that the EU as it exists today is a viciously destructive anti-White tool of Right and Left Globalists. Instead, let us consider the idea of a European Union, and how EU membership is viewed by the masses.
As regards the various diverse nations of Western Europe (e.g., UK, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Ireland, etc. – all the nations Yockey considered “the West”) there was never any racial or cultural concerns about including any of these nations. The only concerns were economic (e.g., underperforming “PIGS” countries) and political (grumbling about sovereignty and “diktats from Brussels”). 
With respect to expansion into Eastern Europe, apart from concerns about Roma and Muslim groups, there also were no racial or cultural concerns – the problems were economic (the idea that large numbers of Eastern European migrants would flood Western European countries and take jobs) and political (corruption, etc.). Concerns about Slavs, Hungarians, and Romanians were never essentially (or existentially) racial or cultural, and the legitimate concerns about economic migrants could be dealt with by ending the idea that EU citizens can freely travel between nations (a stupid idea to begin with).
In contrast, when potential expansion moved outside of Europe – Turkey being a major example (but even North Africans and other NECs have been mentioned) – then even mainstream politicians and the general population began strongly objecting, with racial and cultural undertones to arguments about “the death of Europe” and “the end of European civilization” and “they’re Asian (or African) and not European.”  Even the general population implicitly understands the line dividing Europe and non-Europe.  Even the mainstream implicitly understands the foundation of a European ingroup.  

Scotland, Ethno-Nationalism, and the European Imperium.

Some comments.

With respect to the issue of the recent Scottish independence vote: my view was that I was mildly on the “yes” side (sympathy for secession and nationalism, as well as the fact that such a result would have moved the rump UK rightward) although with reservations (the SNP is a anti-White party of the raciocultural Left).  The results do not bode well for those on our side who think we can vote our way out of this mess: even a mild and multicultural secessionism failed to win the support of a majority of Scots; what chance would  a more radical racialist agenda have?

Before I move on, I’d like to chide all the Internet retards who marveled at the “85% of eligible voters who voted,” comparing that favorably to the low voter turnout in the USA.  Hey, morons, when are Americans allowed to vote on an issue of the high existential level such as that of actual secession?  When are Americans allowed to vote on anything important at all, especially voting with the certainty that any “politically incorrect” decision wouldn’t be overturned by the judiciary?  Sorry, voting for Romney vs. Obama just doesn’t “do it” for enough of us to bring a 85% turnout rate.  Voting to “outlaw affirmative action” won’t do the trick either, since a “yes” vote would be invalidated in the courts.

Now, back to the “movement.”

More important than this political development has been the birth of a homogenous European Man. He is a man who might call someplace—maybe a little place—“home,” somewhere with a language and way of life all its own: Wales, Bavaria, Talin. . . But he is demonstrably European in his character, values, and being, especially to outsiders. Who could deny that today the differences that separate a Scotsman from an Englishman, or a Russian from a Italian—though certainly real—are easily outweighed but what they share in common? Who could deny that the mass immigration of non-Europeans has intensified our awareness of this unity, allowed us to understand ourselves in ways that we might not have otherwise?

 There is, without question, a cost to this historical process, for “European Man” is, to a large degree, the “Last Man” as Nietzsche imagined him: the homogenous consumer and worker, who sees little of value above comfort and acquiring more stuff. For better and for worse, we are all becoming “good Europeans”. . . and we must understand something like the Scotts’ bid for independence in this wake.

I to a large extent agree with the first paragraph, although I see no incompatibility between pan-European nationalism and a rational ethnonationalism.  The second paragraph is complete imbecility.  Why must a “good European” be a Last Man hedonist consumer?  Really?  Compared to who – those Faustian Nietzschean Supermen petty nationalists of the SNP?  Last Men can be found everywhere: among liberals, petty nationalists, and pan-European nationalists alike.  We do not want them, they are not one of us, and there is no logical connection between one’s support of a particular form of nationalism and being a “homogenous consumer and worker.”  The fact is, the man who was the very enemy of the “Last Man” that he himself defined – Nietzsche – was a “good European” who eschewed petty nationalists.

Of interest is the second half, where ethnonationalism vs. pan-European nationalism is discussed. In general, I support Spencer’s view more than Liddell’s, although I agree with Liddell that one can balance different levels of Identity, a theme that Spencer also seems to start to incline towards.

I really have never understood the lack of understanding in this “debate.”  People have different identities in their private lives.  One man may be a banker and at the same time a father.  Another man may be both a student and an athlete. Someone may identify as a libertarian and as a conservative.  At a higher level, a man may identify as a Scot and as a European.  Where’s the problem?  In viewing himself at the local level, distinguishing culture and history and genes at the continental level, the man is a Scot.  At the global level, as Spencer suggests with his Chinaman example, the Scot is, and is viewed by others as, a White man, a European, a Westerner.  Are we all so dull-witted that we cannot simultaneously adopt both identities?  And if we agree that the age of intra-European conflict must be over, then there should be no incompatibility here, since one’s narrower identity as a Scot should not cause problems of conflicted interest with any other European ethny.  And this is, as Spencer suggests, the problem with those petty European nationalists who argue over microscopic parcels of land while their nations, and the whole White world, is being submerged under the rising tide of color.

Speaking of “last men,” the part of the discussion concerning “hard vs. soft currency” was truly irrelevant, and Liddell’s off-the-cuff remarks about North vs. South European Imperiums nonsensical.  Who are the “last men” who shrink the issue of European unity and important issues of identity down to the purely economic level?  Last men indeed!  Any “Imperium” – any worth the name – is not going to come into being from any purely bottom-up democratic election (needless to say, I don’t agree with Liddell at all – to me, democracy has no saving graces), and petty squabbling over currency issues will no longer be tolerated. Yes, differences between nations need be maintained, but that is no excuse to shirk responsibility and productivity. In any Imperium, any dichotomy between productive Krauts and lazy Dagoes would not be tolerated.  Everyone works.  Everyone contributes to productivity.  If there are some swarthy layabouts who are unwilling to work hard, or are culturally or biologically incapable of productive hard work, then they will be expelled or exterminated.  “National character” is no excuse for laziness or incompetence, that’s not the type of New European Man who needs to emerge from the ashes of the ruined West.  The Overman High Culture is “blood and iron,” not “wine, women, and song” or “lazy siestas in the sun.” 

Finally, as an aside, although I have a reputation as a biologically obsessed genetic racial “tester,” the time has come to realize that the biology of race, although real and important (sorry, FPY) is not the totality of Identity, which also includes cultural and historical components, a people’s shared sense of destiny. Last Men are solely concerned with cephalic indices and gene frequencies.  We need to be concerned with all aspects of Identity going forward, both at the local and the continental vs. global levels.