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.
There has been some dispute caused by uninformed persons on the dissident Right (not naming any names Amerika .org) regarding the nature of Irish ancestry. I will attempt to clarify this as much as possible.
About two years ago, some British newspaper headlines written by people who seem to know very little about population genetics implied that the Irish are Middle Eastern (here, here). They are only correct in that all extant Europeans, Irish included, have significant admixture from early Neolithic Anatolian farmers. However, in order to correctly understand European genetics, one must do more than reading newspaper headlines. If the bozos who wrote them had actually read through the study they were basing their claims on, and understood its significance in the context of current population genetics, then they would realize that the Irish are essentially Northwestern Europeans (but that doesn’t make for a good eye-catching sensationalist story, now, does it).
The Irish genetically cluster and overlap to a significant degree with other Northwestern European samples, and appear most closely related to the British. They are not Southern Europeans, genetically speaking. Here are principal component analyses from two separate studies showing this. In the second analysis, the Irish are practically indistinguishable from the British and also overlap with Norwegians and Dutch.
Even if one wishes to do a fine-scale analysis to reveal the genetic difference between the English and the Irish, there is still obvious genetic overlap, and the English themselves have some Insular Celtic (Irish related) ancestry in addition to Anglo-Saxon ancestry.
The Irish and all Insular Celts appear to owe the vast majority of Y-chromosomes (haplogroup R-L21), as well as their autosomal ancestry to Bronze Age inhabitants of the British Isles c. 2000-1500 BC (link). The figure below shows the varying affinities of prehistoric Irish and Hungarian genomes towards modern European populations. (The fact that the Neolithic Irish sample resembles modern southern Europeans does not mean that the modern Irish are Southern European, rather all genetic samples from the Neolithic in Western and Central Europe prior to the Indo-European expansion resemble those of southern Europeans, particularly Sardinians; see the analysis at the bottom of the page).
The Bronze Age Irish, from whom modern Irish are descended, were autosomally very close to contemporaneous Indo-European peoples in Scandinavia (Nordic Bronze Age), and the continent (Unetice culture) (see analysis below). This is the reason why the Irish to this day are genetically Northwestern Europeans, just as the British, Germans and Scandinavians are. The cause of genetic variation between these groups is not that one group possesses a type of admixture that the others do not; it is because of small variations in the proportions of Neolithic farmer, hunter-gatherer, and Steppe related admixtures.
There are frequent disputes among some concerned with human biodiversity regarding the nature of the “white” racial type, given that there are multiple subraces which exist in Europe. There is a common approach (usually made for political convenience) to assume that the differences between these groups are insignificant. I would argue that this is generally a false assumption from an empirical standpoint, though all these groups are broadly classifiable as racially Caucasoid.
The Cro-Magnoid Type
The Cro-Magnoids (including the “Baltids” of Northeastern Europe) are likely one of the earliest Caucasoid phenotypes; they are often characterized in contrast to later Neolithic phenotypes by a robust skeletal build, a more brachycephalic cranium, and robust facial features. There tends to be variable skin and hair pigmentation, but eye color is usually light. This combination of physical traits is currently sometimes found in Balts, Northern Slavs, Estonians, Finns, Germans, the western Irish, Icelanders, and western Norwegians. It seems to have an antecedent in the Loschbour specimen from Luxembourg in the Mesolithic, c. 6000 BC which had robust features, and most likely light eyes, and dark hair and skin based on genomic testing (link). The populations in which modern Cro-Magnoids exist not surprisingly possess large quantities of the “WHG” (Western European Hunter-Gatherer) ancestry similar to that of the Mesolithic Loschbour specimen (shown below). It should be noted that throughout most of its present range, the Cro-Magnoid subracial type occurs alongside Nordics which emerged in the late Neolithic through Early Bronze Age. (Cro-Magnoid hunter-gatherers are also one population ancestral to Nordics). Oftentimes the Cro-Magnoids and Nordics are blended; this is common in most Germanic peoples.
The genetic research of Iosif Lazaridis (here, here) indicates that European Mediterraneans derive most of their genetic ancestry from a series of Near Eastern migrations into Europe, especially that of early Neolithic Anatolian cereal grain farmers. This early Neolithic ancestry may be the original source of the more dolichocephalic cranium, gracile build, and often neotenous facial features common to both Nordics and Mediterraneans. The lifestyle, social, and dietary changes of the Neolithic revolution may have been what selected for these new phenotypes in the first place. Most Mediterraneans living south of the Alps, Balkans and the Pyrenees, with the exception of Sardinians, also possess a significant genetic contribution from Bronze and Iron Age incursions from the Near East of the Phoenicians, Sea Peoples, Etruscans (possibly from Lydia), and possibly the Pelasgians (if they happened to be of Bronze-Age Near Eastern descent).
The first map below shows a rough approximation of total Near Eastern admixture in Europe, including both Anatolian Neolithic admixture and later Bronze and Iron Age incursions using data from this study. The second map shows only the admixture from the more recent Near Eastern incursions during the Bronze and Iron Ages:
(Note: it is likely that the data calculated for the map directly above has positive error. For more realistic values on post-Neolithic Near Eastern admixture, see this Eurogenes post. If you choose to read it, “England_Roman_outlier” is a specimen of Levantine ancestry, visible on PCAs (possibly a slave brought to England by the Romans))
The abundance of Near-Eastern ancestry in Mediterraneans compared to other Europeans is evident in the phenotypes of a slightly olive complexion, dark wavy hair, and dark eyes. Amphorae and busts from ancient Greece would seem to indicate that the majority of the population and some prominent aristocrats, particularly in Athens (such as Pericles), were of a predominantly Mediterranean phenotype, having dark wavy or curly hair which is much less common in Northern Europe.
The Mediterranean subrace, however, is not limited to Europe, or even the Mediterranean basin (this is indicated by the Lazaridis study on early farmers). Indo-Iranians of a Mediterranean racial type are largely descended from Iranian Neolithic farmers from the Zagros mountains. Arabs gain most of their Caucasoid ancestry from the pre-Neolithic Natufian culture of the Levant. The ancient Egyptians, whom we now know were Mediterranean Caucasoids, appear to derive their ancestry from both the Anatolian Neolithic and also the Natufian culture (given their genetic proximity to modern Levantines and Arabs) (link). All of the prehistoric cultures which gave rise to peoples of a Mediterranean subrace, do however share significant admixture containing a combination of European hunter-gatherer and “basal Eurasian” DNA. This “basal rich” admixture, as it is called on the blog Eurogenes, might be considered proto-Mediterranean; it most likely emerged in Northern Africa or the Middle East, though it is distinct from the Sub-Saharan African genetic admixture. While this basal rich admixture is most abundant in racially Mediterranean populations, it is, in fact, ubiquitous in all extant Caucasoid populations.
The Nordic subrace possesses a clear geographic range including the British Isles, Northern France, the Low Countries, Northern Germany, and the shores of the Baltic Sea, extending to some degree into Russia. The genetic research of Allentoft and Lazaridis indicates that Nordic populations possess most of their ancestry from three earlier Caucasoid groups: Anatolian cereal farmers, Pontic Steppe pastoralists (most likely Indo-European), and European hunter-gatherers, which began combining in the Northern European Corded Ware Culture in the Late Neolithic to Early Bronze Age c. 3000-2300 BC.
The very light skin pigmentation often found in Nordic populations was most likely a result of a need to effectively synthesize vitamin D using sunlight at high latitudes. The high degree of lactose tolerance, a neotenous trait found particularly in Western European Nordics is a result of the bovine pastoral economies of the Corded Ware and to a larger degree succeeding cultures which depended on milk as a dietary staple. The light pigmentation of the hair and eyes found in Nordic populations are also neotenous traits in Caucasoids. Nordics possess a gracile skeletal build and cranium bordering between mesocephalic and dolichocephalic tending towards facial neoteny (as with Mediterraneans, these skeletal features likely originate in Neolithic farmer ancestry). This unique combination of phenotypes in pigmentation, skeletal features, and elsewhere, makes the Nordic subrace distinct from other Caucasoids. It may have arisen partially through a sexual selection for generally neotenous traits.
Note how the distributions of the Nordic phenotypes below are similar to that of the Corded Ware Culture, where the Nordic subrace most likely began to emerge:
Culturally and genetically succeeding the Corded Ware people were those of the Nordic Bronze Age (Germanic), Atlantic Bronze Age (pre-Celtic?), Unetice culture (Italo-Celtic?), and Sintashta culture (Indo-Iranian, also where the earliest chariots appear). Genomes which have been collected from these cultures cluster together with each other on a genetic principal component analysis (here, here) and also cluster with modern Germanic, Celtic, and some Baltic and Northern Slavic ethnic groups (many Balto-Slavic peoples also have strong genetic influence from earlier hunter-gatherers, i.e. Cro-Magnoids). It is also apparent from these analyses, and even physical appearances, that modern Indo-Iranians, particularly in Afghanistan and Tajikistan, have some Nordic European ancestry in addition to their mostly Iranian Neolithic/Mediterranean ancestry. This is due to the Andronovo expansion of early Indo-Iranian speakers from Northeastern Europe into Central Asia c. 1500 BC. This expansion played an important role in the spread of Indo-European language culture into Central and Southern Asia.
Nordic phenotypes also occur sometimes in the Mediterranean and the Balkans. The Celtiberians, Myceneans, and early Italic tribes who introduced Indo-European languages into the Mediterranean from the north would have carried Nordic traits with them. Classical literature would seem to substantiate this. Many Greek mythological figures such as Menelaus, Achilles, Apollo, Aphrodite, and Athena are all described as having light pigmentation. Certain Roman patricians such as Augustus and Marcus Junius Brutus (the younger) possessed Nordic facial features. Augustus and many other Roman emperors also possessed, according to records, light pigmentation of the hair and eyes (link). Later, the Visigoths, Suebi, and Ostrogoths would add to the Nordic component in the Balkans, Italy, and Iberia. This would remain visible in the aristocracy of Spain for 1000 years after these invasions; Queen Isabella de Castille, born in 1451, possessed strikingly Nordic traits compared to the average Iberian, and even her own husband.
Brachycephaly (broad-headedness) is most exaggerated in Caucasoid populations inhabiting mountainous areas, hence the label “Alpine” is sometimes applied to this phenotype. When Neolithic mesocephalic and dolichocephalic populations interbred with Mesolithic hunter-gatherer populations, they may have acquired brachycephaly as an adaptation which proliferated in high altitudes (possibly to prevent high-altitude cerebral edema, but this is merely an educated guess). One example of this may be the brachycephalic people of the Neolithic Bell Beaker culture which became widespread in Central and Western Europe c. 2500 BC. This phenomenon of selection for brachycephaly in higher altitudes could be the reason why the round skull shape is still so commonly found in and around the more mountainous areas of Europe such as the Massif Central in France, the Alps, the Apennines, the Carpathians and the Balkans.
The “Alpine” phenotype is also present in the contemporary populations of the Caucasus region and the Armenian plateau, giving rise to a subrace sometimes referred to as “Armenoid”. These populations appear to be descended, based on genetic analysis, from the Neolithic and Paleolithic inhabitants of Anatolia and the Caucasus. In addition to this, given that the region encompassing the Armenian plateau and Anatolia is where animal domestication and bronze metallurgy began in the Neolithic, it is probable that many of the first animal herders and bronze smelters possessed an Alpine phenotype. These early herders and bronze smelters would have expanded the distribution of their Alpine phenotype as they migrated into Southeastern Europe and into Mesopotamia where the earliest civilizations arose.
This expansion out of Armenia and the Caucasus seems to be related to the distribution of Y-haplogroup J2 (edit: especially the J2b M102 subclade) and autosomal admixture from the hunter-gatherers of the Caucasus and Late Neolithic (Chalcolithic) Iranians. It may be responsible for the brachycephaly observed today specifically in Southeastern Europe, where there is little admixture from the European Mesolithic. This would be in contrast to France and Central Europe where there is more Mesolithic European ancestry, and that is the likely source of the brachycephalic (Alpine) phenotype.
It is probable that the brachycephalic Bell Beaker people of Central Europe (given that they possessed significant Anatolian Neolithic and Corded Ware-like ancestries) were the beginning of a heavy combination of Alpines with Nordics and Mediterraneans resulting in the “Dinaric” subrace. This Dinaric subrace most likely expanded to its present distribution first within the Bell-beaker culture itself, then by means of the Illyrians, Halstatt Celts and proto-Italic peoples who migrated out of Central Europe starting c. 1200 BC (It is also interesting to note that the Y-chromosomal haplogroup which is most associated with continental Celts and early Italic tribes, R-U152, was also found in a Bavarian Bell Beaker individual, RISE563). These expansions played an important role in spreading bronze, and later iron metallurgy throughout the European continent. The Slavic peoples of Central Europe may have also played a role in the expansion of the Dinaric subrace later beginning around 500 AD.
Conclusion: What is White?
Returning to the main dilemma which many are facing; one might like to ask the question of what is white? All commonly called “whites” are racially Caucasoid. In most formal discussions, “White” is often equated with Caucasoid, and can thus include both Middle Eastern and European ethnic groups. In more common or “folk” parlance, white usually refers to Caucasoids with a fair skin phenotype common in populations with an abundance of Nordic racial ancestry. It is difficult to simply equate the term “white” with pre-multicultural European descent because of the multitude of Caucasoid subraces already present in Europe prior to recent multiculturalism, some of which extend outside Europe into the Middle East. Hence, when speaking accurately with regards to genetic ancestry, “White” should either refer to “Caucasoid” or to racially Nordic Caucasoids. If the former option is chosen, Europeans may be considered “white-Europeans” or “European whites”. What all extant Europeans share is significant ancestry from Anatolian Neolithic farmers, and this gives rise to a certain degree of pan-European clustering on genetic principal component analyses.
Without getting into details, there are a variety of European ethnic groups in the US today belonging to different European subraces. The best way for ethnic nationalists to sort this out from a natural law standpoint is to use free association to allow various European American ethnic groups to coalesce in certain territories as they desire and to gain power regionally and thus avoid ethnic conflict.
Addendum: Non-Caucasoid Admixture in Majority Caucasoids
To address this topic I will use the Eurogenes K7 admixture calculator which uses Caucasoid admixtures sourced from ancient populations prior to the Neolithic, Bronze age, Iron age, and Medieval population movements. When viewing the spreadsheet, the populations ancestral to all modern Caucasoids are labeled “Villabruna-related”, “Ancient_North_Eurasia” and “Basal-rich”. East Asian ancestry is called “East Eurasian”, and Sub-Saharan African ancestry is referred to as “Sub-Saharan”; the “Southeast Asian” and “Oceanian” ancestry groups are predominate in Australoid populations.
Modern Semitic populations in Arabia and the Levant have little to no Australoid admixture and trace Sub-Saharan African admixture at around 1-3 % as well as some occasional East Asian admixture at ~0.5%. The Druze, Samaritans, and Lebanese Christians lack this additional East Asian and Sub-Saharan African Admixture. Most modern Indic and Iranic populations, except for some Kurds and Zoroastrian Iranians, possess some East Asian admixture (~1-9%), and Australoid admixture (~0.4-9%). Middle Eastern Islamic populations almost as a rule possess more non-Caucasoid admixture than Middle Eastern populations which have remained non-Muslim. This may be due to the conversion of Central Asian Turkic peoples and Sub-Saharan Africans to Islam. Ironically, some modern linguistic Turks, living in Trabzon, possess no more Sub-Saharan African, or East Asian ancestry compared to most Europeans.
Europeans, in general, do not possess much Sub-Saharan African ancestry, almost invariably under 0.2% in most of Europe (usually fluctuating greatly below this level in the same populations; an indication of calculator “noise”). In Europe, Sub-Saharan African admixture reaches maxima of 0.2-0.5 % in Sicily, and 0.5-1% in Portugal. 96 % of European Americans possess less than 1% Sub-Saharan African Admixture according to 23 & Me (link). East Asian admixtures are present at .5-2% in West Russian, Ukrainian, and Eastern Baltic Populations. Russians in Kargopol are ~4-6 % East Asian. Finns have roughly 6-7% East Asian admixture; the Saami possess about 20% East Asian admixture. Other European populations have between 0.01 to 0.5 % East Asian admixture, often possessing almost this entire percentage range within the same populations, possibly indicating calculator noise at this level. Australoid ancestry fluctuates erratically in the European continent between 0.0 % and 0.8 %, possibly a sign calculator noise, or of certain populations possessing minimally less genetic drift away from the ancestral Eurasian population dwelling in India 70,000 years ago.
Generally, below a certain level, trace genetic admixtures are able to be considered “noise” or erroneous defects caused by the imperfection of the genetic model used to calculate admixture percentages. However, it seems likely that millennia of proximity with neighboring Uralic populations has led to the small peak in East Asian admixture among the Eastern Slavs and Balts, and that admixture from invading Moors gave a very small amount of Sub-Saharan African admixture to Portugal and Sicily which is not present elsewhere in Europe. In time, these trace admixtures may be selected out of the populations which possess them just as Neanderthal ancestry in humans has decreased from 3-6% 40,000 years ago to 2% in the present day (study).
There is a tendency among us humans, especially those who are ardent humanists to overlook beauty which is living because it is not in any way a product of something uniquely ‘human’. Herein lies the difference between the so-called ‘culturists’ and ‘racists’. A ‘culturist’ appreciates the beauty of non–living things created by man — art, music, architecture, literature. He, therefore, seeks the preservation of culture, often against iconoclasm, religious decline, and degeneracy. A ‘racist’ on the other hand appreciates the beauty of the animate, living thing, not created by man, and recognizes that this beauty is a product of some amount of genetic isolation and natural selection. He, therefore, seeks to preserve the beauty of a race from influences such as miscegenation which would necessarily end its unique beauty.
Regarding the word ‘racist’, I use it in this article to denote a puerile label placed upon individuals wishing to preserve human biodiversity, not the view that all members of the same biological race are identical — which is clearly not true.
Iconoclasm is not just manifested in the destruction of the icons, statues, and stained glass windows beloved by Christian traditionalists, it is also manifest in the destruction of a racial type, or even the corruption of the natural beauty of the earth itself — something the anti-environmentalist ‘right’ needs to get a grip on.
This has caused a great rift I observe in the broader right. Those who value inanimate beauty follow suit in the tradition of various popes and Christian monarchs and those who value animate beauty — of the biosphere and living things follow National Socialist thinkers like George Lincoln Rockwell and William Luther Pierce.
I am bold enough to think that both animate and inanimate beauty is worth preserving. In no aesthetic sense am I an iconoclast. I value the preservation of a ‘civilization’ as a culture just as much as the preservation of any human race, which is in fact living and will continue to reproduce its unique beauty (and further refine its beauty) given the right conditions.
So I do not call myself a National Socialist or a ‘Western Culturist’. The error of the National Socialist is his lack of respect for organic cultural tradition (edit: this is common but not universal among NS), and the error of the culturist being his iconoclasm of animate, living beauty. I call myself a national monarchist in that I value both the beauty of inanimate human culture and animate natural race. And there are precedents to national monarchism throughout the ages –pretty much any monarchy centered around one people (as a biological concept of common descent) counts — Anglo-Saxon England, pre-Norman Ireland, Mediaeval Scandinavia and Eastern Europe, modern post-WWII Japan, and there are probably many more examples. There is no reason to assume as a culturist or traditionalist one must disregard biological race or ethne as the solid foundation of a nation, and there is no reason for a biological ethnocentrist ‘racist’ to assume that cultural tradition should be smashed to create some utopian society.
The Alt-Right is clearly a movement which has attracted attention from young people as of late. The reason why I believe it exists is for various reasons, but first and foremost is the concept of race, as a biological concept, as property. I do not see this as a bad thing, because race not only influences the inheritance of important evolutionary adaptations, such as intelligence and behavioral traits but also provides the necessary platform for the continued, directed evolution of a closely related group of people. Under the system of Propertarianism, race, as a form of property (I speak of property here as a norm, rather than some mystical characteristic of a thing) would most likely fall under the category of commons. Now this property, for Northwestern Europeans and their relatives in North America, is under threat from low birth rates and the mass immigration of racially different people. It is also under threat from miscegenation.
Race, I believe, has gained importance in the right due to the fact that for many people, it is the only long-lasting, tangible property which they effectively lay claim to, as opposed to something they are paying a rent, lease, or mortgage on. As post-industrial society has become extremely complex, and what property one has today may be very different from what one has tomorrow, the Alt-Right is effectively investing in a form of property which can survive stock market crashes, housing bubbles and more. Race can also survive vast changes in public religious opinion, though often one religion or another will be detrimental for its long-term survival.
So I think that even the members Alt-Right are to be considered sovereigns; they are, I believe, aristocrats under the system of Aristocratic Egalitarianism because they have mutually agreed to protect each other’s property, their race, from outside threats.
The majority of this article will be about human biodiversity, however first let’s start with some quotes by Fredrich Nietzsche in order to get acquainted with the idea I am about to argue regarding how great civilizations come into being.
“Let us acknowledge unprejudicedly how every higher civilization hitherto has ORIGINATED! Men with a still natural nature, barbarians in every terrible sense of the word, men of prey, still in possession of unbroken strength of will and desire for power, threw themselves upon weaker, more moral, more peaceful races (perhaps trading or cattle-rearing communities), or upon old mellow civilizations in which the final vital force was flickering out in brilliant fireworks of wit and depravity. At the commencement, the noble caste was always the barbarian caste: their superiority did not consist first of all in their physical, but in their psychical power–they were more COMPLETE men (which at every point also implies the same as “more complete beasts”).” –Fredrich Nietzsche from Beyond Good and Evil, Chapter IX, paragraph 257 (emphasis mine)
“There is MASTER-MORALITY and SLAVE-MORALITY,–I would at once add, however, that in all higher and mixed civilizations, there are also attempts at the reconciliation of the two moralities, but one finds still oftener the confusion and mutual misunderstanding of them, indeed sometimes their close juxtaposition–even in the same man, within one soul. The distinctions of moral values have either originated in a ruling caste, pleasantly conscious of being different from the ruled–or among the ruled class, the slaves and dependents of all sorts.” –Fredrich Nietzsche from Beyond Good and Evil, Chapter IX, paragraph 260 (emphasis mine)
Now obviously there is an IQ requirement in a population for any civilization to develop out of it, however, even in parts of the world where the average IQ is relatively high, such as Europe, and East Asia, we observe that higher, more innovative civilizations, which value both the individual and the collective, develop only under specific genetic conditions, namely a combination of humans who have evolved in a settled agricultural lifestyle over millennia, being genetically pacified, with little or no disposition towards competitive, highly independent, domineering behavior, and a different, aristocratic group, exercising “master-morality”, usually recently descended from hunter-gatherers, who act as the domesticators of other humans; these are Nietzsche’s “barbarians” from the quote above. I will set forth two examples: Northwestern Europe and Japan. This should hopefully clear up why, for instance, Japan has been more open to an individualistic, free-market economy, whereas China exists as a quasi-communist state with totalitarian rules on how many children one can have etc. It should also show why it was countries such as Britain, France, Germany, and Scandinavian countries which have both become very wealthy and made the most scientific and technological advancements in the modern era, whereas much of Southern and Eastern Europe lagged behind. To put it in visual terms, I attempt to put forth ideas regarding why the following two maps are different:
As a side note, one leftist National Socialist website (aryanism.net) which I have previously criticized, prizes the agricultural, genetically pacified phenotypes as “Aryan”, arguing that this is the phenotype necessary for civilizations to develop while condemning the paleolithic phenotypes. This, however, is an incomplete view of the entire picture, for, as I have started to argue, and will continue in arguing, a combination of neolithic and paleolithic phenotypes is ultimately what has produced the greatest civilizations of mankind.
It has been fairly well established by geneticist Iosif Lazaridis that Europeans owe a great portion of their ancestry to early farmers who wandered in from Anatolia around 7000 BC during the Neolithic (here). However, in the present day, North-Western Europeans only owe about half (probably less, actually) of their ancestry to these farmers, the rest coming from various hunter-gatherer groups, and their descendants, such as Indo-European pastoralists from the Pontic Steppe (here). The net effect is that Europeans occupying a broad belt from Ireland to Western Russia possess large quantities of ancestry both from early agriculturalists and from hunter-gatherers who only started using agriculture more recently, during the late Neolithic and Bronze Age. If one goes too far north, the genetics of the hunter-gatherers predominate, and as one goes to the south of this central region, into the Mediterranean basin, the genetic admixture from Neolithic Anatolian Farmers becomes dominant.
It is my opinion that the most successful civilized nations of Europe, namely, Britain, France, the Netherlands, and Germany, (and to a lesser degree, Northern Italy, Spain, Scandinavia, and Russia) have been so successful, not necessarily due to early adoption of manorialism, but rather due to this balance of genetic input from both genetically pacified farmers, who were accustomed to a settled, relatively peaceful existence, as well as the more mobile, “barbaric” in Nietzschean terms, Indo-Europeans who were descended primarily from hunters and fishers who had recently adopted a highly competitive pastoralist lifestyle on the Pontic steppe (see David W. Anthony’s The Horse the Wheel and the Language). The aristocracies of early Greece and Rome would have also possessed this ideal mix of genetically inherited traits, being descended from Indo-European invaders who married local Neolithic farmers, introducing the early Greek and Italic languages into the Mediterranean basin. This aristocracy is practically gone now, however, through an overwhelming genetic absorption into the conquered Neolithic farmer populace, who were ultimately descended primarily from early Near-Eastern agriculturalists.
The end result of the ideal genetic admixture which I have described is a people which are both civilized and politically organized, and also are also willing to innovate, take risks (like exploring the New World), and challenge old notions of thought, as was done in the scientific revolution.
The Japanese, compared to some other East Asian populations, such as the Han, possess large amounts of ancestry from a group of hunter-gatherers who did not partake in early rice farming during the Neolithic (these hunter-gatherers were known as the Jomon people). This is assessed quantitatively in the following study, which you can read here. An excerpt from the abstract reads: “Our results showed that the genetic contributions of Jomon, the Paleolithic contingent in Japanese, are 54.3∼62.3% in Ryukyuans and 23.1∼39.5% in mainland Japanese, respectively. Utilizing inferred allele frequencies of the Jomon population, we further showed the Paleolithic contingent in Japanese had a Northeast Asia origin.”
The Jomon people had long inhabited Japan since the Palaeolithic, whereas another population, the Yayoi, who brought intensive rice farming to Japan, were effectively newcomers from the Asian mainland, and perhaps the descendants of the original domesticators of rice themselves. Thus, like many Europeans, the Japanese owe their ancestry to both a population genetically pacified through evolution in a relatively peaceful, settled, agricultural society and another population primarily descended from paleolithic hunter-gatherers, who ultimately would have organized into tribes and needed to compete over animals as a food source.
It is also interesting to note that the Japanese Emperor (whose lineage, according to legend, is around 2700 years old, predating the Yayoi period by almost 400 years) possesses Y-chromosomal haplogroup D (see source), which is found to a high degree in Japan, and almost universally among the Ainu (who are mostly descended from the Jomon), but is also much less frequent in Korea and Eastern China where the Yayoi agriculturalists migrated from. Perhaps this is evidence that part of the Japanese aristocracy, as on might think from Nietzsche, was originally descended from the Jomon “barbarians”, and not the more civilized Yayoi from the East Asian continent.
If you want to see a full explanation of the genetic history of Japan and its relationship to the rest of East Asia, which I have abbreviated here, you can visit this website. In summary, the combination of the Jomon and Yayoi people in Japan of the has produced a highly orderly, but also innovative, culture which is more individualistic than its mainland neighbors of China and Korea. Just look at where Japan is on the world values chart below compared to other East Asian countries:
So, In addition to IQ, other factors clearly need to be addressed in understanding the success of a civilization.
If the people are too genetically pacified through evolution over millennia of non-competitive, settled agriculture, a civilization runs the risk of stagnation where innovation is minimal, and the individual’s wishes are grossly disrespected by the collective. This, for instance, is likely what contributed to the formation of communist China and fascist Italy. This is also likely why the historically-speaking, intellectually repressive Catholic Church has remained religiously dominant in the Western Mediterranean while being rejected by the less genetically pacified peoples of Northern Europe during the reformation.
On the other hand, if people have only been agriculturalized for a brief period of time, being descended largely from hunter-gatherers and having evolved for a tribal, often violent existence, civilization cannot develop easily due to a predominance of aggressive, often internecine warlike behavior, which does not allow for enough cooperation to develop an orderly society. The Vikings and early Germanic tribes perhaps come to mind the most here, but (throughout history) the Sottish highlands, the Baltic states, and Northern Russia, have also fallen within this description. Within East Asia, the Ainu are perhaps the best example of this type of a group descended primarily from hunter-gatherers, being a culturally independent people which has never had the organizational capacity to become politically dominant over the Japanese archipelago, but did, in fact, engage in repeated battles with the Japanese and Chinese during the late medieval period (according to Wikipedia).
So it is ultimately genetic balance (a golden mean as Aristotle might say) which must be achieved for an advanced civilization to continue. This usually occurs through the combination of a “barbarian” ruling class descended recently from hunter-gatherers, on top of a large, evolutionarily pacified agricultural class. Usually, these two classes mix to a degree resulting in individuals with the ideal balance of both traits, allowing for an organized, yet independent and innovative civilization. We might look to the future wondering of this ideal balance will continue to survive massive amounts of immigration. An ethnostate is one solution to preserve this genetic ideal, as the Japanese pretty much already have. Northwestern Europeans, on the other hand, including many European-Americans do not possess this yet.
I really recommend watching this recent video by Stefan Molyneux on why civilizations rise and fall if you found my article interesting.
I have felt compelled to write this post because I feel that I have not made it sufficiently clear why I defend the political views that I do on this blog. In time I may amend, or modify this post to clarify my position. It boils down largely to the fact that a house divided cannot stand. If a political nation includes large factions of people who disagree on everything political and hate each other’s guts for it, there is no reason to keep the country in one piece. Doing so results in wasteful damage to persons, property, and culture. In addition to this, the human species is biologically diverse, and without a means of preserving this biodiversity, it would be impossible to continue in whatever evolutionary path our particular ancestors have been in for tens of thousands of years up to the present time. Melting everyone into the same genetic pot would make whatever evolutionary adaptations we possess different to other human populations to be thinly dispersed in the human species at best, and in the case of recently evolved recessive traits, it would practically eliminate them. It would be like reversing the evolutionary clock of Homo sapiens at least 70,000 years back to the time when modern humans first entered Eurasia from Africa, before branching out into all different parts of the world. This was when our relative genetic variation was very small compared to today. I think that my concern is especially relevant due to the fact that modernity has removed many selective pressures which got us where we are, and the large human population of the earth combined with the modern ease of mobility would inhibit recent (as in a few tens of thousands of years old) evolutionary specializations from re-emerging and becoming easily fixed (widespread through selective pressures) through reproduction within small, insular human populations.
I consider myself a universal ethnic nationalist in that I have no problem with any ethnic group establishing a nation-state unto itself. I also think that if people desire to create a multi-ethnic nation-state, that this is fine just so long as all the parties joining do so voluntarily. In fact, I envision that a mixture of mono-ethnic, and multi-ethnic nation-states is probably a fairly bright future mankind can hope for in the next half-millennium. Both types of nation-states are good for different reasons, have different advantages and disadvantages, and ultimately will play different, but important roles on a global scale. So there it is. I am not a true fascist, nor am I an imperialist. Those of you who might wish to accuse me of such positions lack the basis to do so.
I would also like to note that ethnic, rather than just white nationalism would be the most beneficial for European-Americans, namely because of our diverse ancestry. For instance, someone of Anglo-Germanic ancestry such as myself has a distinct biological and cultural heritage from someone of Italian or Slavic ancestry. If we wish to preserve what our ancestors brought over from Europe, I don’t think pouring everyone into a giant stew pot and seeing what comes out is the way to do so.