Sunday, July 24, 2011

Turning Hate On Its Head Racial Purity

By James Curcio
I'm not the first to say that the lunatic that bombed Oslo was a white Christian neo nazi really throws a monkey-wrench in all of the idiotic terrorist racial profiling.

But here's another one that'd probably really get his panties in a bunch. And he's not the only one. It seems fairly likely that Africans are in fact more racially pure than, well. Everyone else. Go fucking figure. That is, if we're talking about racial purity in terms of homo sapien. The rest of us, you see, are part Neanderthal. Of course, "racial purity" has been the underlying myth supporting Nazism and many other groups that fixate on the boogeyman of the outsider or demonic Other. They're going to have a tough time with this one, although I'm sure they'll dismiss or ignore it.
The evidence has been mounting for years that early humans and Neanderthals interbred, but now it’s pretty much a certainty. Part of the X chromosome found in people from outside Africa originally comes from our Neanderthal cousins.
It’s kind of amazing to think that, as recently as just a few years ago, the scientific consensus was that humans and Neanderthals were completely separate species and probably didn’t interbreed. Since then, a ton of new evidence has come to light to change that position, and now new research from Damian Labuda of the University of Montreal more or less completes this big reversal. (Disinfo)
Pre-order a copy of The Immanence of Myth, published by Weaponized. (Or sign up to be notified of its release on


  1. ...or embrace it. Neanderthals are generally believed to have been more intelligent than Homo sapiens (see:, and a Google search will turn up plenty of other sources). Watch how fast the supremacists embrace this story as evidence of European racial superiority.

  2. I knew that bit, but I hadn't put 2 and 2 together.

    This'll be interesting.

    Though it's worth mentioning that it's not just white Europeans that inherited those genes, from what I can tell. But usually people take the facts that match the story they want, and leave the rest on the floor.

  3. News is still coming in on this, but the killer apparently criticizes Nazism in his manifesto for what he sees as an over-reliance on state planning. He also considers himself strongly pro-Israel and cites one or two Jewish thinkers favorably. Sounds like a conservative fanatic rather than a neo-Nazi.

  4. He's a racial supremacist, thus the "neo-" part. A lot of what I'd call neo-nazism is actually pretty critical of good ol' "normal" nazism. ;p

  5. News is still coming in on this, but it seems the killer actually criticized Nazism in his manifesto for over-reliance on state planning. He was also strongly pro-Israel (or at least pro-nationalist strains of Israeli politics) and cited one or two Jewish thinkers favorably. . Sounds like a conservative fanatic but not a neo-Nazi.

  6. (Sorry about the repeat post.)

    Checked out your comment and you are absolutely correct! I guess they just don't make Nazis like they used to. In an unprecedented show of post-mortem unity, Hitler and my late Polish-Jewish grandparents are spinning in their graves together.

  7. A further twist: the killer consciously compared Norway's Labour Party, his ultimate victims, to the Nazis. Here's a quote from his blog, circa 2009:

    "The conservatives dare not openly express their viewpoints in public because they know that the extreme Marxists will trump them. We cannot accept the fact that the Labour Party is subsidising these violent "Stoltenberg jugend", who are systematically terrorising the politically conservative."

    This guy sounds a lot like an angrier version of what is considered mainstream American conservatism. Calling left-wingers "Nazis" is not uncommon on the American right and neither is the belief that "Marxist multiculturalists" abet fundamentalist Islam.



Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...