This needs to be addressed.
An imbecilic and stupid post by another of Counter-Currents’ horrendous new crop of writers.So how should white advocates view abortion and euthanasia? At the very least, with a heavy dose of skepticism. Ideally, we would view them as Hippocrates viewed them, as an insult to life and to holiness. Our people are precious “from cradle to grave,” as the Catholics say.Should we then be working to outlaw abortion and euthanasia? Perhaps. Such affronts to holiness will likely be unthinkable in a white ethnostate.Thus, people dying in agonizing pain, people whose bodies are wrecked to the point that daily life is pointless and holds no meaning for them, people slowly and horribly dying of incurable diseases, people desperate for an end to their pain and suffering, must be kept alive because pathetic religious freaks have to impose their values of “holiness” on the rest of us.
We can give dogs and cats relief from suffering, but we force people to endure a living hell so Jesus freaks can feel good about themselves. How despicable, how pompous, how deluded in the extremity of narcissism. Excuse me, you stupid yeastbucket, you ignorant hole, who are you do tell me or anyone else what to do with our lives?
Women have no business being medical doctors, a profession best left to the adults in the room – men.
MacDonald’s reply: Again, as noted, I have no quarrel with the idea that the Indo-Europeans were an elite dominating a native indigenous population. My point was that Mycenaean civilization was an Indo-European culture. There is no real evidence for that.And my comment emphasized increasing I-E genetic contribution over time, suggesting selection for I-E genes. Really – now get this:The most recent samples studied by Mathieson et al. date from 1100 BC, and the most recent samples studied by Lazaridis et al. date from around 1200 BC—toward the end of Mycenaean civilization. Thus the data do not shed much light on the genetic constitution of classical Greece—the flowering of classical Greek culture dated to the fourth and fifth centuries BC that epitomized so much of what we think of as Western culture. This is certainly time enough for selection or incursion of steppe-derived genes, but as yet there are no genetic studies I am aware of for this later period. Doubly mendacious. First, because there are not (currently) genetic samples from every era of Greek history, particularly “the flowering of classical Greek culture dated to the fourth and fifth centuries BC that epitomized so much of what we think of as Western culture” then MacDonald is free to “posit” and “suggest” and assert “reasonable” comments about his theories in the absence of any real evidence whatsoever.
Second, above he says “And my comment emphasized increasing I-E genetic contribution over time, suggesting selection for I-E genes” but now it is “the data do not shed much light on the genetic constitution of classical Greece…there are no genetic studies I am aware of for this later period.”
There’s no genetic evidence for the period, which allows him to “posit” whatever he wishes, but, at the same time, there is evidence of “increasing I-E genetic contribution over time, suggesting selection for I-E genes.” What evidence? I thought you just said there was no evidence? All you have now are the previously mentioned Ancient Greek samples as well as modern Greeks, who the HBD Nordicists consider to be cringing subhumans. So, where’s the evidence for in between those population end points?Further, there continues to be uncertainty regarding the causes of violent collapse of Mycenaean civilization inaugurating the Greek “Dark Age” (~1200BC–~750BC) of “isolation, introversion, and instability” (Hall, 2013, 82). Well, yes, we can “posit” that the Herrenvolk wrecked the Mycenaean civilization and caused a Dark Age the same as they did to the Western Roman Empire…and what their SJW descendants are doing to the West today.More importantly for present purposes is the identity of the people who later formed classical Greek culture. There is a long history of proposing a “Dorian invasion” from the north which altered spoken dialects from Achaean to Dorian as well as aspects of culture (e.g., knowledge of ironworking and a shift to individualized burial practices (Hall, 2013, p. 70; Nagy, 2019), the latter suggesting a more individualist culture. First, details about the Dorian invasion are questionable, as regards real scholarship.
Second, even if we “posit” a Dorian invasion as MacDonald prefers, the Athenians considered themselves Ionian, not Dorian, and some scholars – to the extent that they take the Dorian hypotheses seriously – explain the Athenian-Spartan conflict as an ethnic one. The “flowering” of Greek culture was more Athenian than Spartan, wasn’t it?T his began as a literary tradition and persisted for nine centuries, down to the first century AD and remains the “most economical hypothesis,” although the Dorian invasion hypothesis purporting to explain it remains unproven (Hall, 2013, p. 68). Remains unproven! Well, yes, but that doesn’t stop some from invoking a Kempite Dorian Herrenvolk influx to “posit” and “suggest” “reasonable” explanations, does it?As noted, genetic data on the people responsible for classical Greek civilization are lacking; however, it is reasonable to posit a shift toward increased steppe contribution, not only during the Mycenaean period (Mathieson et al., 2018), but continuing thereafter given that genetic changes may occur quite quickly (Cochran & Harpending, 2010).“Reasonable to posit” – those weasel words again. “Genetic data on the people responsible for classical Greek civilization are lacking” – but he’ll make conclusions regardless, or “posit” conclusions. Note also how MacDonald’s more conciliatory and equivocal tone differs here in this review response differs from the more dogmatically HBD tone of self-congratulatory certainty at The Occidental Observer when writing on these issues, mirrored by the sweaty amen corner commentariot, who, like with all personality cults centered on gurus (like Jewish movements, eh?), personally attack critics (“Meisenberg is a mendacious Jew”) – attacks that do not receive any rebuke from MacDonald himself.
Further, do I really need to point out that the fact that “genetic changes may occur quite quickly” does not mean that they will occur or, more to the point, in this case did occur in the manner asserted by MacDonald? The work of Cochran and Harpending is here almost irrelevant in the absence of evidence of the asserted changes.
Indeed, one can use that paradigm to “posit” and “suggest” all sorts of “reasonable” genetic selection. Maybe individualist farmer genes were quickly selected for? Maybe those last century has seen a “rapid genetic change” in favor of hysterically SJW collectivist xenophilic egalitarianism among NW Europeans? Who knows? We can all “posit” anything and cherry pick reasons why it is “reasonable.”
Now, there is of course genetic evidence for a relatively small minority influx of steppe ancestry into ancient Southern Europe, overlaying the majority farmer ancestry. One can find remnants of some steppe ancestry in Southern European areas today. That does not change the fact that the overwhelming majority of the ancestry of the peoples of the Classical Civilizations of Ancient Greece and Rome was of farmer derivation.
MacDonald has a clear agenda of disregarding the contribution of farmer ancestry to European history and civilization, privileging instead hunter gatherer and steppe ancestries.
It seems more “reasonable” to “posit” that the data “suggest” that the majority ancestry had the largest effect; further, civilization did not begin in the Mediterranean basin until the hunter gatherers were predominantly displaced by the farmers.
And, by the way, once again I note the Y axis here.