The Nordic face. A Glimpse of Iron Age Scandinavia

by J.W. Jamieson

Scandinavia has been of considerable importance as a source of migrants in the peopling of Europe, and Southern Sweden may be said to have constituted the very nucleus of the distinctive Scandinavian as North German breeding population- commonly identified as the “Nordic” peoples – who were involver in the process.

From the times of the Bronze and Iron Ages, the population of Southern and Western Scandinavia and of Northern Germany have comprised a relatively homogeneous and prolific epicentre which has despatched successive waves of men and women into other parts of Europe, and indeed of the world. The outward migrations of these norther peoples frequently assumed a warlike form, and where successful the North European victors of the indigenous population that survived. Such actions tended to give rise to a belief that Nordic physical characteristics might be equated with nobility of social status, and even with an heroic, military or martial spirit. As is well known, this tradition was to acquire a widespread political significance in Germany during the late Nineteenth and early Twentieth centuries, and was subsequently adopted as a political tenet. Since then, because of the events which culminated in the widespread slaughter and destruction of World War II, the study of North European and specifically of Nordic physical anthropology has been somewhat shunned. But now that several decades have passed since the tragic events of the 1940’s, it seems proper that we may once again take an objective and unbiased look at this historically important component of the European anthropological scene.

The Anthropological Background.

Any attempt to describe a specific inbreeding population must necessarily proceed by way of identifying those characteristics, which most commonly distinguish it from other populations. Until relatively recent times, human populations tended to be localized in their mating patterns, and consequently the genetic map of humanity constituted a partially interlocking pattern of Mendelian (largely inbreeding) populations, each comprising a more or less distinctive gene pool, with a tendency fro each population to share most of its genetic markers with neighbouring peoples – except where these were separated by cultural or geographical barriers strong enough to prevent gene flow. Thus, while the mammalian world customarily presents us with sharply defined sub-species or races, local human populations tend to grade into each other. However, even amongst human populations, barriers to gene flow were once very influential, and still persist into the present day, so that not only prehistoric human populations but even living human populations still display a wide variety of divergent genetic qualities. In consequence, anthropologists have justifiably attempted to apply the Linnaean concept of classification to the study of prehistoric and historic racial variation in man, producing a number of schemes of classification all of which seed to divide living hominids into a limited number of major geographical races, each su-divided into regional or local sub-races. For this purpose they employ the Weberian concept of ‘ideal types’ to identify local points of extreme or characteristic variation in what otherwise constitutes a complex pattern of racial or genetic gradients.

In general, it may be said that the main problems which they confront in their attempts to identify living human populations on the basis of a Linnaean scheme of classification arise in the case of those populations wherein substantial generic admixture has taken place as a result of physical migration, or where two major areas of distinctive genetic divergence tend to overlap geographically. So far as Europe is concerned, the rural populations still reflect the sharply Mendelian populations of past centuries. As a result, the survival of a distinctive North European or Nordic type, dating from prehistoric times, has been recognized by most physical anthropologists since the very inception of such studies.

Systems of Classification

Possibly the first major attempt to classify human populations on a Linnaean basis was made by J. Deniker in the year 1889 (1926). Recognizing some 26 supposed sub-species within sis major races or groupings, he identified a distinctive ‘Northern European’ physical type, which he described as having straight or wavy fair hair, light eyes, and reddish whit skin. These Northern Europeans differed from that he say as a characteristically “Eastern European” population, notably in being longer-headed in contrast to the medium to broad-headedness of the Eastern European type.

A.C. Haddon, in this 1925 publication, concentrated on hair texture, height, cephalic index and nasal index to identify the major races and sub-races of the world. Like Deniker, he identified a distinctive North European physical type, which he called ‘Nordic’, and described this in essentially the same identifying terms as used by Deniker. E.A. Hooton, writing in 1931, produced a system of racial classifications which is still generally accepted. Recognizing three major races (White, Negroid and Mongoloid) and three further major ‘composite races’ or groupings of sub-races resulting from the prehistoric and historic admixture of these major three types, Hooton specified a distinctive Nordic ‘primary sub-race,’ which he saw as most clearly characterising those variants which distinguished the White race from his tow other major races. His remaining primary European sub-races were defined as Mediterranean, Keltic (since re-defined as ‘Atlanto-Mediterranean’ by Coon and later writers), Alpin and East Baltic. W.Z. Ripley (1931) essentially agreed with Hooton, but listed only three major European sub-races: namely, ‘Teutonic’, Alpine and Mediterranean.

E. von Eickstedt advanced and refined the work of earlier writers in 1933. In so doing he likewise identified a ‘Nordic’ sub-race, which he described as a depigmented variation within the major geographical White race. He accepted Hooton’s identification of three major geographical races, but sought to identify 38 regional variants of these three major geographical stocks. In the same year G. Montandon advanced an argument for a Linnaean classification which would identify no less than nine major geographical races (later reduced to five) but still identified a Nordic sub-race amongst the ‘Europids’ as he calls the White or Caucasoid peoples. P. Lester and J. Millot, two French anthropologists, identified the Nordic peoples as a separate, distinctive subspecies within the ‘White’ stock, and the distinguished French anthropologist and archaeologist, H.V. Vallois in 1948 likewise identified four major geographical races (White, Black, Yellow and Australoid), and divided the White race into sub-races, namely, Nordic, East Baltic, Dinaric, Alpine, Mediterranean, Armenoid, Arabic/Semitic, Indo-Afghan and Ainu.

Currently, the most widely accepted classification remains that of Carleton Coon, S.M. Garn and J.B. Birdsell, who adopted a detailed taxonomic approach, and recognized three major geographical stocks or variants, with thirty sub-races, among which the European population was simply divided into Northwest European, Northeast European, Nordic, Mediterranean, Alpine and Lapp. Their work was paralleled among European anthropologists by the detailed and comprehensive work of Renato Biasutti (1959). Biasutti recognized four major race or sub-species among man, divided into sixteen ‘primary races’ and no less that fifty-two ‘secondary’ or mini-races, with a variety of ‘derivative’ or recently produces admixed peoples. The four major stocks were Australoid, Negroid, Mongoloid and Europoid, amongst which latter he identified the Nordic, along with Mediterraneans, Alpines, Baltics, Dinarics and Lapps. Unfortunately, Biasutti’s work is not available in English.

In his Races of Europe (1939), Carleton Coon greatly refined his study of the European peoples in substantial depth. For this purpose he based his analysis on historical and evolutionary principles, and identified the Nordics, he stated, were a Corded-Danubian derivate identical to the Iron Age population of Central Europe. He further distinguished several sub-types of Nordics as follows: 1) A mesocephalic Keltic Iron Age type, with a somewhat low-vaulted cranium, and prominent nose, still commonly reflected today among the populations of the British Isles, Flanders and south-western Germany. 2) the Anglo-saxon type, heavier-boned and rather high-headed, most prevalent in Northern Germany and England. 3) The Trondelagen type, containing some elements of the pre-Nordic broader-headed Brünn population, found in the central coastal provinces of Norway and Iceland, and sometimes in Scotland as a result of Norwegian settlement there. Finally, 4) the Osterdal type, which Coon perceive as representing the early Hallstatt Nordic, being somewhat finer-boned than the Anglo-saxon and Trondelagen types. These were found primarily in Sweden and Norway, but also appear in areas settled during the great Folk Wandering, but also appear in areas settled during the great Folk Wandering period by Germanic (I.E. Goths and Lombards) and Viking peoples who originated in or close to this epicenter.

Prehistoric Scandinavia

The population of Mesolithic Scandinavia appears to have been a hunting and gathering population of pre-Indo-European (but still Europoids) stock, evidence of which still survives in parts of neighbouring Finland. At this early time, current opinion supposes that the ancestors of the Scandinavian Nordics were residing in the area of the Upper Danube, or even further east in the grasslands to the north of the Black Sea and the Caspian. The Lapps, who today occupy the northern portion of Scandinavia, are not believe to be indigenous to the area, any more than are the Nordic Scandinavians, but are more likely to represent a people of partially Mongoloid character, who developed their reindeer-herding culture in northwester Eurasia, and migrated with it into northern Scandinavia only during the past few thousand years.

The first of the Nordic Scandinavians to immigrate into their present homeland presumably arrived as a cultivating people bringing with them a Neolithic culture from the warmer, more southerly, fertile lands of the Danube, Rhine and Elbe valleys. Horticultural societies are most usually capable of supporting larger populations than hunting and gathering cultures, and the in coming Neolithic peoples appear to have displaced the Mesolithic population very thoroughly, so that these latter, who probably spoke Finno-Uralic languages, were displaced from almost all the lands around the Baltic except for Finland and Estonia. However, in some of the more remote mountain valleys of Norway and western Sweden, a broader-headed component still survives among the rural peoples, and this identifiable variant could possibly represent a genetic contribution from elements of the pre-Nordic population (not widely contrasted in physical type) which were permitted to retain control of the poorer, marginal land, less suitable for cultivation by the simple farming techniques known to the invaders.

The Danubian Heritage

Physically the main population of East Norway and of the rich farm lands of central and southern Sweden is typically that ot the Iron Age Hallstatt Nordic. This fits well with the very reasonable theory that further waves of Nordic invaders entered Scandinavia during the Bronze and Iron Ages. Indeed, the language of modern Scandinavia is closely related to that of North Germany, and archaeological evidence indicates a unity of many artefacts with thos common to the Germanic and Keltic peoples of the Bronze and Iron Ages. Earlier in this century many scholars took the view that Northern Germany and Scandinavia were the original center from which the main expansion of a warlike, horse-riding Indo-European or Aryan peoples expended, not only southwards to the Mediterranean, but south-eastwards to Anatolia, Iran and even to India, but this opinion is no longer dominant. While it is true that northern Germany and Scandinavia, largely protected from subsequent immigration and population admixture by the presence of highly developed and powerful, closely-related Indo-European populations to the south, southeast and east, displayed a continuity of cultural development and a distinctive homogeneity of genetic heritage unmodified by subsequent immigrations of any size, the prime center of Bronze and Iron Age cultural developments appears to have been amongst the related Indo-European peoples of Central Europe and the Upper Danube, from whom the North Germans and Scandinavians were originally themselves derived.

The Nordic Physiognomy

The Osterdal or Hallstatt Nordic is generally dolicocephalic with facial index of over 90 and a cephalic index around 75. The greater length of the head in relation to the breadth is partly due to the back of the head jutting out over the back of the neck. The forehead is always high, and sometimes this is accentuated in appearance by the impression of being pressed in somewhat from the sides. In the male there are frequently traces of light brow ridges above the eyes. The forehead also usually slopes slightly backwards. The nose is either straight or convex, and narrow, and the chin likewise tends to be narrow, sharp and firm. The face characteristically reveals a threefold break at the line of the profile – the first at the base of the high, sloping forehead, the second at the high-bridged nose, and the third at the chin.

The fleshy parts of the face also contribute to the clear-cut, angular appearance. The nose is sharply defined, the lips are thin, particularly so in the case of the upper lip, and there is frequently a deep groove in the upper lip, stretching from the nose to the mouth.

The colouring of skin, eyes and hair is generally light. Most characteristically the skin is very lightly pigmented, so that the blood shows through with a rosy hue, and the veins show through with a blue lustre (giving rise in Spain to the expression “blue blood in his veins,” in reference to the lighter skin color of the Gothic-descended aristocracy in contrast to the more heavily pigmented skins of the indigenous Mediterranean population). The iris of the Nordic eye is blue, blue-grey or grey, and never brown or black. Hair colour similarity ranges from a golden-blond (as distinct from the flaxen blond of the East Baltic area) to light brown, and in adulthood, even dark brown – though the latter usually indicates some degree of Atlanto-Mediterranean genetic admixture. Such admixture, common in the British Isles, seldom modifies the facial features to any marked degree, because there is little skeletal difference between the Mediterranean and Nordic types. Pigmentation of hair color always increases in adulthood, so that individuals who are fair-headed in childhood may become considerably darker in hair color on reaching adulthood.

————————-

“The realm of Northern Man is the Northern race. It is a realm of incomparable majesty. In beauty, culture, civilization, achievement, and potential it is blessed beyond all others. Out of the vast mass of the hominid Formenkreis, the Northern race, few in number but supreme in importance, rises like an island of light surrounded by a dark, surging, turbulent sea. Under creation ethics the island should be striving to grow and rise ever higher above the darkness, but under anti-creation ethics it is being overwhelmed by the mounting waves and is in danger of sinking into the dark depths of the abyss. This must not come to pass, for this island, this realm, this race is the seat of Creation and the throne from which will arise the highest and greatest glory of existence.”

– Richard McCulloch, The Ideal and Destiny

Basic Questions and Answers

“Is race real?”

Race is a hard genetic reality, which can be defined according to region of ancestral origin or certain genetic characteristics. Genetic tests, commercially available, can easily discern one’s racial character and ancestry.

The fact that marginal/hybrid individuals exist who cannot be easily classified into a particular race is irrelevant; just as the fact that intermediates exist between all colors of the spectrum does not mean that the different colors are not clearly distinct from one another.

The fact that the different races have most genes in common is also irrelevant, since tiny differences in gene sequence can have an enormous impact on phenotype. A single gene can have a cascading effect on the expression of other genes; for examples, it is believed that a small variation of a single gene (FOXP2) may account for humans’ ability to speak, and several major diseases such as Cystic Fibrosis are caused by a single genetic variant. It is nearly impossible to tell apart the DNA of Great Danes and Pekinese, yet the miniscule differences produce their huge differences in physique and temperament.

Approximately half (50,000) of the genes that vary in humans play a role in brain function, and about 30,000 of them affect the brain exclusively.

“Why can’t non-Whites join us and adopt our culture?”

Because race is what determines the character of a society - its social mores, its culture, and its level of civilization. That is why all White nations have certain broad similarities, as do all Black ones, Mestizo, Oriental, Arab, etc. The races have major physical differences in skull shape, body proportions, muscularity and so on. But, as the brain is the most complex and advanced organ in human beings, it is with mental traits that our greatest variation lies: in intelligence, personality, and character. The races differ measurably in brain size and structure, hormone secretions, and nervous disorders. Such factors clearly determine what sort of society a people is able to create and maintain.

“How can you be sure that intelligence is based on genes rather than environment?”

Because studies of separated identical twins, reared by different families in disparate environments, have proven it. They have demonstrated that a wide variety of behavioral traits, including intelligence, academic performance, creative talent, social/political attitudes, personality type, and aggressiveness are to a large extent determined before birth. For example, IQ measurements of identical twins reared separately are much closer together than the IQs of fraternal twins reared together. The IQs of Blacks adopted as infants into upper class White families are, upon their reaching maturity, close to the Black norm and far below that of their White siblings.

Jewish power created and sustains the pseudoscience of racial equality

Academic institutions do not exist in a vacuum. In order to maintain their prestige and financial support, as well as public acceptence, they must conform to a large extent to the dictates of the wielders of power in a society and the manipulators of public opinion. Jewish media pressure has spelled the doom of many a courageous professor speaking the truth about race. The Jews have dominated not only the mass media, but all the organs of intellectual critique; all the major social/political journals and literary reviews. They can make or break anyone trying to get his intellectual views accepted in society, including social scientists (taking full advantage of the nonempirical nature of this discipline). They were able to demonize and suppress the pioneering White racial scientists who early last century were just beginning to establish and publish the hard biological/experimental evidence regarding race, and they legitimized and popularized in their place the Jew-dominated equalitarians whose chief purpose was to obscure the rapidly developing facts in the field of racial differences.

The movement in colleges to obscure the facts of racial differences and promote the baseless ideology of racial equality has since its inception been dominated by Jewish professors, working in conjunction with their Jewish colleagues in the media. These include Franz Boas, Isador Chein, Otto Klineberg, Ashley Montagu (Israel Ehrenberg), Richard Lewontin, Leon Kamin, and Stephen Jay Gould. Kevin MacDonald detailed this process in chapter 2 of his The Culture of Critique, namely:

The Boasian School of Anthropology and the Decline of Darwinism in the Social Sciences

An excerpt regarding the “father” of egalitarian pseudo-anthropology, Franz Boas (pages: 23-5):

Quote:

Some arguments and refutations:

Quote:

Jared Diamond’s book is a classic example of tendentious argument: He begins with an assumption he wants to be true (that races are genetically equal), and then proceeds to formulate a premise which can plausibly explain the desired outcome, while by and large ignoring evidence to the contrary. If the data assembled by Mr. Diamond was all we know about race and race history, if there was no hard evidence, no compelling case that races are in fact genetically/biologically distinctive, then his theory would be reasonable, though hardly compelling (see below). But there is conclusive evidence proving his hypothesis is false.

If it were true that social/cultural/technological differences were merely an environmental happenstance, then nonwhites who are taught by Whites, live with Whites — are even adopted and reared by successful Whites, would certainly learn to adopt White social/cultural/technological norms. On the contrary, when Whites have left Black areas–be they in America, Africa, or anywhere else–Blacks have almost immediately reverted to barbarism. The observable realities of race cannot be refuted by any speculative theory on ancient history.

Even if it were true that civilization originated only on account of the convenient presence of heavy grains, tractable animals and passable landscapes (which our White progenitors just happened to discover and take advantage of), this is quite consistent with the development of racial differences. An environmentally-determined potential for civilization would obviously confer a great natural/social selective advantage on individuals possessing genetic traits conducive to the development of this potential (as well as to the creative utilization of the free time it allows). Diamond’s argument is basically that Blacks could not have developed civilization in Africa. But even if this were true, it is no indication that that Blacks could have developed it anywhere.

Various groups of Whites have experienced terrible poverty over the last 150 years, and they all rebounded fairly quickly. If Black poverty was just some kind of bad luck, then it would not have persisted for 150 years (of freedom) in America and thousands of years in Africa, in spite of much contact with Europe. Whites have been as successful in Africa as everywhere else. No Black society has ever been successful.

Quote:

After Blacks got nowhere in a century of being let be their failure was blamed on White neglect, and now after half a century of actively assisting them we are being blamed for our assistance! What more can we possibly do for Blacks? After 150 years it’s obvious that nothing can be done to make Blacks equal to Whites.

Quote:

Genes and environment interact very closely with one another in producing culture. Any given culture requires both genetic and environmental conditions, including a sufficiently evolved gene pool (i.e. a race) and an appropriate social-educational milieu (i.e. an intermediary culture). Genes and environment have a limiting influence on one another, hence each factor determines the cultural potential of the other: A given genotype has only a certain cultural potential, regardless of how favorable to higher culture is the environment into which it is placed, and vice-versa. An advanced genotype can produce but limited culture in a very poor environment, while a deficient genotype can produce but limited culture even in a very favorable environment. However, we speak here only of proximal cause.

Speaking of distal cause, genes are clearly a more primary cause of culture than is environment, because an advanced genotype (e.g. the White race) in an impoverished environment (e.g. the American South in 1865, Germany in 1945) can can quickly produce an excellent culture; while a deficient genotype (e.g. Blacks, Mestizos) in a rich environment (e.g. contemporary America) cannot. Blacks in Africa who appropriate the accouterments (including the industrial capital) of the culture of departing Whites quickly revert to savagery. Higher culture is entirely dependent upon advanced genes; primitive races could never produce it.

That the basic character of our culture (i.e. moral attitudes, intellectual standards, artistic pursuits) is largely determined by race, is evident from the fundamental similarities between the cultures of various White nationalities and dissimilarities from those of non-White ones, which persist even where where educational influences have been artificially equalized. The differences between White cultures separated by time and space are largely superficial, e.g. varieties of language, dress, etiquette, and artistic styles. Needless to say, media and educational systems are themselves largely a product of racial character, with Western (White) institutions having a distinctive regard for honesty and objectivity.

When assessing the pernicious influences of the Jewish media on White culture, it is necessary in the first place to distinguish White culture from the Jew/Negro-dominated media and entertainment industry, and from the culture of American society in general, which includes large numbers of nonwhites. The penetration of Jewish/Negroid degeneracy into White culture is largely restricted to those elements of White society unable to flee the onrush of the non-White tide, and to those most impressionable on account of subaverage intelligence or immaturity. Predominantly White communities have largely retained their culture in spite of all the efforts of the Jew; that is, they have maintained their devotion to order and cleanliness, politeness and civility, appreciation for finer arts, and reasonably high academic standards. They have become largely alienated from the Jewish/Negroid “popular culture”.

The Jewish media is having a destructive effect, to be sure, and does threaten to ultimately annihilate all that remains of White culture. But the Jews could do so only by destroying our racial integrity itself, in which case the resultant culture, if it could be called such, would have ceased to be a White one.

Source: The White Realist

Which European Identity in Our Postmodernity?

Speech given at the “Nordic festival,” Gothenburg, Sweden, Aug. 30, 2008
Which European Identity in Our Postmodernity?
by Dr. Tom Sunic

We start to wonder about our identity at the moment when we are about to lose it. Our fathers and our grandparents never asked questions about their identity; they never worried about it. They took for granted their affiliation to a given religion and to a given tribe or a people. It is with the rising tide of globalization, along with the waning of the traditional nation-state, and with the rising tide of multiculturalism and multiracialism that we start asking a question about who we are. The minute we raise the question of identity we start thinking about national identity.

But is this still really so today? How do we define our modern identity? Let us propose a couple of modern definitions that are onerous to Europeans.

First, we must mention the “substitute” identity, or ersatz identity, or identity by proxy. It is no accident that along with the loss of their own identity, white Europeans resort to ersatz identities. For instance they espouse the Palestinian or Tibetan identity or some other distant Third World identity as if it was their own. They spot some lost Indian tribe in the Amazon forest and then, with all their passion, strive to protect and preserve it. But when it comes to defining and preserving their own identity they remain silent. To say aloud “I am proud of being European,” let alone “I am proud of being a Swede,” or “proud of being a Croat,” smacks of nationalism. It must be avoided in modern discourse.

So which is the defining factor of identity today? Here in this place, you and I can talk about primary identity, secondary and tertiary identity. Does our local national identity today, in the epoch of globalism, precede our secondary European identity? I may have many more things in common in terms of my identity here with young Swedish identitarians than with my fellow Croat nationalists. But in a multicultural and multiracial society it changes. I may find common bonds even with my former enemies, the Serbs, who may also have difficulties identifying themselves with non-European residents coming to their shores.

Now, that second, onerous definition, is that regarding “negative identity.” That substitute or foreign-inspired identity is particularly strong when it is couched in the narrative of victimology. Europeans erect monuments to exotic tribes that they never heard of until the day before last. Days of atonement keep accumulating on the calendar. Every white European or American politician is obliged to pay moral and/or financial tributes to peoples whose identity has nothing in common with his own. While Western media and opinion makers assure us that history is creeping toward an end, we are witnessing a staggering demand for the revival of new non-European micro-identities often expressed as unique victimhoodds. Yet, each non-European victimhood requires an expanding number of its own dead and culprits. Culprits, as a rule, must always be white Europeans, forced in turn to practice the ritual of remorse. The old sense of the tragic, which until recently was the fundamental pillar of European historical memory, cedes its place to European jeremiads for victimhoods of Asian and African tribes. Slowly but surely, the European culture of death is being supplemented by a fixation on non-European identities. What a scandal if a white European or American statesman fails to display remorse for the past suffering of some non- European people!

One must, however, make a clear distinction between the culture of death and the cult of death. The old culture of death, so common to ancient European identity, is being replaced by bizarre cults of the dead, stripped of any redemptive meaning. What counts in each non-European victimhood identity is its impressively high figures for the dead, the endless enumeration of surreal body counts, which serve as an additional weapon to impose guilt feelings on white Europeans. And where does the appetite for the foreign dead stop? On the hit parade of various victimologies or, as the buzzword now goes, in the “battle of memories,” victims can never be equal. Some must take precedence over others, as is the case with the Jewish Holocaust. Given the victimological atmosphere, which prevails today in the multiracial West, each non-European tribe, race or community is led to believe that its own victimology is unique. This is a dangerous phenomenon in view of the fact that each victimology is by definition conflictual, inevitably aiming at the removal of the other competing victimology.

The essence of victimology lies in the liberal dogma of human rights. The dogma of human rights and its most logical social consequence, the foundation of the multiracial world system, is the main motor behind the resurgence of the spirit of victimhood. When all men are declared equal, each human being and each tribe on Earth must be automatically entitled to the status of victimhood. By their nature, multicultural countries in the West are required to allot the victimhood status to every human being. Each ethnic group, every racial, and even every sub-group, practicing some exotic lifestyle, such as gays, lesbians, or sun worshippers, needs it own martyrology in order to legitimize its identity. To illustrate this point, let’s put ourselves in the shoes of the non-European Other, i.e., a Congolese, a Samoan, an Tamil, residing in Paris, London, or New York. Is he or she not entitled to pose the following question: “Why do the others, for instance the Jews, have the right to their victimhood, but not my group?” Indeed, in the name of humanity, some of the largest genocides were made possible during the twentieth century. In the name of an abstract victimology and human rights, dissident intellectuals or political opponents, or whole groups of people, have been dehumanized. To put it differently, each spirit of victimhood searches for its negative identity by negating Otherness, i.e. by abolishing the Other, who is henceforth no longer perceived as human, but depicted as a monster who needs to be eliminated as quickly as possible. The spirit of victimology does not serve to prevent the conflict. It often enhances and renders the conflict inevitable.

There is a serious problem regarding the viability of diverse identities in the multicultural system in the West. On the one hand modern liberal Western societies require that each non-European ethnic group receives an appropriate identity and its right to historical grievance; yet on the other liberal societies are unable to function in an environment beset by ethnic balkanization. Therefore, the contest of diverse victimologies makes the functioning of the liberal system extremely precarious. In essence, each victimological spirit in multiracial society is confrontational and discriminatory. It creates the climate leading up to latent civil war.

Europeans are facing a perilous postmodern situation. On the one hand, they are being overwhelmed by the rhetoric of negative identities, i.e. anticolonial victimologies, and by the endless palaver about past European fascist crimes. Yet on the other hand one can barely hear a word about crimes committed by Communists and their liberal allies against different peoples around the world. Who can still remember Europe’s victims of communism, who have no victimological status in Western Europe, at least?

In our postmodernity we have to overcome the sense of territorial rootedness. Our European racial and cultural identity stretches from Argentina to Sweden and to Russia. We do not wish to waste our time and search for the appropriate word for this prospective political entity: it could be called the “Reich,” “the “Empire,” or the “European Union.” What counts, though, is the substance and the values behind this political structure and not the name per se. Furthermore, our identity must not be posited on the exclusion of the Otherness, but on the clear acknowledgement of Differentiation of different identities. We must not define our racial and cultural identity by make the Other a Xerox copy of ourselves - as modern Liberals and Christians do with their vague universalism. Our identity lies in the transcendental sphere of our own uniqueness - but not at the price of excluding the uniqueness of other peoples and other races.

Thank you for your attention.

The Path of Destruction

by Richard McCulloch

Every living creature, every species or race, has certain conditions that are required for its continued existence. Its environment or habitat must fulfill these conditions or it will not be able to live. It may die quickly, like a fish out of water or a mammal without air to breathe. It may die slowly, from lack of food or drink. It may die very slowly, over a period of generations, not as individuals but as a race, due to environmental conditions that make it difficult, or impossible, for it to successfully reproduce. Every life form differs in its particular environmental requirements for existence. Some are more specialized and fragile, others are more generalized and adaptable. But whatever its environmental range there are certain conditions it requires to live, without which it will die and become extinct.

The Nordish (Northern European) race, like every other form of life, has certain environmental conditions that it requires for racial health and well-being, for successful reproduction, for survival and continued existence. If the conditions conducive to Nordish life are absent or removed from the habitat, and replaced by conditions that are destructive of Nordish life, it will not be able to live within that habitat. If it remains there it will die. The process may be rapid or slow, sudden extinction or gradual diminishment, but it will eventually cease to exist.

There are many things that can cause the extinction of the Nordish race, from the simple to the complex, from the lack of air, food or water to devastation by war or disease, but such a cause would have to be of catastrophic dimensions previously unparalleled in magnitude. The most likely cause of Nordish racial death, the process presently underway, is not so sudden or obvious, but its ultimate effect, Nordish extinction, is no less cataclysmic.

The primary threat to continued Nordish life is related to the process and conditions of evolution that created the Nordish race and made its existence possible. Those conditions included separation or isolation from the other diverging branches of the human species, preventing intermixture and permitting divergent evolution. Racial separation or isolation was required for the divergent evolution and creation of the Nordish race and is required no less for its continued existence. Without it, what was done, or created, by divergent evolution can be undone, or decreated, by intermixture or devolution. Racial diversity, made possible by conditions of reproductive isolation, can only be maintained or preserved by reproductive isolation. Reproductive isolation requires geographical separation. The race must have its own exclusive territory, homeland or homeland, free from the presence of other races and the danger of intermixture.

The primary danger to continued Nordish life is not nuclear war or pollution, but the intermixture of the Nordish race with other races into one hybridized race in which its distinct and unique racial traits and characteristics would be submerged and negated, and its existence lost. Intermixture would make the Nordish race extinct. For Northern Europeans, racial intermixture is racial extinction.

Only like can create like. Only a Northern European can create a Northern European. Only Nordish parents can create a Nordish child. The intermixture of a Northern European with a non-Northern European (unless the non-Northern European is of a closely related race with little genetic or racial distance separating it from the Northern European) will not produce a Nordish child. Exceptions to this rule can only occur when the non-Nordish parent is already of partially Nordish ancestry, and the Nordish part of the mixture is sufficient to predominate in combination with a fully Nordish partner. The greater the genetic distance of the non-Nordish element from the Nordish, the greater part of the mixture the Nordish element must be to predominate.

Until relatively recently the Nordish race enjoyed the conditions of racial separation and isolation required for its divergent evolution and continued existence or preservation. As late as 1880 the United States was, with one major exception, a Nordish country, a territorial possession of the Nordish race, and was so regarded by the other nations of the world.

The major exception was the Congoids, recently freed from slavery, who constituted 12% of the population. This legacy of the racially short-sighted and unwise admission of the unfortunate victims of the African slave trade into the forming Nordish homeland was, and still remains, a great source of strife and danger. Early American leaders, such as Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln, tried to solve the problem by proposing total racial separation, either by returning the Congoid population to Africa or by giving them a fully independent and separate country of their own carved out of the territory of the United States. After the terrible carnage and suffering of the Nordish-American Civil War (1861-1865), fought primarily over the Congoid issue, they were given citizenship and their permanent position in the country was no longer questioned, but promoted, by the leadership establishment.

When France presented the United States with the Statue of Liberty in 1886 it was in recognition of the achievements of the 110 year-old nation, of the existing population and their ancestors. That year was also a witness to the early wavelets of the great flood of Armenid and Mediterranid immigration that was to bring millions of non-Northern Europeans to America over the next several decades. It was the beginning of a process of racial transformation that was to decisively change both the racial composition and nature of the country and the symbolic meaning of the Statue of Liberty, from a salute to the pre-1886 Nordish creators of the country to a beacon of welcome for the post-1886 non-Nordish immigrants, and a denial of the right of the Nordish inhabitants of the country to the conditions of racial separation and independence they require for continued existence.

The pro-Nordish immigration reforms of the 1920s slowed this process of racial change, but the anti-Nordish (”pro” or “anti” Nordish as measured by the standard of vital Nordish interests, e.g., the conditions required for Nordish life) immigration reforms of the 1960s accelerated the process once again to a tempo so fast as to be literally beyond government control and determined by the immigrants themselves. Table I displays the effects of this fast-paced process, which is both taking the United States away from the Nordish race and depriving the Nordish race in America of the conditions it needs to live.

As the table also shows, the process of racial transformation has been assisted by the wide difference in birthrates between the Nordish and most of the non-Nordish elements. At the height of the “baby boom” in 1957 the Nordish birthrate was almost at the national average, but then went into a decline that brought it below both the national average and the replacement level of 2.1 births per woman. Since the mid-1970s the Nordish birthrate has been only about 1.8 per woman. Assuming that 10% of these births are non-Nordish offspring of racially mixed couples, the true Nordish birthrate is only about 1.6 per woman, more than 25% below the replacement level.

Worldwide, in the period since 1957, most of the other Nordish countries (the primary exceptions being the former communist countries of eastern Europe) have begun to follow the same course of admitting non-Nordish immigrants, and experiencing the same process of racial transformation, as the United States. The process is especially advanced in Great Britain and the Netherlands. Their racially unwise colonial involvement in non-Nordish countries has been followed by their racially unwise admission of non-Northern Europeans into their home populations. In both countries the non-Nordish element now amounts to almost 12% of the population. The ancient Nordish homelands, especially those of the central Nordish types, are all endangered by this process, which is everywhere promoted by the values and philosophy of racial nihilism.

The racial future of North America is of much greater importance to the interests of the Nordish race than to the interests of the non-Nordish races. It contains over 30% of the world Nordish population and over 40% of the central Nordish types. By contrast, it contains only 6% of the world Congoid population (less than Latin America), less than 3% of the non-Nordish Caucasoids and less than .3% of the Asian Mongoloids. North America is a central or core racial homeland for the Nordish race, containing a major and vital part of the racial body. For the other races North America, and their racial presence there, is peripheral and only a minor and non-vital part of their total racial being. [Note 1] The Nordish race has much more at stake, and much more to lose, in North America than any other. For it alone, North America is not expendable, as its racial loss might well prove racially fatal. For it alone, the struggle for the future of North America is a decisive one.

The unfolding process of Nordish racial death and extinction is the direct and unavoidable result of the Nordish race being deprived of the conditions of racial separation and reproductive isolation it requires for continued existence. This loss of the conditions essential for Nordish racial life is deliberate and intentional, and is strongly promoted by the dominant agents (ideas, values and practices, and the persons or institutions who promote, espouse or enforce them) of racial nihilism. Racial nihilism seeks to dissolve all the human races into one race, the world into one world, the different peoples into one people, and condemns as immoral any desire or attempt by the Nordish race to maintain or restore the conditions of racial separation and independence it needs to live. By denying the Nordish race the conditions required for its existence, racial nihilism is, in both effect and intent, the agent of Nordish nonexistence.

Racial intermixture is the ultimate means of achieving Nordish nonexistence. It negates or destroys Nordish traits by genetic submergence. The proportion of non-Northern Europeans in the U.S. population is already several times larger than necessary to genetically negate the Nordish race through intermixture. Non-Nordish immigration and high birthrates add extra nails for the coffin, and provide the reassurance of racial overkill. The ultimate result of this process is the nonexistence, destruction or death of the Nordish race, yet none dare call it genocide. It kills or murders no living person, but it does kill a race, and in killing a race it does preemptively “kill” the unborn generations of the race. Future generations of Northern Europeans cannot live if the Nordish race does not live.

Racial separation is the only sure obstacle or barrier to intermixture. Without it, racial discrimination, or preference for one’s own race, in the selection of a mate is the sole remaining agent for racial preservation, but it is psychologically demanding, difficult and stressful, and only partially effective. If there were no racial separation, and no racial discrimination in the selection of a mate, and the rule of racial nihilism was complete, the Nordish race in America would probably pass the point of racial no-return, losing the ability to save itself, within one generation, and would be essentially extinct within four.

The actual timetable of Nordish racial death, including all its endangered populations, depends on certain interrelated variables, chiefly the rate of non-Nordish population increase within the Nordish homelands (determined by birthrates and immigration rates) and the rate of intermixture (determined by the relative strength of the agents of racial destruction versus the agents of racial preservation). But the actual sequence of major events or developments is more certain. First, the Nordish element will become a minority (likely to happen in the U.S. in the first decade of the 21st century) in its homeland and lose control of the country. Second, the Nordish element will lose its racial independence and freedom, control of its own racial destiny and the ability to save itself. This is the point of racial no-return. Third, and last, the Nordish elements will, through a combination of racial intermixture (absorption) and low rate of reproduction, diminish in both numbers and distinctiveness, quantity and quality, to the point of effective nonexistence.

Racial intermixture is a complex subject, and its effects vary depending on the genetic distance (degree of racial difference) and numerical proportions of the races involved in the mixture. Due to the highly recessive nature of many of its traits, the Nordish race is especially vulnerable to the negating effects of intermixture. The ability of the Nordish race to assimilate other races through intermixture is very limited. Some non-Nordish races are more assimilable than others. Those more closely related to the Nordish race are more assimilable than those more distantly related. Those with a lesser degree of racial difference from the Nordish race are more assimilable than those with a greater degree. Those whose genes are more compatible with Nordish genes are more assimilable than those whose genes are more conflicting. Those who are more assimilable can be successfully assimilated by a smaller proportionate ratio of Northern Europeans than those who are less assimilable. But assimilation has its unavoidable costs. Even a very dilute degree of intermixture has its effects, and these tend to be felt the most strongly where it hurts the race the most, in the most racially distinct elements, the core or heart of the race.

As a rule, the Ladogan, Alpine and Dinaric races can be regarded as the most assimilable by the Nordish race. Most of the peripheral Nordish types are in fact already a stabilized blend resulting from the mixture of central Nordish types with these races in a ratio of two to one in the Nordish favor. A five to one ratio mixture of central Northern Europeans with these races would be the equivalent of a one to one ratio mixture of peripheral with central Nordish types, with a resulting type about midway between the two. A six to one ratio mixture between central Northern Europeans and these races would be required for the result to favor the central Nordish type. In the United States, the present ratio of central Northern Europeans to these races is about 4.6 to one. This means that the Nordish capacity or capability for assimilation would be totally used, exhausted and even exceeded by the assimilation of these races alone, with no additional capability to spare for the assimilation of other, less assimilable, non-Nordish races.

The other Caucasoid races require a greater ratio of Northern Europeans to non-Northern Europeans for successful assimilation by the Nordish race, and the different non-Caucasoid subspecies require a much greater ratio. Their traits are often so discordant and incompatible with Nordish traits, and so dominant, that they, and their effects, persist even in very dilute mixture with Northern Europeans, significantly altering, diminishing and even negating more recessive Nordish traits, especially the more distinct ones. There are anomalies and individual exceptions to this rule. There are individuals who are mixtures of Nordish with a different subspecies in only a three to one ratio who are essentially Nordish. But while this demonstrates that racially mixed individuals should be racially classified on an individual basis, it is also true that when calculating the effects of intermixture on an entire population it is the rule, not the exceptions, the norm, not the deviations, that should be given primary consideration. By this rule, the non-Nordish races other than the Ladogan, Alpine and Dinaric should be classified as unassimilable.

At present, the greatest losses being suffered by the Nordish race are the result of simple nonreproduction. The low Nordish birthrate has already had, and continues to have, population effects more devastating and tragic than any war or plague within the Nordish experience. More than one out of four of the members of the Nordish race, including many of the most valuable and distinct, are lost from this cause. Intermixture with unassimilable non-Northern Europeans is only the second greatest cause of Nordish racial losses, claiming 10-20% of Northern Europeans at this time, mostly through intermixture with Mediterranids and Armenids.

As indicated by Table I, high non-Nordish immigration and birthrates are also major causes of the ongoing process of racial change, in which the Nordish race is being replaced by other races in its homelands. In this regard, what this table indicates for the United States is also true for many other Nordish homelands, from Canada and Australia to Great Britain and the Netherlands.

One of the common effects of this process of racial change can be referred to as racial displacement. This occurs whenever a member of another race takes the place or position of a person in our lives with whom we interact or form a relationship. These positions vary in importance. They can be major or minor, primary or secondary, central or peripheral, close or distant, but they all, in greater or lesser degree, have an effect, impact or influence on our lives. These positions can be a matter of free and discretionary choice, as in a husband or wife, or in the children, and relatives-in-law, that are the result of our choice in a mate. But mostly they are a matter of opportunity, over which we have little control if we are to interact or function in the larger society outside our home. Often they are in our own family, positions occupied by those chosen by a relative. The positions over which we have little or no control can be that of a step father or mother, a step brother or sister, a half brother or sister, the husband or wife of a sister or brother, nieces or nephews, a neighbor or co-worker, a teacher or student, an employer or employee, a barber or bank teller, the girl behind the drugstore counter or the children playing in the neighborhood.

Whenever one of these positions in our lives is filled by a member of another race they are taking the place of someone of our own race who would have filled that position in a homogeneous, monoracial society. A relationship or interaction that would have been with a member of our own race occurs instead with a member of another race. The more places in our lives taken by members of other races the fewer that remain for members of our own race, the more we are deprived of contact with members of our own race, and the more difficult and uncommon it becomes for us to form relationships with members of our own race. The places in our lives are filled more and more by members of other races, replacing members of our own race. We constantly see them and become used to seeing them. They become familiar and we often develop feelings of loyalty and friendship with them. But we fail to see the members of our own race who would have occupied those positions in our lives, and with whom we should have shared those feelings, if they had not been displaced by the members of other races.

Even the selection of a mate, which should be a matter of choice, is limited by opportunity and availability, factors largely beyond our control. As more and more of the prospective mate positions in our lives are taken by members of other races, displacing members of our own race, fewer positions are available for members of our own race, and our opportunities for finding a mate of our own race lessen. This greatly increases the likelihood that a mate of another race will be chosen. In this manner racial displacement promotes racial intermixture.

Racial nihilism is not an equal threat to all races. Some are more threatened than others. At present, and for the foreseeable future, multiracialism and the trend toward racial intermixture is endangering the independence and existence of the Nordish race more than any other. The homelands of the Mongoloid race in Asia, the Congoid race in Africa, the Dravidic race in India and other non-European races are not threatened by any movement toward multiracialism. Their races are in no peril of extinction through intermixture, immigration or displacement. There is no movement of alien races into their homelands. Non-Mongoloid races are not migrating into the Mongoloid homelands. Non-Congoid races are not migrating into the Congoid homeland. The Amerindian race in Latin America is in no demographic danger, but is thriving and increasing. In fact, the non-Nordish racial elements most affected by multiracialism are those now in the Nordish homelands, the very ones who are causing the destruction of the Nordish peoples by depriving them of the conditions of independence and separation they need to exist, while their own racial homelands, with the great majority of their racial populations, remain racially unthreatened, safe, secure, inviolate and homogeneous.

For the Nordish race intermixture is like the story of the ten little Indians, of whom there were fewer and fewer “and then there were none.” If racial nihilism has its way the Nordish peoples will fall before it like dominoes, and will not only be “the vanishing Americans,” but the vanishing Canadians, Britons, Scandinavians, Dutch, Germans and Australians as well. With their disappearance a great part of humanity’s diversity will be missing, irretrievably lost.

Racial nihilism, in denying the Nordish race the conditions it requires for existence and promoting the causes of its non-existence, is essentially denying its value and importance. Racial nihilism is saying that the continued existence of the Nordish race is not important, that it is not an important or vital part of life, creation and the universe, that it is expendable, that its loss or destruction is therefore not a legitimate subject for concern, and the prevention of its loss or destruction, its preservation, is not a legitimate or moral cause or goal. To racial nihilism, Nordish salvation, or continued existence, is not only not important, it is not desirable, as it would interfere with, and prevent, the achievement of its goal. To racial nihilism it is the nonexistence or extinction of the Nordish race that is important, not its continued existence or life.

The change now occurring is much more than political or economic change, much more even than religious, social or cultural change. It is racial change. Racial change is the most drastic form of change. It is permanent and irreversible change. It is more than a change in outward forms, it is a change in inner substance. It is biological change, genetic change, evolutionary change, a change of life forms, a change in creation, in life and in nature. One race, one life form, one evolutionary, biological, genetic line or continuum is being replaced by others. The drastic and irreversible change now being wrought by racial nihilism requires that its values and goals be carefully considered, questioned and examined, and, if the Nordish race is to be saved, challenged. Only one system of ideas and values, only one code of ethics and morality — racial preservationism — can challenge racial nihilism. Only it would dare to. Only it would have the will or reason to. Racial preservationism is the “to be” to racial nihilism’s “not to be.” Only it can save the Nordish race.

1. This is true even of the Amerindian race. At the time of the discovery of America by Columbus in 1492 only about 5% of the total Amerindian population lived north of the Rio Grande in what is referred to here as North America. The other 95% of the Amerindian race lived south of the Rio Grande, in what is now Latin America, or on the Caribbean Islands. Mexico alone had six times as many Amerindians as all of North America. The Amerindian race, including Mestizos, now numbers about 170 million. Only about 1.4% of these are native North American Indians, the rest being Latin American Indians or Latinos. The large influx of Mexican and other Latino immigrants into North America since 1965 has placed a large portion of the Amerindian population (27.4 million, or about 16%) north of the Rio Grande for the first time, but this Latino-Hispanic movement should be regarded as an expansion from their existing central homelands into neighboring, previously peripheral territory, rather than as a reclamation of formerly central territory by la Raza, “the race,” as they call themselves.
Source: McCulloch, Richard -  The Ideal and Destiny (1982)

———————————-

“When the white man is driven to desperation, there will be desperate times” – Ned Kelly, letter to Sir Henry Parkes (1879)

The Normans

by John Beddoe

Summary : An excerpt on the Normans from The Races of Britain.

CHAPTER VIII.

The Normans

The racial character of the immigration which is commonly and for shortness called Norman requires some consideration. The army of the Conqueror was drawn not only from Normandy, but from several other provinces of France. Flanders and Bretagne seem to have been very largely represented therein ; and Maine, the Isle of France, Champagne, Anjou, Burgundy, and more remote regions contributed in smaller degree. The Normans, however, William’s own subjects, were by far the largest element. This is shown, among other indications, by the small number of tenants in capite whom he established in England, who cannot be traced certainly or probably to noble Norman houses. Many of William’s foreign mercenaries forsook him during his Northern campaigns ; and Breton ballads tell us of the return of the Breton soldiery to their homes. It is noteworthy that the surname of Norman is not common in England nowadays, nor was it common, in the south Midlands at least, when the Hundred Rolls were compiled, though Breton and Le Breton were very frequent, and Franceys and Fleming moderately so, and there was a sprinkling of Picards and Maynards and Champneyses. Moreover, Norman was in use, especially among the English, as a Christian name. There are many Normans mentioned in Domesday. Where the word came to be used as a surname, it was usually, I think, a patronymic. The inference seems to be that Norman birth and origin were too common in England after the Conquest to furnish a means of distinguishing individuals, but that this did not apply to the other provinces, of Northern France.

The Normans of the Duchy were themselves a mixed breed ; and the component elements were the same, or very similar, to those which entered into the English race ; but their character, mainly perhaps from their peculiar history, but partly from a mixture of the elements in different proportions, did not much resemble that of ‘the people they subjugated. To form the Norman race, the Scandinavians, the ” Saxones Bajocassines,” and the native Kymro-Kelts had all contributed ; but the part of the Scandinavians in the mixture had been more important than in Southern England, and that of the Saxons less so. The proportions were, I think, nearer to those found in another very forcible combination — I mean the Lowland Scotch.

The following are details of the elements :

I. The Gauls whom the Romans found here belonged partly, at least, to the Belgic confederation, which included the right bank of the Seine, if not more. The Belgae were, we believe, a tall and rather longheaded race; whether they owed their dolichocephaly entirely to continual immigrations of the blond northern type, or whether the southern or Iberian longheads had left many representatives there, I will not say.* The short round-headed dark race of France, the true Celts of Broca, were doubtless also represented, but chiefly on the left bank of the Seine.

II. The influence of the Roman rulers of the country would be but slight.

III. Large numbers of Saxons were planted in Normandy in the latter days of the empire, or settled there subsequently of their own accord. Bayeux was the capital of the settlement, which probably extended to the Cotentin. About Bayeux they bore so large a proportion to the prior occupants that they were able, as in England, to propagate their language, which endured till the tenth or eleventh century. They were doubtless of the familiar physical types, the tall Grave-row and the more compact Batavian one; their heads generally long, their complexions and hair light.

IV. The Scandinavian Conquerors were partly Norwegian and partly Danish, the former especially numerous about the Seine, where Rollo’s companions chiefly settled, the latter in the Cotentin, where Harold Bluetooth’s army found lands to their liking. Physically, they must have been among the purest specimens of that restless, roving, adventurous type of man, blond or rufous, with straight profile and elliptical head, which evermore crops up among the people of the West of Europe whenever deeds of adventurous daring have to be done.

Scandinavia seems to have exhausted itself and its race by the swarming efforts of the ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries. Great part of the old kingly race, the sons of Woden, and of Scyrf and Skiold, and so many other mythical heroes, either emigrated or perished; and kindred, but not identical, breeds of men occupied their ancient seats. The spirit of adventure died out in Norway for generations after Harold Hardrada and Magnus Barefoot, and after Hakon the Good.

Doubtless the Norman leaders were in the main of true Scandinavian blood; but the rank and file must have resembled the Normans of the present day, a crafty, capable, energetic, brave and industrious people, presenting, among numerous variations, two leading physical types. Of these, one prevails to the east of the Seine, and is that described by W. Edwards as Kymric, with little modification : the men are tall, long-faced, aquiline-nosed, with square forehead and usually darkish hair.

The other is more abundant about Caen, Bayeux, and Coutances, where the men are very generally fair, and resemble the people of the North of England. At Cherbourg, fine specimens of the Anglo-Danish type are particularly abundant. I have prepared a, table of the colours of hair and eyes in several provinces of France, in which Normandy is largely represented. It will be seen that precisely where the history and politics of Normandy show that the Scandinavian and Saxon elements were strong, i.e., along the coast to the west of the Seine, there light colours of hair abound, and that they gradually darken as one travels eastwards or inland; also that on the whole the hair is rather darker than in most parts of England, but lighter than in Wales and the West. Head-measurements are much needed ; but Broca * found the index of breadth of 53 skulls from St. Arnould, Calvados, to be 78.77, a proportion larger than is prevalent in any part Britain, but well within the limits of mesocephaly. That of the Norman aristocracy may probably have been smaller; but the ecclesiastics of Norman or French nationality, who abounded in England for centuries after the conquest, and who, in many cases, rose from the subjugated Celtic layer of population, have left us a good many broad and rounded skulls. Thus the crania of three bishops of Durham (Ralph Flambard, Geoffrey Rufus, and Richard de Kellawe) yield an index of 85.6! while those of eight Anglian canons, dating from before the Conquest, yield one of 74.9.** So far, however, as the actual conquest and armed occupation of England was concerned, the aristocracy and military caste, who were largely of Scandinavian type, came over in much larger proportion than the more Belgic or Keltic lower ranks, insomuch that it has been said that more of the Norman noblesse came over to England than were left behind.

Bretons came over in large numbers, as was just now said, and some remained. One would expect to meet with them especially in Richmondshire,*** or in the great barony of Judicael of Totnes, a Breton lord who had large grants in South Devon, but whose principal tenants bore Norman rather than Breton names. The speech in that district was then, and long after continued to be, Cornish; and an immigration of Bretons would hardly leave lasting traces among a people so nearly identical with themselves in language and not very dissimilar in physical type. The Bretons have been carefully studied by Broca and by Guibert of St. Brieuc, and I have myself made about 800 observations on their colours. The prevailing type in Bretagne is short, sturdy, and swarthy, with dark brown or even black hair, but pretty often with blue or gray eyes. The heads are short and broad (though less so than in central France), and the face often corresponds, the features being coarse and broad, and sometimes Mongoloid. Everywhere, however, there is a minority with well-marked Kymric features and longer heads ; and this minority, who nearly resemble our Cornish folk, are especially numerous in the district of the Leonais, on the northern coast, where the colonists of the fifth century are supposed to have landed from the British Isles. Broca obtained average breadth-indices of 82 and 81.2 from two large series of skulls from the eastern and the north-western part of Bretagne respectively.

Frenchmen—that is, people from the dominion of the King of France, then comparatively small—and Picards, Mainards, Angevins, &c., came over in smaller numbers. The seigneurs of France still at that time retained a good deal of the old Frankish blood; but their followers, the men to whom national surnames would generally be applied, had very little of it. They must have added a little to the Keltic and Kymric elements in the English people.

Flemings, of Franco-Frisian or Belgo-Frisian breed, and therefore on the whole Teutonic in blood as well as in speech, came in in large numbers under William Rufus and Henry I., and settled en masse in the southern half of Pembrokeshire, in Gower, and in the low country of Glamorgan, where they consolidated the power of the Norman lords, and easily adopted the English language, so near akin to their own. They are thought to have spread up the Teivy into Emlyn, where the mixed breed is said to be tall and comparatively fair; here the Welsh language has completely prevailed. In those districts where English became and continued the common speech, local names, as Flemingston, Reynoldston, &c., still testify to the settlement of the colony; and some surnames of Flemish type, as Jenkins and Watkins, have gradually spread among the Welsh themselves by intermixture or adoption. The descendants of the colony, somewhat mixed with English and other elements, are said to resemble the English rather than the Welsh in their steadiness, candour, common-sense, and rather common-place turn of mind. In person, also, some differences are yet observable. There is more of light and less of dark hair in South Pembrokeshire and in the coastlands of Glamorgan than elsewhere in South Wales ; and the general aspect and features do not differ, in the majority, from ordinary English types. Professor Vanderkindere, after visiting South Pembrokeshire, told me the people looked to him rather English than Flemish.

Source : The Races of Britain. pp. 101-104

How important is the role of intelligence in the rise of civilization?

by Maria T. Phelps, University of Western Ontario

Abstract : Looks at the importance of intelligence in the rise of civilization. Racial differences in test scores as a reflection in the rise of civilization; Agriculture as a necessary precursor of civilization; Technological and social innovations as a result of a multiple causative network; Conceptualization of civilization as an event.

Lynn (1991b) contends that racial differences in intelligence test scores are also reflected in the rise of civilization. During the Neolithic period, only Mongoloids and Caucasoids exhibited all the defining characteristics of civilization such as agriculture, writing and number systems. In contrast to Negroid populations, Mongoloid and Caucasoid populations were exposed to the extreme cold of the main Wurm glaciation, resulting in a process of selection in favor of higher intelligence in the populations occupying the Eurasiatic land mass. Lynn (1991ab) suggests that this increase in intelligence was the causative agent responsible for the rise of civilization. The author argues, however, that although intelligence might be a necessary condition for the rise of civilization, it is not by itself a sufficient reason. She argues, that agriculture, a necessary precursor of civilization, developed when hunting and gathering were no longer ecologically viable. The technological and social innovations that followed were the result of a multiple causative network and cannot be attributed solely to increased intelligence. Finally, the problems of conceptualizing civilization as an event instead of a process are discussed.

An analysis of global intelligence test scores conducted by Lynn (1991b) revealed that Mongoloids living in North America and Asia obtain higher mcan IQ scores (101-108) than North American or European Caucasoids (100), and Caucasoids obtain higher mean IQ scores than American-Negroid (85) or African-Negroid (70) populations. Because intelligence is highly heritable (e.g., Bouchard, Lykken, McGec, Segal & Tellegen, 1990), Lynn (1991ab) argued that these differences in intelligence are genetically based. Rushton (1988) has expanded the list of heritable factors that serve to differentiate the three races to include physiological, reproductive and personality variables. Further, a number of studies examining the relationship between reaction time and intelligence also indicate a similar ordering of the three races, with Mongoloids exhibiting faster reaction times than Caucasoids and Negroids, respectively.

This latter finding is particularly noteworthy in two respects. One, reaction time is a measure that is unaffected by experience. Two, other studies, not concerned with the ranking of the races by intelligence, have demonstrated that reaction time is positively associated with intelligence (Vernon, 1993). The universality of racial differences in IQ test scores and reaction time measures supports Lynn’s (1991ab) claim that the explanation for these differences cannot be solely accounted for by environmental factors such as social and economic conditions.

Lynn (1991b) then makes the claim that racial differences in intelligence are reflected both in the level and complexity of civilization attained by the three races. He reasons that if scientific, intellectual and technological innovations are made by a few highly intelligent individuals then there will be more of these in a population where average intelligence is high. Consequently, Lynn argues (1991a) that Mongoloid and to a lesser extent Caucasoid populations, in contrast to Negroid populations, exhibited all the defining characteristics of civilization such as agriculture, mathematics, legal, ethical and religious systems. According to Lynn (1991ab) the level of intelligence necessary to create civilization, however, was not to be attained until the Neolithic period, approximately 9,000 years ago. The problems of survival during periods of extreme cold caused by the main Wurm glaciation (24,000-10,000 years ago) was the selective force that produced further increases in intelligence in Caucasoid and Mongoloid populations and this increase in intelligence laid the foundation upon which civilization is built (Lynn, 1991ab). Because Negroid population were not exposed to the main Warm glaciation, they did not undergo a transformation in intelligence that was a necessary precondition for the rise of civilization (Lynn, 1991ab).

It is only the latter point, that civilization is an intellectual achievement, that this author takes issue with. Most anthropologists feel that agriculture is the necessary first step toward urbanization and complex social and political systems that characterize civilization (Childe, 1967; Fiedel, 1992; Flannery, 1969; Hardesty, 1977; Henry, 1989; Layton, Foley & Williams, 1991; Redding, 1988; McCorriston & Hole, 1991; Perkins & Daly, 1974; Stigler, 1974). The adoption of agriculture as a subsistence mode occurred because hunting and gathering were no longer ecologically or economically feasible (Fiedel, 1992; Henry, 1988; Layton et al., 1991; Redding, 1988; McCorriston & Hole, 1991; Perkins & Daly, 1974). The explosion of cultural innovations that followed, for example, writing, number systems, standardization of measurement, and astronomy, were attempts to adapt to the changes brought about by the new agricultural economy by creating new tools (Childe, 1967; Fiedel, 1992; Flannery, 1969; Hardesty, 1977; Henry, 1989; Redding, 1988; Perkins & Daly, 1974; Stigler, 1974). It will be argued that the technological, organizational and ideological changes associated with the rise of civilization are the products of a multiple causative network and can not be attributed to a single causative agent, such as intelligence.

Agriculture: The Best of a Bad Job Strategy

Lynn (1991a) postulates that his theory solves a problem that has long perplexed anthropologists, namely why didn’t civilization and its precursor, agriculture, occur prior to the Neolithic revolution? Lynn (1991a) suggests that the reason is because prior to 10,000 years ago Homo sapiens had not attained a level of intelligence high enough to invent civilization. I argue that the reason why agriculture and civilization did not occur between 200,000-10,000 years ago is more likely due to the fact that the precultigens (i.e., ancestral populations of the major cereal grains, maize etc.) were absent because of the prevailing climatic conditions of the Pleistocene (Fiedel, 1992; Henry, 1989; Layton et al., 1991). To put it more simply, it is difficult to have agriculture as a subsistence mode when the plant resource base has not come into existence. The precultigens were selected by the early farmers because their short reproductive cycles and self-fertilization were easily manipulated, thus making them ideal candidates for domestication (McCorriston & Hole, 1991).

What has perplexed anthropologists, however, are two anomalies in the archaeological record of early farming communities in both the New and Old World. One, the archaeological record of early farming communities show that agriculture did not arise in lush environments but rather in marginal, arid semi-desertic ecological zones (Fiedel, 1992; Henry, 1989). The second anomaly concerns the apparent ill-health of the early farming populations, relative to both ancient and modern hunter-gatherers (Fiedel, 1992; Henry, 1989; Layton et al., 1991). For example, skeletal remains of early farmers exhibit numerous instances of nutritionally based and infectious diseases. The question that anthropologists ask is why did humans abandon the previously successful subsistence mode of hunting and gathering and switch to agriculture? One answer is that these early farmers had no choice. The changes in the prevailing climatic and environmental conditions in combination with increasing population size forced these people to abandon hunting and gathering and adopt an alternative subsistence mode, agriculture, in order to survive (Fiedel, 1991; Henry, 1989; Layton et al., 1991; McCorriston & Hole, 1991; Redding, 1989). Further, the mass extinction of the megafauna due to increasing aridity of the climate also necessitated the broadening of the resource base to include the harvesting of vegetal material.

In order to maximize their rate of return from the new resource base, nomadic hunters and gatherers became sedentary, devoting more time and energy to the efficient cultivation and harvesting of the cultigens. One of the peculiar side effects to adopting a sedentary lifestyle is the consequences it has on female fertility and fecundity. Because fertility in females is dependent upon the body fat to body weight ratio, decreasing the time spent in the search for and pursuit of mobile food items acts to increase females’ reproductive output (Henry, 1989). In addition the switch from a high-protein, meat-based diet to a high carbohydrate, low-protein, cereal-based diet also contributed to higher body fat to body weight ratios (Henry, 1989). Once a group becomes sedentary and adopts a plant-based diet, it sets into motion a vicious cycle of increased offspring production, which in turn requires increased food production, forcing groups to develop more effective means of resource extraction. In other words, necessity is the mother of invention. It is at this point in human history that intelligent individuals can make a difference by ensuring group survival through technological or intellectual innovation. In the absence of these ecological pressures, however, I argue that there is no need to in