How about some good news for a change? Once again, we see one of National Socialism’s greatest strengths: it is based on facts.

What follows is sort of a “tip of the iceberg” narrative. We are now, finally, just barely, starting to see a return to fact-based scientific inquiry regarding the nature of human physiology and history. A recognition based on genetics that people are, in fact, different, and ethnicity is real.

Since the Second World War, this common-sense approach to science has taken a backseat to globalist agendas and altruistic ignorance. In the process, whole swaths of people have been erased from history. One of those peoples are my ancestors, and probably yours too: the Indo-Europeans (often referred to as Aryans).

I’ll be honest: I have always been uneasy with the Aryan designation and the idea of Indo-Europeans per se. Now I know why: my discomfort was by design. Being a product of post-WWII schooling, I, perhaps like you, had the “approved narrative” drilled into my brain discounting ancient tribal ancestry and the impact of tribal migration on world history and modern populations. As anyone who has been to a public school in the United States in the last 50 years knows, we are taught that all people are the same, regardless of where they, or their ancestors, came from. Drawing distinctions between ethnic groups, to say nothing of races, is considered a big “no-no”. Walk down the hallway of any grade-school and you will see tributes to people of every race, except White. Of course, over time, simple observation of reality began to suggest something about this “approved narrative” wasn’t right. But facts in the mainstream literature were hard to come by. Even such popular and often referenced bulwarks of leftist doctrine as Wikipedia refer to Indo-Europeans as a “hypothetical ethnic group”, adhering unabashedly to the “approved narrative.” But, and here is the good news, that narrative is starting to crumble under modern aDNA (ancient DNA) evidence.

In my self-guided education of National Socialism (wouldn’t it be great if we had a National Socialist University? Maybe someday), I naturally have looked to the writings of those who preceded us: Adolf Hitler, Alfred Rosenberg, Walter Darré, the educational pamphlets of the SS, etc. And while they generally resonated with me and rang true, specific scientific assertions regarding the relationship between biology and culture, pre-history, and racial origins were always tempered by the “approved narrative” I was taught in school which floated around in the back of my subconscious mind. After all, it was not until 1928 that it was proven DNA could carry genetic information, and not until 1952 that DNA’s role in heredity was confirmed. How could those early authors know what they were talking about?

It turns out, they did.

With a little more thought, I probably could have figured it out for myself. After all, the reference to “blood” as a source of heredity was often used, and even if the early National Socialist authors were not aware of DNA as such, they still recognized the results of genetics, whatever served as the carrier of the genes.

For example, consider this quote from Alfred Rosenberg taken from The Myth of the 20^th Century:

Today, it’s necessary to break the hypnotic spell, and not deepen the sleep of our generation, nor to preach the irreversibility of fate, but to assert those values of the blood which, once understood, can give a new direction to the younger generation and make possible a Renaissance of culture and breeding. From a clear understanding of the nature of the past struggles of the organically determined Indo-European peoples against alien forces, and after comprehending the development of our own natural life and our characteristic attitudes to the universe, we feel and understand the longing of our generation to reject the transitory present-day, and to recognize an eternal now.”

Another contemporaneous quote comes to mind. This one is from Walter Darré in his work the New Nobility of Blood and Soil, dated 1930:

It has been shown…that the whole of IndoEuropean culture and civilization, especially the non-Germanic European cultures and civilizations since the Migration Period, have always had the same man —the same race —as its foundation, and that all of these civilizations consistently collapsed when this race disappeared from them. A uniform scientific theory had to be established to account for the racial commonalities in all of these cultures and state creations…

Walter Darré ~ Neuadel aus Blut und Boden, 1930

Now we get to the heart of the matter, as I read an article recently that I think is important and that speaks to this very subject, and I offer this abridgment for your consideration, trusting it still conveys the authors intent. Naturally I recommend the article in full for those wishing to learn more. By way of a disclaimer, please note that neither the author nor the publisher of the article are in any way associated with this blog, National Socialism, or any other ideology that I am aware of. Indeed, the article generally avoids politics altogether, focusing more on noting a paradigm shift in anthropological and archaeological research as these sciences, begrudgingly, return to reaching conclusions based on facts, not agendas, and how these new facts support older ideas. The publisher is Quillette, an Australian-based online magazine. The author is Tristan S. Rapp, a biologist and essayist based at Aarhus University in Denmark, and co-founder of the website theextinctions.com.

Ancient DNA and the Return of a Disgraced Theory

Tristan S. Rapp, 28 May 2025

For a discipline dedicated to the study of the immutable, history is nonetheless ever-changing. Just as there were revolutions in the past, there have been revolutions in our understanding of it, and few have been as dramatic as the one currently engulfing the fields of prehistory and archaeology. The rediscovery of the Indo-Europeans—dubbed by an article in the New Scientist the “most murderous people of all time”—is the story of our ancestors, of technological progress, and of an ongoing academic upheaval. It is a story of some of the greatest findings in modern research, and of the dismal narrow-mindedness and motivated reasoning displayed by scholars who really ought to know better.

The Rise and Fall of Culture-History

European archaeology has its roots in the antiquarianism and treasure collecting that arose during the Early Modern period. By the 19th century, scientific archaeology in its recognizably modern form was consolidating, though divided into two main branches—the classical archaeologists, concerned with Greece, Rome, and the early documented periods of European societies, and the prehistoric archaeologists (or “prehistorians”), whose work was characterized by the ideas of the Enlightenment.

Throughout the 1800s, these two branches began to merge, and there was a growing desire to delineate the roots and traits particular to modern nations. One personage looms large in this story. His name was Gustaf Kossinna (1858–1931). Synthesizing prior authors, Kossinna proposed a new historical framework that became known as the “culture-historical model,” which hypothesized the movement of culturally—and biologically—distinct peoples as the dominant driver of historic and prehistoric cultural change.

Kossinna’s thesis was that prehistoric Europe can be divided into Kultur-Gruppen—cultural units that correlate directly with specific ethnic groups—and that the movement of a Kultur-Gruppe entails the movement of a physical group of people, and not merely a bundle of cultural artifacts. Kossinna’s model allowed him to pinpoint the history of ancient kinship groups as they migrated, conquered, and settled. This was the crux of his model, and he termed it Siedlungsarchäologie—“settlement archaeology.”

However, the rise of the culture-historical model cannot be divorced from the racialist, nationalist, and colonialist ideas that characterized late 19th-century and early 20th-century Western thought. All ideas are developed and applied in a particular milieu, and the culture-historical model arose during the high age of European imperialism and race science. Kossinna’s research was as much an exercise in the valorisation and glorification of the German volk as it was investigative science for science’s sake. He described the superiority of the Germanic peoples over the Slavs and other neighbors and derived the origin of the Indo-European languages from a fair-haired, blue-eyed “Aryan” people he traced back to the Maglemosian culture in Northern Germany and Denmark. Like other academics at the time, he divided all ethnicities into Kulturvölker, culturally creative peoples, and Naturvölker, culturally passive, “natural” peoples. It is therefore not hard to see why later archaeologists treated his work with great caution. [Ed.- cf. Hitler’s writings on Race and Culture in Mein Kampf, Vol. I, chapter 11].

The influence of the culture-historical model grew throughout the early 20th century, and for a while, it became the dominant archaeological model in the West and beyond. It remains the predominant interpretive frame in many parts of the world today, including in much of Asia and Africa. In the West, however, Kossinna’s very influence would also be his undoing. Kossinna died in 1931, shortly before the Nazis seized control of his country, but the applicability of his ideas to their aims ensured their enshrinement in the educational curricula of the Third Reich. When the Nazis fell, Kossinna’s ideas were discredited by association, along with the intellectual old guard that had adopted them. Ideas that elevated cultures and ethnicities as distinct and important units, that stressed conflict and conquest as core factors in human history, and which bore in any way the whiff of nationalism and racialism were banished from the intellectual mainstream.

In their place, the postwar era saw the emergence of “processual archaeology,” which held that human behavior and environmental constraints, not migrating tribal groups, were central to cultural development. This model would, in turn, give way to “postprocessualism,” [which] favored a postmodern approach that emphasized human consciousness, social conflicts, gender dynamics, and a pronounced subjectivism. These movements changed the focus of archaeology from groups to individuals and artifacts, rejected the correlation of material cultures with biologically related kinship groups, and downplayed the importance of violence and tribal identity in shaping prehistory.

In the place of conquest and large-scale migration, postwar scholars elevated trade, intermarriage, and the peaceful mingling of peoples and ideas as the dominant culture-shaping processes….Ethnic identity came to be understood as something constructed rather than grown and conserved—social fables that communities tell about themselves. Archaeological cultures were now said to have only the loosest relationship to biological realities.

Over the last few decades, a deconstructive approach to ethnic groups has even extended to historically documented migrations and conquests, from the Anglo-Saxon invasions of England to the Dorian invasion of Greece and the Indo-Aryan invasion of India….[asserting] distinctly non-biological processes [and challenging] even the basic definability of past cultures ….Then the geneticists arrived.

The aDNA Revolution

For the last few years, the field of ancient DNA (“aDNA”) had been experiencing massive growth and rapid advancement. What is aDNA? In brief, it is the study of ancient genetic material, principally from human ancestors but also from other species. [A significant breakthrough occurred in the] late 2000s, when Swedish geneticist Svante Pääbo and colleagues in Leipzig, Germany began developing novel techniques for the extraction and analysis of very ancient DNA. This work was originally undertaken to study, not the contours of human history, but the genetics of Neanderthals and their Denisovan cousins.

Two of Pääbo’s apprentices identified a potential application: Adopting the technique for the sequencing of whole genomes.

What was the main consequence of this great technical leap? In short, the complete collapse of one historical paradigm, and the rise—or return—of another. The first bombshells dropped in 2015 with the publication of a paper, the mere title of which sent shockwaves through the fields of archaeology and linguistics: “Massive migration from the steppe was a source for Indo-European languages in Europe.”

For decades, the dominant understanding had been that the modern population of Europe was a mixture of aboriginal Ice Age hunter-gatherers and farmers who began arriving about 6,000 years ago. [Previous studies, lacking the new ability to extract ancient DNA had] fit comfortably with the existing archaeological paradigm, which could accommodate a gradualistic introduction of Near Eastern ancestry: neighbor mixed with neighbor, ideas and spouses were exchanged, and ancestry and technology alike permeated Europe like a drop of paint in the water, thinning as it spread.

The 2015 paper revealed that a crucial element had been missing. While the mixing of these two groups was indeed the origin of the great majority of ancestry in southern Europe, this was not the case in the north. The people there derived the majority of their ancestry from a third group not anticipated by contemporary researchers, but foreshadowed by the archaeologists of an earlier age. The extraordinary fact that emerges from ancient DNA is that just five thousand years ago, the people who are now the primary ancestors of all extant northern Europeans had not yet arrived.

Around the end of the Neolithic era, just under 5,000 years ago, and on the cusp of the Bronze Age, a new people had burst into Europe from the steppes above the Black Sea. Bearing a martial culture, an affinity for horses, and a predatory social structure, they swept away the old world they found and inaugurated a new one in its place. They were almost certainly the carriers of the Indo-European languages now spoken throughout nearly all of Europe and beyond. The “beyond” here is significant, for further papers followed, and their findings about India were almost as controversial as those about Europe. After a sojourn in north-central Europe, this research now showed, Ukrainian-derived pastoralists from the steppe had entered India from the northwest during the Bronze Age, bringing the Indo-European languages with them.

Kossinna Smiles

Needless to say, the aDNA revolution has not been without controversy. The findings of the aDNA revolution could scarcely have been calibrated to elicit more chaos or consternation in the archaeological mainstream. They most likely constitute the incipient stages of what Thomas Kuhn called a “shift of paradigms,” whereby an entire explanatory framework is exposed as inadequate and subsequently overturned. Unsurprisingly, this process tends to provoke great displeasure among established academics, who immediately perceive the threat the new paradigm poses to their existing work. The fluid, osmotic, ethnically ambiguous model of postwar archaeology is at least complicated, if not debunked, by the new findings. What has been recovered in its place—as the astute reader may have already noted—is a picture resembling an older, more worrisome archaeological consensus.

[Proponents of the existing non-racial and ethnically ambiguous approach to archaeological and genetics are fighting back]. In 2021, a paper was published titled, “Ethics of DNA research on human remains: five globally applicable guidelines.” Its authors introduce themselves as “a group of archaeologists, anthropologists, curators and geneticists representing diverse global communities and 31 countries…

European archaeologists have worked for decades to deconstruct narratives that claim ownership of cultural heritage by specific groups. Ancient DNA research ethics in a West Eurasian context must follow this movement away from the use of self-identified notions of ancestral connections to certain land…”

The possibility that the new aDNA findings might simply constitute a refutation of the postwar archaeological consensus is not merely contested but categorically rejected—not on empirical grounds, but on the basis of ideology and fear. It cannot be true, it must not be true, evidence be damned. [Others argue that the aDNA results simplify what is an inherently complex issue.] Nevertheless, an event or process may be, in its details and influencing factors, complex, whilst nonetheless forming a unified, coherent and, yes, simple overall narrative. Is it overly simple to say that the Norse language and the Dane axe were carried out of Scandinavia beneath the mast of the longship? Sometimes, history is simple, however unsophisticated this may sound to the encultured academic. That does not mean, of course, that there was not a host of complicating variables which preceded, enabled, and modulated all these events. Simple does not mean simplistic. But it does mean that sometimes the ultimate answer to a grand historical process really does reduce to: “A certain group of men with large axes rode out and applied said axes to another group of less competently equipped men.”

The old proponents of the culture-history model and the modern, cutting-edge geneticists arrived at the same general picture of human dispersal and cultural turnover independently. To the disinterested observer, this ought to offer a compelling indication of the picture’s veracity. Only to the entrenched academic partisan will it appear as proof of the need for vigilance and mental athleticism, lest the forces of brute observation and deduction gain an advantage against the kingdom of motivated reasoning.

Conclusion

The pursuit of history can easily become an effort to recover a past, not as it was, but as we wish it had been. Yet whatever squeamishness, scruples, and unease we may harbor against the signs of an unedifying past, signs they remain, and it is the duty of the scientist and the historiographer to report it as he or she finds them. Something is in fact either true or it is not: If it appears to be true, it is the duty of the honest scientist to report it; if it appears to be false,  to reject it.

The scope of our investigations into prehistory have been greatly enlarged by the new tools of aDNA, and there is much to be gained by their employment in pursuit of knowledge and understanding. We are living in a time of great excitement, innovation, and discovery—for the ones, that is, who will accept and embrace it.

[End]

There is a lot to unpack and think about here. But I take great pleasure in finding at least one example of the Bard’s axiom: “the truth will out.” I think it is also telling that many of the historical assertions underpinning the racial theories of the Third Reich and National Socialism are finally being revisited and found to be reasonably accurate, contrary to everything taught in schools for the last 80 years. As I said at the beginning, what we are seeing now is just the tip of an old iceberg. If we can continue to hold the feet of the globalists-communists-leftists to the fire and insist they “follow the science”, we may yet see a great deal more.

Amerika Erwache!

SUBSCRIBE
(It’s free and mostly painless)