Category Archives: Blog

Understanding Kostenki 14 (Markina Gora)

kostenki_14_and_his_doppelganger_nemesis_israel_zangwill

A recent paper announcing the results of the analysis of DNA taken from some ancient bones unearthed in Russia in 1954 is causing a stir. Genomic structure in Europeans dating back at least 36,200 years was published in the journal Science. The abstract reads:

The origin of contemporary Europeans remains contentious. We obtain a genome sequence from Kostenki 14 in European Russia dating to 38,700 to 36,200 years ago, one of the oldest fossils of Anatomically Modern Humans from Europe. We find that K14 shares a close ancestry with the 24,000-year-old Mal’ta boy from central Siberia, European Mesolithic hunter-gatherers, some contemporary western Siberians, and many Europeans, but not eastern Asians. Additionally, the Kostenki 14 genome shows evidence of shared ancestry with a population basal to all Eurasians that also relates to later European Neolithic farmers. We find that Kostenki 14 contains more Neandertal DNA that is contained in longer tracts than present Europeans. Our findings reveal the timing of divergence of western Eurasians and East Asians to be more than 36,200 years ago and that European genomic structure today dates back to the Upper Paleolithic and derives from a meta-population that at times stretched from Europe to central Asia.

The meta-population claim is controversial. More on this below.

ScienceNordic published an article titled, Scandinavians are the earliest Europeans, explaining the results in layman’s terms:

“From a genetic point of view he’s an European,” says Professor Eske Willerslev, Director of the Centre for GeoGenetics at the University of Copenhagen, who was involved in the new study, and adds:

“Actually, he is closer to Danes, Swedes, Finns and Russians than to Frenchmen, Spaniards and Germans”.

Split happened within a 8.000 year gap

The new results reveal that the man is the oldest that we know of so far to genetically represent a separate line from the forebears of present-day Asians. This is decisive when it comes to dating one of the most important events in history.

“We can now date the separation time between Asians and Europeans,” says Professor Rasmus Nielsen from the University of Copenhagen and the University of California, Berkeley, who was also involved in the study.

He points out that the Kostenki genome sets a line 37,000 years ago. Here the lines must have split, while the 45,000-year-old genome from the recently discovered Ust’ Ishim in Siberia sets the limit in the other direction.

This gives the answer to one of the biggest questions in the history of mankind; scientists now know that it is within the 8000 year gap that Europeans and Asians went their separate ways.

Willerslev presents his views in a brief video, Early peopling of Europe.

The ScienceNordic article concludes:

It turns out that Scandinavians are more closely related to the Kostenki man than any other now-living population. This means that Scandinavians are the earliest Europeans.

However, the genome also indicates that many European traits, including those from the Middle East, were already present in the first Europeans.

So from a genetic point of view it makes no sense to categorise the Scandinavians as a separate people.

The article is relatively free of the anti-“racist”/pro-miscegenation spin found in most of the rest of the mainstream, judaized media “reporting” on Kostenki 14 (K14), but that last sentence is patent semitically correct nonsense. The whole premise of the genetic research, and all the various interpretations of it, is that genetic categorization does make sense, because genetic categories are real and significant. This is, for example, why the claim can be made that the K14 genes came from a mixture of three older and distinct genetic categories, that this mix is closest to a contemporary genetic category called Europeans, and furthermore, that it is closer to a genetic subcategory called Scandanavians.

The reality and significance of genetic categorization is a reflection of the biological reality and significance of race. Genetic categorization is race, and vice versa. Those in academia who remain dedicated to understanding genetic reality, and yet wish to avoid being seen as “racist”, simply avoid the term race, even as they examine the very fibers of it. Meanwhile, the rest of academia and all of media, where the hegemonic ideological line is that biological race does not exist, either pretend genetic research and genetic categories don’t exist, or at least twist their reporting on it with nonsense minimizing its significance.

From a genetic point of view it makes sense not only to distinguish Scandanavians from Europeans but to acknowledge even finer subcategories. Moreover, it makes just as much sense to note that all European subcategories – e.g. the Danes, Swedes, Finns, Russians, Frenchmen, Spaniards and Germans mentioned above – have more in common with each other genetically than they have, individually or collectively, with any kind of Asians. The distance is not simply cultural or geographical, but temporal – prior to globalization there was no significant interbreeding between Europeans and Asians for at least 37 thousand years. The distance between Europeans and Africans is greater still, with genetics indicating that the divide dates back at least 100 thousand years.

Those in media or science who are more semitically correct try to obscure these basic facts and instead spin the K14 news to fit the “melting pot”/”nation of immigrants” narrative so favored by the jews. National Geographic’s Europe Was a Melting Pot From the Start, Ancient DNA Reveals is a good example:

Tale of Migrations

Archaeologists and geneticists have long debated who the ancestors of modern Europeans are—and how, and when, they arrived. It’s typically been a tale of migration and invasion, of people moving into Europe in waves that left distinct genetic signatures behind.

First, the thinking goes, there were groups of hunter-gatherers, moving from Africa into Europe beginning about 40,000 years ago. Much later, a separate group of farmers and herders from the Middle East made their way north, eventually out-competing the hunter-gatherer locals and forming the basis for the European genome we see today.

The introduction of agriculture by this second wave of people—the so-called Neolithic Revolution—was such a pivotal moment in prehistory that it can be seen in both artifacts and genes.

The new results add a surprising wrinkle.

What other geneticists have identified as separate hunter-gatherer and farmer genes are all present in the Kostenki find. “You wouldn’t predict if you go back to one of our earliest individuals, all the components of modern Europeans were already there,” Willerslev says. (Related: “Discovery of Oldest DNA Scrambles Human Origins Picture.”)

Genes once thought to have arrived with the first farmers, for instance, now seem to have been around much earlier. “Until now, it seemed clear this was something that came into Europe during the Neolithic,” says Pontus Skoglund, a geneticist at Harvard Medical School. “It’s an extremely interesting suggestion that they have.”

The complex mixture of DNA in such an old specimen, Willerslev says, suggests that Stone Age Europe was a lively place. Instead of separate groups colliding and occasionally mingling, Willerslev argues there was a single, genetically similar population sprawling across the continent, from Russia to the Middle East to northern Europe. (Related: “Blue-Eyed Hunter-Gatherers Roamed Prehistoric Europe, Gene Map Reveals.“)

“Rather than separate populations moving into each others’ areas and having sex with each other,” he says, “there was a single ‘meta-population’ having sex—or exchanging genes—in a complex and heterogeneous way.”

This is a fairly straight telling of the “tale” and what the new K14 analysis might mean, if true. But rather than calling any attention to the relatively long-term similarity of Europeans, or the distinction from Asians and Africans, the article closes by quoting Willerslev projecting the race conscious jew Israel Zangwill’s early 20th century race-mixing-for-the-goyim vision into the prehistoric past:

The new find complicates a picture of Europe’s deep past that geneticists thought was becoming clearer. “We all thought you could sequence these bones and come up with a simple story. This paper really shows things are not as simple as people thought they were,” Willerslev says. “Europe has always been a melting pot.”

Of course, however long and however relatively genetically homogenous Europeans have been, what made them Europeans in the first place was the fact that Europe wasn’t any kind of melting pot for Asians or Africans, as Zangwill’s tribemates (like Barbara Spectre) today envision.

One folkish pro-European response to the National Geographic article came from Steve McNallen at Asatru Update, European Genetics Remarkably Unchanged for at Least 36,000 Years. McNallen accepts the implication that European genetic homogeneity dates back farther than previously believed, yet senses something is wrong. He writes:

Why does the headline tell us one thing, and the body of the article tell us exactly the opposite? Is the idea of a long-term, stable European identity just not permissible under the ruling intellectual paradigm?

Many people recognize the poisonous “ruling intellectual paradigm” without recognizing that the source and driving force is a genetically distinct group which identifies itself as “the jews” and identifies Europeans as the enemy.

Dienekes Pontikos’ Genome of Kostenki-14, an Upper Paleolithic European (Seguin-Orlando, Korneliussen, Sikora, et al. 2014) ignores semitical correctness entirely, but provides more technical information and expresses some skepticism. The most significant point in his opinion:

The new paper shows that K14 was definitely European (or more correctly West Eurasian or Caucasoid), as it was more similar to modern Europeans than to East Asians or other non-West Eurasian populations. Thus, the morphological description of the sample as “Australoid” by some early anthropologists did not reflect its ancestral makeup. Also, this proves that Caucasoids existed 37,000 years ago

Dienekes also describes how this new research meshes with another less controversial result recently published by Lazaridis et al. in Nature, Ancient human genomes suggest three ancestral populations for present-day Europeans:

most present-day Europeans derive from at least three highly differentiated populations: west European hunter-gatherers, who contributed ancestry to all Europeans but not to Near Easterners; ancient north Eurasians related to Upper Palaeolithic Siberians, who contributed to both Europeans and Near Easterners; and early European farmers, who were mainly of Near Eastern origin but also harboured west European hunter-gatherer related ancestry.

In A look at an early European, Peter Frost addresses another smaller and more ancient component:

Modern humans received their Neanderthal admixture when they were just spreading out of Africa some 54,000 years ago.

When our ancestors spread farther north into Europe, some 45,000 to 42,000 years ago, they could have interbred directly with Neanderthals, but they didn’t. Perhaps the two groups were just too different. They seem to have intermixed only via a third party that was neither fully modern nor fully archaic.

Frost’s point – that Europeans who already carried a trace of Neanderthal genes later avoided mixing with them – hasn’t gotten much play in the semitically correct media. Perhaps they think the potential benefit of screeching about ancient “racist” apartheid doesn’t yet outweigh the potential reawakening and reassertion of such instincts. They are eager to pathologize and neutralize aversion to the Other, not call attention to how well-established such instincts are.

Like Dienekes, Frost is relatively sympathetic toward Europeans, and furthermore specializes in the genetics of skin color. Thus his tacit acceptance of the following points carries some weight:

The European phenotype came later

Kostenki Man was dark-skinned, dark-eyed, and rather short. These details, curiously enough, appear not in the paper but in a review of the paper, published by the same journal, as well as in an interview with one of the authors (Associated Press, 2014; Gibbons, 2014).

So we now have an upper bound for the emergence of the European phenotype, i.e., light skin and a diverse palette of hair and eye colors. The lower bound has been set by the remains of a Swedish hunter-gatherer, dated to 8,000 years ago, who had the “European” allele for light skin at the gene SLC24A5 (Skoglund et al., 2014).

Frost’s conclusion:

By retrieving ancient DNA from an early modern human, we have made a key advance in human paleogenetics, perhaps more so than by sequencing the Neanderthal genome. We again see that evolution did not slow down with the emergence of anatomically and behaviorally modern humans some 60,000 years ago. It actually began to speed up, as humans began to enter not only new natural environments but also new cultural environments of their own making.

Greg Cochran rejects the ancient meta-population “melting pot” portion of the K14 results. In Remix Cochran flatly states his belief that Willerslev’s conclusion is wrong. He points out that more recent (8Kya) western European hunter-gatherers didn’t have any ancient north Eurasian genetics, and moreover, there is “plenty of evidence of serious migrations in Europe”. Cochran provides two possible explanations for the result: “a small mixing event” that was not widespread but was instead reproduced again later, or “error: they’ve made a mistake”.

My understanding (laid out here, here and here) is that the genetic makeup of contemporary Whites is a composite of two main components, which I’ve called Old European and Aryan (the semitically correct euphemism is Indo-European). Lazaridis and Cochran use the corresponding terms western European hunter-gatherer (WHG) and early European farmer (EEF). The Neanderthal component was discovered several years ago, but is only a trace. The recent Lazaridis result revealed yet another component in the mix – the so-called ancient north Eurasian (ANE, Cochran also uses “Sibermen”) – which is more significant than Neanderthal, but less than WHG or EEF.

Prior to the K14 analysis the likely hypothesis was that the WHG/EEF mixing occurred when Aryans swept in and combined with the indigenous Old European hunter-gatherers circa 6Kya. Cochran may be right. K14 might be either an anomaly or erroneous. But even if the major genetic amalgamation had already occurred 37Kya, it only means that the Aryans and Old Europeans were more closely related than previously thought.

By the way, the picture Willerslev paints of “one enormous meta-population stretching across Europe, the Middle East and Central Asia” calls to mind the following passage from William Pierce’s Who We Are (emphasis added):

Upper Paleolithic Man

For roughly 20,000 years during the closing chapter of the Ice Ages — the period known to archaeologists as the Upper Paleolithic, or “late old stone age” — our ancestors lived as big-game hunters in Europe, ranging from the Mediterranean coast to the edge of the ice in the north. Their physical remains and those of their artifacts are relatively plentiful, giving us a great deal of information about them and their lifestyle. One of the most striking things about the Upper Paleolithic inhabitants of Europe was their physical homogeneity. Measurements made on their skeletal remains indicate a population more racially homogeneous than that of any European country today — and this population was spread over an enormous area throughout a span of time very long compared to that of all recorded human history.

Whether their relative genetic homogeneity came sooner or later, what should concern Europeans most is that the genocidal “melting pot” that the jews and their useful idiots promote so feverishly today is not only ahistoric and unnatural, but antithetical to very the existence of Europeans.

“Whiteness Project” Stokes Anti-Whiteness

alex_the_jew

The tagline which greets visitors to Whiteness Project is “White people in Buffalo, NY, talk about race.” Here’s what comes up when you click on the About tab:

The Whiteness Project is a multiplatform investigation into how Americans who identify as “white” experience their ethnicity.

The project is conducting 1,000 interviews with white people from all walks of life and localities in which they are asked about their relationship to, and their understanding of, their own whiteness. It also includes data drawn from a variety of sources that highlights some quantitative aspects of what it means to be a white American.

At first glance this looks and sounds promising. It could be an updated, White-centric variation on Craig Bodeker’s video A Conversation About Race, or a web-based elaboration on Robert Griffin’s book, One Sheaf, One Vine: Racially Conscious White Americans Talk About Race.

But who is behind this project, shaping it? What does Whiteness mean to them? Do they identity as “white”? If so, why do they write “white” instead of White? There’s a hint in their “Artistic Statement”:

Most people take for granted that there is a “white” race in America, but rarely is the concept of whiteness itself investigated. What does it mean to be a “white”? Can it be genetically defined? Is it a cultural construct? A state of mind? How does one come to be deemed “white” in America and what privileges does being perceived as white bestow?

Ahh. This is yet another slick attempt to pathologize Whites and deconstruct “White privilege”, an anti-Whiteness project hiding behind a misleading name.

Reading this VICE interview with director/producer Whitney Dow it’s apparent that whatever’s driving him it is not sympathy for Whites. Nor is it academic curiosity. Dow is animated by a deep-seated profanity-flecked hostility toward Whites.

Dow claims that White supremacy is the organizing principle of the United States today. The irony is he has somehow been able to make a career, a living out of promoting this reality-defying belief. Dow’s concept of Whiteness, which he claims is rarely investigated, is an anti-White view that has been taught by academics in elite universities for decades.

The idea behind Dow’s latest project is not new either. Ruth Frankenberg, a sociologist who helped define anti-White “Whiteness studies”, performed interviews in which she deliberately sought to “draw out” the “racism” in her “white” feminist subjects. Dow’s variation is to make a shallower pass over a more ordinary group he knows will “say a lot of dumb shit”. Whereas Frankenberg focused on shaming her deracinated feminist peers into anti-Whiteness, Dow targets Whites generally. Whereas Frankenberg worked in relative obscurity, Dow seeks and gets mass media promotion.

Responding to a question about his motives in the interview with VICE, Dow tries to explain:

I had this epiphany where I suddenly realized, I don’t have a racial identity… But oh my God, of course I have a racial identity. I have the most powerful racial identity on the motherfucking planet. And despite all the work I had done, all my talk about it, all my bullshit, until that moment, I hadn’t really processed it in a real way where I recognized it. It sounds really fucking corny, but it was like having some sort of conversion experience. With that knowledge, all of a sudden, I started to see the world in such a different way. It was kind of like getting X-ray glasses.

Some part of Dow’s brain seems to realize his epiphany about White supremacy is bullshit. At any rate he’s only explaining what triggered his conversion from unconscious to conscious anti-Whiteness. He doesn’t explain why he is anti-White in the first place. Frankenberg linked her anti-White resentment to her mixed jew/White identity. Is Dow’s underlying motive similar? Is his anti-Whiteness really just a reflection of jewness, or part-jewness?

Dow understands that jews are especially relevant to this issue of Whiteness. If you click on the Sources tab at his site and scroll down, one of his 21 blurbs reads:

94% of U.S. Jews identify as white. White Americans view Jews more positively than members of any other major religion.

How odd. Where are the statistics on other religions? What does religion have to do with Whiteness anyway? Why the jews? Dow leaves a truly telling question unasked: How do jews view Whites?

The Pew poll Dow cites as a source for his statement actually makes it clear that jews identify as jews more than anything else. Furthermore, jews think being a jew has more to do with biology (who their parents are) than religion, and 7 out of 10 jews “say remembering the Holocaust is an essential part of what being Jewish means to them”. Thus the most pertinent fact about jews vis-a-vis Whiteness is that jews identify themselves as distinct from Whites, as victims of Whites, as adversaries of Whites.

Dow must be aware of this. Alex, the “white” face Dow attached to his odd statement about jews, explains the distinction:

I don’t feel a common bond where, like, when I see another white person walking down the street I have to give them a high five or something along those lines. No. I do not feel a specific common bond with white people. If you were going to ask me if I feel a common bond with jewish people then yes, it would absolutely be yes.

Bullshit artists like Dow are able to make careers out of crusading against White supremacy only because Whites who identify positively as White are not in control, and because anti-White jews and people who think positively about jews are. It is exactly because jews have real power and privilege that “whites” of Dow’s ilk are not having epiphanies about jew supremacy and PBS will not be sponsoring any “Jewness Projects”.

So far the main response to Dow’s “Whiteness Project” has come from confused and consternated anti-Whites. The confusion is a direct result of the project’s misleading name and presentation. Their consternation is a result of the unthinkable injury of allowing Whites (or even “whites”) any kind of public platform to speak about race – even our own. Luckily for Dow, the more seasoned anti-Whites in the jewsmedia get his agenda. They have been happy to offer Dow and other anti-Whites a platform to make their distaste for Whites plain. Some examples are attached below.

White People Are Unironically Talking About the White Experience in New PBS Documentary, Tom McKay, Identities.Mic, 11 October 2014. (No White identity at “Identities.Mic”. McKay calls out just about every “white” except Alex the jew. Irony or coincidence?)

Twitter Users Reject The Whiteness Project’s Deposit, Trent Clark, Hip-Hop Wired, 12 October 2014. (14 pages of snarky twits “rejecting” the project because it isn’t overtly anti-White enough, see Anti-Whiteness is Trending.)

Anger at controversial PBS project on the ‘hardships’ of being white: Critics round on ‘The Whiteness Project’, Joel Christie, Daily Mail, 14 October 2014. (‘hardships’. Dow: “A bit nervous as I know it has a huge chance of being misunderstood” “White people have been very tentative about engaging.” “POC either get it right away or are hugely offended.”)

PBS under fire for documentary, ‘The Whiteness Project,’ on Caucasian hardships, Cheryl K. Chumley, Washington Times, 15 October 2014. (A rehashing of the DM article minus the sneer quotes on hardships.)

The Soapbox: “The Whiteness Project” Is A Pageantry Of White Ignorance, Tiffanie Drayton, The Frisky, 15 October 2014. (Angry black woman lectures Whites about “appropriation”, via the White internet, in White English.)

Why the Whiteness Project is so endlessly mortifying, Miles Klee, Salon, 15 October 2014. (“From our own vantage, it looks as if he was attempting a serious exploration of white identity in the tradition of Richard Dyer, but white people found a way to ruin it: by speaking their minds.”)

The Whiteness Project will make you wince. Because white people can be rather awful, Steven Thrasher, The Guardian, 15 October 2014. (Angry black man winces, wants to hear more.)

Why Would We Need Something Called ‘The Whiteness Project’?, Jessica Roy, NYMag, 16 October 2014. (Dow: “I expected white people to be outraged, and what’s actually interesting to me is the biggest critics of the project are white progressives on the web. They think it’s really outrageous, what I’m doing.”)

Making Sense of the Whiteness Project, Brigitte Fielder, Avidly – LA Review of Books, 16 October 2014. (“public responses to it have been so varied”, says yet another professional non-White who has literally made a career out of lecturing others about “Whiteness” and doesn’t think Whites should have anything to say about it.)

With Jews We Lose

with_aipac_we_lose

Robert Ransdell’s slogan, “With Jews We Lose”, is excellent. It is a clear and pithy statement of fact which provokes exactly the kind of fundamental, existential thoughts about identity Whites need to be thinking.

Who is us? What’s best for us?

The answer to both questions is: Not jews.

Traitorous fools like Joe Biden applaud jewish influence. The truth is that the jews have caused Whites incalculable harm, infiltrating, manipulating and exploiting every European nation in history. Over time they have crippled or destroyed them all.

More than a hundred and thirty years ago patriotic Germans realized that their nation was being ruined by jews. Heinrich von Treitschke popularized the slogan “Die juden sind unser Unglück!” (“The jews are our misfortune!”). Decades later it was adopted as a motto by Der Stürmer.

It’s time for Whites to stop losing. Time to start thinking and doing what’s best for your race. Time to see the jews’ implacable fraud and anti-White hostility for what it is. Time to respond. Time to put an end to it.

Flames of War, A Very Jewy Production

flames_of_war_a_very_jewy_production

Islamic State Issues Video Challenge to Obama, Jew York Times, 17 September 2014:

In one of the Islamic State’s first responses to President Obama’s declaration that he would “degrade and ultimately destroy” it, the group released a short video late Tuesday in which it appeared to say that its militants would kill American ground forces should President Obama deploy them.

The clip is only 52 seconds long and is billed as a preview for a longer video. With slow-motion replay, quick edits and high-quality video images, it looks like a Hollywood trailer.

In the background, Mr. Obama is heard saying, “American combat troops will not be returning to fight in Iraq.” The screen goes dark, followed by a clip of what appears to be a militant for the group who is preparing to kill men on their knees.

The words “Flames of War” appear, with the phrase “Fighting has just begun” below. It ends: “Coming Soon.”

YouTube has already removed the video, perhaps for violating some Hollywood copyright.

Simon Sheppard Interviewed by Paul Hickman

reverse_samson_option

See Voice of Albion: Simon Sheppard of The Heretical Press (Download), at Renegade Broadcasting. Sheppard comes at the War on Whites, nationalism, racialism and sex differences with a focus on behavior, psychology and Darwinism. It’s a stimulating two-hour discussion, well worth the listen.

The work Sheppard posted at The Heretical Press, and especially the essays of his accomplice in heresy Stephen Whittle (under the penname Luke O’Farrell), helped educate and bring me up to speed. Their arrest and persecution was a gut check, a glimpse of what the judaized justice system can do to anyone who stands, or even simply speaks, against them. I’m glad he was willing to speak to Paul, and glad to hear that he has not recanted.

Procedural Analysis: The DSoD Theory is an example of Sheppard’s original psychological theorizing, mentioned in the discussion. The image above is the “punchline” of the R. Crumb cartoon Sheppard refers to, When the Goddamn Jews Take Over America, a fantastic inversion of the Samson Option reality.