And other news.
More mendacity. I like how they are trying to surprise us with “you see, the Ancient World was really diverse” (shilling for modern mass alien immigration), while the fact that Rome itself (the city and immediately surrounding regions, specifically) became a cosmopolitan city has always been well known. In fact, if I recall correctly, some of the early work from the Cavalli-Sforza lab identified Rome and Naples (and areas immediately surrounding) as being somewhat genetically different from the rest of Italy, with the suggestion that it was because of the cosmopolitan aspects of these large cities throughout history. What about Alexandria? It has always been known that it had a variety of ethnic groups. What about the metics of Athens? Again, it was ALWAYS known that these large cities of ancient big states/empires, civilizational units, etc. were not purely homogeneous. Why lie? Why set up a strawman so you can knock it down with breathless accounts of the “surprising diversity?” If for what other reason than to convince Whites to open their borders to the other today, and to cheerfully accept their demographic displacement and replacement?
Again, it depends what you mean by “Rome.” If by that you mean the city itself, I don’t know of anyone who ever claimed the city did not attract migrants and take slaves. However, if by “Rome” you mean the entire Empire, including the mass of the area of current-day Italy, that’s a different story. Migrants (non-European) were not settling, in any substantial number, in “backwaters.” There were slaves working farms, but those were hardly settled people who were reproducing (and were unlikely to have been spindly, flabby easterners in any case).
The city of Rome – no surprise. The entirety of “Rome” is not, obviously, going to reflect the same “diversity.” By the way, population changes in Rome thousands of years ago do not obligate Italy – or any other nation – to accept immigrants today. And, also, Ancient Rome itself was under no obligation to accept newcomers from its empire. They stupidly had slaves, yes, but as regards voluntary migrants – why accept them? Just because you rule over various peoples does not obligate you to accept them as migrants. Even when universal citizenship was granted, it could have been enjoyed in place. There was no need or obligation to accept any influx into the city of Rome itself.
This is amusing though:
Then, starting about 1,700 years ago, the empire entered a phase of gradual dissolution. The Roman empire split in two halves and the capital moved to Constantinople. Around this time, the inhabitants of Rome changed their trading habits — and the new trade routes seem to have brought a fresh influx of ancestry into the region, Pritchard says. “People aren’t just trading with the north and the west, but their population is being replaced by new people coming in from those places.”
Race replacement! But alas for “movement” narratives, the “race replacement” coinciding with “a phase of gradual dissolution”- the decline and fall – was coming from “the north and west.”
Der Movement, Der Movement, Der Movement marches on.
Get this, from that same article; Pritchard describing the data:
…a pleasant surprise…
Pleasant?
Value judgments about scientific data? That crosses the line separating science from politics. I’ve always said that population genetics is a highly politicized field and this article is yet more evidence. These guys can’t just report their results. They need to “interpret” the data to the great unwashed – pontificating about the wonderfully surprising “diversity” of ancient cities. Population shifts and replacements – pleasant. And of course Pritchard is not alone. Ever notice that papers stressing the Middle Eastern ancestry of Ashkenazi Jews, and the consequent asserted continuity of modern Jews to the Levant, tend to come from Israel? Papers that stress continuity between ancient and modern Greeks tend to have Greek authors? Papers that stress differences between Northern vs. Southern Italy tend to have Northern Italian authors? Papers that stress admixture and population shifts are typically about Europe? That Chinese population geneticists are not going out of their way to interpret data to delegitimize the Han Chinese ethnography of their nation? Coincidence?
I’m not saying the data are false and/or fabricated. Instead, similarly to what I have written about ancestry testing companies, the types of samples used and the types of analyses performed can determine the direction of the findings. Choices of parental populations, choices of analytical methods, underlying assumptions, etc. can create marked differences in the data output. Further, how these people choose to interpret the findings can be highly subjective.
Never mind that all these guys are allergic to genetic kinship assays.
In any case, how about this for an interpretation – the city of Rome was “diverse” and the Roman Empire collapsed, a “pleasant” correlation there.
Hey, here’s your “alpha” Supreme Court Justice, Alt Right retards. Maybe we can have more analysis from Roissy of Trump and Kavanaugh shaking hands or how each one stands up straight (or in the case of “big paunch” Trump, does not).
This is a good Strom piece, but if he believes all of this, why doesn’t he openly and explicitly denounce the Jewish-Asian HBD cult?
Let’s rewrite some of it.
….what Sir John Harington said about treason in the 17th century. Harington was wondering why one hears so little about treason; he asked Why does treason not prosper? It must not be prospering, since we never hear about it — right? Wrong. Harington said: “Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason.”
Similarly, today, few dare call into question the promotion of open borders, racial mixing, mass immigration, and slavish support for Israel and all things anti-White by the supposed “American” media — and few dare mention the real ethnic loyalties and background of the billionaire media elite — because to do so would bring smears, economic repercussions, legal persecution and sometimes even physical violence down on the truth-teller.
….what Sir John Harington said about treason in the 17th century. Harington was wondering why one hears so little about treason; he asked Why does treason not prosper? It must not be prospering, since we never hear about it — right? Wrong. Harington said: “Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason.”
Similarly, today, few dare call into question the promotion of slavish worship of “high Jewish and Asian IQ,” aracial cognitive elitism, intra-European division, “race realist” lies and fairy tales, Jeurasian mongrelization, outrageously transparent pseudoscience, and all things anti-White by the supposed “movement” HBD faction— and few dare mention the real ethnic loyalties and background of the HBD elite — because to do so would bring smears, “movement” repercussions, and labels of “crazy and bitter” on the truth-teller.
If you tune in and see some Republican or Democrat talking head promoting another war or promoting more immigration or pretending he opposes more immigration on the television, and you switch it off immediately and more importantly forever, that doesn’t make the traitors stop existing. But it does give you a chance to perceive the world primarily with your own eyes and ears, and to draw your own conclusions instead of having them spoon-fed to you.
If you go online and see some HBDer talking head promoting intra-European division or promoting Jew-Asian worship or pretending he opposes more Asian immigration, and you switch it off immediately and more importantly forever, that doesn’t make the traitors stop existing. But it does give you a chance to perceive the world primarily with your own eyes and ears, and to draw your own conclusions instead of having them spoon-fed to you.
See how easy it is, Kevin?
