It should be clear to anyone who has been paying even a little attention to western academia in recent decades that liberal academics do not see their job as being one of discovering and passing on knowledge. They instead see themselves as advocates of an ideological worldview, not as scholars. Rather than following facts wherever they may lead, they seek out only those facts that can be interpreted in such a way as to further their cause. All of their degrees, fellowships, journal articles, and the rest are nothing more than a shield against criticism by the masses, elitist credentialism used to silence anyone who does not accept their revisionist history.

One of the latest examples of this is provided by Dorothy Kim, an Assistant Professor of Medieval Literature at Brandeis University, who recently argued in Time that her fellow academics "must create counternarratives" so as to "reclaim the real history" from "white supremacists" and to combat "far-right medievalism." And her chosen "counternarrative" is that the Norse people "were not homogeneous," were rather "multicultural and multiracial," and that any idea that they were a homogeneous white population is an "imaginary past," a "white supremacist vision." In other words, "black vikings" were a reality, not a TV trope so ridiculous as to be blatantly comical. Interestingly, rather than spend any time proving her claim, she instead rants about the dangers of "right wing extremists" embracing European history and the value of non-whites producing revisionist fiction as assaults on "white supremacy."

Naturally, Kim faced backlash from many, and one of her responses in particular stands out as a shining example of the hostility of liberal academics and their use of credentialism as a shield. The person in question at first said, "Well, you do have to understand and respect the discipline of history... Dr. Kim’s training is not in the field of history. This matters." To this, Kim responded by saying, "I had a Fulbright in Iceland," listing the Scandinavian languages she can read, highlighting that she took history courses in college, and saying she had an article recently published in a historical journal. None of which is actually evidence for her properly respecting the field of history or that she is actually trained as a proper historian. Rather than even address people's reasonable concerns, she essentially said, "I am smarter than you, and you should just accept whatever I say without me bothering to prove it to you."

There are obvious flaws with her argument. For example, a Fulbright award has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not she is trained as a historian. Indeed, she is instead trained in the field of literature, which is why it makes sense yet is wholly irrelevant that she can read various Scandinavian languages. After all, being able to read poetry in Old Swedish does not make one a historian. Similarly, having an article published in a journal, even one run by historians, does not mean that anything and everything one claims is equally credible, and that is without even addressing the blatant political correctness that plagues so many journals today—push the right (liberal) narrative, and you can get published rather easily.

Let's set Kim's elitism aside, however, and look at the claim itself. If Scandinavia was indeed home to a "multicultural and multiracial" people, that should be easily proved through genetics, archaeology, the written record, and so on. For example, a study in 2013 looked at gene flow between populations, and it is clear from the graphic below that Sub-Saharan African admixture is virtually nonexistent in Europe and that Near Eastern and North African admixture is still quite minimal in Northern Europe. A similar study in 2011 found that such admixture can be attributed to Late Antiquity or the Muslim invasions of Europe. Neither study supports the idea that the Norse, or any other European ethnic group, were a truly multiracial people during the "Viking Age" of the 8th to 11th centuries, or really at any other point in time for that matter.

To counter the genetic evidence, liberal academics are quick to make broad claims such as saying that "Viking York" was home to someone of "African ancestry" who happened to be "well-to-do," but they rely on the fact that most people will simply take their word for it and not investigate further. Case in point, the "York African" is merely one skeleton out of 100 excavated from St. Benet's Church in York, England, that "may have been of African or mixed ancestry and may have migrated to York or descended from those that did." The same study reiterates multiple times throughout that such ancestry is merely possible, not conclusive, and was based on cranial/facial characteristics, not DNA testing. Furthermore, the skeleton was only 60% complete. But what should be obvious question marks do not prevent claims that this was a well-to-do African living in York at the height of the Viking Age.

Similarly, in 2011, BBC ran a headline claiming that an African skeleton in Stratford-upon-Avon was actually a Roman soldier. For those reading to the last paragraph, however, it was said that the skeleton showed signs of having been malnourished as a child, of having carried heavy loads, and that he suffered arthritis in his shoulders, hips, and lower back. The person quoted as supposedly saying the skeleton had been a Roman soldier had only included that speculation after saying he might have been a merchant but was more likely a slave based on the evidence. Within just a few short months though, BBC entirely dropped all but the claim that the skeleton was a Roman soldier and said, without evidence, that the African likely miscegenated and could be an ancestor of modern Britons. What had been mere speculation morphed into fact.

All of these cases highlight how disingenuous and devious liberals are in trying to twist history to serve their godless ideology. All they need is a random skeleton here or there that even remotely justifies their preferred interpretation, and they simply dismiss all other explanations, even those that are infinitely more likely. This is how a partial skeleton of uncertain ancestry and uncertain origin can be transformed into a rich African viking, or how an African showing all signs of having been a slave can morph into a Roman soldier retiring in the English countryside with a white wife. It does not matter that the narratives are nothing more than liberal fantasies because academia and the media collude to present their fantasies as reality, and those who wish to believe ignore all of the glaring holes in their stories.

People like Dorothy Kim and her colleagues are motivated by their godless hatred of the West. They fear nothing more than Europe being restored to what it once was, and they spend their careers trying to subvert and rewrite whites' past and erase their heritage. Why else would someone with no connection whatsoever to European history or literature seemingly dedicate themselves to it just to then try destroying it all from within? Kim has even made a habit of slandering academics who challenge her use of critical race and gender theory to subvert the field, and that is precisely the sort of behavior one would expect from a parasite. One will never see Dorothy Kim, or others of her sort, dedicating their lives and careers to subverting Chinese history because Chinese nationalists embrace their culture, but that is precisely what Kim and her ilk do to whites out of a fear that they too will remember who they are and that they have every reason to defend themselves against liberalism and globalism.