Posted by havelok on Tue, 21 Aug 2012 01:10 | #

Clean house but only to the point that the “natural” superiority of the Jews in “Western Civilization” can be fully accepted to place them in the Biblically prophesied position of princes and priests of all nations.

Yes, you do see more and more of this thing. Jews going neocon, “right wing”, “traditionalist”, and further. It’s sort of a good cop, bad cop routine. They will also even throw other Jews under the bus and sacrifice them, but will make sure that Jews aren’t “blamed” and will privilege Jews in some way in some new paradigm, setting themselves up for the next iteration.

The flipside of the coin of this phenomenon are the slavish gentiles who desperately need and seek out Jewish daddy figures for approval to think certain “bad thoughts”. You see these types everywhere from the mainstream and neocon right to the “far right”. It’s pathetic.

Posted by Dave on Tue, 21 Aug 2012 05:12 | #

Yes, I did predict the rise of Leo Strauss’s neoconservatism with its turn-of-the-millenium “Reichstag” incident to initiate US aggression in the middle east

By “turn-of-the-millenium “Reichstag” incident” you mean 9/11, right?

Do you think it was a false flag? If so, what do you think is the best evidence for it being a false flag? I haven’t really made my mind about it so I’m always interested in hearing arguments about it.

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 21 Aug 2012 10:38 | #

Dave, add this up:

1) Its obvious that neocon zionists wanted something like 9/11 to occur.  Indeed, they said they did.

2) The policies of loose immigration combined with neocon Zionist adventurism will lead terrorist attacks on US soil.  Both of these were pursued by neocon Zionists more than any other group.

3) The provision of aid and comfort to “freedom fighters” around the world pursued as part of US foreign policy.

4) The takeover by Washington D.C. by neocon Zionists.

Posted by Kearns on Tue, 21 Aug 2012 17:37 | #

The arrival of the “antisemitic” successor to Alisa Zinov’yevna Rosenbaum.

I believe it has finally arrived.  But not even I expected it to be another female.  Yes, a Jew, but not another Jewess!  What a coincidence!(?)

The purpose of the “antisemitism” is clear:  Clean house but only to the point that the “natural” superiority of the Jews in “Western Civilization” can be fully accepted to place them in the Biblically prophesied position of princes and priests of all nations.

Hitler may have been an example of this. Although I don’t know if he allowed or would have allowed enough room to maneuver for Jews or crypto-Jews to take control. He may have been too “antisemitic”.

Hitler may have been Jewish. Hitler’s father Alois was born illegitimate with no father. Hitler’s paternal grandfather is still unknown. His paternal grandmother is known to have worked in the home of a wealthy Jew.

There were DNA tests done recently of some of his relatives, and they found Y chromosome Haplogroup E1b1b1:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-two/7961211/Hitler-had-Jewish-and-African-roots-DNA-tests-show.html

The Y-chromosome is transmitted paternally, and E1b1b1 is not one associated with Europeans and Indo-Europeans/Aryans like R1b or R1a. E1b1b1 is Jewish and African. It is one of the major founding lineages of the Jews.

Posted by Dan Dare on Tue, 21 Aug 2012 18:39 | #

The essay itself is practically worthless, has little if any explanatory value and adds nothing to our existing store of knowledge. Why should we concern ourselves for some narcissistic Jewess’s belated realisation that mass immigration and the MultiKulti are not, in fact, Good for Jews™?

The only worthwhile nugget of potential wisdom is contained in the following:

In the present day, Western men (the aristocratic class) are the “bad” and the poor, the violent, the “underdog” are the “good”.

This worldview opened the floodgates to the immigration crisis we have today. How can we stop immigration if these people are “good” and we are “bad”? We, as the “bad”, owe it to all of the “good” to invite them into our societies and support them, if necessary.

As self-styled members of the anointed, we owe it to ourselves and to our readers to explain why this worldview came about, and when.

A hint: it was not extant in 1939.

Posted by IAE on Tue, 21 Aug 2012 18:44 | #

“There were DNA tests done recently of some of his relatives”

Yes, and we can see just how scientific and open this all was ...

”... They included an Austrian farmer revealed only as a cousin called Norbert H ...

... DNA was also taken from American Alexander Stuart-Houston, 61, a grand-nephew of Hitler.
He was trailed for seven days before he dropped a used serviette which Mulders said led him to the cousin in Austria -  and the link with Hitler’s sworn enemies.”

Source

What a crock ...

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 21 Aug 2012 19:02 | #

Dan Dare writes: “The essay itself is practically worthless, has little if any explanatory value and adds nothing to our existing store of knowledge.”

Understand that the importance of the essay is not its content, but its context.  Tens of thousands of “essays” like that have been written by “antisemites”—all more or less worthless in the larger scheme of things—the context in which her essay was published. 

The larger scheme of things consists of a huge population in which an enormous potential cognitive energy has been locked up by the control of thoughts that might implicate Jews in any way in anything negative.

Your admirable job of pointing out how, in England at least, Jews were not (or at least had ceased being) necessary in causing death by immigration during the post WW II years, is useful for analyzing what immediate actions might be effective to slow if not reverse death by immigration.  It does not, however, circumvent the cognitive lockdown against thought created by Jews by essentially linking substantial intellectual integrity with The Holocaust.  Green’s essay attacks that lock down on intellectual integrity simply by being written by a Jew.

Posted by Dave on Tue, 21 Aug 2012 20:01 | #

Dave, add this up:

1) Its obvious that neocon zionists wanted something like 9/11 to occur.  Indeed, they said they did.

2) The policies of loose immigration combined with neocon Zionist adventurism will lead terrorist attacks on US soil.  Both of these were pursued by neocon Zionists more than any other group.

3) The provision of aid and comfort to “freedom fighters” around the world pursued as part of US foreign policy.

4) The takeover by Washington D.C. by neocon Zionists.

I agree with all this. And I think this alone would mean that they’re responsible. But do you think there was direct involvement in the attacks, like demolishing the towers? Building 7 went down like it was demolished by explosives. No plane hit it, but the official view is that fires from nearby spread to it and brought it down. Do you think this suggests direct involvement in the attacks, like rigging the building with explosives?

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 21 Aug 2012 20:26 | #

The emplacement of explosives in the WTC is consistent with the theory but whether it is necessary to the theory is an academic question.  The means, motive and opportunity to put explosives in all of the WTC was certainly present if for no other reason than that it would have been very difficult to demolish the WTC in the ordinary course of events due to liability insurance.

Posted by Dave on Tue, 21 Aug 2012 22:37 | #

The emplacement of explosives in the WTC is consistent with the theory but whether it is necessary to the theory is an academic question.

I agree, but if there was direct involvement wouldn’t that make it even more sinister and diabolical and worse? Sort of like how there are differences between manslaughter and murder. With direct involvement, there’s just no chance of plausible deniability.

To me it looks like all three buildings were demolished by explosives. I don’t see why they would fall like they did otherwise. And if they were rigged with explosives, then that would mean direct involvement. I am just going by how it looked and gut feeling. The “fires” explanation doesn’t move me. Is there evidence for explosives other than the fact that it clearly looked like the buildings were exploded?

If there was direct involvement via hidden explosives, I can’t really think of why other than the greater psychological impact the buildings being completely destroyed has as opposed to the buildings just being hit by planes but remaining standing with partial damage to the buildings.

if for no other reason than that it would have been very difficult to demolish the WTC in the ordinary course of events due to liability insurance.

What do you mean by this? Why did they want to demolish it in the first place?

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 21 Aug 2012 23:51 | #

Galvanic corrosion combined with flex-fatigue are suspected reasons they had to demolish the WTC anyway.  I haven’t bothered looking up documentation on the purported “orders” given to the mayor’s office and the port authority to take it down by 2007 mainly because, like the explosives charges, I’m satisfied that the neocon Zionists were behind the events of 9/11.

Your concern about exposing them in a way that would increase culpability is reasonable and is something I thought likely to happen by now because they’re messing with cultures that have more in common with African origins of humans.  Why those more African cultures haven’t used it to pull the plug on Jews by making it more widely accepted is an interesting question.  The answer may be staring us in the face with Jews like Green:  Don’t pull the plug until Jews actually start going after Africans.

Posted by Dave on Wed, 22 Aug 2012 02:30 | #

because, like the explosives charges, I’m satisfied that the neocon Zionists were behind the events of 9/11.

Is this because the question of general responsibility is enough as far as you’re concerned? Or is it because you’re not sure about direct involvement?

Your concern about exposing them in a way that would increase culpability is reasonable and is something I thought likely to happen by now because they’re messing with cultures that have more in common with African origins of humans.  Why those more African cultures haven’t used it to pull the plug on Jews by making it more widely accepted is an interesting question.  The answer may be staring us in the face with Jews like Green:  Don’t pull the plug until Jews actually start going after Africans.

I don’t really follow you here. What do you mean by “African origins of humans” and “more African cultures” in this context?

9/11 “conspiracy theories” are already out there and most people are aware of them, but they don’t seem to have made a difference. How would anyone “pull the plug” exactly?

Posted by Gudmund on Wed, 22 Aug 2012 03:08 | #

A hint: it was not extant in 1939.

Yes, I recall that you discussed this at the Phora some time ago.  Your thesis was that the modern outlook re: anti-everything white and male is basically “Hitler’s revenge.”  Actually, if you linked to your output there it might help people understand your position better.  Something to consider at any rate; if you have some kind of objection to that, I’ll not bring it up again.

Hitler may have been Jewish. Hitler’s father Alois was born illegitimate with no father. Hitler’s paternal grandfather is still unknown. His paternal grandmother is known to have worked in the home of a wealthy Jew.

This is quite a leap to make from the genetic evidence.  Yes, his family appears to have a haplogroup generally associated with Jews (among other groups).  But that’s not unheard of in Europeans - Southern Euros/Meds also commonly show E1b1b.  Hitler was Austrian and such lineages also show up there at low frequency (e.g. This source gives a frequency of 9%.)

Posted by Wandrin on Wed, 22 Aug 2012 04:03 | #

The purpose of the “antisemitism” is clear:  Clean house but only to the point that the “natural” superiority of the Jews in “Western Civilization” can be fully accepted to place them in the Biblically prophesied position of princes and priests of all nations.

Yes, on the one hand they want IQ differences to become an established belief now they’re the ruling elite in America so they can use that belief to come out as the open ruling class - and that would be good for the jews. On the other hand they have their fear-hate-paranoia that anything that might possibly be good for white people is probably bad for the jews - or at least bad for their hive-queen strategy. It’s tricky for other reasons as well because it means having to throw blacks under the bus in favour of asians and hispanics which will cause quite an explosion.

Posted by Nick on Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:25 | #

James Bowery, you call it Fascism but for thousands of years it’s been called Judaism.

Posted by Nick on Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:42 | #

I don’t see why they would fall like they did otherwise.

You didn’t see them fall. Whatever hit them turned them to dust - the entire towers from top to bottom in around ten seconds - and then they floated away.

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 22 Aug 2012 14:17 | #

Dave, I’m not sure about neocon Zionist direct involvement but obsession with “direct” involvement is the foundation of the magician’s profession.

My prediction of their magic act (make a JudeoChristian “miracle” happen at the turn of the millennium so that the rubes wouldn’t feel cheated by all those generations of wailing for their sins in JudeoChristian churches because Jesus didn’t come on a cloud and take them away as those left behind finally, at long last, receive the punishment due them for all they did to those who turned the other cheek for centuries) doesn’t describe the mechanisms.  Aside from being futile—the magician is, after all, a pro—it doesn’t need to do so.  If forensics could do any good, it would be worth pursuing but would end up looking like one of those cheap TV series episodes where the detective is going after a magician who murdered someone.

If you read the linked essay “Race, Gender and the Frontier”, it essentially establishes a dominance hierarchy in which Jews are intermediate between Europe and Africa.

Dan Dare is correct to attack “the single Jewish cause” approach to understanding our situation, but he and I may differ on what the causes are and what their dominance hierarchy is.

My model is basically:

First order approximation:  African dominance in adaptive radiation of humanity, with Jews intermediate.  This subsumes the promotion of group selection (which is what is ultimately behind the economic drivers that Dan Dare describes in his analysis of death by immigration).

Second order approximation:  Jewish virulence evolving from horizontal transmission between branches of humanity’s adaptive radiation, arising as one branch of the adaptive radiation, but which depends on high population densities of humans (civilization) for their group selection strategy (KMac’s “Group evolutionary strategy”) to work.  This tends to express most successfully in areas most far removed from Africa and expresses with decreasing success the closer to Africa (at least in ecological terms—see Southern India for example) Jews act.

If you miss either of these factors in your analysis, you end up chasing phantoms.

Neocon Zionism is all about Jewish action in the middle east—so they are less able to express coherently than they are when parasitizing Europeans.  If Green’s extension into what I’m calling full-blown Pan-Western Fascism obtains, we will see Jews leading Western Civilization in actions against deeper branches in humanity’s adaptive radiation.  Will Africans, at that point, allow “Truthers” their day in court?  Perhaps, but only if they are adequately obescient.

Posted by Wandrin on Wed, 22 Aug 2012 18:18 | #

Second order approximation:  Jewish virulence evolving from horizontal transmission between branches of humanity’s adaptive radiation, arising as one branch of the adaptive radiation, but which depends on high population densities of humans (civilization) for their group selection strategy (KMac’s “Group evolutionary strategy”) to work.  This tends to express most successfully in areas most far removed from Africa and expresses with decreasing success the closer to Africa (at least in ecological terms—see Southern India for example) Jews act.

This is the root of the neocon vs non-neocon split. The peoples who are most capable and therefore the greatest *potential* threat and therefore top of the list for genocide are also the most capable golems to use against *actual* threats.

Posted by Winter on Wed, 22 Aug 2012 19:59 | #

But that’s not unheard of in Europeans - Southern Euros/Meds also commonly show E1b1b.  Hitler was Austrian and such lineages also show up there at low frequency (e.g. This source gives a frequency of 9%.)

E1b1b isn’t distributed randomly in Europe. Its frequency tracks migrations and invasions from the Mideast. It’s not European in origin.

Posted by Guest Lurker on Wed, 22 Aug 2012 20:34 | #

E1b1b isn’t distributed randomly in Europe. Its frequency tracks migrations and invasions from the Mideast. It’s not European in origin.

Neither were R1A or R1B originally. What’s your point?

Posted by Gudmund on Wed, 22 Aug 2012 20:42 | #

E1b1b isn’t distributed randomly in Europe. Its frequency tracks migrations and invasions from the Mideast. It’s not European in origin.

I know that it is due to migrations from Afroasiatic peoples but it has become fairly widely spread at low frequencies throughout Europe.  I suppose it’s possible that those studies could give mistaken results (i.e. counting immigrants as Austrian simply because they’re nationals), but it’s not out of the question that admixture has occurred.  To the dismay of those who value race, most people aren’t too discriminating about whom they mate with.

Posted by Winter on Wed, 22 Aug 2012 21:45 | #

Neither were R1A or R1B originally. What’s your point?

I should have been clearer.

I wasn’t talking about geography.

R1b and R1a are Indo-European/Aryan in origin. E1b1b isn’t.

Posted by Winter on Wed, 22 Aug 2012 21:55 | #

I know that it is due to migrations from Afroasiatic peoples but it has become fairly widely spread at low frequencies throughout Europe.  I suppose it’s possible that those studies could give mistaken results (i.e. counting immigrants as Austrian simply because they’re nationals), but it’s not out of the question that admixture has occurred.

Yes, I don’t think it’s from counting immigrants. Presumably it’s due to ancient admixture events where a Mideast migrant/invader mated with the local women and their male line persisted to this day.

Posted by Dan Dare on Wed, 22 Aug 2012 22:16 | #

Gudmund @13

Yes, I recall that you discussed this at the Phora some time ago.  Your thesis was that the modern outlook re: anti-everything white and male is basically “Hitler’s revenge.”  Actually, if you linked to your output there it might help people understand your position better.  Something to consider at any rate; if you have some kind of objection to that, I’ll not bring it up again.

It’s important not to attach too weight to the “Hitler’s Revenge” trope, that’s merely intended as an attention-grabbing handle for a more general phenomenon that has been argued on several previous occasions here, starting with this. Although it has attracted much negative commentary from the Monocausalist Tendency, I don’t believe that the thesis as such has been successfully falsified as of yet,  J Richards creditable effort here notwithstanding.

Posted by Winter on Wed, 22 Aug 2012 22:17 | #

Obama likely carries haplogroup E1b1, since that is predominant in Kenya.

Interestingly, Hank Williams Jr., who’s most likely R1b, raised a stir last year when he compared Obama to Hitler.

If it is indeed the case that Hitler was E1b1b (a sub-clade of E1b1), Williams may have been more right in a way than he thought.

Posted by Dan Dare on Wed, 22 Aug 2012 22:21 | #

Winter @23

Yes, I don’t think it’s from counting immigrants. Presumably it’s due to ancient admixture events where a Mideast migrant/invader mated with the local women and their male line persisted to this day.

I seem to recall a recent study (or it may have been a book) which proposed that the original Mosaic diaspora consisted largely of single males who travelled to set up trading posts across North Africa and the Mediterranean littoral, in fact across the Roman Empire, and who then took up with local women.

Posted by Winter on Wed, 22 Aug 2012 22:52 | #

I seem to recall a recent study (or it may have been a book) which proposed that the original Mosaic diaspora consisted largely of single males who travelled to set up trading posts across North Africa and the Mediterranean littoral, in fact across the Roman Empire, and who then took up with local women.

Yes, that is possible. There are other possible candidates, such as other Mideastern traders like the Phoenicians. And other routes, such as up the Levant and through the Balkans.

Also, it’s common among Kenyans and other Nilotic peoples, and believed to have originated in eastern Africa. The Egyptians, Romans, Muslims and others all transported many of them north as slaves and soldiers. That’s another possible source.

Posted by Winter on Wed, 22 Aug 2012 23:13 | #

Interestingly, Napoleon was recently discovered to have belonged to haplogroup E1b1b1c1:

http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/jmbr/article/view/10609

Haplogroup of the Y Chromosome of Napoléon the First
Gerard Lucotte, Thierry Thomasset, Peter Hrechdakian

Abstract

This paper describes the finding of the determination of the Y-haplogroup of French Emperor Napoléon I (Napoléon Bonaparte). DNA was extracted from two islands of follicular sheaths located at the basis of two of his beard hairs, conserved in the Vivant Denon reliquary. The Y-haplogroup of Napoléon I, determined by the study of 10 NRY-SNPs (non-recombinant Y-single nucleotide polymorphisms), is E1b1b1c1*. Charles Napoléon, the current collateral male descendant of Napoléon I, belongs to this same Y-haplogroup; his Y-STR profile was determined by using a set of 37 NRY-STRs (non-recombinant Y-microsatellites).

So does this mean Obama will invade Russia? Maybe not invade Russia, but Napoleon and Hitler had cool relations with the Brits and invaded the Middle East. Obama is already known to have less cordial relations with the Brits than previous, traditional American presidents. So maybe he’ll just bomb Iran if he’s reelected.

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 22 Aug 2012 23:23 | #

At what point can we start talking about statistical significance?

Posted by Winter on Wed, 22 Aug 2012 23:39 | #

Napoleon famously emancipated the Jews.

Hitler emancipated Palestine for the Jews.

What will Obama do for the Jews?

Bomb Iran?

Or perhaps he will play some role in “the arrival of Pan-Western Fascism”?

Perhaps both?

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) at Temple Beth Shalom, Boca Raton, FL on September 7th, 2008:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AzoTJa_6Fo

“First, and foremost. Barack Obama has been a supporter and a believer in Israel from before he was in the Senate. You can look it up and see the record. And you know who got him started in politics - not in the Presidential, that’s everyone as I said, says the right thing - but before that? It was the two leading Jewish families of Chicago*. But most people don’t know enough about him. So I wanted to come here and tell you this.”

* The billionaire Crown and Pritzker families

Posted by Classic Sparkle on Wed, 22 Aug 2012 23:49 | #

Re: “Monocausalism”

Monocausalism and monosolutionism are two entirely different animals.

Posted by Winter on Thu, 23 Aug 2012 00:03 | #

At what point can we start talking about statistical significance?

It is curious indeed.

And while on the one hand it seems silly to compare Obama to Napoleon and Hitler, on the other hand there seem to be not a few people, both supporters and detractors, who subconsciously react to him as if he were a Napoleon or Hitler.

Posted by john on Thu, 23 Aug 2012 00:52 | #

At the Toronto Hearings Kevin Ryan said they didn’t have a demolition theory but they did have a
deceptive demolition theory. He will publish a book next year titled Another Nineteen.
http://digwithin.net/

http://www.another19.com/index.html/

Posted by john on Thu, 23 Aug 2012 00:56 | #

This interview is worth a listen:
http://www.pumpitout.com/disconnectingthedots.html

Posted by Winter on Thu, 23 Aug 2012 02:44 | #

E1b1 originates in Eastern Africa. Its descendents are E1b1a and E1b1b, both of which are also believed to have originated in eastern Africa. E1b1a moved to West, Central, and Southern Africa and is dominant in those areas. It is associated with the Bantu expansion. E1b1b is based in Eastern and Northern Africa, the Mideast, and more recently has expanded into parts of Europe and Asia.

Posted by Guest Lurker on Thu, 23 Aug 2012 03:31 | #

I should have been clearer.

I wasn’t talking about geography.

R1b and R1a are Indo-European/Aryan in origin. E1b1b isn’t.

Uh… no they’re not.  R1b probably originated in the near east, and R1a most likely from southern or central Asia among originally non-Indo-European peoples.

Posted by Hymie in Afula on Thu, 23 Aug 2012 03:57 | #

>  There are other possible candidates, such as other Mideastern traders like the Phoenicians

the “Phoenicians” were a Hebrew-speaking folk who never left Canaan; so never picked up the Mosaic YHWH-cult. Most likely,  they and the Judeans miingled freely much like Australians and New Zealanders of today.

Says right in the bible that Hiram of Tyre sent the artisans and the fine materials required to build Solomon’s Temple.

The rest of the labor was supplied by the hated   _mas avoda_   (corvee). This is why Solomon’s son didn’t gain loyalty. The ten northern tribes split away, soon after Solomon’s death.

Could the “Jews” who spread out really have been part of the wave of “Phoenicians”?  Most likely. We know from the archeological evidence that monotheistic YHWH-cult-worship didn’t really gain loyalty amongst the Hebrew-speaking population until hundreds of years later, after the return from exile in Babylon.

Posted by Winter on Thu, 23 Aug 2012 05:24 | #

Uh… no they’re not.  R1b probably originated in the near east, and R1a most likely from southern or central Asia among originally non-Indo-European peoples.

R1a and R1b likely arose somewhere in SW Asia/Eastern Europe/Central Asia (Caucasus, Pontic–Caspian steppe, Kurgan culture, etc.)

The Indo-European urheimat is associated with these areas, and the dispersal of Indo-European languages is associated with R1b and R1a migrations.

Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 23 Aug 2012 13:36 | #

gudmund

To the dismay of those who value race, most people aren’t too discriminating about whom they mate with.

The exact opposite has always been true - jews being a perfect example of a people greatly concerned with racial purity for millenia hence their very high level of relatedness today. The partial exception is the modern west but only since its culture was deliberately poisoned by the people that dominate the electronic media - especially the American media. Perhaps those people are all E1b?

Posted by uh on Thu, 23 Aug 2012 16:33 | #

Winter,

The Indo-European urheimat is associated with these areas, and the dispersal of Indo-European languages is associated with R1b and R1a migrations.

False. Only R1a is associated with the Indos. R1b very closely tracks the spread of Near East farming culture — later “indoeuropeanized”. I don’t know the current thinking on how far the latter went in spreading the cultural modes of the R1a folk.

We have to come to terms with the biological fact that we are not “Aryan”, but European. This had a liberating effect on me at least; it frees one of the disastrous false consciousness of “not being Aryan” or whatever, which is a WN body-image complex.

As for R1a, it’s well to remember that the R1 HG arose before any of the identities which muddy discourse about it — Aryan, East European, Asian, etc.

The same must be said for every other HG, of course. It’s absolutely senseless to stigmatize archaic genetic mutations present in some individual’s lineage. We’d rule most of ourselves out as carrying some very archaic stuff and be left with a bunch of Slavs and Indians, because the false lodestar will always be the ~*übermagical*~ R1a superman Y-DNA spear of fucking destiny.

The race-narcissism of Aryan fetishists has become gene-narcissism. The root of the problem is that WNs harbor an ideological allergen for “Out of Africa” theory, so the semantics corrupt in trying to manoeuvre away from whatever leads back to Blombos and Olduvai.

Posted by Dan Dare on Thu, 23 Aug 2012 18:38 | #

In case anyone is fretting about being deemed a ‘Near Easterner’ rather than an ‘Aryan’, we covered much the same ground in this earlier chinwag.

Does anyone have an answer for the conundrum posed in #28, to wit:

So, if the M269 clan (which eventually begat the Celts and most other western Europeans) were not Indo-European linguistically, who was responsible for the spread of PIE and its daughter dialects throughout Europe?

Might be better to respond over there rather than divert James’s thread even further than it has been already.

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 23 Aug 2012 19:03 | #

Dan, it seems a rather natural course since we’re really talking about a limited authorization by Jews to revise “Western” identity so as to put the word “Aryan” into perspective, with proper nuance, rather than just having everyone run screaming in circles whenever the word is mentioned.

Posted by uh on Fri, 24 Aug 2012 01:01 | #

M420, dan.

at the center: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sredny_Stog_culture

to the east: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afanasevo_culture

to the west: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corded_Ware_culture

note in the latter that the western extent of the culture is the rhine. east germany and eastern europe are where M420/r1a “lives” on the continent, weakening gradient east to west.

i don’t see that this is a conundrum. though i am perhaps missing something.

i think some attention ought to be given to wanderer’s points in #38.

Posted by Winter on Fri, 24 Aug 2012 10:42 | #

uh #40,

I don’t know why you emphatically proclaim “false” when none of this is settled science and there are various hypotheses and theories around. There are new results coming up all the time. Dan Dare’s link from two years ago was followed by this a year ago that argued against the study in Dare’s link:

“DNA study deals blow to theory of European origins”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14630012

A new study deals a blow to the idea that most European men are descended from farmers who migrated from the Near East 5,000-10,000 years ago.

The findings challenge previous research showing that the genetic signature of the farmers displaced that of Europe’s indigenous hunters.

The latest research leans towards the idea that most of Europe’s males trace a line of descent to stone-age hunters.

But the authors say more work is needed to answer this question.

...

Patricia Balaresque and colleagues at the University of Leicester published a paper in 2010 showing that the genetic diversity of R-M269 increases as one moves east - reaching a peak in Anatolia (modern Turkey).

Genetic diversity is used as a measure of age; lineages that have been around for a long time accumulate more diversity. So this principle can be used to estimate the age of a population.

When the Leicester team estimated how old R-M269 was in different populations across Europe, they found the age ranges were more compatible with an expansion in Neolithic times (between 5,000 and 10,000 years ago).

The team’s conclusions received support from papers published in August 2010 and in June this year. But one study which appeared last year backed the idea of a more ancient, Palaeolithic origin for R-M269.

Age estimates

Now, a team including Cristian Capelli and George Busby at Oxford University have explored the question.

Their results, based on a sample of more than 4,500 men from Europe and western Asia, showed no geographical trends in the diversity of R-M269. Such trends would be expected if the lineage had expanded from Anatolia with Neolithic farmers.

Furthermore, they suggest that some of the markers on the Y chromosome are less reliable than others for estimating the ages of genetic lineages. On these grounds, they argue that current analytical tools are unsuitable for dating the expansion of R-M269.

It’s far from clear that R1b entered Europe via Anatolia as opposed to a more northerly route.

R1b was likely brought west by Indo-European speakers.

The urheimat was probably inhabited by men of mixed lineages, with higher densities of R1b in some areas and higher densities of R1a in others.

Indo-European could have originated among the higher R1a density areas and then spread to R1b. Or it could have originated and spread with R1b. Or it could have originated as a hybrid of R1b and R1a. At any rate, both are associated with Indo-European.

Posted by Winter on Fri, 24 Aug 2012 10:57 | #

Does anyone have an answer for the conundrum posed in #28

Apparently amateurs looking at more finely-resolved subclades using larger numbers of STRs find trends in diversity that seem to point to an E. European origin for W. European R1b:

http://racehist.blogspot.com/2011/08/variance-of-r-p312-lineages-highest-in.html

Posted by Winter on Fri, 24 Aug 2012 11:24 | #

R1b arising in Anatolia wouldn’t mean that it is necessarily not associated with the origin and spread of I-E.

Some argue that R1b crossed over from Anatolia to the Pontic-Caspian steppe. I-E could have originated with them in Anatolia before being spread by them to the steppe and elsewhere. Or they could have picked it up in the steppe and then spread it. Or it could have been a hybrid that resulted after moved to the steppe, and then subsequently spread elsewhere.

Posted by Silver on Fri, 24 Aug 2012 13:26 | #

We have to come to terms with the biological fact that we are not “Aryan”, but European. This had a liberating effect on me at least; it frees one of the disastrous false consciousness of “not being Aryan” or whatever, which is a WN body-image complex.

A “liberating effect.”  Do tell.

“Whiter than thou” is a loser’s game, both for proponents and opponents alike, but ultimately it is based on an underlying racial distinction, and whosoever denies it denies reality itself.  It’s a thorny issue that’s never really been successfully dealt with; only shelved.  This from James Bowery certainly isn’t going to cut it:

Dan, it seems a rather natural course since we’re really talking about a limited authorization by Jews to revise “Western” identity so as to put the word “Aryan” into perspective, with proper nuance, rather than just having everyone run screaming in circles whenever the word is mentioned.

Aryan, that’s an ancient Sanskrit term meaning “better than ya” isn’t it? 

Posted by Wandrin on Fri, 24 Aug 2012 14:34 | #

So, if the M269 clan (which eventually begat the Celts and most other western Europeans) were not Indo-European linguistically, who was responsible for the spread of PIE and its daughter dialects throughout Europe?

Druids.

(half-joking)

I think the perceived prehistory of this has been distorted by the known (but limited) facts from later periods. As the genetic data gets thicker i think it will turn out that the eventual massive expansion of the steppe indo-europeans was at the *end* of a long chain of events that started further west.

However whatever the end result the historical aspect of this subject is interesting in itself (imo).

The political aspect of it is YKW wanting to reprise the “nation of immigrants” meme they used so successfully to destroy White America to destroy White Europe as well.

However, fundamentally Europe won’t be the ultimate origin of the basic building blocks of European DNA. The base building blocks will all have come from somewhere closer to the tropics - even if some subclades of particular haplotypes are uniquely European they will still ultimately derive from the base ones so fetishizing the base building blocks is a losing position waiting to happen. The things that make European DNA distinctively European are the things that happened later as those base building blocks were shaped and filtered by a distinctively European *environment* - including the man-made aspects of that environment - over millenia.

So what defines a population whether race, nation, region or extended family - like their finger-print - is their specific collection of traits that resulted from their shaping by their particular environment over millenia so for example one population’s signature finger-print might be defined as a collection including high trust, high IQ, lactose tolerance, medium-high aggression, etc, etc. These finger-prints may correlate with a particular haplotype or subclade but the haplotype is just a marker that gives an indication of which environment the people carrying that marker have been shaped by.

It’s the environment that matters.

Posted by Winter on Fri, 24 Aug 2012 18:25 | #

R1b arising in Anatolia wouldn’t mean that it is necessarily not associated with the origin and spread of I-E.

To wit, here’s a new study that just came out that argues that Indo-European languages map back to Anatolia:

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/08/24/3574556.htm

A ‘family tree’ of languages adds weight to the theory that a large group of languages, including English, originated from the region that is now Turkey.

The controversial research challenges the long-held view that these languages originated in the grassy steppe region around Ukraine and Russia 5,000- 6,000 years ago.

Using techniques for tracing virus outbreaks to map the evolution of languages, the study published in Science suggests Indo-European languages emerged 4,000 years earlier from Antaolia.

“We hope we’ve provided the most convincing case yet that this family of languages came from the Anatolian region 8,000-9,500 years ago, around the time agriculture was beginning to spread,” says study co-author Quentin Atkinson, an evolutionary anthropologist at the University of Auckland.

Posted by Dan Dare on Fri, 24 Aug 2012 18:42 | #

I don’t really have the cycles to review sources at the moment (including the recent Capelli study referenced in #44) so will limit myself to re-stating the conundrum.

If M269 is oldest R1b lineage in Europe and if it is older than PIE then the M269 clan could not have brought IE to Europe.

Uh mentioned M240 on the R1a branch as the likely carrier, but that is way upstream and whatever the first R1a subclade to enter Europe if it too is older than PIE then it can’t have been them either.

Besides which proto-italo and proto-celtic arose in the Danube basin so R1a-ers were not involved. I’m not touching proto-germanic since that’s a powderkeg.

It’s all to do with the relative dating of the first (IE) Europeans entering along the southern and northern routes and PIE. I agree that much of this is still in flux and that papers are obsolete almost as soon as they’re published. It’s very hard even for pros to keep on top it (think Oppenheimer whose work now belongs in a museum)

Over and out.

Posted by Dan Dare on Fri, 24 Aug 2012 18:58 | #

Re Capelli et al. It’s behind a paywall so I’ll have to get it from Jstor.

In the meantime though take a gander at the only response to date on the Royal Soc. website

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/279/1730/884.abstract/reply#royprsb_el_2137

And just when we thought being Turkish was hard to live with, this geezer claims M269 originated in SSA!

Posted by Guest Lurker on Fri, 24 Aug 2012 19:09 | #

I don’t know why you emphatically proclaim “false” when none of this is settled science and there are various hypotheses and theories around.

You’re missing the irony of your own statement. You entered this thread by making some hard and fast claims yourself. On top of this, you’re apparently stuck on the idea that somehow genotypes must be attached to a given phenotype. That just isn’t the case. R1b has a substantial presence in Central Africa among what appear to be pure negroids. So what? Are they Indo-Euros? And when you start linking this stuff to whether or not a given historical personage was jew friendly or not based on their haplogroup, that really takes the cake.

Posted by Winter on Sat, 25 Aug 2012 08:11 | #

Dan Dare,

Busby, Capelli et al strongly criticize the dating of R-M269 in the study you link to.

Posted by Winter on Sat, 25 Aug 2012 08:38 | #

You’re missing the irony of your own statement.

I’ve mentioned that various hypotheses and theories abound, and I’ve described some of them. I’ve also mentioned that new results and studies are always forthcoming and that much is up in the air.

On top of this, you’re apparently stuck on the idea that somehow genotypes must be attached to a given phenotype.

I believe genotypes associate with phenotypes.

R1b has a substantial presence in Central Africa among what appear to be pure negroids.

Yes, and there is R1a among subcons, N among Finns and Baltics, etc.

And when you start linking this stuff to whether or not a given historical personage was jew friendly or not based on their haplogroup, that really takes the cake.

I was clearly being speculative. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with speculation.

Posted by Winter on Sat, 25 Aug 2012 08:45 | #

The Hittites are the first known Indo-Europeans. I think they associate more with R1b than R1a. I don’t believe R1a associates much with them at all.

Posted by Wandrin on Sat, 25 Aug 2012 14:32 | #

And just when we thought being Turkish was hard to live with, this geezer claims M269 originated in SSA!

This is a good example of how YKW want to use this. It’s part of their full-spectrum attack on the sense of identity of the peoples they are attempting to genocide

The critical element is not a particular haplotype but what shaped the people with that haplotype in their unique environment. The populations with R1b in the Congo are different* to the populations with R1b in Ireland because of the millenia spent in those very different environments. The haplotypes, especially the subclades, are just markers of who travelled to where from where over time. They’re like a Barium meal.

(*Although i think they may share a common “sea peoples” connection in the distant past.)

Apart from being the truth (imo) that way of looking at things provides a solid defense against the kind of anti-white null identity meme warfare exemplified by the quote above.

The genetics of a people are the end result of how the base building blocks were shaped by their ancestor’s native environment over the last few thousand years - including their self-made cultural environment.

(Ashkenazi Jews are a good example of this, unusual only in that the dominant aspect of their recent evolutionary environment was living as a diaspora minority nation among European nations.)

#

Example

The end of the world (sort of) and the only people left are whoever the R1b tribe(s) are in the Congo living as subsistence farmers and half of them sail to Ireland. After a thousand years the Irish Congolese would be different from the Congo Congolese. Two examples of why:

1) The environment where women can feed their offspring themselves would no longer apply so males with the traditional Congo mating behaviours based on display (showing off) and violence and not bothering to look after their kids would die out. Only the children of males who were least like that would have a chance of survival and so eventually male as provider traits would eventually replace the tropical male traits.

2) The average IQ would go up as the brighter ones would be better able to prepare for and survive the winter.

I think these two are the big ones because they have so many follow-on consequences but there would be other unrelated changes as well.

They might even turn white*.

(*I don’t know much about the evolution of skin colour so that last part may or may not be a joke depending on how dumb it is.)

Posted by Dan Dare on Sat, 25 Aug 2012 14:40 | #

Busby, Capelli et al strongly criticize the dating of R-M269 in the study you link to.

- Winter

Yes I know, I’m interested to find out why and also whether Balaresque et al have responded.

Posted by daniel on Sat, 25 Aug 2012 15:17 | #

..
Wandrin, your argument that the environment of Europe, including the man-made additions to that environment contributed heavily to the shaping of our evolution is more than valid.

However, you seem to be saying that those adaptations left no significant genetic markers over the millenia of European habitation.

It is true that science alone can be blind and scientism, particularly as it works against our interests needs to be guarded against.

With that, we might ask, were there not some perhaps heroic proto-European individuals who made particular choices in ways and partners that those coming out of Africa now might not make? Surely you are not saying that we should fore-sake their efforts because the same thing will necessarily happen again in another 40,000 years?

Arguing against the blindness of Science alone and “scientism” is one thing, but is it necessarily so much more blind than the differences that my casual observation and experience show?

Let me be first to say that I can see some striking similarities even between sub-Saharan Africans and members of all native European groups. However, I can also see significant differences, especially in patterns of physicality and even more so in patterns of behavior.

I take it your point is to ward off scientistic arguments such as “we are all quite the same as members of the human race as the genetic markers between the races are few and insignificant.” But it is incumbent upon us to assert those differences as important. True, we ought not rely on science and DNA exclusively; but we may even seek to supply more genetic markers where necessary as demarcation.

I’ve seen talk on Majority Rights of Africans, men and women, having more testosterone. - That seems to be a significant difference which surely has genetic corollaries.

Posted by Dan Dare on Sat, 25 Aug 2012 15:34 | #

The Hittites are the first known Indo-Europeans. I think they associate more with R1b than R1a. I don’t believe R1a associates much with them at all.

Is it not more correct to state that Hittite is (or was) the first known IE language? The first IEs were those who spoke PIE, I should have thought.

I agree with the comment about R1b vs R1a.

Posted by Winter on Sat, 25 Aug 2012 18:46 | #

Is it not more correct to state that Hittite is (or was) the first known IE language? The first IEs were those who spoke PIE, I should have thought.

Yes, you’re right. That’s more accurate.

Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 26 Aug 2012 03:09 | #

daniel

However, you seem to be saying that those adaptations left no significant genetic markers over the millenia of European habitation.

No, not at all. It’s all genetic. When i say environment i mean the things that shaped the genetics over centuries or millenia e.g. long winters. I’m simply saying the genetic end result of that selection isn’t all carried on the haplotype - although in many cases it may well correlate if a particular subclade is unique to a particular region. IQ for example isn’t carried on R1a or J2 or E1b etc - it’s the combined effect of a lot of different genes. Those genes will have been selected for more or less depending on region and that region may correlate with a haplotype but the haplotype itself isn’t the carrier, it’s is just a marker.

I take it your point is to ward off scientistic arguments such as “we are all quite the same as members of the human race as the genetic markers between the races are few and insignificant.”

No it’s simpler than that. R1b (or I or R1a) isn’t a *unique* identifier on its own so if it gets used as such it can be outflanked. The unique identifier for people of euro descent (or any other population or sub population) is their unique *collection* of traits like a fingerprint is the collection of whorls not just one.

Posted by daniel on Sun, 26 Aug 2012 05:30 | #

Wandrin, OK. Understood

Posted by Winter on Sun, 26 Aug 2012 17:39 | #

Associations have been found between haplogroups and cognitive ability. The following study found a positive association for haplogroups I, R1a, R1b, and N, and a negative one for J1, E, and T[+L]:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289612000529

Studies investigating evolutionary theories on the origins of national differences in intelligence have been criticized on the basis that both national cognitive ability measures and supposedly evolutionarily informative proxies (such as latitude and climate) are confounded with general developmental status. In this study 14 Y chromosomal haplogroups (N = 47 countries) are employed as evolutionary markers. These are (most probably) not intelligence coding genes, but proxies of evolutionary development with potential relevance to cognitive ability. Correlations and regression analyses with a general developmental indicator (HDI) revealed that seven haplogroups were empirically important predictors of national cognitive ability (I, R1a, R1b, N, J1, E, T[+L]). Based on their evolutionary meaning and correlation with cognitive ability these haplogroups were grouped into two sets. Combined, they accounted in a regression and path analyses for 32–51% of the variance in national intelligence relative to the developmental indicator (35–58%). This pattern was replicated internationally with further controls (e.g. latitude, spatial autocorrelation etc.) and at the regional level in two independent samples (within Italy and Spain). These findings, using a conservative estimate of evolutionary influences, provide support for a mixed influence on national cognitive ability stemming from both current environmental and past environmental (evolutionary) factors.

I1 arose in southern Scandinavia between 4000 and 6000 years ago (Rootsi et al., 2004). R1a and R1b arose in southwestern Asia (Caucasus, Pontic–Caspian steppe, Kurgan culture) around 22,000 ybp or somewhat later at 18,500 ybp. N and its relevant European subclades arose in Siberia and central Asia 12–27,000 ybp (Rootsi et al., 2007). This suggests that these environments may have been evolutionarily significant for cognitive ability: The presence of environmental harshness (i.e. extreme winter cold) suggests that factors relevant to the cold winters theory could have contributed to an increase in intelligence among the ancestors of those possessing these haplogroups. It is also likely that factors such as the development of agriculture, tools and dairy farming (milk from horses and cattle around 6000 ybp) were themselves an evolutionary catalyst for increasing cognitive ability (Cochran & Harpending, 2009; Hawks, Wang, Cochran, Harpending, & Moyzis, 2007; Wade, 2006), possibly enhancing neurological maturation via the provision of better nutrition during pregnancy, in youth and adulthood. The Neolithic transition to agriculture in cold climates would have been particularly evolutionarily demanding in terms of the need for heightened cognitive resources (e.g. farsightedness and planning).

Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 27 Aug 2012 13:45 | #

Winter

Associations have been found between haplogroups and cognitive ability. The following study found a positive association for haplogroups I, R1a, R1b, and N, and a negative one for J1, E, and T[+L]:

I wouldn’t be surprised if there were some but i’m guessing you understand the point i was making. If you use a marker as a unique identifier which isn’t 100% unique - even if it is 99% - then the other side will outflank it.

What makes populations unique are the unique set of selection pressures their ancestors underwent
over millenia which resulted in a unique *collection* of genetic traits and trait frequencies.

Posted by uh on Tue, 28 Aug 2012 16:35 | #

The Hittites are the first known Indo-Europeans. I think they associate more with R1b than R1a.

WOH THERE, Winter. How on earth do you know the haplogroup of a dead elite population? Moreover — in a probable absence of proof — given their proximity to the steppe, their equestrian culture, and airy matters like their pantheon (nearly IDENTICAL to the Vedic), how plausible is such a marked deviation from the predominance of R1a in Eastern Europe and South Asia?

I expect to see some truly fascinating research the next time you comment.

Posted by DA on Wed, 29 Aug 2012 05:12 | #

we’re really talking about a limited authorization by Jews to revise “Western” identity so as to put the word “Aryan” into perspective, with proper nuance, rather than just having everyone run screaming in circles whenever the word is mentioned.

Didn’t they already do this by promoting the hell out of “Judeo-Christian”? Now everyone and their mother uses “Judeo-Christian” as an adjective where they would have just said “Christian” a few decades ago.

I don’t think they will mess around with the word “Aryan” since I don’t know how they would square that circle. Besides, they don’t need to. They can just make something new up and most people will robotically conform to it.

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 29 Aug 2012 20:48 | #

DA, that’s the difference between the mere necons and the views expressed in “Jews, Leftists, Immigration: My Journey To Nietzsche”.  Once we’re in Nietzscheland we’re beyond mere JudeoChristian identity with its “American Exceptionalism” as a euphemism for “American Supremacy”, and have progressed to Pan-Western Supremacy with Jews no longer a hidden power behind the throne, but now the accepted aristocracy—the neo-Aryan ruling elite.  The old aristocracy has been thoroughly dispossessed leaving an enormous vacuum that had to linger long enough for us to forget the Culture of Critique was from those who now are the new aristocracy—beyond critique—indeed “beyond good and evil”.

Posted by Basileus on Thu, 30 Aug 2012 07:08 | #

“Once we’re in Nietzscheland we’re beyond mere JudeoChristian identity with its “American Exceptionalism” as a euphemism for “American Supremacy”, and have progressed to Pan-Western Supremacy with Jews no longer a hidden power behind the throne, but now the accepted aristocracy—the neo-Aryan ruling elite.”

This is basically modern Britain, the two main political parties have Jewish leaders, Ed Miliband on the Left and David Cameron on the Right.

Douglas Reed had the right view that the NWO main focus is the Anglo-sphere, they give up on the Middle-east and Continental Europe is more useful as fake “antagonist” to the Anglo-judeo elite: the future Jewish President of France, Dominique Strauss-Khan suffered a humiliating takedown in Jew York City, the whole affair was quite revealing, the anglo-american jewish elite sending the message that they don’t care for France or the Continent.

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 30 Aug 2012 20:55 | #

So, in the case of Britain, if there were to be an anti-immigration movement led by a Jew, it would be the perfect “resolution” of the false dilemma created by the conspiracy of left and right to impose death by immigration on Britain.  Such a leader would not only be welcomed with opened arms, such a leader could easily deal the final blow to the monarchy and existing titles of nobility—and replace it with a new, reinvigorated monarchy and nobility.  Moreover, this new, reinvigorated monarchy and nobility could enjoy “open arms” the likes of which would only be enjoyed by the return of Arthur Himself.

Posted by Wandrin on Fri, 31 Aug 2012 15:11 | #

the anglo-american jewish elite sending the message that they don’t care for France or the Continent

I think there’s an extra element. Although left-right is mostly a charade now with the leaders in both cases having *mostly* the same endgame in mind i think one faction prefers a heavy state-based final solution while the other prefers a mostly stateless corporation-based final solution. I think the division is simply based on personality type and creates an underlying conflict. The bankstas, who have coagulated in London and New York, represent the faction that prefers the stateless solution. The more state-centric faction are dominant in institutions like the EU and UN. They both want mostly the same endgame so they’re mostly allied but they want it in differing forms so they occasionally conflict.

Posted by Winter on Sat, 01 Sep 2012 09:54 | #

in a probable absence of proof

Who said anything about “proof”? I’ve been talking about associations. You can believe whatever you want. There are many theories and much is up in the air in this field. There is even an “out of India” theory.

Posted by necromancer on Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:47 | #

@Winter - Even though Rindermann’s psychometrics work is good and important and this kind of study could be interesting too, the exploration offered in this particular one doesn’t seem that worthwhile: it doesn’t even feature *intra-population* research from what I saw (and you just don’t use Eupedia for your most important data, no matter how accurate it might be in theory). Still beats Lynn’s brilliant study of penis size (including self-reported) and geography/r-K selection/whathaveyou, of course.

“uh”‘s comments are accurate.