Recent Insights on European Genetics

Back in October 2017, one commenter proposed the idea that the Sea Peoples were Luwians (a people who occupied southern and western Anatolia in the late Bronze Age). I think this may likely be the case. Southern Europeans, especially Italians and Cypriots are highly admixed with Bronze Age Anatolians. Modern Cypriots are genetically almost the same as the Bronze Age Anatolians, and Cyprus was very heavily invaded by the Sea Peoples. See this article for historical information on Sea Peoples raids.


The immigration of Phoenicians and Roman importation of slaves from the Levant would have added to the gene flow from the Near East to Mediterranean Europe, and both Levantine (“England_Roman_outlier”) and Bronze Age Anatolian admixture are present in modern Italians according to these models. I suspect the common admixture between Italians and Cypriots from Anatolian “Sea Peoples” is a reason why Cypriots and some Aegeans, show up as having Italian admixture according to 23 and Me (see Eupedia Autosomal Maps). The Mycenean samples also had significant admixture from the Anatolian Bronze Age, possibly indicating some substantial gene flow from Anatolia into Europe directly prior to the expansion of “Sea Peoples”.

7th-century Slavic tribes shown in orange

Also according to the models done on Eurogenes, it appears that the Greeks, in addition to their large Mycenean ancestry also have a great deal of early Slavic ancestry, which I suspect is from Slavic invasions of Byzantine Greece. This Slavic admixture (rather than the Dorians as I previously guessed) may be responsible for the more northern genetic affinity of modern Greeks compared to their Mycenean ancestors.




Other News

Davidski has reviewed many of the more recent genetic studies, which are being produced quite rapidly, and covering a lot of previously unknown territory.

As I have already predicted above, the notion that Sicilians have acquired greater amounts of admixture from different parts of the Near East since the Bronze Age (different from the Anatolian Neolithic “Barcin” admixture) appears to be empirically supported:

Some of his other articles on the genetics of Northern Europeans seem to confirm what I had noticed last year, that the main difference between the Baltic and Slavic ethnic groups and other Northern Europeans is their greater affinity towards Mesolithic and Paleolithic European hunter-gatherers. Germanic and Celtic ethnic groups appear to roughly form a genetic cline with the French (mostly Gauls) and Irish (Gaels) on one relative extreme and a (Germanic) Swedish Iron age specimen at the other. Many of the Bell Beakers who have been recently analyzed in the Olalde et al. 2018 study, Anglo Saxons, and Iron Age Britons appear in the middle of this cline.

The impact of the Beakers still remains something of a mystery to me; genetically their admixture is very similar to modern Northwestern Europeans, but their skull morphology is often brachycephalic, a feature in modern times largely confined to the mountainous areas of continental Europe. Either there was a very strong selection for less brachycephalic individuals among the beakers in the last 4000 years, the lowland and island areas of NW Europe became populated by a meso- to dolichocephalic group with admixture very similar to the Beakers, or the brachycephaly of the Beaker people was caused by a cultural habit, possibly a cranial deformation, that later went out of style.

Thanks to the recent Veeramah et al. 2018 study, we now also have a glimpse at the genetics of migration era individuals.

Is suspect that the Roman soldier excavated from Germany for this study was of Iberian or Aquitanian origin, based on his placement on the PCA.

It would appear from the admixture model given by Davidski that the Gepid included in the study was descended from genetically Northern European Germans who had acquired significant admixture from Central Asia (possibly through the Alans, a Scythian people who had dwelt near the Caucasus and migrated into Europe). The “Ostrogoth” excavated from Crimea, unlike the Gepid, is modeled as having no Northern European admixture but appears highly admixed with gene flow from the Balkans and from Armenia, and this seems to agree with his rough position on the PCA given. Furthermore, the “Ostrogoth’s” archeological context also associates him with the ancient Greek city of Pantikapaion. So it seems plausible that this “Ostrogoth” may have simply been a Greek heavily admixed with peoples from the eastern shore of the Black Sea, and not at all an ethnic Ostrogoth.




Revising a Pathology

My previous pathology, written in early 2017, which blamed the “third estate” for the decline of Western peoples was written before I understood operationalism. The article basically attempted to identify markets as the source of the West’s malaise, but did not also take into consideration that markets in everything have also been responsible for making the West different from the rest in many positive aspects (I was somewhat of a mystical authoritarian at the time, and have grown more libertarian since late 2017, but not in the anarchist sense). However, there was a shred of truth in my argument. NW Europeans (possibly because they evolved this way) value markets a lot, so much that they sacrifice their own nations for markets (which is, in the long run, self-contradictory, as homogeneity makes it easier to have a high trust, market society).

I also criticized “pure meritocracy” which may have set some people off. What was meant is that there is a flaw in the modern Anglo version of meritocracy, as it has allowed people to obtain political power without having shares of the commons, and yet this is what most people (esp. normies) think of when they think of meritocracy. I think that this type of “meritocracy” is a result of prioritizing markets, specifically in governments and in occupations, ahead of nations. If a new meritocracy is implemented, it needs to be done differently. The political classes must have shares of commons if they are to be trusted to maintain those commons.


Politics, IQ and Autism

Several months ago I wrote a post mentioning the research of Satoshi Kanazawa, which indicated that in the US, there is a clear negative correlation between general intelligence and the characteristics of religiosity and political conservatism. As per usual there were probably those who saw this research as liberal propaganda of the Cathedral. I doubt this is true. He has also published a book The Intelligence Paradox, and written some articles on Psychology Today explaining why the high general intelligence of many liberals may lead to bad decision making. Kanazawa also pissed off the Cathedral quite a bit in another study on female facial attractiveness which was interpreted as being “racist”. So whatever you think about his research, it is difficult to make a case that Kanazawa is deliberately arguing on behalf of political liberals.

Kanazawa identified general intelligence as a contributing factor to political attitudes, but he also mentioned how there is another, lesser correlation with sex, where men tend to be more conservative than women. Given that conservatives tend to be high in conscientiousness and low in openness, some have thought that mild autism may be a factor in creating conservatism, and autism is likely a result of greater-than-normal masculinization of the brain. Likewise Liberals (a label having a left-wing connotation nowadays), on the other hand, are lower in conscientiousness and higher in openness, and may be described as having mild psychotism. These psychological phenomena may be responsible for a few outliers who do not fit into Satoshi Kanazawa’s observed correlation between general intelligence and political ideology, and perhaps it is not a coincidence that certain parts of the dissident right have gained a reputation for autism.

In a post which I published back in November, someone suggested that I might be autistic. I don’t think this is likely the case. I have some characteristics which are clearly unusual for autistic people. When tested in childhood, I had higher verbal intelligence than spatial intelligence and I have a high 2D:4D digit ratio. These are (well, as a scientist, I must put it bluntly) “feminine” characteristics and are negatively correlated with autism. Autistic people, having a (likely in utero) hyper-masculinized morphology, tend to have a lower 2D:4D ratio and higher spatial but comparatively lower verbal intelligence (link, link). I can see why some people would find me autistic at a glance, because of my apparent combination of intellectual competence and general awkwardness. However, as I began to suggest above, I more likely have the reverse: an in utero under-masculinized morphology as opposed to an over-masculinized one, and perhaps this is one reason why I have failed to agree with autistic purity spiraling (if purity spiraling is fueled by actual autism).


I would voice my views through a Twitter account and perhaps try to get on Youtube; however, I am rather busy, and frankly, I sometimes doubt I would receive positive attention from the right given some of the rubicons I have crossed on this blog (or perhaps I am just too past-oriented in my thinking regarding this). If anyone has input on this matter they may voice it if they wish to, in the comments below.






Provisional Post

The end of the year 2017 and the beginning of 2018 has been quite full of drama. The YouTube disputes between “skeptics”, dissident rightists, and libertarians have been rather entertaining (the fall of Kraut and Tea will live on as a proverbial lesson) and it gave important attention to biological realists such as JF Gariépy, and The Alternative Hypothesis (though I do not endorse absolutely everything they say). Like many others, I was a NAP libertarian before I oriented my political views towards ethnonationalism a few years ago; however, I still dissent from the authoritarians, so I have been able to view many of these discussions from an (admittedly, lonely) third-party perspective. I am hoping that the discussions will at least demarcate different competitive internet tribes, so I can clearly tell who not to intellectually associate with regarding politics.

I do not plan to post very often, if at all in coming months, as I have a great deal of “normie” business to take care of.

Excellent video written and narrated by JF:

My Experience with NoFap

I did not actually learn the word “fap” until my high school Latin teacher decided to use it as an acronym for “future active participle”. Subsequently one of the students told the teacher that “fap” meant masturbation, and the teacher began banging his head against the chalkboard, apparently ignorant of this slang term as I was at the time.

I have attempted normal mode NoFap several times (and I have no sexual partner), trying to extend my streaks as long as I can, my longest one so far being a bit more than one month. The main reason for me to do NoFap was to end the frequent MO which was making me fatigued and brain fogged; P was not a problem. Empirically speaking, normal mode NoFap has provided somewhat clearer skin, more energy, better sleep, and sometimes a more stable, concentrated mental state. However, after I manually terminate (without P) a very long streak, I do usually feel less anxious, and sometimes even euphoric for an extended period of time so there may be a degree of moderation necessary, possibly with nutritional supplementation (zinc, in particular; edit: no, I’m not a doctor). From my own experiences, if one attempts normal mode NoFap (probably advisable for most porn users), the best advice may be to simply not think about NoFap or sexual behavior in general but to be occupied with physical and mental exercise. If I have any more important observations, I may place them in a future post.

Useful information:

The Characteristics of Ideologues

After several unempirical, and overly philosophical attempts to determine the origins of general political ideologies, I have attempted to gain more accurate information on the subject.

Please keep in mind that what is being discussed here is characteristics related specifically to ideologies and sentiments, not necessarily political parties, as one’s choice to vote democrat or republican, for instance, could depend on one of a number of ideologies or sentiments favored by that party (it makes for imprecise analysis to use party as a proxy for sentiment or ideology).

In a dataset drawn from the US, both conservatism and religiosity had strong negative correlations with general intelligence measured in adolescence, when age, sex, race, earnings, education, and religion were held as control variables (Kanazawa, 2010). These correlations [of political ideology and religiosity] with intelligence are twice as strong compared to those relating political ideology to sex or to race, or religion to sex (Kanazawa, 2010). General intelligence, in the view of Satoshi Kanazawa, enables one to deal with the costs of novel phenomena, hence its correlation with liberalism (Kanazawa, 2010). In another study, data from the UK showed racial prejudice, largely mediated through ideology, to be associated with relatively lower intelligence in childhood, and data from the United States showed prejudice against homosexuals to be associated with poor abstract reasoning, often mediated through authoritarianism; education and socioeconomic status were controlled for both data sets (Hodson & Busseri, 2012). Conservatives also think less analytically and more holistically than liberals (Talhelm et al., 2014), similar to most people outside of Western cultures.

Libertarians, unlike “conservatives”, think in a very analytical or characteristically “Western” manner (link). People who have classical liberal sentiments towards economics and social issues also have above average verbal intelligence (Carl, 2014). Data from Great Britain and Brazil indicates center-right, and to a lesser degree center and center-left views correlating with higher intelligence (Rinderman, et al., 2011). Anti-regulation and economic “conservatism”, a.k.a. economic “liberalism” in European vocabulary, also correlates with higher intelligence (link).

As far as beauty and ugliness go, the trends are that left-leaning scholars appear to be more attractive than right-leaning scholars and right-leaning politicians more attractive than left-leaning politicians (link).

Now I will add my own anecdotes and notes related to this subject

  • (edited) the original r/K selection theory studies density-dependent selection, and modifications to the model have been made to account for other variables; r/K selection theory may be accurately considered incomplete, but not “disproven”. has explained the problems with r/K selection theory in the way it has been used by Anonymous Conservative.
  • Social conservatives are often highly natalist in sentiment, often appear to marry early, and sometimes display low trust sentiments. I am tempted to say that these characteristics, along with their lower average IQ, greater holistic thinking, and poorer abstract reasoning, associates them with certain clannish populations. Clannish Europeans east of the Hajnal Line responded to high mortality with high fertility and high nuptiality, and appear to have lower average intelligence than historically outbred Europeans. Various types of liberalism likely derive from the less clannish, outbred European strategy associated with higher IQ, lower mortality, lower fertility, and more people remaining unmarried. See the bloggers: HBD chick, JayMan, and Evo and Proud for more information on the effects of outbreeding and other selective pressures on Western Europeans. Alternative Hypothesis has also done interesting work correlating certain allele variations with political attitudes often different between indigenous Westerners and third world migrants.


Where am I now (thought-wise)?

I managed, with some effort, to pass Quantitative Chemical Analysis with an A- and Physical Chemistry (Thermodynamics) lecture with an A, as well as deal with other classes and responsibilities on my plate. That’s why there haven’t been many blog posts in a while (mainly because I do not have time to both study and argue with internet trolls at the same time).

I have respect for all my followers, even the ones I disagree with on big issues. My political views have not shifted much since I began this blog in that I am still a type of ethnic-nationalist, although I have grown less “traditionalist” in the hard, ideological (usually Platonist) sense of the word, and more friendly towards libertarian sentiments. I don’t support neoliberal or neoconservative ideology, however, certain *ahem* transpirings over the last year among ideologues political bloggers and vloggers have increased my appreciation of a great deal of the praxis of classical liberalism. Often times I go back to Stefan Molyneux, whom I have been watching off-and-on since the age of twelve, just to hear someone talking who is not fanatically ideological (I actually became “red pilled” before he did, mainly from HBD chick and Jayman, funny how we ended up with some similar views eventually). I have also begun to appreciate the insights provided by Grey Enlightenment.

I agree with the Propertarians that the defense of the commons is a net positive, but not always on what should be included in the commons.

People can argue all day long about what to defend as commons, therefore I will leave the comments section closed.