February 4, 2016

Does racial insulation make whites get taken advantage of by other groups?

With Iowa temporarily in the spotlight, many on the uncucked right have mentioned how racially insulated the people of that state are, and in that region generally. Remember, Iowa is right below Minnesota, and most of that state lives close to its southern boundary.

Being so innocent of the realities of living around blacks, Mexicans, Chinese, Indians, and whoever else -- it's only natural that they should have such a naively welcoming attitude toward them. They don't know any better from experience. Right?

But why do they assume the best about outside groups, in the absence of any evidence one way or another? They could just as easily assume, as all human groups do, that outsiders are not to be trusted -- especially if we haven't had any experience with them that might get them off the hook with us.

So it's not simply insulation, but insulation combined with the non-human presumption that outsiders are just as wonderful as us insiders.

Compare the Scandinavians west of the Mississippi to the Scotch-Irish of Appalachia, who live here:

The map below shows racial diversity (where darker means more diverse). Appalachia from Knoxville TN on up north is one of the most homogeneous regions in the nation, even more so than the western Midwest:

Moreover, it has been this liberated from diversity since forever. It's not as though they used to have extensive contact with outside groups, but do not currently. Even the Great Migration of blacks out of the Deep South (the lowland South) after WWI did not affect Appalachia, aside from a handful of them taking up factory jobs in Pittsburgh. The migration took an eastern path up the East Coast, and a northwestern one up toward Cleveland, Detroit, and farther west into the Midwest. But they entirely skirted around the hills and mountains of Appalachia, where it must have been made clear that they were not wanted.

Having been so insulated from the realities of day-to-day living with the Tower of Babel, are Scotch-Irish hillbillies and Slavic steelworkers just itching to adopt Somali babies or welcome Mexican serfs into their workplace with open arms? Whadda yinz think we look like, a buncha jagoffs?

There's just something genetically different about the Nordic people compared to the Celtic and Slavic people. We see that back in their European homelands as well.

Ireland, Scotland, and Wales aren't over-run by foreign hordes, although the Saxon legacy of the English government has opened up England. (Saxons were from the Nordic area north of the Rhine.) Especially looking at the relatives of American hillbillies, the Ulster Scots in Northern Ireland. A little over a year ago, the NYT wrote an article titled, "In Northern Ireland, a Wave of Immigrants Is Met With Fists". Doesn't sound unlike the welcoming they'd receive in Wheeling WV.

And of course the Slavs from eastern Germany, Austria, and Hungary out toward Russia and the Balkans couldn't be more dismissive of outside races. (No, it's not due to historical experience with Mongols, etc., since none of the Slavs in America remember any of that history.)

Like the Celts and the Slavs, the Nords have had little direct experience living with Africans, Indians, Vietnamese, and whoever else. Yet they have the opposite presumption about outsiders as the Celts and Slavs do -- namely, that they must be just as wonderful as we are. It's the same mindset as the citizens of Little Scandinavia here in America. (If we thought or behaved otherwise, that would be mean. And we can't be mean, don'tcha know?)

What genetic distinction is there between the Nordic / Scandinavian groups and every other European group, including the Mediterraneans (who have had extensive experience living with Africans and Arabs, and who do not care for them)?

My hunch is that it's due to Scandinavians having the highest proportion of their genome coming from hunter-gatherers, while other European groups are more pastoralist and agriculturalist. (That's a fact; the link to their naivete is my hunch.) Hunter-gatherers are not free from violence, but compared to more advanced forms of making a living (pastoralism, agriculture, horticulture), they are incredibly more gentle, easy-going, egalitarian, and trusting.

But the Noble Savage is easily taken advantage of, especially if the other side is not hunter-gatherer and does not share the egalitarian ethos.

Like it or not, we don't live in a gentle hunter-gatherer world anymore, and to preserve our own group, we have to have heightened negative responses to the outside groups -- that's how they view and treat us, after all, since they're not innocent Noble Savages either.

When it comes to group preservation, sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. The trouble is: how do we communicate that to the egalitarian primitives? Someone with deeper insight into the Nordic mind, please chime in.


  1. I don’t know if this is the case with ancient northern European hunter gatherers but existing hunter-gather groups have incredibly high rates of violence. The savages aren’t noble.

    It’s hard to keep up with the latest genetic studies but I think the current data suggests that Northern Europeans are largely a mix of the Neolithic farmers and copper age Indo-Europeans invaders with near total replacement of original hunter-gatherers.

  2. What about a religious connection, a correlation with (post) Protestant Christianity or maybe certain types of Protestant Christianity? Protestant Christianity is basically a Nordic thing. Granted this doesn’t account for why Protestant hillbillies aren’t like this. Maybe because they’re not apostate Christians or they’re in an earlier phase of their apostacy?

  3. Today's Europeans are largely the Near Eastern farmers + Indo-Euro agro-pastoralists, but there is still a signal of the original h-g's, and Scandis show it the most (albeit still a minority of the whole -- otherwise they wouldn't be as smart as they are).

    When you read through data on violence in pre-modern societies, it's not really the h-g's who are the ultra-violent types. That's the horticulturalists (or tropical gardeners, or slash-and-burn planters, or other names).

    H-g's do have higher rates of violence than moderns, but I think that's mostly cultural -- lacking any kind of government. Their disposition and worldview is pretty gentle and "go along to get along". Put the Bushmen in Sweden, and their homicide rate would plummet, and they wouldn't be the ones doing the raping.

    The fierce, disputatious, and warmongering traits that would make a group violent even with some level of government to contain it, are found more with horticulturalists, pastoralists, and agriculturalists (in that order).

  4. The religious angle is only re-stating the ethnic and genetic angle that underlies who is Lutheran vs. Catholic vs. Presbyterian.

    If we look at people who are mostly non-religious, we still see the huge chasm between Celts and Slavs vs. Nords.

    Most of the Scotch-Irish hillbillies are infrequent church-goers, especially in the northern stretch of Appalachia. Ditto for the decline of the churches in Scotland. Most Swedes by now are de facto non-religious, as are their relatives in America. Some Slavs are frequent church-goers, but the Czechs for example are among the most atheist people in the world, ditto their crypto-Slavic kin in eastern Germany, and their white ethnic relatives in America.

    Yet among all these non-Christian, post-Christian, a-religious, and atheist people, Swedes are still pushing their same uber-egalitarian worldview and policies -- only now with a secular and humanist rationalization -- while the Celts and Slavs are still telling the outsiders to stay home or risk getting fucked up, only now with a secular hooligan basis rather than a Crusader basis.

  5. Also worth mentioning that Scandinavia has been the last refuge of hunter-gatherers -- the Sami. In Germanic languages, some or all of the natives up north were called something like "Finn" or "Fenn" or etc., all stemming from the root word for "find," i.e. people who foraged for food rather than planting crops or herding livestock (even though lately the Sami have started to herd reindeer, in their move away from pure hunting-and-gathering).

  6. Scandinavians do not have the highest proportion of H-G ancestry in Europe. On a list, they would fall below all the Baltic peoples, the Finns, the Russians, and the Belorussians. Here are some Dodecad results to illustrate:


    HGs from Spain and Sweden do not cluster neatly with any modern population, but most closely resemble Lithuanians.

  7. I think there's something to this. Where would the Afrikaners, who are neither particularly Celtic nor Slavic, fit into this?

  8. Having observed Scandinavian and German Americans much of my life in Minnesota and North Dakota, one thing I noticed is how much more liberal/SWPL/PC the Scandinavians are relative to the Germans. Scandinavians have historically formed the base of the Democratic party and those in the Twin Cities have transitioned from a focus on economic redistribution to now focusing on virtue-signalling how supportive they are for PC causes. This is true even if you control for religion. The Lutheran ELCA, consisting largely of Scandinavian descendants, has become completely PC. The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, formerly the German American Lutheran Church, is much more conservative.

  9. Read HBDchick's blog on the hajnal line. What you're describing has nothing to do with HG ancestry but related to the clannishness (or not) of groups.

  10. "Here are some Dodecad results to illustrate"

    You're not very good at reading your own charts.

    You're assuming that the "North European" component is a signal of pre-agricultural H-G's in Europe -- how in the hell did it get to be nearly 10% of the Sindhi, Pathan, and Burusho? They're in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Or over 20% in the Lezgin, who are in Azerbaijan?

    It's more like an Indo-European marker, not a Euro H-G marker.

    In fact nothing in that chart shows the H-G component in Europeans. We know that it's just a tiny remnant, whereas the light orange component you're pointing to is well over 50% of the Northern Europeans.

  11. "What you're describing has nothing to do with HG ancestry but related to the clannishness (or not) of groups."

    Now we have an expert telling us that clannishness is no fiercer among horticulturalists, pastoralists, and agriculturalists than among the easy-going Bushmen, Pygmies, etc.

    The Hajnal line has to do with marriage and family patterns, not clannishness.

    The main thing it does is to mark the Slavs from everyone else -- we know from genetic evidence that they are the most closely related to one another, among all European groups. Earlier post on why there's so little separatism in "Eastern Europe" (i.e. among Slavs), due in part to everyone being so closely related, as a result of them being the most recent major population expansion:


    If the Hajnal Line predicted who was naive and warmly optimistic about outside races, and who was so militantly egalitarian about incorporating them into the host society, that must be why Switzerland is as famous as Sweden for getting cucked by Somali and Iraqi refugees. Or in the Lega Nord lands of Italy. Or southern France, where the younger and more fiery Le Pen woman is a huge sensation. Or the Scottish Highlands. Or etc.

    Dumb argument, weak evidence.

  12. "Where would the Afrikaners, who are neither particularly Celtic nor Slavic, fit into this?"

    From what I can tell of the genetic evidence and cultural history, the Rhinelander Germans and the Low Countries seem to be a mix of Celtic and Nordic.

    Remember that "Western Europe" was Celtic before the Germanic migrations of the 1st millennium AD. Certainly they are linguistically Germanic now. And their elite culture is Germanic -- like the forms of government inherited from the Franks.

    But under the surface, there sure is a lot of Celticity -- playfulness, sense of humor, fun-loving, inventive and curious, at least occasionally pugnacious, sometimes able to channel their inner racist although also fearing reprisal from the Germanic system of government.

    I'd say the same about the southern "German" groups in Germany, Switzerland, and far western Austria. It's even more believable in their case since that place was the origin of the Celts -- the Hallstatt and then the La Tene cultures.

    Their descendants today are not exactly like the Scots, but they seem much closer to them than to the Nordic people from the other side of the Rhine / Alps.

  13. A major problem in discussing "Celts" and "Celtic" is that it has come to refer only to the Irish, or that they are the Platonic ideal against which the shadowy emanations are to be measured.

    But the Insular Celts have always been, well, insular. The homeland and major centers of the Celts were in the Alps, and spilling westward into the hilly / highland parts of western Germany and eastern France. They had a decent foothold in northern Italy, although the Mediterranean had been settled and re-settled so many times already, the Celtic impact there may have been only temporary. Ditto their foothold in the Balkans, which got overwhelmed by the Slavs.

    We really ought to use the Swiss or the Bavarians as the standard that we measure Celticity against. The Scots and a decent number of the English would continue to measure up, although the Irish would be seen as a more corrupted / in-bred / farther-removed example.

    It's tough because "Celtic" is so associated with Ireland, but somehow we have to shift the emphasis from the Celtic periphery back to its core.

  14. Another reason to focus on the Swiss as the closest thing we have to pure Celts: mountain populations rarely get replaced demographically (ask the Chechens and Afghanis). It's just not worth conquering by taking their land and populating it with your own people. Lowland plains, sure, where there's endless fertile soil. But not the Alps.

  15. "The Lutheran ELCA, consisting largely of Scandinavian descendants, has become completely PC. The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, formerly the German American Lutheran Church, is much more conservative."

    There may be a class difference there, too. Don't know whether it's stronger than the ethnic effect.

    According to the GSS, from 1990 onward (after the 1988 creation of the ELCA), the members of the ELCA had much higher education rates.

    Having 1+ years of college was:

    64% for ELCA
    55% for Missouri Synod
    44% for Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod
    44% for "Other Lutherans"

    Not knowing any of the history, I'd guess that the Wisconsin church had an initial edge for conservative beliefs and practices, due to either more Germans / fewer Scandis, or due to being back east of the Mississippi and not in the rootless naive corn-child part of the country.

    Then over time the middle-class strivers and above drifted toward the ELCA, while the lower-middle and below, and those who weren't strivers, drifted toward the WELS.

  16. The dodecad chart is easy to understand, which is why I posted it. Here a few slightly more complicated figures:


    Go here and ctrl-f Table S14.9

    When you run ancient HG samples through Dodecad, they score as close to 100% North European or "Atlantic Baltic", which is very strong evidence that that component is not Indo-European.

    These recent findings on ancient HG DNA confirm what have been apparent from PCAs for a long time, which is that northwest Europeans have more mediterranean ancestry than Finns or Russians.

  17. What you've proposed is basically evolutionary biologist Kevin MacDonald's thesis for why Sweden and Scandinavia approach and treat the "migrant" issue so naively. I personally disfavor evolutionary explanations for certain behavior when they are suspiciously convenient. That does not mean they are wrong, of course.

    You can listen to his discussion of "pathological altruism" with an intelligent Swede below at Red Ice Radio.


    Kevin MacDonald - Evolutionary & Genetic Basis for Pathological Altruism - Hour 1 - Red Ice Radio

    BTW, MacDonald also presented a related thesis with an emphasis on hunter-gatherers versus pastoralists at the alt-right NPI conference in October 2015.

  18. "The dodecad chart is easy to understand, which is why I posted it"

    Easy to understand -- but not for you.

    You're pointing to the light-orange "North European" bar as a marker of European H-G's, when it's found at decent levels in the Indo-Aryan peoples of Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the Caucusus, and big-time in the Chuvash (Turkic group from Volga-to-Siberia). Obviously it is a signal of Ancient North Eurasians, NOT of the ancient H-G's in Europe.

    You also missed the point of the discussion -- H-G's from Europe, not just the Western ones. There were Eastern European H-G's as well, and their signal is bound up in the whole ANE / Yamnaya / Indo-European component. I never said that Scandis were the best surviving example of only one specific group of ancient H-G's from Europe -- rather, the H-G way of life (wherever it came from).

    Until someone teases apart how much of the ANE signal is H-G (Eastern H-G) vs. pastoralist, we can look simply at the Early European Farmer component as a proxy for "not H-G".

    Higher share of EEF in your blood makes you more likely to slam the door in the outsiders' faces.

    Even without knowing how much of the ANE / Yamnaya component derives from H-G vs. pastoralist ancestors among the Celtic vs. Nordic vs. Slavic groups, we can just use our eyes and see. Which one looks like naive, innocent, uber-egalitarian children of nature? And which is more militaristic, and more fitting of the cowboy image?

  19. For those who don't know what the hell we're talking about, here's a handy, brief overview of the state of knowledge as of late last year (ancient genetics is always changing and updating):


  20. "I personally disfavor evolutionary explanations for certain behavior when they are suspiciously convenient."

    You're ragging more on evolutionary psychology, which posits that something is *adaptive*, or was in some earlier environment. Hard to know in many cases, as you say.

    But I'm saying that the Scandi's uber-egalitarianism is actually a *mal*-adaptation -- something that works fine in the H-G world that selected for it, but something that backfires big-time in the kind of world we live in now, where "outside groups" are not other naive well-wishing H-G's, who just happen to speak a different language, but are from a wholly different way of life that makes them hostile, militaristic, etc.

    In a world with this mixture of backgrounds, there will be selection against a strategy that relies on there only being one kind of background that people (including outsiders) may come from.

    I don't see that as in the same category of evo-psych arguments, which has given us such nuggets of wisdom as why ovulating strippers earn more in tips, or how cunnilingus is adaptive (despite giving you throat cancer, and despite being absent from primitive peoples' sex lives).

  21. Also worth remembering that we're not just talking about genome-wide descent from H-G's, but specifically at sites related to social and collective behavior, antagonistic vs. accommodating behavior, and so on.

    We know that the Indo-European variants at those sites were culled in Scandinavia when they killed off the Vikings. Talk about war-like, wide-roaming, take-no-prisoners attitude, heroic poetry -- and of course, surviving by pastoralism (and pillaging, the Plan B of pastoralists). They didn't stay put long enough to plant crops, and they didn't have attention spans long enough to hunt. Herding cattle it is, then.

    By removing a decent chunk of pastoralist variants (at the relevant sites) from the genepool, the Scandis must have boosted the frequency of H-G-like variants.

  22. Moreover, the long process of genetic response to the rise of modern governments could have -- and probably did -- select for different variants among Nords than among other groups.

    The selection pressure was to not be so impulsive and violent. OK, so there go the Vikings. But that still leaves a range of non-impulsive and non-violent variants to boost the frequency of.

    H-G's may be on the lazy side, and have high time preferences, but they're not impulsive in the ADD sense (proxy: DRD4 variants). They have to focus on complex tasks throughout each day, track prey around for miles and hours, and bring home the bacon (or berries) for their families. They have a certain level of focus and stick-to-it-iveness -- not just beating up someone who has food, in lieu of hunting yourself.

    And again, they aren't hostile and violent and honor-driven by nature.

    So selection for non-impulsive and non-violent traits in Scandinavia could have boosted the frequency of H-G variants that met the criteria -- but which were also associated with the uber-egalitarianism of H-G's (no one stands out, everyone gets the same amount, etc.).

    Among the rest of Europe, the selection could have chosen variants that were agriculturalist in origin -- being a long-suffering farmer (not impulsive) and minding your own business (not engaging others in violence). These, too, fit the criteria for selection, but they're associated with the agriculturalist way of life, where there's an intensified Us vs. Them worldview and behavioral style.

    Thus, genetic domestication by the rise of central states could have, and probably did, select for a different batch of correlated social/collective behaviors -- for uber-egalitarianism among the domesticated Nords, and for "fuck the outsiders" racism among the domesticated Celts, Slavs, and Meds.

  23. Speaking of Kevin MacDonald, it looks like the Nordic countries are the "least anti-Semitic" according to the professional paranoids at the ADL. Map with scores for W. Europe and E. Europe:


    Scandinavia as a whole is pretty low, and Sweden is one of the lowest scores in the whole world.

    You could attribute that to the lack of historical experience that they've had with Jews, but in the rest of Europe, the Jews were forcibly expelled within a short time of their arrival. And where they were not expelled by the leaders, they were subject to recurring waves of pogroms by the common people.

    During WWII, Sweden fast-tracked into the country as many Jewish refugees as they could, including nearly all of the Jews from Denmark.

    "Welcome Jewish neighbor, hope you'll fit in to your new aw-shucks, everybody-gets-the-same-amount Swedish town!"

    So damn naive and so easily taken advantage of, it's somewhat sad.

    Now history is repeating itself with the influx of Muslim refugees, although these ones are more into literal raping than media/financial raping.

    That's one of the few arguments I can see for intervening so directly in another first-world government's affairs -- to save it from its own gullibility. It's paternalistic, but then they're so child-like that they need to be treated that way for their own good.

    (Didn't say I would intervene... only that there's at least a good argument for it.)

    1. Intervening to save the Scandinavians from themselves...
      I'm aware of one show that had this as the premise, "Lillehammer".
      My husband watched it and I saw it some. Basically a Mediterranean guy (Italian mafia, I think) finds himself in Norway and must stay there. He falls in love with the people, but finds them terribly naive and becomes a sort of savior with his street smarts and willingness to fight.

  24. Intelligence researcher James Thompson recently mentioned that Estonians have the largest fraction of West Eurasian Hunter Gatherer ancestry at 49.5%

  25. I don't have much IRL experience with Germanics/Scandinavians, but they seem to be full of contradictions: on one hand they don't build fences and are known for openness; on the other they are considered to be very cold, even to each other. I think of the Postville, Iowa episode as illustrative, with the locals accepting the pushy, corrupt Hasids who have left behind their Latrino migrant workers after the Feds took down the ag business.

  26. advancedatheist2/5/16, 2:25 PM

    I laughed when I read this. The Russians certainly know how to police the behavior of "refugees":

    Refugees Go Clubbing In Russia, Harass Girls, Wake Up In Hospital The Next Morning


  27. If you look here at extended data table 3 from the big Lazardis paper you will see complete estimates of EEF, WHG, and the Siberian ANE in European populations.


    Of the populations sampled, Estonians have the highest dose of both hunter-gatherer strains; about 2/3rd of their total.

  28. "estimates of EEF, WHG, and the Siberian ANE in European populations"

    What did I already say? -- that the ANE component is not clearly understood. Some of it is H-G from northern Siberia, some is pastoralist from the Steppe. This mixture was brought into Europe and elsewhere by the spread of the Indo-Europeans.

    At any rate, you keep harping on groups that we're not talking about. The whole motivation is the migrant crisis. So far, the "migrants be gone" movement is being led by the Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Hungarians, Russians, Balkan Slavs, eastern Germans, Austrians, and so on, on the Slavic side.

    We'll have to see how the Balts respond. If the common people complain, that's no different than in Sweden. We're talking a full GTFO response by the leaders, or some organized collective force.

    The discussion is not about Swedes vs. Estonians, but Nords vs. Celts vs. Slavs vs. Meds. Pay better attention, or do not comment.

  29. (This is why I don't write very much about "human biodiversity" anymore -- it attracts way too much spergy nitpicking for there to be a productive, halfway focused discussion.)

  30. I gave you the wrong link earlier, the data table is here.

    "ANE" is not a synonym for the Yamnaya people or Indo-Europeans, it is a specifically Siberian subcomponent of that ancestry. Today it reaches a peak frequency in the Mansi, Asiatic looking HGs. It is not pastoralist.

    It's relevant to this discussion that Poles have at least as much hunter gatherer blood in them as Scandinavians, and Russians probably quite a bit more.

  31. on humanbiodiversity forums, the "Cromagnon" subrace was common in Scandinavia. (The original hunter-gatherers in Europe were Cromagnons, but for some reason gene-researchers don't call them that). This is why so many Scandinavians have a robust, archaic look to them.

    The subraces common in Russia and Poland were a "reduced (smaller) version of the original Cromagnon hunter-gatherers. So basically, what happened was that, in those areas, the Indoeuropeans subdued the Cromagnons and then trained them to be farmers over generations, causing physical changes such as brachycephaly and becoming smaller. This is why many Russians and Poles are genetically descended from hunter-gatherers, yet look different and are culturally adapted to farming. The advent of farming caused rapid physical changes even though the genes themselves didn't change as much.

  32. In general, the traditional European farmer peasantry were assumed by anthropologists to have been a reduced version of the original Cromagnon hunter-gatherers(who were more robust). Still, both the farmers and hunter-gatherers had wide skulls, contrasted with the narrow skulls of the original Europeans. The point is that this is why the farming cultures seem genetically similar to Scandinavia, a hunter-gatherer culture.

  33. *narrow skulls of original Indo-Europeans

  34. "
    We really ought to use the Swiss or the Bavarians as the standard that we measure Celticity against. The Scots and a decent number of the English would continue to measure up, although the Irish would be seen as a more corrupted / in-bred / farther-removed example."

    And indeed, the old anthropologists found the same thing. The Celtic phenotype - as measured by skulls found in La Tene - was quite common in Western England and southern Germany. In particular they seemed to have settled heavily in England and outnumbered Anglo-Saxons.

    Ironically, there were more Celtic-looking people in eastern and northern Ireland. those Irish who identified the most as Celts were often actually the descendants of Cromagnon hunter-gatherers - also very common in Ireland - or dark-haired Mediterranean, Semitic-speaking seafarers - the Megalithic peoples.

    Here are what the Celts probably looked like, with celebrity examples:

    And here's a description of the Cromagnon type, also called "Dalo-Falid", with examples:

  35. Rudolf Hess is a great example of the cromagmnid type, also Dolph Lundgren. Re: insular Celts- we typically think of the fair, red-haired type as representative, but the Med/Atlantid is more common, also well-represented in movies and such.

  36. other examples might be brad pitt, matt damon, george clooney, all clearly boyish looking.

  37. If those pretty boys are the same "type", I guess that it means it sells well to cocooners, Western girls (movies have been primarily targeted at teens since the 80's) and Asians (who've become an important market since the late 90's). Also, middle aged parents who insist on dragging their kids to the movies (this ain't the 80's where mature adults and youths had their own distinct zone of movies). Leo Dicaprio is another blonde to gain favor over the last 20 years.

    How did they do in the 80's? Tom Cruise (not sure about his "type") was obviously the big pretty boy star of the 80's, though it should be noted that his success had a lot to do with choosing the right directors and scripts. Of course some of his 80's/early 90's movies were flawed, but they weren't embarrassingly bad. Meanwhile, Tom Selleck could barely find a decent script and director. And this was in the era where alpha males ruled. By the mid-late 80's, even a lot of teen girls listened to metal bands.

    Agnostic also once said that Cruise could at least play a reckless teenager, which is more than what most closeted actors are capable of. A Daniel Radcliffe is clearly stuck at the level of a naughty boy. That's why Cruise was one the very few gay actors to get dramatic leading roles in the 80's. I've talked to several 60's born women who feel very protective of Cruise and deny the idea of his being closeted. Perhaps females favor this type as it triggers maternal feelings as much as or more than lust. Of course, during our last "community watch" phase (of circa the early-mid 70's thru 1992/'93) women desired for the most part the type of guy who could defend you from a nasty world.

    Dahlia (or any other women reading) is welcome to add their 2 cents regarding Cruise. Most men don't seem to really get Cruise.

  38. ""ANE" is not a synonym for the Yamnaya people or Indo-Europeans, it is a specifically Siberian subcomponent of that ancestry. Today it reaches a peak frequency in the Mansi, Asiatic looking HGs. It is not pastoralist."

    I didn't say ANE was synonymous with the Yamnaya or I-E -- only that this component appears to have been *spread by* them to Europe, the Caucasus, and the northern part of the Indian subcontinent.

    And we still do not know which subsistence mode the originators of ANE practiced -- only *where* they came from.

    You say it's not pastoralist, but that's only one idea. Not a very good one either -- even if not pastoralist itself, it is highly correlated with pastoralist variants at other sites -- because it appears to have been spread by the Indo-Europeans, for whom pastoralism was a big part of their subsistence.

    Arctic pastoralism is well known among the Sami, and they've been the recipient of Siberian gene flow. Pastoralism flourished all around the ANE group -- the Steppe, Mongolia, Manchuria, everywhere. There's no reason to think that the ANE group didn't practice pastoralism too, at least in part -- which they could have passed on to the Sami either genetically or culturally.

  39. Nah. The finding is that there is a latitudinal gradient, but the English do not have more European HG ancestry than the Irish or Scots, the Dutch certainly don't have more than the Poles, etc.. The results are out there. There are papers on this (http://tinyurl.com/zp3gdse is still more or less the state of the art). The differences are pretty small and hard to see how they caused anything really.

    Seems like a bad theory. As unsupported as "They drowned all the vikings at sea" or "The Scandinavians have a basically pagan worldview".

    Re international adoption because it was mentioned, on a side note, I thought it was interesting to read that Spain has had the second largest international adoption from China (and generally a high level). France and Italy are quite high as well. It seems quite a Latin characteristic, at the moment, as well as Nordic (the top five recipients 2003-2013 after the USA, were Spain, France, Italy, Canada and the Netherlands - http://www.cambridgescholars.com/download/sample/62311).
    Per capita they may be a little lower, but interesting is the Latins and not Germany, or England. International adoption per capita in average of 2004 and 2008 per the above document goes Norway (10.9 per 100,000), Sweden (10.5 per 100,000), Spain (10 per 100,000), USA (6.7 per 100,000), Netherlands (6.3 per 100,000), Italy (6.3 per 100,000), France (6 per 100,000), Canada (5.4 per 100,000), Australia (1.6 per 100,000), Germany (0.7 per 100,000), UK (0.5 per 100,000).

  40. International adoption is due to low fertility rates at home. Low fertility means they put it off too long, so they'll have to adopt. And when the whole country is low-fertility, they'll have to go abroad to where the supply is higher.

    Spain and Italy aren't encouraging hordes of Chinese, Vietnamese, and Cambodians to colonize their cities and set up soulless Chinatowns.

  41. You're still confused about "hunter-gatherer" genes -- they come not only from WESTERN Euro hunter-gatherers, but from EASTERN Euro hunter-gatherers as well. That is part of the ANE signal. There's also some extra-European H-G blood coming in from Siberia, also part of the ANE signal. And there is pastoralism coming from outside as well, all part of the ANE signal.

    I also said that the non-Nordic Germanic-speaking people have both a heavily Celtic genepool, but also a very old and entrenched Germanic system of government overlaying the Celtic folk culture.

    It is the highest elite levels of government that are responsible for opening the floodgates to foreigners. So even a mostly Celtic population can be subjected to an immigration wave, if it's government is sufficiently Nordic/Germanic in origin and character.

    Obviously the situation will be far worse when the Nordic government is laid over a Nordic population, with no tension, conflict, or pushing back from below.

    Your dismissal of the fate of the Vikings -- and its impact on the character of Scandinavians -- is telling of your naivete about demographic history. In general, a huge success of one political group over another comes after wiping the losers out of existence.

    The Ice Man was not an earlier Western Hunter-Gatherer who had merely adopted the culture of the Early European Farmers. He was a farmer, and his people wiped out the hunter-gatherers -- whether by outright violence, draining their resources, crowding them out of their hunting grounds, contagious diseases of civilization that the H-G's had no experience with, and so on.

    The old aristocrats in England were mostly killed off -- by themselves, culminating in the War of the Roses. That's why English folks today are so docile -- no military aristocrats left, only the descendants of the "nation of shopkeepers".

    It's no different with the Vikings -- the wave of the future drove them into extinction. Mostly by drowning and killing, but also by drying up their way of making a living -- with a more powerful, centralized, and militarily forceful nation-state, it's harder to thrive by pillaging.

  42. TL;DR -- when a population seems to be a new group of people, it usually IS a new group of people, and they wiped the older group out of existence.

    Not the hippie-dippie lessons they brainwashed you with in high school (adopting culture, changing culture), but true nevertheless. Especially if the population appears to change almost overnight -- it's a new genepool.

  43. Political changes accompany demographic changes. New political ideologies come to power because the supporters of the old ideology either die off or move somewhere else.

    When they first started doing genetic research back in 2006, they tried to argue that genetics in Europe had been unchanged since the Neolithic, and that Indo-European culture and language spread through peaceful diffusion. In retrospect, that seems to have been influenced by cocooning - which fosters bad academic ideas and mediocrity in general.

  44. We should also point out that M (stands for "Millennial"?) did not propose an alternative explanation, or argue why anyone else's was unconvincing.

    He's an anti-explainer -- all we can do is describe, not explain how or why things got to be the way that the description says they are.

    So rather than any kind of explanation, all we get is a description -- "there's a north-south gradient". OK, but why? Maybe that is explained by the prevalence of H-G vs. agro-pastoralist genes -- an actual explanation. And as it turns out, hunting and gathering flourished longer in the North (especially Scandinavia) because agriculture and pastoralism were introduced further south.

  45. In Ireland, 20,000 muds are their way to enrich that Celtic nation:



You MUST enter a nickname with the "Name/URL" option if you're not signed in. We can't follow who is saying what if everyone is "Anonymous."