Friday, December 04, 2009

Again, the Men of the North

To a commenter who asserted that the downfall of the white race will be required in payment for centuries of sin, Fjordman made this bracing response:

Susan: I’m not so sure you are white, but you are definitely a liberal, and a troll.

My ancestors struggled hard to survive in a cold and dark country where my people have lived since the end of the last Ice Age. It’s not my fault that Kurds, Arabs and Pakistanis are incapable of creating societies as good as the ones we have made. They have no business being here and we have every right to expel them.

This reminded me of the Men of the North:

MastodonFor the tens of thousands of years of the Würm glaciation, Paleolithic hunting tribes lived at the southern edge of the ice fields in Europe and Asia. About 10,000 years ago, as the last of the glaciers receded, some groups chose to follow the retreating ice northwards. While their cousins in the warmer regions to the south were smelting metal, these hardy tribes were knapping flint. While the southerners were inventing agriculture, slavery, and the ziggurat, the northerners were hunting large game in the chilly grasslands and forests of Central Asia and Northern Europe.

One such group arose in the steppes of Central Asia, shifting to the Neolithic era by taming the horse and other livestock. These folk lived a nomadic existence, migrating in all directions during the last several millennia before the birth of Christ. For want of a better term, they are known as “Indo-Europeans”, in reference to the language group their descendents propagated throughout the western half of Eurasia.
- - - - - - - - -
Some of the migrants turned south, invading, conquering, and taking up the ways of the city-states in the Indus Valley, Anatolia, and the Mediterranean basin. Other branches moved westwards and northwards, both in Europe and in Asia, displacing the indigenes and even opening up ice-free territory to humans for the first time.

Two major waves of Indo-Europeans migrated into Western and Northern Europe. Celtic tribes swept through Central Europe to take up residence in what is now Germany, France, the Low Countries, and the British Isles. Later Germanic tribes pressed on after the Celts, supplanting them in many places, moving northwards into Scandinavia and pushing the ancestors of the Lapps and the Finns further up the Baltic and into the Arctic.

Read the rest at the original post.

The Men of the North built Western Civilization.

Those shrewd and hardy tribesmen hunted the mammoth and the auroch in the shadow of the glaciers. Later they eked a living from the stony ground and chill waters of northern Europe. They were a tough, industrious, and crafty bunch, those Men of the North.

The descendants of the tribes spread from the British Isles, the Low Countries, Jutland, Sealand, and the Scandinavian mainland across the surface of globe, conquering, settling, farming, trading, inventing, and building wherever they went.

They created what is now known as “the Civilized World”.

The contention that we must surrender all of this in penance for real or imagined past sins is a spurious assertion. It has no basis in law, morality, Christian ethics, or common sense.

We would do well to remember that.


EileenOCnnr said...

Fjordman said: "My ancestors struggled hard to survive in a cold and dark country where my people have lived since the end of the last Ice Age."

Weeeeell ... some recent research suggests that the majority of Swedish and Norwegians of today are not the direct descendants of the earliest hunter-gatherers in Scandinavia, but rather are the descendants of some of the first Neolithic farmers to arrive in Scandinavia. Mind you, this is only one study, so the conclusions here are by no means the last word on the question.

In any case, the Norwegians of today do seem to be mostly descendants of peoples who were in Europe during the Paleolithic after surviving in the Ice Age refugia in parts of Europe; it's just that your ancestors probably: struggled hard to survive in a cold and dark continent (i.e. central Europe) where your people lived since the end of the last Ice Age before migrating to Norway several thousand years ago.

Cobra said...

I support you.
It doesn't matter how you slice it and dice it, your people have the right not to be invaded.
We, in the USA, too...

mace said...

Eileen OCnnr,

Your comments in the first paragraph (re the Norwegians) seem to contradict those of the second.

General comment-

Perhaps we should forget about establishing which ethnic group has the best DNA and who was where first and put more effort into defending our civilization and it's certainly worth defending.We can't win that battle because of the prevailing PC regime of self-loathing in the West.

The first step in self defence would be a referendum on mass immigration,multiculturalism and social engineering in all democratic nations.

Old Atlantic Lighthouse said...

Men of the North Nationalism. Sign me up. Its in the genes.

EileenOCnnr said...

mace said: "Your comments in the first paragraph (re the Norwegians) seem to contradict those of the second."

No, they don't, although I can understand the confusion.

The point is (if the recent research is correct) that Norwegians of today are not descended from the earliest hunter-gathers that lived up in Scandinavia, but rather from peoples who, after having adopted some basic agricultural practices, moved into Scandinavia from central Europe.

However, those people who moved into Scandinavia were descendants of other peoples who had been living in Europe since the Paleolithic. So, Norwegians are still descendants of Paleolithic European peoples, just not descended from some of the first to have lived all the way north to Scandinavia.

Did that make any more sense?


I do, however, agree with Cobra. While it is interesting to know which groups are actually indigenous to an area, the important thing to remember here is that humans are animals and just like any other animal we are governed by the rules of biology. One of them happens to be: if you have a territory you'd better defend it, otherwise you will lose it, and Mother Nature will not feel sorry for you.

mace said...


Thanks for the info. So we're talking about migrations within the general northward spread of Neolithic culture.I've long been interested in this subject,especially the way culture and languages diffuse, whether it's by migration or assimilation,there appears to be evidence for both processes.

"..if you have a territory you'd better defend it",exactly,I don't disagree with that imperative,the problem is convincing Westerners that our civilization is threatened.Most live in affluent suburbs and are not on the front line.

S said...


It matters.

xlbrl said...

No group contributed so much to civilization as the Greeks once did, and they weren't chasing glaciers. Then they closed up shop and depopulated.
Might be a part of the Western thing.

Fjordman said...

EileenOCnnr: You are very well updated on genetics. Congratulations. As a matter of fact, I did know about those tests. I'm not saying that they cannot be correct, but you must realize that this entire field is now heavily politicized and that what the public is presented in the media is not necessarily the truth, just like with global warming. The media and the elites want to deprive the native whites of their country and are using any pretext they can to do so. See how this was presented in Sweden:

'We are all immigrants': Swedish researchers

Swedish researchers have concluded from DNA samples that Scandinavians are descended from immigrants that landed in the region 4,000 to 6,000 years ago.

And yes, if you believe in the theory of evolution, we are at least partly animals. This is why it is impossible to assume John Locke's "blank slate" theory from the Enlightenment. Human beings are not blank slates. If you believe Charles Darwin's theory of evolution then we are, in fact, modified apes. That doesn't mean that we don't have a rational and uniquely human side. We do. It's called "civilization." The problem is that after the Enlightenment - and recall here that Marxism itself is a post-Enlightenment ideology - it became popular in the West to assume that man is by nature good. This again paved the way for a Cult of Reason which in essence amounted to the deification of the human intellect. The Protestants talked about Sola scriptura, "by scripture alone," but the post-Enlightenment view became "by reason alone." I have no idea what that is in Latin as my Latin is a bit rusty these days.

This view is not compatible with Christianity. All Christian denominations assume that man is sinful and flawed. However, it is not compatible with the theory of evolution, either. This insight is of profound importance and in my view explains the basis of virtually all the failed Western ideologies of the past two hundred years, from Communism to Multiculturalism: Their basic assumptions about human nature were and are fundamentally wrong. Freed from the chains of civilization we will not become "noble savages." On the contrary; these chains restrain our inner ape, which will be unleashed if they are removed. This is why all Marxist ideologies end in a return to the laws of the jungle: They unleash our inner ape, who will naturally try to get back to and recreate the jungle which he came from.

EileenOCnnr said...

@Fjordman: Actually, I am always embarassed (and constantly annoyed at myself) for the huge gaps in my knowledge on genetics, and am not at all as well informed on genetics and human history/pre-history as I'd like to be! Or, as I feel, any thinking person ought to be in this day and age.

Research into genetics is going to open up all sorts of fields in the sciences, including history -- that is, if we don't let the politically correct brigade (continue to) get away with stiffling genuine scientific research. (Or maybe it will all just be left to the East Asians to follow up on, who knows at this point?)

I saw that ridiculous article in The Local (in fact, that's where I first came across this research). Rubbish, of course, and plenty of spin as you obviously know. That, in part, is why I qualified my comment ("Mind you, this is only one study...."). I also qualified my comment because, having read the original research, I wondered about their small sample sizes, particularly of the "Neolithic immigrants". They only had DNA from three of those individuals -- and all from the same tomb, so they were likely relatives. It's very much earlier days as far as these researchers' conclusions go, in my opinion anyway. I, myself, am waiting for more data.

In any case, even though I, myself, am tempted by the "we were here first" line of argumentation, I have come to the conclusion that who's indigenous and who's not is irrelevant. Really, the only argument needed in the immigration debate is: "this is our country and we like it as it is and we are not taking in any more people -- nothing personal." Nothing wrong with that stance, and we need to continue to work on turning the tables on politically correct and other groups who want to tell us otherwise.

EileenOCnnr said...

@ Fjordman: I do "believe" in the theory of evolution. To be more precise, I have reasoned that Darwin's ideas on natural selection and changes in species seem the most logical -- and there is a lot of evidence from biology to indicate that he was correct. (Mind you, the theory of evolution tells us nothing about the existence of God.) On the other hand, if one day Darwin's ideas are overturned by a better theory based on even better observations, I will welcome it!

We are not, though, partly animals. If we are going to discuss humans from a naturalistic viewpoint, then humans must be wholly animals. There is no other option. (Again, I don't think this rules out the possibility of a God or of human souls, etc. I, personally, feel they are unlikely; but, I am very much an agnostic on those topics as I realize there are no proofs either way. Nor are such proofs possible.)

There are some variations in how life on earth is categorized, but we humans clearly fall into the Animalia category. We are certainly not Plantae, Fungi, Bacteria, etc. We must be animals! Quite extraordinary animals, but animals nonetheless. And, not only are we modified apes, we ARE apes! Again, quite extraordinary apes, but apes nonetheless.

Nature doesn't recognize good or evil. Nature just recognizes what works in any given environment. Physiology and behavior are either selected for or selected against (or are neutral and may just hang around because they don't get in the way). Behaviors are neither good nor evil; they are either functional and contribute to the ongoing survival and replication of the genes which they serve, or they are not and, eventually, will be deselected.

We, as humans, place evalutions on behavior like good or evil -- and it's pretty obvious (at least I think it is) that those behaviors that benefit us we call "good" and those behaviors of others that work against us we call "evil". Nothing wrong with those evaluations.

Man, therefore, is neither good nor evil, from the point-of-view of Nature. On the other hand, we are BOTH good AND evil, from the point-of-view of Man. These are not mutally exclusive categorizations.

EileenOCnnr said...

@ Fjordman: To continue, You are largely right, I believe(!), on these counts: We do have a rational and uniquely human side, although one should be very careful not to overlook the influence of all sorts of areas of our brains of which we are not at all conscious since (as much of modern science confirms) our behaviors are definitely not governed by our reason alone. Also, the sides of Christianity that deal with ethical behavior do seem to work well as a check on our "evil" behaviors.

However, after much consideration, I've come to conclude that Christianity and other religions are examples of what Dawkins* refers to as an "extended phenotype" -- Christianity in, let's say, northern Europe is what it is precisely because it's a cultural (i.e. behavioral) extension of the innate feelings and sentiments of the people who practice it -- or, rather, the people who PRODUCED it.

Christianity, to state the obvious, is not one thing (apart from the fundamental basic belief in Christ, obviously -- which varies!). The morals of Germanic Protestants are, you must admit, to some extent different than the morals of Latin/Irish Catholics. And both are rather different than Coptic or Ethiopian Christians!

As an example, I came across something the other day I hadn't heard of before: in Roman Catholicism there is a doctrine known as mentalis restrictio, or "mental reservation", that says that if you have a good reason (it has to be a very good reason apparently), you CAN withold a part of the truth from somebody, as long as you say out the WHOLE truth in your head so that God hears you. (Fantastic, huh?! I only learned about it because, apparently, this is how some of the RC clergy in Ireland has been covering up pederasty amongst the priests....)

Anyway. So, Protestant theologians have, of course, considered this practice to be nothing more than an excuse to lie.

Why? Why the difference of opinion? I think it's because those peoples who are Protestant (mostly Germanic, peoples, right?) are more adverse to lying than Catholic peoples, on average. Protestantism is what it is -- and has the moral precepts that it does -- because of the type of people that founded, created, and practice Protestant religions. Same with Catholics -- and same with all the other religions in the world.

People probably do need ethical controls (if we're going to have a functional society) -- and religious beliefs do seem to work well in this capacity -- but they will be very much shaped by the peoples who create them. And, just as Marxism was a total flop because it was based on a false understanding of humanity, Christianity, as understood and formulated by Europeans, will not work well for non-Europeans. It will not fit. They might adopt aspects of Christianity, but they will most likely change it to suit their behavioral inclinations. Christianity -- at least of the European variety -- will not save all peoples from becoming (or remaining) savages.

(*I'm not, in actuality, as big of a fan of Dawkins as you might suppose me to be. I do, though, think he has a very important idea here with "extended phenotypes".)