Mycenaean DNA and Other Curiosities

[I did not have time to write this, but I did so anyway, to let out intellectual frustration.]

Last summer a study was published on the genetic origins of the Mycenaeans and Minoans. It turns out that they were similar, but the Mycenaeans, whom we know had an Indo-European language, possessed a small amount of steppe-related admixture which the Minoans did not (so as a side note, this is more evidence for the “Kurgan hypothesis”). Both Mycenaeans and Minoans are related to modern Mediterranean Europeans, but in fact possessed less Northern European admixture than modern day Greeks (which contradicts the Nordicist narrative). I think this difference may be due to a subsequent Dorian invasion after the collapse of the Mycenaean civilization. The Dorians did worship a Nordic-looking deity, Apollo, and a new addition of Northern European blood, possibly from an off-shoot of the Corded Ware, may be the reason for the inclusion of characters with a Nordic pigmentation in the myths of Hesiod and Homer, who both wrote after the Dorian invasion.

From Eurogenes

Now regarding the perennial arguments about Nordicism and non-WASPs, it should first be noted that even Madison Grant acknowledged in The Passing of the Great Race that both Nordic and Mediterranean phenotypes were present in the British Isles, not only in the Irish, but also in the Welsh, English, and Scotts. All of these ethnic groups possess some admixture from both “Nordic” peoples from the Corded Ware Culture and its successors, and to a lesser degree, earlier Neolithic inhabitants of a more Mediterranean appearance. The confusion that has arisen here is due to the conflation of geographic and linguistic groups: “English”, “Irish”, “Scottish”, with phenotypes. As I showed before, none of these ethnic groups possess significantly more Levantine blood than continental Germanic and Scandinavian peoples. Any differences in phenotype are for a different reason, such as possessing more of an older admixture from the Megalithic era, due to geographic isolation (which makes more sense than a pseudohistorical migration of Semitic tribes into Northwestern Europe, which would have left significant amounts of Y chromosomal haplogroup J1, which is at low to null frequencies in the native British and Irish populations (edited)).

Another thing I would like to bring up is that Irish admixture is now present to some degree in Icelanders and Norwegians because of their slave trade in the Viking period. It is also present in the Scotts because of a migration from Ireland into Scotland during the early middle ages under the Dal Riata kingdom (which is why Scotland spoke Gaelic for several centuries and has many surnames beginning with Mc and Mac). The Vikings did take many slaves from Scotland and Ireland and brought them to Norway and Iceland, and eventually, they became incorporated into the Norse population. This admixture event is evident in the Y-chromosomal makeup of Iceland and Norway, in contrast to that of other Scandinavian and continental Germanic peoples.

Distribution of haplogroup R1b-L21 (S145) in Europe

Likewise, it is evident that the Swedes and Germans have a small amount of Slavic admixture at the present time, given that a minority of them possess a Y-Chromosome lineage predominate among Western Slavs, including Poles and Czechs.

Distribution of haplogroup R1a-M458 in Europe

So it is clear that Nordic peoples possess some amount of admixture from non-Germanic ethnic groups, Slavs and Insular Celts in particular.

I wrote this piece as someone probably classifiable as Nordic, with a long angular face; a high, long, European nose; green eyes; pale skin, and golden brown hair. My intent here is not to support Mediterranism or Nordicism but to provide a perspective of realism regarding European phenotypes and their relation to ethnicities and geographic areas.




The Blog Post of Revelation

Being a determiner of values, an Overman, or perhaps what Evola would call a spiritual solar man, is difficult and in publishing this post I take a calculated risk. I will probably be kicked out of the reactosphere (de jure, but perhaps not de facto) for what I say here. However, the reward of self-rule is great. I have consulted Machiavelli and Nietzsche before making this decision, and drawn particular inspiration from the quote on the bottom right:


Continue reading “The Blog Post of Revelation”

Provisional Post II

Mistakes were made … by me:

  • I was probably too hard on low-church protestants in this article from a long time ago.
  • I should have made it clear that I did not want to demonize the third estate, but rather place limits on its power, in this article. I also should not have demonized North Sea civilization in the said article but focused on how its separation from aristocracy allowed for its creation of the atomized mentality of modern Anglosphere cultures.
  • I should have mentioned in this article on Japan that shame cultures *can* be bad and dysfunctional, and that the shame cultures which exist both in some parts of the Alt-Right and in leftist culture (edit: which itself is driven by guilt culture) are dysfunctional, immature, and often plainly stupid. However, as inane as the shame culture in *certain parts of* the Alt-Right may be, one must recognize that it is a necessary evil in order to cancel out an equally inane shame culture coming from the left.
  • Some individuals still want to debate if r/K selection theory was merely misused by Ruston or whether it is garbage altogether. I previously trashed the theory on the grounds that it is an unempirical oversimplification, and even if this was not correct it is still not important to this blog at the moment.
  • To correct my assertions in my previous article, the Imperial Roman conflation of religion and law did not occur mostly through the office of Pontifex Maximus being held by an Imperator, but more through the deification of a living Imperator to effectively create a theocracy (this arguably began earlier with Alexander the Great whose rule was influenced by the theocratic customs of the Levant and Egypt, perhaps in revision, the proto-globalist theocrat Alexander was the Isildur, not Julius Caesar). The Augustan Principate prior to the imperial cult was (arguably) an example of a type of non-theocratic sacral kingship, where the roles of religious and political leadership were separated from one another; this was also characteristic of Germanic kingship, where the king was politically treated as a fallible human, but also could carry out religious rites (based on Tacitus and Old Norse literature). This is in contrast to the theocratic sacral kingship of Sumerian city states where religious and political authority were conflated into the same concept.
  • I criticized the papacy in my previous article as an operational priest-kingship. I did not intend to single out Catholics in particular in doing this. It was probably taken that way by some but it should not be taken as a personal insult.
  • As per the gentle reprimand of Curt Doolittle, in my previous article and many others, I also should have not argued for an ideal government (which I considered to be aristocracy), but only for the ideal rule of natural law. Dictatorship/generalship is necessary during wartime, as understood by the Romans, but only under the rule of natural law. The problem with the Alt-Right (with the exception of MurdochMurdoch with “Nice Guy National Socialism”) is that large sections want dictatorship all the time, and unfortunately, there is little assurance from past events in their movement that a wise and strategic dictator/general would be chosen when necessary.

Now, I have seen some articles, written on the Social Matter website, which appear to be directed at me in an aggressive manner without mentioning my screen name. I will not name these articles because doing so would cause more commotion than I am able to handle presently. Social Matter appears presently committed to creating an empire and using a supernaturalist institution, the Catholic Church, to inform it of what is considered good. Because of the possible attacks already received from Social Matter writers, my disagreement with their proposed use of supernaturalism, and my skepticism of empire, I will no longer be writing with the purpose of associating with the Social Matter community. Social Matter may post links to my posts which are found agreeable, but I will be writing some things which Social Matter will not want to link to out of disagreement.

… and I still will not be writing much in the next four months, and I do not have time for long, drawn out arguments in the comments section.






Dumping r/K and Revising Views on the Elves

I have decided to reevaluate my views on the application r/K selection theory to humans as done by Rushton and the Anonymous Conservative (whom I will refer to as AC). The blogger RaceRealist made a fairly good case that Rushton’s application (and by extension AC’s) of r/K selection theory to humans is based on false premises.

Race Realist responded to me in the following comment:

Thanks for being objective. That’s rare to find nowadays.
I’ve spent years researching Rushton’s theory and thinking about how it applies to humans. Then I thought ‘Why only read what I agree with here when I don’t do that for other things?’ Then I found Judith Anderson’s ecology critique and then I went back to read the Graves paper that I just handwaved away.
Rushton’s misapplication of r/K theory was based on Pianka’s (1970) r/K continuum. That’s wrong. Describing behaviors as ‘r’ or ‘K’ is stupid. r and K describe agents of selection. Endemic disease is an agent of K while cold winters are an agent of r—which Rushton completely reversed! He literally arbitrarily put r-selection to Africans and K to Eurasians because it ‘fit with the data’. True—it did.
However where he went wrong was 1) treating human races as local populations (he’d need to look at one population in one ecosystem and compare it to another in a different one. These populations can be on the same continent (Africa) or two different ones (say, Africa and Northern Europe). 2) to apply the theory based on behaviors in modern environments makes no sense. Organisms MUST be studied in the environment that the selection was hypothesized to have occurred. Not doing so means it’s fine to disregard what he says about r/K selection in application to humans. Even omitting the racial comparisons doesn’t save it. 3) Evolutionary biologists and ecologists don’t even use the theory anymore.
I’ve brought this up to PumpkinPerson and he won’t take to it. I’ve explained to him that Rushton reversed r and K for humans (if it were applicable to us) and he still spews Rushton’s garbage. I know that it’s tough to change your beliefs and then the backfire effect occurs (which occurs when you’re presented with new information then do anything you can to find information to back what you originally thought after presented with said new information). That’s one cognitive bias I’ve learned to nip in the bud recently. I’ve also found it much easier to change my view by reading new information myself.
Now I’m at the bookstore every week in the biology section buying new books (I did this anyway) that are the opposite of what I believe to see what I think after. Constantly reevaluating your views is the logical—and intellectually honest—thing to do.
So anyone who pushes this theory is pushing a wrong theory, and applying it to other aspects of our lives also makes no sense. Behaviors are not ‘r’ or ‘K’. Behaviors are responses to the selective agent—whether it is r or K. People like Anonymous Conservative, Stephan Molyneaux and the other guys you brought up then—by proxy—push a wrong theory. Read the papers provided and follow the references to read more in depth about how to apply it—and why it’s not in use anymore.
This, then, leaves use with one troubling conclusion: anything based off of Rushton’s r/K selection theory is wrong by proxy. Rushton didn’t understand evolution and life history theory (r/K selection). I saw one critique of Rushton’s theory saying that ‘only a bad person would push a theory like this’. That’s a flawed retort. Ad hominem attacks in scholarly discussion do not work. Theories like Rushton’s must be deconstructed to show how and why they are wrong, lest other people believe something that is horribly flawed and incorrect.
I’ll most definitely be showing others how and why Rushton is wrong as well. Rushton was wrong about a ton from penis size to testosterone. This is just the nail in the coffin.
Rushton didn’t even reply to Graves or Anderson in print, take that for what you will.

… so now you know the gist of the problem I suppose.

Personally speaking, some of AC’s views have rubbed me the wrong way, largely because of his sometimes neoconservative bent. This is not to say he does not have more praiseworthy and transcendent ideas, he does, but this still does not overshadow larger problems: that r/K selection was not applied in the way it theoretically should have been, and that the theory itself is discredited: see RaceRealist’s recent blog post for details.

I previously wrote a post on Tolkien’s Elves and r/K selection theory, in which I described Tolkien’s elves as a K-selected ideal in a universal sense. I now reject this idea. However, as I mentioned in my earlier post, the elves have managed to follow an evolutionary strategy which gives them high fitness in their usual habitats. Thier phenotypes are also characteristically Northern European. So I still think of the elf as a biological ideal, but not in a universal sense of being “the measure of all things”. Rather the elves are a particular aristocratic ideal of the Germanic and to a certain degree Insular Celtic peoples who first conceived of them in their mythologies (and yes, just as some elves have dark hair, a minority of Germanic people such as King Halfdan the Black did/do as well).

From a Jungian perspective, the elf is an archetype which is part of the collective unconscious of Northwestern Europeans. It is, in my view, what would normally direct them (or perhaps I should say us given that I am a NW Euro) on a eugenic evolutionary path. This can be completed through selection for biological fitness in one’s environment and through endogamy within a biologically related clade or “subrace” (while excluding 1st – 3rd cousin marriages). The result is a eugenic biological transcendence from the parent race, and species, to form a new aristocratic clade.

As an end note, the current demographic pressures on the NW European gene pool may act as the refining fire from which a new aristocratic clade will emerge. Remember: it is always darkest before the dawn and what does not kill us will only make us stronger.

See Also:

Interesting article on ethnocentrism: