The House of David

"dawnbreak in the west"

Saturday, June 03, 2017

Karin Bojs, social-justice warrior

Karin Bojs, modern Swede, is oft-careful to signal that she's not with them, that those white race theorists aren't her sort of people. Her standpoint here has been noted in many reviews already. I swear, I was going to let this slide. But then I read the chapter summarising the Indo-European conquests.

Up to this point, Bojs had repeatedly commented about how immigration is beneficial (wouldn't have agriculture without it!). She had also noted that early Europeans had dark skin; this is true, but she repeated this, a few more times than I expected. Especially since we aren't much told about the complexion of the first farmers - we're just referred to Sardinia (and south Corsica). We're asked to sympathise with the Syrian people, but in strange locutions: the regional archaeology has been looted, to fuel the war, she tells us, but she doesn't tell us here that this damage has been done mainly by ISIS and by the other Islamists. Here the impression is that the Syrian government is the main culprit. We learn of agriculture for beer, which is fair enough; but not of the psychotropics likely used before beer, as Watson had taught us in The Great Divide. Is this another anti-racialist impulse? As for the genes surrounding intelligence, as we learnt from Harpending and even from Wade...

In that "Horse, Wheel, Language" chapter, where she discusses David Anthony and JP Mallory, she also discusses Mariya Gimbutas. Personally I've always thought Gimbutas was a kook who got it accidentally right, on, also accidentally, the most important fact of Indo-European prehistory. Bojs agrees with all this, so far as it goes (it's consensus opinion now). But then Bojs drifts into an aside on Roger Pearson and his The Journal of Indo-European Studies. She reports that Pearson had set up a "Northern League of North European Friendship", which in the 1950s permitted ex-Nazis to join.

From that, Bojs expresses much horror that Gimbutas and Mallory had worked with Pearson and his publication. She cannot abide Pearson's supposed existence of races hypothetically linked to different levels of intelligence. She permits Mallory some slack, though. First, she (ghoulishly) reports that Mallory looks forward to Pearson's imminent death: hopes to see one of his sons take over soon. Then Mallory toes the politically-correct line against Pearson's take on IQ. So maybe the professor isn't alt-right. But Bojs has her eye on him.

Meanwhile Bojs notches another strike against Gimbutas: one of Gimbutas' publications had noted the Spanish Inquisition and Stalin as particularly dark for women; this did not note such against the Third Reich. Bojs sees this omission as so glaring that it points to a pro-Nazi bias. I would counter that Gimbutas perhaps was sincere, that she genuinely thought that the Nazis were feminist, in their way, by contrast with mediaeval Spain and especially by contrast with the Soviets. In the English language we now have a book Hitler's Furies, which documents the ways in which some women in the late 1930s thought that Nazism was the bee's-knees, and gleefully migrated east to help the great racial crusade. The Soviets by contrast went on a mass rape throughout the Bloodlands when they took it over. Is Gimbutas really a latter-day Hitler's Fury? or did she, as a Lithuanian, actually witness in Eastern Europe what Bojs the Swede didn't?

Bojs imputes no such guilt-by-association upon any scholars or associations who maintained Soviet ties. Bojs distrusts only pan-European asabiya and race-realism. And then Bojs goes out of her way to put other scholars on the spot, to interrogate their associations.

This is vile. Bojs behaves here more like a Soviet commissar than like a reporter.

posted by Zimri on 15:30 | link | 0 comments

On this site



Random crap

Powered By Blogger TM

Property of author; All Rights Reserved