(Traduit en français)
What if scientists today are adhering to the pursuit of objective knowledge while simultaneously framing their findings according to cultural Marxist aims, twisting their objectively discovered facts to mean something very different from what they objectively mean?
Well, this is happening right before our eyes with respect to one of the most important set of scientific findings gathered recently about the evolutionary genetics and biological identity of Europeans. Population geneticists, archaeologists, paleogeneticists, and evolutionary biologists, are deceptively interpreting the meaning of their objectively gathered findings to justify the racial diversification of Europeans through mass immigration. They are arguing that Europeans don’t have any ethnic identity even though their own findings indicate that Europeans are a unique people with definite genetic identities.
We know that almost every academic in the humanities and the soft social sciences is an ardent promoter of diversity. But too many on our side assume that if only social scientists were to follow more closely the “objective methodology” of the natural sciences things would straighten out. They don’t realize that natural scientists in the West are increasingly framing, bending, and twisting their scientific findings to serve the ideology of diversity.
The Leftist Strawman Argument About The “Pure” European
A recent article exemplifying this insidious manipulation came from the highly respected magazine, Science/AAAS, under the title, “There’s no such thing as a ‘pure’ European — or anyone else,” by Ann Gibbons (May 15, 2017). According to Gibbons, natural scientists have established that:
The German people have no unique genetic heritage to protect. They — and all other Europeans — are already a mishmash, the children of repeated ancient migrations, according to scientists who study ancient human origins. New studies show that almost all indigenous Europeans descend from at least three major migrations in the past 15,000 years, including two from the Middle East. Those migrants swept across Europe, mingled with previous immigrants, and then remixed to create the peoples of today.
There is no such thing as a uniquely German, a uniquely Norwegian, Polish, Swedish, or British people, because “all Europeans are already a mishmash of repeated ancient migrations” from non-European lands.
This is what the scientists are finding, Gibbons says, citing words from Kristian Kristiansen of the University of Gothenburg in Sweden, Doug Price of the University of Wisconsin, Dan Bradley of Trinity College in Dublin, Stephan Schiffels of the Max Planck Institute in Germany, Duncan Sayer, of the University of Central Lancashire, Chris Tyler-Smith of the Sanger Institute in Hinxton, Walter Bodmer of the University of Oxford, and others.
These scientists are claiming that the findings of pure science are negating the “myths” of “the whole concept of an ethnic German,” an ethnic Irish, ethnic Italian, or ethnic Swedish.
Using revolutionary new methods to analyze DNA and the isotopes found in bones and teeth, scientists are exposing the tangled roots of peoples around the world.
But why would an article about DNA and isotopes be framed with the politically charged statement that Germans have “no unique genetic heritage to protect”? Why would this article open with a paragraph mocking Germans in a small town as “neo-Nazis” who believe in a “pure German race” merely because they reacted with anxiety as “busloads of migrants from Syria and Iraq” were settled in their town? Why are these scientists eagerly trying to persuade Europeans that they don’t have an identity “to protect” in the face of mass immigration today?
The genetic make up of Europeans has remained very stable for millennia, with next to zero genetic additions from Africans and Asians
Why would Ann Gibbons, and the scientists she interviewed, deceptively invoked a straw man — “pure German race” or “pure European” — to argue against what no knowledgeable critic of diversification is arguing today? All differences are differences of degree. The evidence is showing that the genetic make up of Europeans has remained very stable for thousands of years, with next to zero genetic additions from Africans and Asians.
But the scientists I named above, who all work within a cultural Marxist establishment, want to persuade Europeans that they should accept the current massive influxes of migrants with dramatically different ethnic identities as a natural continuation of Europe’s historical experience since prehistoric times. They want to portray opponents of diversification as simple minded racists acting against the scientific truth. It is no accident that this article was picked up by many politically charged news sources, including the New York Times, and many Facebook pages, as a means to counter the rising populist tide against uncontrolled immigration.
Paradoxically as it may seem, the reason Gibbons et al. relentlessly repeat the straw man about a pure European race is because this is the only way they can manipulate scientific findings which are actually showing, to the contrary, that Europeans, in-and-through migratory movements and some genetic mixing and evolution over the course of many thousands of years, evolved right inside the continent of Europe as a uniquely White race.
The Scientific Reality Of Europeans As A Uniquely White Race
There has been genetic mixture, but this mixture produced a uniquely European race divided into ethnic groups. But rather than debating whether this differentiated European race is really a mixed bag of White, Asian, and African racial traits, they pretend that European nationalists are arguing about a pure race so they don’t have to deal with the real debate at hand, which is that European genetic mixture does not preclude the reality that Europeans are a distinctive White people indigenous to the continent of Europe.
Yes, new studies do show that indigenous Europeans descend from major migrations that occurred in prehistoric and in ancient times. But these studies do not show that we can equate these migratory movements, which occurred over the course of many thousands of years, with the massive immigrant arrivals we have been witnessing over the course of 20 years. I will outline here what I know about these migratory movements.
First, in regards to the first migratory movement, Gibbon’s article cites a new view from David Reich which says that a migratory movement from the Middle East which came “as the glaciers retreated 19,000 to 14,000 years ago,” essentially displaced “the first Europeans [who] came from Africa via the Middle East about 43,000 years ago.” Reich’s view is slightly different, actually. He says that, as the ice sheet retreated 19,000 years ago, Europe was repopulated by migrants from southwest Europe (e.g., Spain), and then, in a second migratory event, it was also repopulated by migrants from the southeast (e.g., Turkey, Greece), about 14,000 years ago.
Now, what this article is not saying, and what most scientists to this day are reluctant to elaborate upon, is that there was a lot of evolutionary change going on among the prehistoric Homo Sapiens who departed Africa about 60,000 and started moving into Europe about 43,000 years. The populations that were located in southeast and southwest Europe, which Reich is talking about, were also evolving in response to different environmental/cultural pressures and the random effects of genetic drift. These populations were becoming “European” as they evolved in the continent of Europe, acquiring new racial traits. What is a “race” if not a people that evolved certain anatomical and behavioral traits by reason of breeding for thousands of years within a geographical area relatively isolated from other evolving/isolated races?
|This composite image of the so-called “first European” is really an image before Europe’s inhabitants became genetically European.|
These scientists, however, want to give the impression that, insofar as there were these waves of migratory movements over the course of thousands of years, everyone was mixing racially, with no group ever acquiring distinctive racial characteristics. Yet, human groups in the past were generally rooted in lands from which they barely moved, and so when we speak of migrations we are speaking of movements that happened between long intervals of time as a result of major climatic changes, or other environmental pressures, and very slowly over the course of generations.
(Today, in our age of globalization, only a meager 3 percent of the world’s inhabitants are living outside their country of birth. In absolute terms, this 3 percent is quite high, about 200 million people, and since many of these people constitute immigrants moving into Western lands that are relatively less populated than the congested lands of the Third World, they do pose a major threat to the survival of Europeans. But you get my point, in the past, before globalization, the intermixing of peoples was rare.)
Indeed, once the migrants (that Reich is writing about) moved deep into (and many just within) Europe, the inhabitants of Europe did not experience any major genetic mixing from non-European races other than some mixing with farmers who started arriving many thousands of year later, after about 7000 BC, from the Near East. This brings me to the second migratory movement that Gibbons says created a race mixed people in Europe similarly to the race mixed people she wants today through he arrival of Africans and Muslims.
These Near Eastern farmers, it should be noted, are racially classified as “Caucasoid,” and some argue that they spread genes for “white skin” in Europe, while others emphasize how the Nordic climes were already selecting for lighter skin before these farmers arrived. These farmers, moreover, did not spread throughout Europe but moved across the Mediterranean from 7000 BC onward, into Sardinia, Corsica, the coasts of Italy, Spain and Portugal, as well as inland into Greece/Balkans from around 6200 BC. Huge areas across north-central Europe adopted farming without intermixing with these migrants.
The “third” migratory movement Ann Gibbons et al. identified as “immigrants” is the migration that began some 4,800 years ago by “Yamnaya” pastoralists originally located in southern Russia, or present day Ukraine, who went on to mix with the European inhabitants, creating the famous Corded Ware culture, moving all the way to Ireland, and eventually producing, in the words of Gibbons, a “three-part European mixture” “across the continent.”
Gibbons then goes on to say that Germans, Irish, Scots, Celts are a wonderful mixture of two waves of Middle Eastern peoples and one wave of “Yamnaya.” Article after article in science magazine across the West have been spreading this same deceptive image of racial mixing, writing of the “Yamnaya” as if they were an exotic people from the Third World. But in truth the Yamnaya people were Indo-European speakers, the legendary Aryans no less, who came to Europe starting 4,800 years ago, after this population had also evolved White traits.
I explained at length in Faustian Man In A Multicultural Age how the European race evolved in Europe and is therefore indigenous to Europe. I cited scientific journals and magazines similarly engaged in deception. It is amazing how the scientific community is currently misusing science in this way, making Europeans feel that they are not a people, that they have always been made up of “immigrants” from non-White areas, in order to get them to accept the current occupation of their lands by hordes of Africans, Muslims, and Asians. They want European peoples to feel that they are not rooted in any land, that they never managed to create their own identity after living for thousands of years in particular lands, developing their own languages, dialects, folk songs, heroes, flags and history.
Ann Gibbons mockingly portrays critics of immigration as ignorant individuals who can’t cope with scientific truth but would much rather hold on to “neo-Nazi mythologies.” This is a total lie since all the nationalist or “populist” parties in Europe are the ones upholding the principles of freedom and democracy, open debate about the most crucial question of our times, mass immigration. They also tend to advocate socialistic and environmental policies intended to protect their own workers against importation of cheap labour, their own women against mass rapes by migrants, and their own lands against the extreme polluting effects of mass immigration. Critics of immigration are also honest rather than deceivers. And they are against the ethnocide of Europeans.