Metaphysical Divides


During the second half of 2017, I wrote multiple articles which incrementally distanced myself from Traditionalism (i.e. the philosophy of Julius Evola et al.). This was partly caused by two altercations with “Traditionalists”: one with, and the other with Christians who advocated a purge of homosexuals. At that time Traditionalism seemed to be the root of all purity spiraling in the Dissident Right. In reaction to this purity spiraling, my philosophy veered towards a rather radical individualism in late 2017, but some could misconstrue what I wrote then as an advocacy of abandoning one’s ancestral nation. Eventually, as I watched and read some content by Greg Johnson, James J. O’Meara, Marcus Follin, and Thomas Rowsell discussing Traditionalism, I saw that this purity spiraling was not a necessary consequence of Traditionalism.

So, in more recent months, I have been able to take a more impartial look at Traditionalism. The most obvious difference between Traditionalism and Propertarianism (which I have recently studied) is a metaphysical one: Propertariainism is deterministic and naturalistic, whereas Traditionalism is non-deterministic and, at least appears to be, supernaturalistic. This affects the manner in which the two systems approach the matter of religion: to the Traditionalists, the polytheism of our ancestors reflects an idea of transcendent divinity which exists independent of our thoughts; monistic conceptions of divinity are also frequent. To the Traditionalists following Evola, even one’s race, or ancestral lineage, has a transcendent and spiritual dimension. However, to the Propertarians and often the neo-polytheists, the deities are either restricted to being highly particular to an ethnic group or are mere abstractions and poetic or paedagogic representations; in many neo-polytheisms it is prohibited to regard gods as manifestations of a monistic or pantheistic Whole as that idea is rejected in favor of hard polytheism. I may further add the philosophy of Cosmotheism, as articulated by William L. Pierce, for comparison: Cosmotheism considers a “Whole” to exist, but it does not explicitly ascribe to the “Whole” a characteristic of¬†being¬†(instead of becoming); rather it seems to describe a Whole which is subject to continuous becoming.

There are certainly metaphysical disagreements that exist among the spiritual trailblazers in the dissident right. I cannot see these being resolved without, at the very least, a great deal of time and research, assuming any resolution is possible at all. Mystics may claim to experience, among many things, the transcendent world of being, but I cannot tell if this is, in fact, the case, or if abnormal neurochemistry is the only cause of these experiences. I may refer to Traditionalism in the future, but I will not claim that I know its assumptions to be true without sufficient reason and evidence (I am still a Molyneuxian in that sense ūüėČ ).




British Genetics in Detail


When considering what to write about,¬†I remembered a 2016 press release which gives a more detailed look at British¬†genetics which is not frequently discussed in the political right, and given the type of language used in its presentation, this is understandable.¬†Like the mass media’s framing of the possibly dark-skinned “Cheddar Man”, a normal Mesolithic European¬†who was not genetically a modern sub-Saharan African (LINK), the language used in the presentation of these results appears to be another ruse intended to create a narrative to justify current liberal immigration policy and cosmopolitanism in the UK. Nevertheless, the uninterpreted numerical results presented by AncestryDNA are intriguing and appear to fit with other genetic and historical information about the ethnogenesis of peoples of the British¬†Isles.

Read the findings here, admixture percentages are included for different regions of the UK:

The three largest admixtures in the British Isles are:

  • “British”, an Anglo Saxon admixture (Somewhat of a misnomer as the Anglo-Saxons were not the original Britons). It reaches its highest percentage in England at 35-40 %, which agrees with earlier results on Anglo Saxon admixture in England, using DNA samples from actual Anglo-Saxon graves.
  • ¬†“West European” French/German admixture, primarily located in the areas once inhabited by the Continental Celts (starting c. 500 BC), and likely the genetic remains of this ancient people. It peaks in Southeastern England, possibly due to the Hallstatt culture’s greater influence in that area. It also generally correlates with the geographic distribution of the mostly continental French, German and Alpine Y-haplogroup R-U152/S28¬†in the British Isles.

  • “Celtic” Irish admixture (different from the Continental Hallstatt Celts). This Irish admixture is ubiquitous in the British Isles but most represented in the “Celtic Fringe” areas: Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. This is the same pattern observed with the genetic affinity of modern Brits and Irish to Bronze Age Irish specimens from Rathlin Island (Cassidy et al., 2016), and the frequency of Y-haplogroup R-L21. It may be a genetic remnant of the first possible Celts to arrive in the British Isles in the Bronze Age. In some areas of Britain, it could also be partly imported by migrations and raids out of Ireland onto the western coast of Britain around 400 AD and about a century later in western Scotland creating the D√°l Riata kingdom.

AncestryDNA Irish EthnicityRoman Britain map immigration raids invasion


Estimated Scandinavian admixture

The Scandinavian admixture is around 9-10% throughout England and, not surprisingly, peaks in the East Midlands, the heart of what was once Danelaw territory. Trace levels (~1-4 %) of admixtures from the Mediterranean and Eastern Europe are ubiquitous throughout the British Isles.

The results obtained by Ancestry DNA show “British”/Anglo-Saxon admixture peaking, not in East Anglia (as in Martiniano et al., 2016), but in Yorkshire,¬†the East Midlands, and Southwestern regions of England. It may be that the genetic model produced by Ancestry is able to be more accurate because it considers several admixtures from distinct geographic areas of Western Europe, helping to minimize errors caused by the aggregation of regional admixtures during analysis.

Unfortunately, I have not been able to find the knowledge of wether or not the genomes from Anglo-Saxon remains were used to define the “British”/Anglo-Saxon admixture of AncestryDNA. However, in the comments below one amateur genetics article, one individual, Bruce Petersen, with three grandparents from Denmark and one from Norway reported having 63 % “British” admixture, and 33 % Scandinavian admixture. This result suggests that the “British” admixture of AncestryDNA is indeed Anglo-Saxon, as it is found at a clear majority percentage in the approximate geographic homeland of the Anglo-Saxons (Denmark) and to a lesser degree in England, and to an even smaller degree in other parts of the British Isles which have not been permanently settled by Germanic peoples. A parsimonious explanation to make with this data is that the Anglo-Saxons and Danes are those responsible for bringing the “British”/Anglo-Saxon admixture of AncestryDNA to England. If this is true, the name of this admixture as “British” is mistaken; it should perhaps be called a “Jutlandic” or “North-Sea” admixture instead.

The combination of “British”/Anglo-Saxon and “Scandinavian” admixture totaling around 50% throughout most of England may be why modern Danes have such a high genetic affinity to modern Brits (even compared to Norwegians and Swedes) as indicated in Athanasiadis et al., 2016. At¬†Eupedia¬†it is reported that about 50 % of the Y-chromosomal lineages in England are likely of Germanic origin, and given the ~50 % Germanic autosomal admixture in England, a parsimonious explanation is that nearly equal numbers of men and women migrated to England among the Anglo-Saxons, and possibly among the Danes also.

It would appear from the modern distribution of both Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian admixture that there was likely heavy gene-flow from England into Wales sometime after the early middle-ages, possibly in the Norman era.

East Anglia and London, areas of Britain which experienced disproportionately high Romanization, not surprisingly have the greatest Italian/Greek admixture in the UK at 2.53 % and 2.51 %, and the greatest Iberian admixture at 3.43 % and 3.39 %, respectively. An obvious explanation for this is that the  Romanization of these regions would have allowed for the introduction of some admixture from the Mediterranean basin, although it was only enough to have a lasting impact at trace levels.

London has the greatest “European Jewish” admixture (3.66 %) in the UK, well above that of the rest of the country, including East Anglia, at ~1.60 % or less. This may indicate a disproportionately high concentration of Jews around London at some time in history, a few of which left their tribe and intermarried with the non-Jewish population.

The Finnish-Russian trace admixture which peaks in Scotts may have been brought by Saami admixed Norsemen, or it could be a calculation error caused by the greater Mesolithic hunter-gatherers admixture in the Scotts (especially Orcadians), which is also present in Northeastern Europe.

Jayman also did an interesting post noting the percentages of some of these admixtures in the US, although one must account for the ethnic heterogeneity of the aggregate of samples for each state (you have to scroll down in his article)



The Origins of the Ancient Anatolians

Admixture similar to that of an individual of the Sredny Stog culture was found in Hittite-era Anatolians by Davidski, using qpAdm. In corroboration with other data supporting the Steppe Hypothesis for Indo-European origins, this would support a hypothesis that Indo-European language began developing on the Pontic-Caspian steppe prior to the Yamnaya culture (3300 Р2600 BC) as the pre-Anatolians would have developed out of the Sredny Stog culture in Ukraine c. 4500-3500 BC. David W. Anthony previously suggested this hypothesis for the origin of the (now extinct) Anatolian language family, that it is a result of early Indo-Europeans migrating out of the Sredny Stog culture (southward along the west coast of the Black Sea, by his estimation) and eventually into Anatolia. He makes this argument based on archaeological, linguistic, and mythological evidence, in The Horse the Wheel and Language. But now it appears that we have some genetic evidence which agrees with this hypothesis as well.


Returning to a Controversial Issue


Oh no! Mako-chan and Haru-chan have adopted a nomadic evolutionary strategy and are parasitizing on the commons with their sexy gayness! Someone must redeem them from their Rothbardian ways at once!

It is fairly easy to decide natural law on the matter of homosexual conduct, that it is lawful so long as it is voluntary, fully informed, warrantied, and free of negative externalities, and this is completely possible in every system I can think of allowing for both private and common property. Different commons (common property) allowing for the tolerance of different degrees of self-expression, and different ways of enforcing the limits of self-expression, may be produced contractually. How insurance companies and socialized healthcare handle the costs of the physical illnesses which homosexuals commonly acquire, to prevent them from creating certain negative externalities can be contractually enumerated. I think it is likely that a vaccine for HIV will be developed sometime in the next century, eliminating the need for the very expensive preventative measure PrEP.

Regarding the etiology of homosexuality, I think that it results from a systemic condition which affects organ morphologies, most often towards reversed sexual dimorphism. This hypothesis appears to be supported both by differences in facial contours (Wang and Kosinksi, 2017), which are determined by musculoskeletal development and for the structure of the brain (Savic and Lindström, 2008). This systemic condition could, in turn, be caused by genetics, and/or by hormones which affect gene expression in development. A correlation has been observed between childhood sexual abuse and reported homosexuality, especially in males (Friedman et al., 2011), but there is also a correlation between the childhood sexual abuse of males and gender-nonconformity regardless of the sexual orientation of the victim (Xu and Zheng, 2015). Given that homosexual males are more gender atypical in certain outwardly visible morphologies, habits, and neural activity (which influences personality) than heterosexual males (Wang and Kosinksi, 2017; Savic and Lindström, 2008), it logically follows why they would be at a higher risk for childhood sexual abuse than heterosexual males given these findings (Xu and Zheng, 2015). It is also difficult to argue that psychic trauma such as child molestation will lead to consistently different musculoskeletal morphologies, which is apparent in the consistently different facial contours of homo and heterosexuals (Wang and Kosinksi, 2017). As far as I can tell, the most parsimonious assessment of this information is that the development of sexual orientation is probably in-utero and that it precedes any psychic trauma, not the other way around.

Given the reversed sexual dimorphism present in at least a very significant number of homosexuals, many of them may simply be unsuited to take certain social and reproductive roles normatively taken by heterosexuals, and this must be understood by natalists. Notwithstanding, if homosexual individuals demonstrate abilities to act in the normal roles of mothers and fathers in heterosexual unions, and these unions can exist independent of romantic interests (practically impossible with the current social norms and divorce laws in the West), I do not argue for a prohibition against them taking such social or reproductive roles normally taken by heterosexuals.

Regarding the repeated claims associating homosexual male teleiophiles (i.e. homosexual men attracted to physically mature men) with pedophilia, a disproportionate number of male pedophiles may be homosexual pedophiles, but it does not follow that these homosexual pedophiles are simply a subset of homosexual teleiophiles. There is evidence based on genital responses to visual and auditory stimuli of 2,359 male subjects that teleiophilic homosexual men have no greater sexual attraction to children than teleiophilic heterosexual men do and that homosexual male pedophiles and hebephiles actually have less sexual attraction to adult men than heterosexual male pedophiles and hebephiles have to adult women (Blanchard et al., 2010). Very similar results, specifically regarding homosexual and heterosexual male teleiophiles, were obtained in an earlier study (Freund et al., 1973). Therefore, I see no reason to consider homosexual male teleiophiles inherently more likley than heterosexual male teleiophiles to be sexually interested in children. FYI: in the context of this article (the one you are reading right now), the word homosexual is shorthand for homosexual teleiophile, unless otherwise indicated.

Although no correlation between sexual orientation and an interest in propagandizing sexual behaviors to minors has been analytically determined to exist (to my knowledge), the stereotypes remain due to anecdotes of incidents with radical activists. Homosexuals and bisexuals must signal that they pose no such threat in order to cooperate. However, this is not enough for many conservatives, usually for religious reasons. If they are cognizant of one’s non-heterosexuality, the cost of attempting to cooperate with such religious conservatives is almost always greater than what might be gained from doing so. Therefore, such an attempt at cooperation, in that situational context, is not a rational course of action.

There are some individuals who do not want to merely refrain from cooperation with homosexuals but want to violently persecute them. Being an ethnic nationalist, I am often in disagreement with Dr. Jordan Peterson regarding politics. However, he articulates accurately that we all have a capacity for cruelty, what he calls a “shadow” or “dark side”. Homosexuals have often faced this dark side in bullies and authoritarians. Observing such a capacity for cruelty, I have realized that I must integrate my own “dark side”/shadow: my past failure to do so has caused me to lack self-respect and to feel vulnerable, resulting in my resort to rhetorical defenses which made me appear silly to some people. Later I realized the importance of integrating the shadow, as I heard Dr. Peterson explain it in roughly these terms: one must be able to be cruel, not because one wishes to be cruel but to avoid being a victim to those who are. Machiavelli was correct: “… love peace but know how to wage war” (Art of War: 1, 12).

On “Moral” Nihilism

WARNING: I am writing¬†in “autistic” mode which most people will find counterintuitive.

I agree with JF that “moral” nihilism is a factually true position. But I also consider subjective valuations to be necessary for human life, and I think that societies cannot exist in a state of order when the subjective values of the populace are significantly divided. The claim that there is an objective axiology of good and bad may keep order both in a society and in an individual, even though it is a factually incorrect claim (as far as I can tell). [edited]

The problem with Stefan¬†Molyneux’s¬†argument for objective¬†values of good and bad is the same problem as the consensus-based “traditionalist” argument for objective¬†values of good and bad: the naive idea that all humans and all human groups have the same “moral” intuitions, when in fact they don’t, and this often shows itself in very non-trivial matters; moral intuitions differ with biological parameters such as intelligence, personality and evolutionary strategy — and this is one reason why it is not normatively preferable to force interpersonal association.

However, if we take the¬†point of view provided by Curt Doolittle, then it seems that JF (and Ryan Faulk) miss something: that morality,¬†operationally defined,¬†is not valuations of “good and bad” but simply a fact of¬†non-parasitism present in some behaviors. If Doolittle is correct, some behaviors¬†can be objectively described as moral and others as immoral, but whether they are good or bad is a preferential value judgment. I ultimately side with Doolittle on this particular¬†point,¬†he does manage to maintain¬†Hume’s Law in his concept of moral objectivism, but I would be willing to openly discuss this topic with JF and/or Faulk if I have time.

I should note before finishing that the¬†notion of objective good and bad, as well as the Aristotlean understanding of¬†telos, which¬†inherently¬†implies an ought¬†that is an¬†is,¬†conflates normative and positive., i.e. violates Hume’s Law. [edit: It also¬†seems to be an anthropomorphic mental error, as far as I can tell].


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.