Obviously, an exact twin of Dolph Lundgren.
Certainly a “Nordic desert empire” no doubt!
Obviously, an exact twin of Dolph Lundgren.
Certainly a “Nordic desert empire” no doubt!
The Canaanites inhabited the Levant region during the Bronze Age and established a culture that became influential in the Near East and beyond. However, the Canaanites, unlike most other ancient Near Easterners of this period, left few surviving textual records and thus their origin and relationship to ancient and present-day populations remain unclear. In this study, we sequenced five whole genomes from ∼3,700-year-old individuals from the city of Sidon, a major Canaanite city-state on the Eastern Mediterranean coast. We also sequenced the genomes of 99 individuals from present-day Lebanon to catalog modern Levantine genetic diversity. We find that a Bronze Age Canaanite-related ancestry was widespread in the region, shared among urban populations inhabiting the coast (Sidon) and inland populations (Jordan) who likely lived in farming societies or were pastoral nomads. This Canaanite-related ancestry derived from mixture between local Neolithic populations and eastern migrants genetically related to Chalcolithic Iranians. We estimate, using linkage-disequilibrium decay patterns, that admixture occurred 6,600–3,550 years ago, coinciding with recorded massive population movements in Mesopotamia during the mid-Holocene. We show that present-day Lebanese derive most of their ancestry from a Canaanite-related population, which therefore implies substantial genetic continuity in the Levant since at least the Bronze Age. In addition, we find Eurasian ancestry in the Lebanese not present in Bronze Age or earlier Levantines. We estimate that this Eurasian ancestry arrived in the Levant around 3,750–2,170 years ago during a period of successive conquests by distant populations.
So, essentially, modern-day indigenous Lebanese demonstrate highly significant – the large majority of their ancestry – genetic continuity with ancient Canaanites, with some more minor “Eurasian” admixture, tied to historical events, which mostly took place during the “ancient” Classical era.
Likely, most indigenous peoples would represent significant genetic continuity with ancient peoples that occupied the same territories, with of course some degree of subsequent admixture, some of which would be “ancient” and some “modern.” There would be exceptions, there are always exceptions, and the degree of admixture would vary from case to case. But one suspects that continuity is greater than what Der Movement typically postulates, with its breathless accounts of retconned population changes to explain whatever ethnic fetishism is in style at any particular time. Changes in population character are more likely to be due to dysgenic degeneration of native stocks than it is wholesale population replacement, or admixture of such an extent that it is practically equivalent to population replacement. No doubt such extreme cases have occurred in human history, but those are the (relatively rare) exceptions, not the rule.
The problem of course is that today, European-derived peoples are actually faced with real population replacement, dealing with a catastrophic combination of extremely low birthrates, mass migration of far more fecund alien peoples, and treasonous native elites (coupled to clever anti-White aliens) dedicated to facilitating native race replacement. However, one cannot always project current trends to past eras. Sometimes, perhaps. Always, no.
I essentially agree with Spencer’s analysis. Did Jr do anything illegal? I don’t see it. Treason? Absurd (*). On the other hand, let’s not let him off the hook that easily.
The bottom line is that Trump Jr is as stupid and politically clumsy as his father. Do you go personally to this meeting? Ever hear of plausible deniability? How about using cut-outs? Or…whatever – if you are the son of a Presidential candidate who is vehemently opposed by the media and the entire Establishment, you had better at least superficially keep up appearances. Let others, several layers removed, do the “dirty work.” It doesn’t matter that he did nothing wrong; in politics, appearance means as much (or more) than reality. Come on, Donnie Jr was on Celebrity Apprentice with dear old dad, doesn’t he know the power of appearance?
One thing Spencer could have mentioned – of all of Trump’s children, Don Jr seems the most right-wing and the most in tune with an at least Alt Lite right-wing populism, another reason to be targeted by the Deep State.
A side note: I’m certainly no phenotypist, but on the other hand, unlike what some of my detractors believe, I certainly do acknowledge the importance of racial phenotype (it just has to take a back seat to the genotype). This “Russian lawyer” – is she actually an ethnic Russian? She looks like she could be ¼ or even ½ Chinese. Raciology alert! Maybe – hopefully – she is a non-Russian “Russian citizen.”
When all is said and done, Trump is an embarrassment. Relevance to EGI? Thanks to the Alt Right, Trump’s civic nationalist phony right-wing populism has been connected in the public mind with Der Movement, so, like it or not, the outcome of the Trump Presidency will, in some manner, influence the direction of American activism. Hopefully, we can all survive the damage being done by this lumbering buffoon.
In all honesty, the “crazy and bitter” Ted Sallis could do a better job as President. Sallis in 2020! Who should be my VP choice – Durocher or Silver?
*In the early 19th century, the US government was unable to convict Aaron Burr of treason, despite Burr’s plans (and activities) in attempting to establish an empire out of the USA’s western territories and Mexico (both to be seized by force). Now, in the early 21st century, we are told that Don Jr’s meeting with Suzie Chopsticks to get “dirt” on Hillary Clinton (certainly low-hanging fruit if there ever was) is “treason.” Yeah…who was levying war against the United States? Who are the two witnesses to Don Jr levying war or assisting in such levying? As Spencer points out, the USA and Russia are not at war.
Der Movement marches on.
An analysis of race, nation, and culture in the writings of Herodotus could in theory be an interesting exercise, albeit one not directly relevant to actualizing our goals in our present (and future) reality. Durocher’s Part I didn’t set off any alarm bells, but I knew it would just be a matter of time. Here we have Part II. Let’s look at this self-contradictory paragraph, with the offending sections highlighted:
I would argue that Herodotus’ observations are eminently compatible with a scientific and evolutionary perspective on race/genetics and ethnicity. Race is, especially in geographically contiguous land masses, typically a clinal phenomenon, with gradual change in genetic characteristics (i.e. allele frequencies) as one moves, for instance, from northern Europe to central Africa. While intermarriage tends to spread genes, gene flow is slowed by geographical and ethno-cultural boundaries, leading to significant racial-genetic clumping and differentiation.
First, “northern Europe to central Africa” is not a “geographically contiguous land mass” – being interrupted by that thing usually called “the Mediterranean Sea.” Further, while Africa itself is “contiguous” the Sahara Desert can impede gene flow. So, “northern Europe to central Africa” is hardly the best choice for any discussion of clinal changes in gene frequencies. Then he shifts gears and talks about factors causing “clumping and differentiation” including “geographical…boundaries” – which would actually be something to cite Europe-Africa about, rather than for clinal differences. So: clinal or clumpy?
Which is it? Answer: genetic differentiation tends to be more clinal within continental populations and more “clumpy” between such populations, although in some cases there could be some “somewhat clinal” clumpy differences within continental population groups and “somewhat clumpy” clinal differences at the edges separating some such groups.
Consider this from Durocher:
The birth of a nation, ethnogenesis, occurs when linguistic, cultural, and possibly genetic drift leads a particular population to acquire an ethnic identity distinct from its neighbors. Cultural chauvinism and ethnic sentiment work together in this, magnifying one another: cultural traits such as language and customs become more and more similar within the in-group, while differences with out-groups become more and more marked. Thus, a point on the genetic cline is hardened into a more-or-less discrete ethno-cultural node and genetic cluster: a nation. The degree of nationhood is defined precisely by the population’s level of genetic and cultural commonality.
Where did we ever read that before? Oh, here:
Thus, over time, genetic boundaries can become ever-more-aligned to political and cultural boundaries, particularly when those boundaries are fairly impermeable, distinguishing quite distinct national, political and socio-cultural entities.
Panmixia is NOT required for a better alignment of European genetic interests with actualization of a High Culture. Given a strict “in/out” barrier, over time, given natural processes of low-level gene flow within both “in” and “out” coupled with drift and selection increasing distances between “in” and “out,” the relative genetic distinctiveness between “in” and “out” will increase, and any potential areas of genetic overlap between “in” and “out” will no longer exist.
We have gene-culture evolution becoming gene-High Culture evolution as well as gene-political system evolution.
Hence, the association between genes and political boundaries goes in both directions.
How about this from Durocher:
One does not need a population with an absolutely “pure” lineage for ethnocentrism to be evolutionarily adaptive. On the contrary, one needs only sufficient genetic and cultural similarity for the members of the community to form a common identity and become a solidary in-group, and there must be greater average genetic similarity among individual in-group members than there is between individual in-group members and the members of out-groups they come into conflict with.
However, regardless of how modern gene pools came to be, people are not genetically identical – there are differences in genetic kinship and hence in genetic interests, and it is there that we need to focus our attention.
Premise 1 is false. Race does not depend on “purity.” Race can be defined different ways, but is essentially a genetically distinct subpopulation that is characterized by a suite of heritable (i.e., genetic) phenotypic traits distinguished from other such groups. There’s nothing in any reasonable definition of race that includes the idea that a race has to be a hermetically sealed group, absolutely isolated from all other groups from the beginning of time. Thus, racial preservation deals with races and their gene pools as they actually exist today, “warts” and all. The possible existence of past admixture does not in any way suggest that future admixture is inevitable, necessary, or desirable. The ethnic and genetic interests of any group are forward-looking, based on the present and looking toward the future. How the group came into existence – including via admixture – does not change the interests that group has in its continuity and preservation today.
Of course, the concept of ethnic genetic interests (EGI) represents an argument against future admixture, particularly against admixture across wide racial lines; i.e., across a large genetic differentiation. EGI is forward-looking. Genetic interests are considered in the present, to influence decisions that affect the future. Admixture in the past affected the genetic interests of the people at that time. We cannot go back in time and alter decisions made by past peoples that created the ethnies and individuals that exist today.
Today’s peoples are what they are, with genomes that are what they are. We cannot change that. We can only change what future generations will be like, what their genomes, and consequent phenotypes, will be. Genetic interests always look forward. So, again, any individual or ethny today, with whatever ancestral mix, has genetic interests, regardless of how their genomes came to be.
I could cite more, but sifting through my old writings to find either:
1) Ideas generated later regurgitated by the “movement” or
2) Any of the endless series of predictions I’ve made that have come true
Is a tiresome exercise. Not as tiresome – predictably tiresome – as Der Movement, Inc. is though.
Analyzing some important points.
For 15 long years, beleaguered Rhodesia maintained near total tactical military supremacy in the region despite severe weapon, materiel, and manpower shortages. Yet, military victory bereft of a strategic vision and clearly delineated political objectives is ultimately self-defeating. The political objectives of Rhodesia changed throughout the course of the war. Initially Rhodesia sought to maintain White minority rule, later hoped to create an African puppet regime, and finally sought nothing more than a seat at the proverbial “multicultural table.” This last political objective sealed the fate of tiny Rhodesia, and led to the pogrom of White genocide presently occurring in southern Africa. The nation of Rhodesia faced a series of overwhelming odds since its inception as a sovereign nation, but its greatest threat was its internal lack of strategic aim. This is a mistake we cannot afford to make.
This is very true. A fundamental error that is often made is confusing strategy with tactics, and vice versa. Means and ends are not the same; objectives and the tools to achieve those objectives are not the same. One problem with mainstreaming is precisely this; the idea is to “mainstream” in order to “achieve (and maintain) power” so the power can be used to “preserve race and culture.” Very laudable. Let’s put aside the empirically determined fact that mainstreaming simply doesn’t work. Let us assume it does work. What happens when selfish human nature takes over and the attainment and maintenance of political power ends up being the ultimate objective, the end, rather than as means to achieve racial-cultural objectives? You may object: the same power-fetish may occur even with a vanguardist strategy. That’s true, but less likely. The farther one’s “everyday” activity is separated from their ultimate objective, then the easier it is to lose sight of that objective. Mainstreaming is, in theory, a way to actualize vanguardism; vanguardism in turn is (in theory if you will) a way to achieve racial-cultural goals. Being one major step removed from the alleged “real objective” makes mainstreaming more susceptible for activists to give up on their supposed goals and pursue political power for its own sake. Vanguardists, on the other hand, live in “racial extremism” on an everyday basis and are less likely to lose sight of the objective that is “in their face” on a constant basis. Vanguardists are thus more likely, in my opinion, to understand, and remain focused on, the strategic aim.
As Greg Johnson articulated in New Right versus Old Right, white racial survival is the ultimate goal of White Nationalism, but I would go one step further and say we must explore not only how to survive, but also how to thrive racially as one people.
Fair enough. Preservation is the first step. Overcoming and progress comes next.
The policy failures and lack of strategic vision of former Rhodesia mirror those of the contemporary White Nationalist movement. The survival of the White race is imperative, but whites will only succeed if they maintain unity; in what form this “unity” manifests itself, and how centralized or decentralized it is, is open to debate. In order to reach our peoples greatest potential, we must seek unity of both race and thought, and harmonize these into a new European/White ecumene.
There may be truth in this. But it is a futile exercise to attempt to get everyone in the “movement” on board with a common vision. It’s not going to happen. Out of the morass – or perhaps from a fresh direction – a dominant memetic structure will emerge. Whether that will be the right direction, or a disaster, remains to be determined.
In Ricardo Duchesne’s penultimate work, The Uniqueness of Western Civilization, Duchesne rightly speculates that a penchant for rational abstraction is the hallmark for White racial success. From this ancestral proclivity new and old ideas must be forged, crafted in a manner conducive to White unity. We’ve all borne witness to the perils of abstraction run amok, such as diversity for the sake of diversity and so-called “human rights”, but abstraction, when grounded in blood and soil and beholden to a people rather than to a proposition like universal equality, can produce a clarity of vision commensurate with the greatness of our race. I’m not opting for ideological orthodoxy or an outright purge, but I am suggesting that we as a movement begin a dialogue towards what we can and cannot accept.
Again, I’m doubtful that the feuding activists of Der Movement – all Chiefs and no Indians – will come to such a consensus.
Rhodesia wasn’t able to formulate a clear sense of strategic national purpose, because they couldn’t decide what they could and could not accept. Pragmatism is the basis of power politics, but it must be grounded by an immoveable set of axiomatic principles.
That’s correct, and why mainstreaming is bad even if it would be politically successful – because there pragmatism itself becomes the “immovable axiomatic principle.”
Our lack of a cohesive vision is tantamount to a proverbial arming of the natives, and the natives are getting restless.
True, but, again, one cannot force a collective vision on a collection of individuals and mini-groups who cannot even decide on the parameters of “Us” vs. “Them.” The Us/Them division is the fundamental characteristic of what a group is; if even that cannot be agreed upon, then there is no group.
Old hostilities and petty ethnic rivalries exacerbated an already precarious military and political situation. Intra-racial division, aside from contributing to Rhodesian political incongruity, proved deleterious to the war effort by limiting the mobilization of the population…
Let’s have more dem dere narrow ethnonationalism, as well as more divisive Guntherite racial theories! That’ll bring folks together in unity, no doubt!
We contemporary White Nationalists find ourselves in similar circumstances. The rampant division within our movement, though generally not based upon intraracial ethnic distinctions…
“…not based upon intraracial ethnic distinctions…” Uh, I think the author of this piece just missed the last century of failed racial nationalism. “Intraracial ethnic distinctions” constitute the first major division of “movement” disagreement. If one wanted to do a memetic “PCA plot” of Der Movement, then the subracial/ethnic question would be the first major axis of variation.
Like our former Rhodesian brothers, our numbers, though growing, are few and the upcoming struggles will require mobilization of our entire movement for the survival of our race.
Not going to work. You need to find the optimal segment of Der Movement – or better yet start a New Movement beginning with first principles – and build your unity out of that.
European civilization has always been conflicted, agonal in nature, and historically our propensity for low-level kinship violence has been evolutionarily beneficial.
Perhaps in the past, not the present. The definition of what is “evolutionarily beneficial” (i.e., adaptive) depends on the environmental context.
However, in the midst of possible racial extinction, it’s of the utmost importance that internecine movement division stop. But how can division stop, particularly if we begin to explore new strategic paradigms, as dialogue breeds division?
Put simply, we can stop division through dialectical synthesis. The musical virtuoso J.S. Bach wasn’t simply a master composer and performer; he was first and foremost a “synthesist” and thus able to harmoniously weld together an eclectic assortment of European musical styles into a cohesive melody. More to the point, like the works of Bach, we in the White Nationalist movement must shed the detritus of the past and form a new metapolitical imperative based upon a thoughtful, long-term strategy and movement unity. Strength in numbers is a very real thing, and as was the case for our Rhodesian ancestors it will be a deciding factor in our movement’s life or death.
That’s not an answer. It’s hand-waving. How to, in real-world terms, practically speaking, create the unity the author refers to? Actually and precisely, how?
Native Africa never truly overcame the so-called “k-factor,” though it did receive outside help from a variety of forces, from international finance to Communist China…
A side note: Asians are always going to be on the forces of anti-Whitism and anti-Westernism. Yockey understood that. Can today’s yellow fever fetishists understand that as well?
My criticisms aside, I liked this article and believe the author is on the right track, sort of. But I myself went through this stage, long ago, of thinking that the entire “movement” could unite around some fundamental principles, have unity, and move forward. Not possible. As I said, the “movement” cannot even agree on the most basic distinction of all – Us/Them – how is anything else possible? The author it seems wants to make “preservation and advancement of the White race” as the “immoveable axiomatic principle” – good luck with that since Der Movement cannot agree on what the “White race” is and who does or does not belong to it.
So, while the author’s heart is in the right place I have to tell his head: it’s not that simple. It’s not like others haven’t come to similar conclusions before. It just doesn’t work that way in reality. The solution for him, personally, is either find a segment of the “movement” that fits his perspectives and try and build that segment into the dominant activist vehicle, or, if no such suitable segment exists, then help build a new one from the ground up.
An open call.
Here is an excellent, and realistic, Spencer video on the latest London terrorist attack. Here, Spencer hits some notes consistent with points I’ve made over the years: objectively worthless (my words, not his) Whites will continue to grovel and appease regardless of the provocations, worse is not better because there is apparently no limit in sight to the level of abuse Whites are willing to take, and that change will require a fundamental alteration in White thinking patterns so activists need to concentrate on basic principles and not overreact to single incidents like this one.
Spencer once again proves his potential as a pro-White leader.
Now, you know, I’m not of the Alt Right and I (strongly) dislike the brand and its pretensions to legitimate “movement” hegemony. I could in theory adopt an attitude of schadenfreude about all the divisive, internal Alt Right feuds going on, and if I was really the “crazy” and “bitter” lunatic the Alt Righters claim I am, that would indeed be my attitude.
However, I realize that – until the time comes that the Alt Right fad burns itself out – the Alt Right does have predominance (illegitimate hegemony) in racial activism today, particularly in America but growing in Western Europe as well. This predominance means that missteps of the Alt Right can harm racial nationalism as a whole, and I would like the damage minimized. That is, we need “damage control” until such time that activists come to their senses (there’s a first time for everything) and realize there’s more to racial nationalism than Millennials, juvenile jackassery, generally superficial analyses, Trump worship, and screaming about Pepe and Kek.
In that frame of mind, I make an open call, I call upon both Spencer and Johnson to put their differences aside, exhibit genuine leadership for the greater good, and, at the very least, stop the attacks against each other and their allies.
Things change in Der Movement. Not so long ago, Johnson was on good relations with Spencer and with Friberg. Now, he’s on good relations with Hunter Wallace, a change from the past. Spencer has refrained from criticizing Johnson until the recent Friberg incident.
Yes, I know, nationalist leaders of the past have had their feuds and falling outs. Hitler and Rohm, Codreanu and Cuza, etc. But, guys, you are not at their level, your differences do not rise to the level of those historical breaks, and petty feuds mostly about personality and access to money aren’t helping any of us.
The usual stupidity.
Meet Jeremy Christian. The “movememt” will of course try to distance itself from Christian, despite the fact that he’s a fairly representative snapshot of the Nutzi faction that lurks on, and often participates in, “movement” blog comments threads.
But, but. But…I thought Ancient Egypt was, a la Arthur Kemp, a “Nordic desert empire?” It’s the New Kingdom, after all, that was the peak of Ancient Egypt’s political and military power – their empire period.
Of course, given that only the nuclear DNA is of any use for racial affiliation, this is only three individuals. But still, it’s interesting that the available data so far refute both Afrocentrist and Nordicist interpretations of Ancient Egypt.