Type I follies.
Concerning the Etruscans and their origins, I’ve found the works of Prof. Cavalli-Sforza to be the most convincing. Specifically, he posits that the Etruscans developed in an autochthonous fashion from the earlier Iron Age Villanovan culture.
Research from Cavalli-Sforza’s collaborators, using his methodologies.
…support the hypothesis that the genetic structure of Italy still reflects the ethnic stratification of pre-Roman times.
And these are those autochthonous Etruscans – who portrayed themselves as darker than even modern day S. Italians.
There’s a very good possibility that the original peoples of Italy were swarthier, and more dissimilar to Crowley, than are the Italians of today.
Since Crowley is so obsessed with “Viking Supermen” he can reflect on the absence of such men in contemporary Scandinavian populations, which are generally characterized by racial liberalism, pacifism, feminism, openness to invasion, and sociopolitical conformity. Changes in culture and behavior can occur without Kempian fantasies.
Frost’s genetic pacification is a more realistic possibility:
Over the last 10,000 years, the human genome has changed at an accelerating rate. The change seems to reflect adaptations to new social environments, including the rise of the State and its monopoly on violence. State societies punish young men who act violently on their own initiative. In contrast, non-State societies usually reward such behavior with success, including reproductive success. Thus, given the moderate to high heritability of male aggressiveness, the State tends to remove violent predispositions from the gene pool while favoring tendencies toward peacefulness and submission. This perspective is applied here to the Roman state, specifically its long-term effort to pacify the general population. By imperial times, this effort had succeeded so well that the Romans saw themselves as being inherently less violent than the "barbarians" beyond their borders. By creating a pacified and submissive population, the empire also became conducive to the spread of Christianity--a religion of peace and submission. In sum, the Roman state imposed a behavioral change that would over time alter the mix of genotypes, thus facilitating a subsequent ideological change.
So, pacified Romans of the 5th century passively watched as Germanic barbarians sacked Rome; today, pacified Scandinavians watch as non-White barbarians sack Stockholm.
How does that square with the idea that the “high trust hunter gatherers” evolved to be egalitarian altruists from the very start? No fear, Der Movement Spindoctors will get out Occam’s Butterknife and spread around some more pseudoscientific speculation and it’ll all work out just fine.
How immigration destroyed Rome. No, not all the “slaves” and consequent “racial degeneration.” Instead it was the acceptance of unassimilable hordes of German tribes. The Merkelization of Rome.
And with that, enough with Crowley and the TOO disaster.