The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Austen Layard Archive
Anthropology’s Obsession with African Origins
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

There is renewed interest in the “Out of Africa” theory of human origins because of a study showing sub-Saharan Africans interbred with an extinct hominid species. This article, originally posted in January, 2014, provides other reasons for being skeptical of African origins and shows how the “Out of Africa” theory has been promoted partly for reasons of political correctness.

When did humans first become human? The answer is far from simple, because the question assumes that sometime in the past, humans achieved modernity and were locked within an evolutionary loophole where natural selection no longer applies. Despite the absurdity of this scenario, and in stark contrast to empirical data, it is widely believed that humans have not changed physically or mentally for the past 50,000 years or so.

After the discipline of anthropology was hijacked by Cultural Marxism and it became crimethink to observe average group differences, a preoccupation with tracing everything back to Africa developed. Africa does have an outstanding archaeological record revealing many firsts: the first bipedal hominids, the first stone tools, and the first anatomically modern humans that looked roughly like we do today (a vertical forehead, round skull, flat face, and prominent chin). But largely due to the anti-racist politicization of anthropology, the currently accepted evolutionary paradigm is that Africa was the source of an intellectual watershed event sometime between 100,000 to 50,000 years ago, and that it was only a matter of time before this new breed of clever Africans spread out and replaced all the dim-witted archaic human populations in the rest of the world, such as Neanderthals. (As used here, the term ‘racist’ refers to views that race and racial differences are a legitimate variable in research on humans, with none of the usual negative connotations found in the popular and scientific literature.) The concept of behavioral modernity as it has been applied to the Paleolithic seemingly arose out of the Cultural Marxist obsession with proving that Africans are just as good as, and even better than the evil racist nineteenth-century White scientists who dared to rank societies and point out that advanced civilization never developed in certain areas of the world, such as south of the Sahara.

The problem with this paradigm is that, using the same set of criteria proposed by those scholars pushing for an African origin for modern behavior, it seems to have originally appeared in Europe instead, when modern humans first arrived there and replaced Neanderthals. Furthermore, the so-called modern behavior in the African Stone Age is not qualitatively different from that of Neanderthals, who were supposedly replaced by cognitively-advanced modern humans.

Why all the confusion and intellectual gymnastics to argue for an African origin for modern human behavior? The reason can be traced back to the early twentieth century, when an anti-racist political agenda was injected into anthropological scholarship, which eventually was influenced and transformed by critical theory of the Frankfurt School, with its overtones of anti-establishment and anti-Western sentiment aimed at the Marxist goal of liberating oppressed groups. It has been debated elsewhere whether such anti-racist sentiments were sincere, or in contrast were used as a means to advance ethnic Jewish group interests while simultaneously de-ethnicizing non-Jewish elites [1]K. Macdonald, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements, Long Beach: California State University, 1998.. Regardless, this Cultural Marxist ideology has served as a hindrance to scientific inquiry and has resulted in unfortunate situations where data are simply ignored when they do not follow the accepted paradigm, which evokes the exclusionary tactics used by the Boasian intellectual movement against dissenters.

The Anti-Racist Crusade in Anthropology

At the turn of the twentieth century, a spark was lit in the academic world of anthropology that would drastically change its course and politicize the discipline to serve as a mouthpiece for the far left. This spark, lit by Franz Boas, the “Father of American Anthropology,” introduced the concept of cultural relativism and involved the heavy use of an anti-racist political ideology. The Boasian tradition would later dovetail with critical theory, created by Cultural Marxists of the Frankfurt School, in that dominant (Western) societies and their supporting ideologies were seen as the primary obstacle to human liberation. Thus, critical theory is inherently anti-Western because the dominant ideologies at that time were Western in origin.

This freedom fighter mentality against traditional Western ideals and society has been a mainstay in anthropology since it was introduced at the turn of the twentieth century, and has arguably metastasized into a political-philosophical juggernaut that crushes all dissent and has resulted in the railroading of the discipline into meaningless postmodern, unscientific pursuits of self-interest, such as the field of feminist archaeology (which is so 1980s and has since been eclipsed by black feminist archaeology).

Many of today’s anthropologists are infused with Cultural Marxist cultural relativism and the desire to be a freedom fighter railing against mainstream thought. The irony of course is that Cultural Marxism is the mainstream, completely dominating all aspects of Western academia and media.

Despite major scientific advances in various aspects of anthropology such as radiometric dating and genomic studies, Cultural Marxism remains at the helm, firmly keeping the discipline on the straight and narrow path of anti-racism and disingenuous cultural relativism that overemphasizes the virtues of non-Western societies while simultaneously de-emphasizing the positive aspects of Western civilization.

The Legacy of Franz Boas

Franz Boas. Photo from National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.

Franz Boas. Photo from National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.

The person most responsible for saturating anthropology with Cultural Marxism was Franz Boas, a German-Jewish émigré who found his academic home at Columbia University in 1896, where he stayed until his retirement in 1936. Boas had a profound impact on the field of anthropology, and was unashamedly political in his orientation, placing great emphasis on fighting scientific racism. Boas’s anti-racist enthusiasm was shared by other Jewish intellectuals of the Frankfurt School, which relocated from Germany to Columbia University in New York City in 1934.

Shortly after establishing the department of anthropology at Columbia, Boas turned his attention to “the race problem,” and part of this effort involved nurturing Africa-centric studies in the social sciences. Contrary to the common view at that time that sub-Saharan Africa was a cultural backwater, Boas claimed that “the Negro race had contributed its liberal share” of cultural inventions and civilized accomplishments [2, p. 313]. Boas claimed that African cultural inventions in agriculture and iron smelting were crucial to “the advancement of the human race.” Subsequent research has shown that neither agriculture nor iron smelting was an African invention, despite decades of intensive investigation within Africa that was influenced by this idea originated by Boas. Boas was also the first to advocate for an African Institute and Museum, and the adoption of a Black studies curriculum at universities [3]H. S. Lewis, “The Passion of Franz Boas,” American Anthropologist, vol. 103, no. 2, pp. 447-467, 2001..

Anthropology becomes a Cog in the Wheel of the Radical Left

I went to the University of Chicago for a while after the Second World War. I was a student in the Department of Anthropology. At that time they were teaching that there was absolutely no difference between anybody. They may be teaching that still. (Kurt Vonnegut, Slaughterhouse Five, Ch. 1)
Kurt Vonnegut, Slaughterhouse-Five

They sure are. Little has changed since Vonnegut’s wry observation.

Beginning in the 1950’s, a new crop of scholars attempted to change the course of anthropology to a more rigidly scientific discipline, sometimes viewing Boas’s ideas as old-fashioned. A few scholars, however, exacted more searing criticism of Boas, claiming that his politicization of anthropology was primarily self-serving in that it supported primarily ethnic Jewish group interests. Boas was accused of nepotism by being principally receptive to Jewish students and prejudiced against American gentile scholarship [4]L. A. White, “The Social Organization of Ethnological Theory,” Rice University Studies, vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 1-66, 1966.. It was also contended that Boas’s political leanings served two primary purposes: to combat anti-Semitism and to ensure that Boas and other European Jews achieved domination of anthropology in the United States [5, p. 139]. The same scholar concluded that Boas, in all of his talk of emancipating blacks and other minorities from perceived oppression, was essentially using Africans and other dark-skinned people as pawns in a game against non-Jewish scholars to obtain Jewish hegemony in the discipline of anthropology [5, p. 139].

But most criticisms of Boas were primarily methodological. The core tenants of Cultural Marxism stuck like glue in the field of anthropology: radical egalitarianism, cultural relativism, etc. Even Boas’s most vocal opponents were dyed-in-the-wool socialists, one of whom was under investigation by the FBI after his gushing praise of the Soviet Union during a 1929 speech at the American Association for the Advancement of Science was published in Pravda. Boas and his academic brood remain profoundly influential in anthropological research even today. The urge to debunk evolutionist claims of outmoded (largely non-Jewish) scientists has carried on through the twentieth century, perhaps culminating in Steven Jay Gould’s Mismeasure of Man (originally published in 1981), a highly influential book that was assigned reading in nearly every college course dealing with human evolution. Gould’s book is still read as gospel in many college courses, despite the fact that scholars have since debunked some of Gould’s own research.

Completing his graduate work at Columbia University in 1967, Gould became a part of the Jewish intellectual movement at that institution spearheaded by Boas. Among his litany of attacks against early racialist scientists in Mismeasure of Man, Gould claimed that nineteenth century physical anthropologist Samuel George Morton had manipulated the brain volumes of human skulls to favor a bias that Europeans had larger brains and Africans smaller ones. In a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black, a group of scholars recently re-measured the original sample of Morton’s skulls, revealing that Morton’s data were correct, and that Gould was the one who was guilty of manipulating data and making bogus claims to push his political agenda [6]J. E. Lewis, D. DeGusta, M. R. Meyer, J. M. Monge, A. E. Mann and R. L. Holloway, “The Mismeasure of Science: Stephen Jay Gould versus Samuel George Morton on Skulls and Bias,” vol. 9, no. 6, 2011.. In the chapter claiming to debunk Morton, Gould wrote with much condescension and moral triumphalism:

Liars, if discovered, are excommunicated; scientists declare that their profession has properly policed itself, and they return to work, mythology unimpaired, and objectively vindicated. The prevalence of unconscious finagling, on the other hand, suggests a general conclusion about the social context of science. For if scientists can be honestly self-deluded to Morton’s extent, then prior prejudice may be found anywhere, even in the basics of measuring bones and toting (sic) sums. [7, pp. 87–88]

Now that Morton’s research has been exonerated, and after Gould’s own blundering mismeasurements have been exposed, one wonders how Gould would have judged himself: as a liar deserving of scientific excommunication, or simply as a self-deluded ideologue to be pitied and ignored?

The Evolution of Modern Humans

Has anthropology’s love affair with Africa produced anything other than an outlet for fashion-challenged celebrities to show that they care about ending poverty? In fact, African prehistoric archaeology has been very productive. Archaeologists have made several outstanding discoveries here during the latter half of the twentieth century. But, poignantly, despite Boas’s goal of revealing Africa’s cultural contributions to civilization and simultaneously minimizing biological-evolutionary inquiry, the best discoveries in sub-Saharan Africa are fossilized hominid remains that have revealed a great deal about human evolution and nothing at all about early civilization.

Current evidence suggests that anatomically modern humans evolved in Africa — that is, humans of our own species, Homo sapiens sapiens. The oldest candidates are a few fragmentary skulls and postcranial bones found in East Africa and South Africa dating to between ca. 100,000 and 200,000 years ago. It is important to note that these earlier anatomically modern skulls are quite robust, and it is only after ca. 35,000 years ago that skeletons show fully modern morphology [8]G. P. Rightmire, “Middle and Later Pleistocene Hominins in Africa and Southwest Asia,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 106, no. 38, pp. 16046-16050, 2009.. But this hasn’t stopped the idea, perpetuated by Cultural Marxist creed, that once we evolved into modern humans, somehow our brains have miraculously been unaffected by any subsequent evolution and that all human achievements after were built with the same brain.

It should come as no surprise that finding the first modern humans in Africa was very welcome news to the politically correct community, which has relentlessly glommed onto the idea that “we’re all out of Africa.” National Geographic even has a lesson plan on its website aimed at teaching high school students how we’re “all Africans under the skin”. Never mind that forensic scientists regularly identify the race of human skeletal remains, or that with a sample of your saliva, several genetic testing companies can provide a highly-detailed breakdown of your racial composition.

Behavioral Modernity

One thing eluded the pro-Africa, anti-Western crusaders in the realm of human evolution: pinning ‘behavioral modernity’ squarely inside Africa. The problem is that anatomically modernity (as it is currently loosely defined) does not correlate with behavioral modernity. Those anatomically modern humans that evolved in Africa, as far as we can tell, acted the same as Neanderthals and other archaic modern human groups for over 100,000 years. In other words, there is no appreciable behavioral difference between early modern humans and archaic humans for more than half of the time that we have existed as a species.

That didn’t stop scholars from trying really hard to locate the origins of behavioral modernity in Africa. Decades of research in South Africa resulted in the claim that a series of sites along the coast were the fountainhead of modern human cognition. Realizing the power of these statements, the media, politicians, and funding agencies have accepted these claims uncritically.

What’s the big deal about these South African sites? Scholars in the Africa-first camp claim that modern human culture arose here for three reasons: (1) new, more advanced stone tool technology; (2) more advanced subsistence strategies (exploiting more nutritious foods, etc.); and (3) most importantly, symbolic artifacts (artistic depictions).

The evidence they are using for these claims comes primarily from two sites in South Africa: Blombos Cave and Klasies River Mouth. By about 80,000 years ago, the occupants at these locations were manufacturing perforated shells that were used as decorative beads, and they were making engraved designs on small pieces of ochre, a mineral often used as a red pigment. It is argued that the incised lines on two pieces of ochre at Blombos Cave and on ostrich egg shells, including a hatched band motif, are symbolic in nature and thus support the emergence of modern human behavior here.

Why so much emphasis on these lumps of incised ochre? For one, it has been revealed that Neanderthals made shell beads in Europe. Also, the discovery of anatomically modern humans in the Levant (in modern-day Israel) at 100,000 years ago, together with perforated shell beads and lumps of scratched-up ochre threatened to usurp coveted prize of earliest behavioral modernity. So the Africa-centric scholars claimed that the scratches on the lump of ochre in the Near East at 100,000 years ago were not as purposeful and intricate as those in Africa at 80,000 years ago. Even more unsettling to the Africa-first model is the fact that Neanderthals occupied the same region of the Levant after anatomically modern humans lived there, indicating that modern humans here did not replace Neanderthals, as was the case later in Europe. So if the beaded, ochre-loving modern humans in Israel were so cognitively advanced, why did they give up their prized real estate to the supposedly cognitively inferior Neanderthals for over 50,000 years? Furthermore, the Near Eastern modern humans had the exact same stone tool technology as contemporaneous Neanderthals, and the same subsistence strategies so far as we can tell. So the three indications for behavioral modernity proposed by the Africa-first crowd (nice tools, advanced hunting skills, and art) were not really telling us anything. Were there really any qualitative differences between these groups of early modern humans and Neanderthals?

The obvious answer is no, and that incised hatch designs and perforated shells are not unambiguous evidence for fully modern behavior. One would expect the blossoming of other types of modern behavior shortly afterwards if indeed this was the genesis of modernity. But there were no new artistic or symbolic advancements in sub-Saharan Africa for approximately 55,000 years after the beads and ochre pieces. The first painted art in Africa is found at a cave in Namibia and dates to approximately 25,000 years ago. These early African paintings are predated by about 10,000 years by cave paintings in Western Europe, which were drawn with much more sophistication and aestheticism than the African paintings (e.g., use of shading and highlighting to emphasize three dimensionality and dynamism; detailing of eyes, hair, musculature, etc.).

The Artistic Explosion in Paleolithic Europe

Investigations in Europe over the past decade have revealed rich archaeological remains attributed to early modern humans as they migrated into an area inhabited by Neanderthals about 40,000 years ago. Artifacts found at sites in Germany include a spectacular array of personal ornaments, artwork, and musical instruments unparalleled in sophistication and aesthetic quality anywhere else in the world for tens of thousands of years. These skillful artists manufactured naturalistic and mythical images in three dimensions with exquisite attention to detail and perspective, together with sophisticated personal ornamentation and musical instruments: flutes carved from animal bone capable of producing a remarkably wide range of tones and harmonies. Not to mention the exquisite cave paintings appearing only 5,000 years later in France and Spain.

Without a doubt, these early Europeans were far ahead of their time and attained an astonishing aptitude for creativity and invention. The timeline figure below provides a direct comparison of Paleolithic art across the world. It is immediately apparent that, if there ever was a source of behavioral modernity during the Paleolithic, that it occurred in Europe and nowhere else.

Paleolithic art in Europe is far advanced in several ways:

  1. Figurative art (representing actual things such as humans and animals, rather than abstract designs)
  2. Mastery of three-dimensional sculpting
  3. Paintings displaying a mastery of three dimensional perspective and dynamism (such as providing a sense of movement)
  4. Musical instruments
  5. Depictions of mythical imagery (imaginary beings such as the half-lion, half-man sculpture shown in timeline figure)
  6. Degree of aestheticism and the successful transfer of an appreciation of beauty to the artistic form
A comparison of artwork around the world during the Paleolithic.
A comparison of artwork around the world during the Paleolithic.

The items shown in the timeline are only a small sample of the rich artwork created in Europe during the Paleolithic. For example, the prehistoric flutes are not isolated occurrences. A total of eight flutes have been found in Germany alone at sites dating back to 40,000 years ago. One nearly complete specimen is made from the radius bone of a griffon vulture and measures 21.8 centimeters in length (8.5 inches), has five finger holes and a V-shaped notch at one end serving as the mouthpiece. Others are made from the bones of swans and mammoth ivory. Although flutes were used throughout the remainder of the Paleolithic in Europe, there is no definitive evidence for musical instruments of any kind anywhere else in the world for more than 30,000 years after their use in Europe.

In terms of artistic representation, nothing else compares to Europe for tens of thousands of years, and some societies never accomplished this level of sophistication in their material culture. But you wouldn’t know this from listening to The Narrative, which relentlessly claims that the seeds of advanced human cognition were first sown in Black Africa. Never mind the obvious creative explosion during the European Upper Paleolithic. And never mind that European Neanderthals were producing the same types of objects heralded as ‘modern’ in South Africa.

The evidence for significant cultural advancements in Europe earlier than anywhere else in the world is largely ignored by scholars and the public alike, because it does not fit the politically-motivated idea that humanity was an African invention and that the human brain was born there, after which it has remained fixed and resistant to all effects of evolution. If cultural modernity first arose in Europe, after anatomically modern humans spread out of Africa, then the possibility arises that populations who remained in Africa may have been left behind on the brain train. Obviously, this won’t do in a discipline steeped in Boasian cultural relativism.

But if you were to objectively consider all sources of empirical data, then such a possibility becomes a very plausible hypothesis. Not only does the archaeology suggest that something special happened in the brains of Europeans 40,000 years ago, but genetic studies also corroborate this idea.

In 2006, scholars at the University of Chicago published research suggesting that mating between ancient humans and Neanderthals in Europe may have introduced a gene variant into the human population that enhanced human brain function. Analyzing the DNA sequence structure of the gene microcephalin, which regulates brain size in humans, indicated that all modern copies of the D alleles in this gene arose from a single progenitor copy around 40,000 years ago [9]P. D. Evans, N. Meke-Bobrov, E. J. Vallender, R. R. Hudson and B. T. Lahn, “Evidence that the adaptive allele of the brain size gene microcephalin introgressed into Homo sapiens from an archaic Homo lineage,” PNAS, vol. 103, no. 48, pp. 18178-18183, 2006.. This allele must have provided a strong fitness advantage, because it then spread rapidly and is now present in about 70 percent of the world’s population. Further, the researchers found that the D alleles are much more prevalent today in Eurasia and less common in sub-Saharan Africa, which is consistent with the scenario that it originated in Neanderthals and was passed on to modern humans in Europe.

To review: a genetic mutation for enhanced brain function evolves at the same time when there is an explosion in creative artistic representation in Europe (and advancements of similar magnitude in hunting technologies). This gene is found more commonly in European and Asian populations and less commonly in African populations. It doesn’t take many D alleles to connect the dots. But in the spirit of Cultural Marxist suppression of dissent, the University of Chicago study was relegated to the shadowy sidelines of scientific literature, not because its findings were refuted, but simply because it was called “manifestly racist” [10]J. Marks, “The Origins of Anthropological Genetics,” vol. 53, no. S5, pp. S161-S172, April 2012.. Dropping their initial enthusiasm of the study’s findings like a sack of potatoes, the University of Chicago abandoned its patent application for DNA-based intelligence testing, and the lead researcher moved onto other research because “it’s getting too controversial”.

For all of the lip service paid to Occam’s razor, scholars today would rather construct elaborate and implausible scenarios that either muddy the issue, or directly mislead the public. If they value their job, they will avoid this controversial topic all together.

Ignorance is Bliss

Africa-first scholars with a Cultural Marxist orientation have argued themselves into a corner. By supporting a concept such as “behavioral modernity,” they have implicitly approved the hierarchical ranking of humans into groups who were mentally advanced and those who were not, despite the tireless inculcation of the anthropological discipline with Boasian cultural relativism for the past century.

This was no doubt a compromise to allow some ranking of prehistoric groups, just so long as it was clear that all modern humans are exactly the same, all derived from the same source population, and that all of the dummies are extinct populations who became Darwinian zeros after succumbing to African superiority. Without some sort of ranking of our deep past onto a scale from primitive to advanced, paleoanthropology is rendered meaningless. To say that there is no difference between humans today and the earliest hominids some four million years ago is to deny human uniqueness. This is too much for even the most politically correct crowds to accept, so a line had to be drawn between modern humans and everything else.

Much to the chagrin of scholars seeking an African origin to fully modern human behavior, there is simply too much evidence to the contrary. It was fine to say that the seeds of human greatness arose in Africa and that these chosen people then spread out and replaced all other humans through their cultural and biological superiority. But by constructing a testable hypothetical scenario, they left the door open for the discovery of contradictory evidence. To the horror of politically correct academics, by their own definition of modernity, contradictory evidence indicates that Europeans were the first to reach this mental milestone, and that by comparison populations in sub-Saharan Africa and Australia did not catch up, even into modern times.

Over the past few years, the concept of behavioral modernity has become rather unfashionable within the inner-circle of prehistorian scholars. It is probably no coincidence that this concept lost steam after the political implications of behavioral modernity arising in Europe first were realized. Recently, an academic symposium was held to deconstruct the notion that behavioral modernity arose first in one place, or that it can be recognized archaeologically at all (“Alternative Pathways to Complexity: Evolutionary Trajectories in the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age,” Current Anthropology, 54, No. S8, Dec. 2013). A new framework was developed which essentially claims that after we evolved as a species, behavioral changes were circumstantial, and that different groups were simply reacting to diverse environmental, demographic, and cultural influences.

Frankly, the concept of behavioral modernity was always dubious, and arguably only ever gained popularity as a political tool for the “we’re all the same under the hood” crowd. It was claimed that behavioral modernity was the tipping point when culture took over natural selection and the human brain was locked into its current state. For example, Neanderthals are thought to have used thrusting spears and necessarily relied more heavily on their brute strength than the more gracile modern humans who had developed a spear throwing technology that required less strength and put them in less danger while hunting.

Advancements in human genomic studies have shown that such a concept is manifestly untrue. To believe that the modern human brain has somehow been magically spared from the effects of natural selection is no less an act of faith than to believe that the world was created on October 23, 4004 B.C.

Although we are all different culturally and genetically from the first modern humans entering Europe some 40,000 years ago, it is clear that something special did happen there at that time. This phenomenon is worthy of attention, particularly when combined with advancements in genetic research such as the University of Chicago study revealing mutations that enhanced brain function around the same time as the artistic explosion. But the suppression of this study indicates that political correctness trumps empiricism and scientific advancement. To the Cultural Marxists, it’s time to put the nail in the coffin of yet another idea that could potentially provide meaning to the archaeological record with their usual techniques: “by emphasizing the vast diversity and chaotic minutiae of human behavior” [1, p. 24], thus obfuscating the data before it can be exploited within a theoretical framework of any consequence.

References Cited

References

[1] K. Macdonald, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements, Long Beach: California State University, 1998.

[2] G. W. J. Stocking, The Shaping of American Anthropology, 1883-1911: A Franz Boas Reader, New York, NY: Basic Books, 1974.

[3] H. S. Lewis, “The Passion of Franz Boas,” American Anthropologist, vol. 103, no. 2, pp. 447-467, 2001.

[4] L. A. White, “The Social Organization of Ethnological Theory,” Rice University Studies, vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 1-66, 1966.

[5] W. S. J. Willis, “Skeletons in the Anthropological Closet,” in Reinventing Anthropology, New York, NY: Random House, 1969, pp. 121-152.

[6] J. E. Lewis, D. DeGusta, M. R. Meyer, J. M. Monge, A. E. Mann and R. L. Holloway, “The Mismeasure of Science: Stephen Jay Gould versus Samuel George Morton on Skulls and Bias,” vol. 9, no. 6, 2011.

[7] S. J. Gould, The Mismeasure of Man, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1996.

[8] G. P. Rightmire, “Middle and Later Pleistocene Hominins in Africa and Southwest Asia,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 106, no. 38, pp. 16046-16050, 2009.

[9] P. D. Evans, N. Meke-Bobrov, E. J. Vallender, R. R. Hudson and B. T. Lahn, “Evidence that the adaptive allele of the brain size gene microcephalin introgressed into Homo sapiens from an archaic Homo lineage,” PNAS, vol. 103, no. 48, pp. 18178-18183, 2006.

[10] J. Marks, “The Origins of Anthropological Genetics,” vol. 53, no. S5, pp. S161-S172, April 2012.

(Republished from The Occidental Observer by permission of author or representative)
 
Of Related Interest
shutterstock_28876567
Amid the fury over the ex-Heritage staffer's work the question to ask is: was he right?
"FranzBoas". Licensed under Public domain via Wikimedia Commons.
Amanda Hess and Manohla Dargis on the Weinstein-Spacey-Louis C.K. affairs
Hide 263 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0177127

    The split happened before the Mediterranean existed. The fucking Homo Genus started in Europe.

    The BTFO’s are getting harder and harder as the days go by.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Wong
    Lives do not start from a single source, watch the following for the explanation.
    Evolution Is Officially Debunked | SCIENCE PROVES INTELLIGENT DESIGN
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wCxkBnm3ow#t=1325.181895
    , @El Dato

    The fucking Homo Genus started in Europe.
     
    Today he is mainly found in Gay Bars.
    , @RaceRealist88
    No it didn't.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/05/27/to-the-alt-right-modern-man-did-not-begin-in-europe/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /article/anthropologys-obsession-with-african-origins/#comment-1950616
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. I have respect for those who manoevre themselves in deep caves to dig up parts of bones up to two million years old.
    This respect is partly because I’m claustrophobic, but also from what these scientists deduce from these excavations.
    If they’re right in their conclusions, possibly, I’m not in a position to criticise.
    But any time still older ‘human’ remains are found I wonder about the human remains not found, either because nobody found them until now, or because they have disappeared.
    So, to base human history, the history of how present man emerged, on a few lucky finds, it seems hazardous to me.
    On the other hand, if present man has its origins in Africa, so what ?
    Does it change anything in the mess present Africa is ?
    Rhodesia was a prosperous country, it degenerated into Zimbabwe.
    S Africa was a prosperous country, based on racism, that is true.
    But it seems to be zimbabweing.
    In some tv report long ago already someone from N Africa said ‘under colonisalism we had a better life’.

    Read More
    • Agree: Che Guava
    • Replies: @Joe Wong
    Are you saying the current mess in the ME is the result of the people over there inferior to the White, not because it was created by the bombing, killing and waterboarding created by the White on the fabricated phantom WMD allegation as humanitarian intervention?

    It is really morally defunct and evil for the White to white wash that they are the perpetrators of all the mess and ills on going in Africa as well as all around the world with such psychopathic glorification ‘under colonialism we had a better life’.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. As Orwell said, “He who controls the present controls the past;” even, it would appear, the prehistoric past. The “we’re all Africans” orientation of anthropology is clearly an aspect of the cult of Negro veneration to which much of the west has fallen victim.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. Some of the ukhahlamba rock art (Khoi San) achieves at least as much depth or perspective. It is estimated at 25000 years old. I would be interested if the author could present paleo-genetic evidence of gene flow to the South African Khoi San from Europe at or before that time. Ditto Tunga Dutse, for example.

    Read More
    • Replies: @helena
    interesting. I particularly like this one https://www.sa-venues.com/game-reserves/graphics/drakensberg-park-rock-art.jpg
    I looked at that site and it says the oldest art is 2400ya so I thought that must be a typo so I looked up wiki Drakensberg "the largest collection of such work in the world", "these paintings are difficult to date but there is anthropological evidence, including many hunting implements, that the San people existed in the Drakensberg at least 40,000 years ago, and possibly over 100,000 years ago" but "The website south Africa.info indicates that though "the oldest painting on a rock shelter wall in the Ginsberg dates back about 2400 years.....paint chips at least a thousand years older have also been found."[15]
    , @Colleen Pater
    Nice try (((meyer))) san rock art only 800 years old. its beautiful though and the san are interesting people not really black africans as we understand the term very genetically different oldest people in a way a different species really like the australian aborinals
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. Of course there were ancient sub-Saharan civilizations; it’s just that African jungles, being naturally superior to jungles in the rest of the world, did a better job of erasing any traces of those earliest advanced civilizations.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  6. I don’t doubt that anthropology can be hijacked.. I am a regular subscriber to several archaeological news forums, I have noted the astounding number of articles referencing “climate change” and it’s effects on early humans.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clyde
    “climate change” is inserted to sound cool and au courant. To enhance your career within the liberal academic hive. This insertion has as much meaning as 0bama uttering "sustainable" or "That's not who we are". All the above are more like hypnotic suggestions.

    (I must come back and read it all. My thanks to author Austen Layard)

    , @RaceRealist88
    The climate changes. That isn't up for debate.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. The person most responsible for saturating anthropology with Cultural Marxism was Franz Boas, a German-Jewish émigré who found his academic home at Columbia University in 1896, where he stayed until his retirement in 1936. Boas had a profound impact on the field of anthropology, and was unashamedly political in his orientation, placing great emphasis on fighting scientific racism.

    This orientation seems to have escaped his prize student who went on to outshine, albeit in a popular sense, her mentor. Margaret Mead seemed little influenced by this cultural correctness and was a dutiful member of the Episcopal Church.

    Although we are all different culturally and genetically from the first modern humans entering Europe some 40,000 years ago, it is clear that something special did happen there at that time.

    Interesting that we are not informed of the recent studies of DNA linkage that shows the so called “modern humans entering Europe” mated with Neanderthals who had lived in southern Europe and the Levant for 200+ thousand years. How ‘modern’ were the offspring?

    http://robertmagill.wordpress.com

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jake
    You see Margaret Mead as some kind of improvement over Boas?

    Yes, she was an Anglican, with most of the standard WASP prejudices. That includes the by then typical WASP Elite romanticizing of most, or all, non-whites at the expense of 'other' whites.

    Mead, for significantly, was as insane a feminist as Boas was an 'anti-racist.

    You should consider that Boas picked and groomed her precisely because she held pristine early 20th century WASP notions and so would produce 'scholarship' that waged culture war on the vestiges of Christendom, and on the majority of white Gentiles, as furiously as did his work.
    , @Colleen Pater
    mead like gould actually worse was a fabricator its actually a testament to the jews power that these pseudo scientists like lewontin gould mead etc are even mentioned anymore as anything other than flat earthers
    , @hyperbola
    Picking "credible" lackeys is often practised. Freud, for example, did the same with Jung to try to "improve" the acceptability of his jewish "psychology".

    Sigmund Freud, Psychoanalysis, and the War on the West
    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/12/24/sigmund-freud-psychoanalysis-and-the-war-on-the-west/
    “We are bringing them the plague.”—Sigmund Freud, on his way to America in 1909[1]

    Like Carl Jung, Sigmund Freud did not base psychoanalysis, which he championed to the entire Western world, on scientific premises.... Freud was on a Jewish mission. Jewish professor of psychiatry Thomas Szasz of New York University writes that “one of Freud’s most powerful motives in life was…to inflict vengeance on Christianity.”[10] Other Jewish scholars such as Stanley Rothman and S. Robert Lichter noted the same thing, adding that.....

    ....Psychoanalysis was almost entirely a Jewish revolutionary movement, and it used to be referred to as a “Jewish science.” Freud had to find some Gentile to make the movement more inclusive. This is one reason why he worked tirelessly to make Jung a figurehead in the psychoanalytic movement. He told Jung in a letter written in 1908,

    “You really are the only one capable of making an original contribution to [psychoanalysis].”[26]

    He also wrote to a Swiss psychologist named Ludwig Binswanger, “When the realm I have found is orphaned, no one but Jung shall inherit it.”[27] For Freud, according to David Bakan, Jung was “a bridge to the Gentile world.”[28]

    But Freud’s Jewish fellows were not satisfied with Jung, wishing Freud had chosen a Jew for the task. Freud took great pains to ensure that a gentile, Jung, would be the head of his psychoanalytic movement—a move that infuriated his Jewish colleagues in Vienna, but one that was clearly intended to de-emphasize the very large overrepresentation of Jews in the movement during this period.....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. LauraMR says:

    … versus the author’s obsession with white supremacy?

    Alternatives to the Africa origin hypothesis do not require for everyone else on the planet to be beneath us.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Marshall Lentini
    Geographically, most of them are! Lol.

    But really, you're equally bad with all your "race isn't real" jive.

    I appreciate skepticism hitting the brakes on runaway ideology but even skeptics have an irrational wall where they stop. Yours seems to be race itself.

    Surely we can be reasonable enough to see that reality lies between "race is everything" and "race is nothing", the usual false dichotomy set up by warring whiteskin humans.
    , @Wally
    Right. And the world is breaking down the doors to get into Africa.

    You call it "white supremacy", the rational call it reality.

    , @Rurik

    Africa origin hypothesis do not require for everyone else on the planet to be beneath us.
     
    this is the crux of the matter, because part of Western man's OBVIOUS and glaring superiority vis-a-vis some other races- is his innate sense of noblesse oblige to the children of lessor Gods.

    it would be crass and beneath him to constantly remind other of their comparative and relative 'robustness'

    but when push comes to shove, as it has in modern pop culture, (when white people are blamed for all the foibles of others) then at times it's worth while to notice that there are indeed differences, and that the notable dearth of accomplishments coming from some quarters are not, as the liberals and lying shills would have us all believe, a consequence of white people's racism, but rather an inconvenient truth, that Europeans are tens of thousands of years more evolutionarily advanced than some others.

    That doesn't make them better people per se (even tho it often seems to when you consider Negro violent crime or how it was Scandinavian men [as white as they get] who were first to give women full societal rights), But being white is no guarantee that you're not an asshole, just like being black is no guarantee that you're not a nice and worthy person all around.

    race is real, but people should not be judged because of it, in either direction

    and all races and peoples all deserve self-determination. A truth that the white people uniquely learned and gave to all the others when it outlawed slavery in the world and abandoned colonialism, but then had that momentum turned against them by Jewish supremacists who saw in the advanced whites an Achilles Heal of genteel 'goodness', and decided to use white people's advanced sense of noblesse oblige as a weapon to utterly destroy them.

    that's where we're at today. ;)

    , @Anon
    To insist that race is nothing is simply a backhanded way of admitting that race is everything. Otherwise race would never be worth mentioning at all, and there would be no noticeable differences between races, when there plainly is.
    , @Anon
    Of course, a woman.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. This article appears, to this non-anthropologist, to have a very strong, indeed compelling argument for its conclusion that Anthropology has demonstrated a systematic bias against the “western” or European basis for the assent of “modern”humans. However…
    The author does his argument no favours by his continual reference to “cultural marxism” & relativism; a phenomenon he blames almost entirely on the Frankfurt School.
    It is true that some “members”of the Frankfurt School (Marcuse especially) pushed PC matters: gender, race, sexuality. However, the relation between this & marxism is dubious at best: if anything it is Freud’s influence that drove writers such as Marcuse & Frome.
    Also, it is very easy indeed to over state the influence this branch of philosophy etc had on academic fashions. After the the 70′s the Frankfurt School was passe’ — in large part because it was superseded by a French intellectual fashion, we now call Post Modernism(PM). I can not over stress enough that PM is the true enemy of those who believe in a world capable of some degree of knowledge.
    PM is in NO way, shape or form marxist.
    To be a marxist is to be a materialist. That is basic. You can not be a non materialist & a marxist (like being a Christian & not believing in God: utterly ridiculous).
    A materialist believes there is a world which we can try to know. They believe in science, technology & economies. They do NOT believe everything is relative.
    PM’s on the other hand believe, essentially in nothing, except language & discourse. Everything is relative: thus, there are no real distinctions between works of literature (A Mills & Boon book is equal to Moby Dick). Whatever distinctions you think you see are the mere effect of (usually privileged white, male) discourse.
    It is very hard to over state the (malign) effect that PM has had on the last 30-40 years of graduates from the Humanities & social sciences. They not only infest universities, but government bureaucracies.
    It may be said all this is of trivial significance — perhaps: but it is usually best to be able to identify your enemy correctly.

    Read More
    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @helena
    Really interesting; well said. Any chance you can develop the argument further ? Baudrillard? Just curious.

    I tend to think that there are several influences going on. It doesn't have to be either/ or. The collapse of the West is a 'perfect storm'.
    , @ThreeCranes
    I'm glad you pointed out the differences amongst the Cultural Marxists.

    Fromm in particular took pains to separate himself from others such as Marcuse.

    Whereas a dyed in the wool Marxist believes that human consciousness is derived from one's economic class and therefore fixed by environmental (material) conditions, this paradoxically, simultaneously proves that it is infinitely malleable. If our "minds are made up" by our class and if those classes differ then the mind can be programmed to accept any stamp, however inhuman or absurd.

    Fromm disbelieved this. He argued that humans had an intrinsic Nature. As tool-making animals humans need to be productive which is to be effective in transforming their environment in order to satisfy their intrinsic needs.

    Humans need to be members of a community, to feel a sense of rootedness and transcendence, to love, to care, to take responsibility, to respect and to be knowledgeable.

    Fromm's 'Revolution of Hope" was to be towards a "humanized technology", one in which hours spent on the assembly line would be replaced by a kinder, gentler work routine in which, to cite one example, he pointed out Volvo's attempt to replace the assembly line with a team approach to building cars. Whether this would work or not is not the issue. The point is he did not wish to socialize all manufacturing or replace private ownership with worker communes but wanted to soften the harsh edges of raw capitalism.

    But today, those sentiments have flown the coup. We have transferred our manufacturing to China and it is they, not us, who stand in need of a revolution of hope. Their begrimed cities, the Dickensian miasma of smog that casts their urban landscape in a perpetual semi-darkness, the grinding hours on the demanding lines; all these are for real. And their workers suffer and literally cry out in pain as though calling upon God asking why they are cursed.

    I told them that this period would pass. That they would emerge into the sunlight eventually. That every European country had passed through a similar stage of development. Carry on. Things will get better. You may have to sacrifice the happiness of a generation or two, but it will pay off in the end.

    There is no doubt that manufacturing and science have raised the standard of living of virtually all humankind to unprecedented levels. But I don't blame the cultural Marxists--not all of them anyway--for all the ills that beset us today. As a poor student, I worked in some of those nasty, old factories and I, for one, am glad that they are gone.

    Fromm was right. We need a humanized technology.
    , @unpc downunder
    The modern left is just a messy self-serving blend of left-wing egalitarianism and post modernism. In theory neither Marxism or post modernism is particularly left-wing in a cultural sense. Traditional economic Marxists tend to be supportive of western science and western technological achievements. Karl Marx was pretty explicit that technologically primitive non-western cultures were inferior to western cultures. Similarly, post modernism argues that there is no objective truth, hence a left-wing narrative is no better or worse than a right-wing one. However, as Jordan Peterson points out, modern leftists switch back and forth between egalitarian leftist and post modernism whenever it suits their agenda.

    They use post modernism to attack western science and culture, then switch to left-wing egalitarianism when right-wingers point out the weaknesses of post modernism.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. As an anthro major forty years ago, I note that it would have been academic suicide to confront Boasian “egalitarians” with an analogy like…French Poodles and German Shepherds. I remember getting a big “ration of sh*t” just for reading the research which claimed Neanderthals could not pronounce vowels based on hyoid bone anatomy. We were assured that, if you shaved a Neanderthal, dressed him in a suit and put him on the subway, nobody would notice. I never bought “cultural Marxism”, but you can be damn sure I kept my mouth shut. And yes, the field was definitely dominated by “folks” with an agenda. Kudos to the author of this paper. But, I’m afraid it will languish beside hyoid bone anatomy for many decades. The truth is a bashful player in what has become a petrified academic monolith. I loved the field, but had to get out.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  11. I had to read a lot here to get much additional evidence for my existing prejudice that there are a lot of softheaded anthropologists who want to feel and sound warm and fuzzy about genetically inherited group differences.

    In the course of reading it I came across a somewhat anti-Semitic smear against Boas which remunded me that learning of Margaret Mead’s frauds or follies had left me open to anti-Boasian prejudice – and so I looked him up. The Wikipedia article may of course not be perfectly balanced, but I think I would probably end up a Boasian admirer on balance despite all his overoptimistic cultural relativism which seems to have included a genuine belief that the descendants of African slaves would or could build on modern education to become capable productive modern people.

    He seems to have been an Enlightenment empiricist, an admirer of Darwin, largely without the benefit of Mendel and genetic mechanisms, and very sound in his rejection of the doctrines of the cultural evolutionists. Suppose his biography had read that he was the son of a Lutheran or Calvinist missionary pastor and his teacher wife and remembered his carefree years till the age of 10 in German Southwest Africa and his African nanny with nostalgic affection. Although drifting away from religion at University he founded a small society devoted to studying Africa and its cultures and attempting to raise scholarship funds for promising young African women…. Would that seem in any way unlikely? Would his help to Grrman and Austrian (typically Jewish) scholars in the 30s distinguish him from J.M. Keynes and many other great non Jewish scholars?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jake
    Your ending question is going to be easy for most to ignore. The reason is simple: the answer is - NO! It would not be hard to imagine the life and work of Boas if he were the son of a German Protestant pastor. Ditto if he were the son of an Anglican priest or Methodist missionary.

    Cultural/linguistic Germanism (which includes Anglo-Saxonism) has been necessary to the rise of Jews in all endeavors.

    Yiddish is German, a mere Jewish dialect of German. It is most telling, indispensable, that almost all Jews in the Russian Empire right up to WW1 spoke Yiddish fluently.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. anarchyst says:

    As much as cultural marxists deny substantial differences in the various races, one only has to observe the efficacy of various drugs and substances on the various races.
    Many medications are more effective on one race, and have reduced efficacy in other races.
    The same goes for various substances, alcohol being one such substance.
    There are races that absolutely cannot “hold their alcohol” and as a result have great problems with uncontrollable drinking, and the subsequent problems that alcohol introduces.
    There are many such examples of natural inequality of the races…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Delinquent Snail
    A note in the "holding their alcohol".

    A major reason Europeans can handle drinking compared to other groups, is that europeans have been consuming beer and wine for several thousand years.

    Afticans werent farmers. They didnt make beer. Native americans werent farmers, they didn't make beer. Thats why those 2 groups have issues with alcohol.

    More evidence of racial differences and its usually glossed over because it implies that africans and native americans were more primitive for much longer. Which is true. Anyone without their head in their ass knows this.......
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. Hubbub says:

    Fascinating. Confirms ideas I’ve held in some form or fashion for years.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  14. Rdm says:

    I believe we all evolved from monkeys. But I don’t believe we all came from Africa.

    If any Africans believe all humans evolved from out of Africa, they’re shooting their own foots. They’re already shackled with all the theories.

    If they believe the theory, they’re saying they’re remnants of this evolutionary tree.
    If they don’t, they’re saying they can’t catch up with advanced civilization because of the lack of such evidence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth

    I believe we all evolved from monkeys. But I don’t believe we all came from Africa.
     
    Evolution is a theory, there is no evidence of it.
    , @RaceRealist88
    "I believe we all evolved from monkeys. But I don’t believe we all came from Africa."

    We share a common ancestor with "monkeys" (chimpanzees).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. Author is painfully under-read, like every other white nationalist who trundles into science. For them, conveniently, all of anthropology boils down to Franz Boas.

    The findings in Blombos Cave, just to name one case, have been assigned a range of 100,000 to 700,000 BP. And what are the artefacts? Ochre artwork, shell beads, stone and bone tools.

    And then there are the pesky facts of Khoisan and, to a lesser extent, Pygmy DNA (oldest lineages), evidence of a return to Africa and comingling ~80,000BP, etc.

    Once again white nationalists, in trying to correct extremism from the other side, overcompensate and pretend they themselves do not make emotional or ideological arguments: the need not to share anything with Africa is most apparent in all the breathless ad hoc.

    Read More
    • Agree: utu, RaceRealist88
    • Replies: @Insignificant
    Lentini makes the most sense I have seen here so far. but I wont see much more however because this is as far as I go in here.
    most of this is white western rubbish to me, out of cultural marxism and post modern european claptrap... like religion created to misdirect the world. ..and all here seem seriously caught up in it.

    at university I walked away from the humanities and I warned my own children to steer clear..that if they were going to go major in humanities they would have to do so on their own
    happily they chose science and business

    on my own I studied Gerald Massey and found his body of work compelling. since then the black scholars have done yeoman work ..they are treasures e and well meant biology since
    then of course there is africa itself right there and all its works..like the Precession of the Equinoxes..the great year. then there is the second great year...Polar great year based on the precession of the pole stars

    how does one account for proven african history going back towards 100 thousand years with artifacts to prove? how to explain the forensic evidence of the rebuilt facial representation of skulls found in latin american, towards the southern tip that show black faces........

    then what about earthbound cyclic weather as far back as we can tell. they do not tell of human habitation anywhere other in africa as possible..in any time frame consistent with the humanity we have come to know as us, that we are a part of.

    europe has been telling lies about africa as soon as they were taught to speak and write, taught how to 'build a house with a window'.

    europe was/is sick mentally, crazy people with anti human conceptions of life...mostly homicidal maniacs involved in the massive extermination of humanity from as long as we have known them. if anything is hard to imagine is that the same human sources that gave rise to the magnificent people who built ancient Kemet are the same who gave rise to europeans..opposites that are really hard to reconcile for me. but that is what the evidence establishes

    the simple story seems to to be right there in front of us the rudiments of which cannot even be contemplated by the insanes I have been reading here. Gerald Massey dug deeply into africa through what the euros call egypt. but what else is there to dig into..where is the basis, evidence for alternate construction of human origins and history up to now...?

    I have found little here of substance, of use, to add to my impression of things. this has been almost a waste of time, the author a fool, a racially traumatized individual hell bent on the finding of, and assumption of some dreamed of white initial/initiating glory, evidence of which must be lying about somewhere awaiting our discovery. good luck to him
    , @Wizard of Oz
    I have often speculated that the very black Nilotics of NE an E Africa were descended in part from immigrants returning to Africa from Eurasia but it had never occurred to me that the Khoi San or pygmies were also descended from return flows of people. Actually pygmies outside Africa seem to have been neglected. How for example did NE Australia come to have a pygmy negrito population? Not much discussed. So.... sources and links please.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. Clyde says:
    @Rhett Hardwick
    I don't doubt that anthropology can be hijacked.. I am a regular subscriber to several archaeological news forums, I have noted the astounding number of articles referencing "climate change" and it's effects on early humans.

    “climate change” is inserted to sound cool and au courant. To enhance your career within the liberal academic hive. This insertion has as much meaning as 0bama uttering “sustainable” or “That’s not who we are”. All the above are more like hypnotic suggestions.

    (I must come back and read it all. My thanks to author Austen Layard)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. BB753 says:

    Boas only proved to be an empiricist when describing languages. His preface to the Handbook of American Indian Languages still stands as a great primer for descriptive linguistics.
    It’s harder to remain impartial when describing human societies and human values. Boas certainly had an axe to grind. But who hasn’t? That’s why humanities cannot ever become a real science. Human bias gets in the way.
    To wit, paleontology has advanced incredibly since Cavalli-Sforza started using genetic analysis to study human populations. In ten tears the Out-of-Africa thesis will definitely be buried by geneticist without having to dig up new bones. You just need to test living humans.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Delinquent Snail
    Geneticists are afraid to come out and describe what they have found. And that wont change untill our over the top PC culture does a 180 and stops putting so much emphasis on feelings.


    I read a few years ago how several geneticists from around the world have found all kinds of things in our dna but they would never share any of it. The reason they wont publish papers and books on it is because it would kill their careers, their personal lives and throw a wrench in our current belief system regarding humans place on earth.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. helena says:
    @Johan Meyer
    Some of the ukhahlamba rock art (Khoi San) achieves at least as much depth or perspective. It is estimated at 25000 years old. I would be interested if the author could present paleo-genetic evidence of gene flow to the South African Khoi San from Europe at or before that time. Ditto Tunga Dutse, for example.

    interesting. I particularly like this one
    I looked at that site and it says the oldest art is 2400ya so I thought that must be a typo so I looked up wiki Drakensberg “the largest collection of such work in the world”, “these paintings are difficult to date but there is anthropological evidence, including many hunting implements, that the San people existed in the Drakensberg at least 40,000 years ago, and possibly over 100,000 years ago” but “The website south Africa.info indicates that though “the oldest painting on a rock shelter wall in the Ginsberg dates back about 2400 years…..paint chips at least a thousand years older have also been found.”[15]

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johan Meyer
    I stand corrected---I should have checked google scholar first. The Maqonqo site has paintings c 3700 before present. The problem of European influx remains.
    , @Johan Meyer
    For older art, see e.g. the so-called "Apollo 11" cave in Namibia, and the Wonderwerk cave in South Africa. These go back at least 30,000 years.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. Che Guava says:

    Yes, I’ve long had doubts about the out-of-Africa 50,000 years ago hypothesis. In fact, beyond doubt to disbelief. Some Dravidians in India, their Australian aboriginal cousins , and some groups that have been almost wiped out in southern Africa have some common features, they used to be grouped together, and the reasons for it are clear.

    Their radiation from Africa may have been around 50.000 years ago, considering the arrival in Australia is said to have been about 40,000 years ago. The African branch of those peoples is in danger now, in any case.

    I still find the acquatic theory convincing. One of the many morphological arguments for it is alignment of hair, body and head, for streamlining by water. That does not apply to all populations, mainly to east Asians, our Arctic Circle and American Indian relatives, the Polynesians, much of south Asia and Europeans, although many of those of the south have lost that characteristic.

    It is not characteristic of Sephardic Jews, most Arabs, or sub-Saharan Africans, particularly in the east. The latter also tend to lack the enlarged sinus, another morphological point of the acquatic theory.

    As for Boas, that is the first time I saw his photo. He looks like a nutty fanatic. We have him to thank for Margaret Mead (I still believe she was accurate on pre-Christian Samoa), Ursula Le Guinn (still like much of her writing, but she sure hates her own people and has no idea of east Asians), and the mother of Barack Hussein Obama.

    For Le Guinn, it is very funny how she licensed Earthsea to Studio Ghibli, made money from it, then whined about their Ghibli way of making it. The characters had big eyes! LOL.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Delinquent Snail
    Recent discoveries put earliest humans in Australia at about 65000 years ago.

    https://m.phys.org/news/2017-07-artifacts-humans-australia-earlier-thought.html

    Im a big fan of studio ghibli, what movie are you referencing?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. @LauraMR
    ... versus the author's obsession with white supremacy?

    Alternatives to the Africa origin hypothesis do not require for everyone else on the planet to be beneath us.

    Geographically, most of them are! Lol.

    But really, you’re equally bad with all your “race isn’t real” jive.

    I appreciate skepticism hitting the brakes on runaway ideology but even skeptics have an irrational wall where they stop. Yours seems to be race itself.

    Surely we can be reasonable enough to see that reality lies between “race is everything” and “race is nothing”, the usual false dichotomy set up by warring whiteskin humans.

    Read More
    • Replies: @LauraMR
    You misunderstand my observations regarding race. I only say it is not real because of how it is here usually defined and elsewhere often postulated.

    Bring forth a theory of race whose fundamental assumptions are hybridity/mongrelism and I might take it seriously.

    However, any assertion that couples "purity" and "race" will continue to remain spurious (to me) considering that, for example, we are not even a "pure" branch of the homo genus.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    This freedom fighter mentality against traditional Western ideals and society has been a mainstay in anthropology since it was introduced at the turn of the twentieth century, and has arguably metastasized into a political-philosophical juggernaut that crushes all dissent and has resulted in the railroading of the discipline into meaningless postmodern, unscientific pursuits of self-interest, such as the field of feminist archaeology (which is so 1980s and has since been eclipsed by black feminist archaeology).

    Eh? Is this a thing?

    The tragedy (farce?) here is that the various “We wuz kingz an sheit!!” attempts to rewrite history can not change the present. In terms of your personal capabilities, it makes no difference if your grand-grand-grandfather was a wise king. In the same vein, a 70-75 IQ race won’t suddenly improve even if all of that PC, unscientific rubbish is correct (it isn’t). It would point to regression, at best.

    Somewhat related: I found the following presentation by Graham Hancock interesting. He’s suggesting that we’ve developed an advanced civilisation many aeons ago – which was (mostly) destroyed around 12 000 years ago (flood?). I haven’t done much digging in that direction but his reasoning, and data, seems compelling:

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    The world didn't have the population count 12,0000 years ago to produce early civilizations. You need population density to build and maintain a civilization vs. having just wandering roving bands of hunter-gatherers of only 100-400 people. Your film is a lot of freaking UFO nonsense.
    , @Delinquent Snail
    I havent seen the film but ive heard the theory. There are several megalithic structures around the planet that arent natural and are much too old to be from "current" humans. Not to mention, the oldest map in existence shows a non frozen antartica, and the owner claimed to have copied the map from much older maps.

    Theres just too large of a gap of time for nothing to have happened (society wise). Humans in 4 thousand years have done more then the previous 90 thousand years? Really?

    Im not a believer in the flood, but a self inflicted disaster could easily have wiped out previous societies. Nuclear war, a pandemic, causing a global cool down/heat up.....

    Why does this planet have such a high background radiation level?

    The ancient indians have stories of nuclear bomb blasts, lasers, and flying fighting craft. From over 4 thousand years ago. The ancient sumarians or Babylonians described our outer planets (neptune and uranus), their color and orbits, a couple thousand years before they were "discovered" with telescopes....


    Humans are a species with amnesia. What we dont forget, our "leaders" destroy to "insulate" us from a reality that goes against what they want us to beleive.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. helena says:
    @animalogic
    This article appears, to this non-anthropologist, to have a very strong, indeed compelling argument for its conclusion that Anthropology has demonstrated a systematic bias against the "western" or European basis for the assent of "modern"humans. However...
    The author does his argument no favours by his continual reference to "cultural marxism" & relativism; a phenomenon he blames almost entirely on the Frankfurt School.
    It is true that some "members"of the Frankfurt School (Marcuse especially) pushed PC matters: gender, race, sexuality. However, the relation between this & marxism is dubious at best: if anything it is Freud's influence that drove writers such as Marcuse & Frome.
    Also, it is very easy indeed to over state the influence this branch of philosophy etc had on academic fashions. After the the 70's the Frankfurt School was passe' -- in large part because it was superseded by a French intellectual fashion, we now call Post Modernism(PM). I can not over stress enough that PM is the true enemy of those who believe in a world capable of some degree of knowledge.
    PM is in NO way, shape or form marxist.
    To be a marxist is to be a materialist. That is basic. You can not be a non materialist & a marxist (like being a Christian & not believing in God: utterly ridiculous).
    A materialist believes there is a world which we can try to know. They believe in science, technology & economies. They do NOT believe everything is relative.
    PM's on the other hand believe, essentially in nothing, except language & discourse. Everything is relative: thus, there are no real distinctions between works of literature (A Mills & Boon book is equal to Moby Dick). Whatever distinctions you think you see are the mere effect of (usually privileged white, male) discourse.
    It is very hard to over state the (malign) effect that PM has had on the last 30-40 years of graduates from the Humanities & social sciences. They not only infest universities, but government bureaucracies.
    It may be said all this is of trivial significance -- perhaps: but it is usually best to be able to identify your enemy correctly.

    Really interesting; well said. Any chance you can develop the argument further ? Baudrillard? Just curious.

    I tend to think that there are several influences going on. It doesn’t have to be either/ or. The collapse of the West is a ‘perfect storm’.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. Pandos says:

    So this lie was also started by a Jew.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Always. I was never religious but my un-faith is getting tested. The Father of Lies seems to be overwhelmingly represented by one single Tribe. It's unsettling.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. @helena
    interesting. I particularly like this one https://www.sa-venues.com/game-reserves/graphics/drakensberg-park-rock-art.jpg
    I looked at that site and it says the oldest art is 2400ya so I thought that must be a typo so I looked up wiki Drakensberg "the largest collection of such work in the world", "these paintings are difficult to date but there is anthropological evidence, including many hunting implements, that the San people existed in the Drakensberg at least 40,000 years ago, and possibly over 100,000 years ago" but "The website south Africa.info indicates that though "the oldest painting on a rock shelter wall in the Ginsberg dates back about 2400 years.....paint chips at least a thousand years older have also been found."[15]

    I stand corrected—I should have checked google scholar first. The Maqonqo site has paintings c 3700 before present. The problem of European influx remains.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. Jake says:
    @Robert Magill

    The person most responsible for saturating anthropology with Cultural Marxism was Franz Boas, a German-Jewish émigré who found his academic home at Columbia University in 1896, where he stayed until his retirement in 1936. Boas had a profound impact on the field of anthropology, and was unashamedly political in his orientation, placing great emphasis on fighting scientific racism.
     
    This orientation seems to have escaped his prize student who went on to outshine, albeit in a popular sense, her mentor. Margaret Mead seemed little influenced by this cultural correctness and was a dutiful member of the Episcopal Church.


    Although we are all different culturally and genetically from the first modern humans entering Europe some 40,000 years ago, it is clear that something special did happen there at that time.
     
    Interesting that we are not informed of the recent studies of DNA linkage that shows the so called "modern humans entering Europe" mated with Neanderthals who had lived in southern Europe and the Levant for 200+ thousand years. How 'modern' were the offspring?


    http://robertmagill.wordpress.com

    You see Margaret Mead as some kind of improvement over Boas?

    Yes, she was an Anglican, with most of the standard WASP prejudices. That includes the by then typical WASP Elite romanticizing of most, or all, non-whites at the expense of ‘other’ whites.

    Mead, for significantly, was as insane a feminist as Boas was an ‘anti-racist.

    You should consider that Boas picked and groomed her precisely because she held pristine early 20th century WASP notions and so would produce ‘scholarship’ that waged culture war on the vestiges of Christendom, and on the majority of white Gentiles, as furiously as did his work.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Pandos
    So this lie was also started by a Jew.

    Always. I was never religious but my un-faith is getting tested. The Father of Lies seems to be overwhelmingly represented by one single Tribe. It’s unsettling.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Truth says:
    @Rdm
    I believe we all evolved from monkeys. But I don't believe we all came from Africa.

    If any Africans believe all humans evolved from out of Africa, they're shooting their own foots. They're already shackled with all the theories.

    If they believe the theory, they're saying they're remnants of this evolutionary tree.
    If they don't, they're saying they can't catch up with advanced civilization because of the lack of such evidence.

    I believe we all evolved from monkeys. But I don’t believe we all came from Africa.

    Evolution is a theory, there is no evidence of it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Delinquent Snail
    Really? Thats interesting.

    Guess I'll fly to work tomorrow. Seeing as how gravity is a theory.

    A scientific theory is not the same as a laymans theory. A scientific HYPOTHESIS is what a layman would call a theory.


    Using the handle "truth", one would expect a bit more knowledge and, you know, truth.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. @helena
    interesting. I particularly like this one https://www.sa-venues.com/game-reserves/graphics/drakensberg-park-rock-art.jpg
    I looked at that site and it says the oldest art is 2400ya so I thought that must be a typo so I looked up wiki Drakensberg "the largest collection of such work in the world", "these paintings are difficult to date but there is anthropological evidence, including many hunting implements, that the San people existed in the Drakensberg at least 40,000 years ago, and possibly over 100,000 years ago" but "The website south Africa.info indicates that though "the oldest painting on a rock shelter wall in the Ginsberg dates back about 2400 years.....paint chips at least a thousand years older have also been found."[15]

    For older art, see e.g. the so-called “Apollo 11″ cave in Namibia, and the Wonderwerk cave in South Africa. These go back at least 30,000 years.

    Read More
    • Replies: @helena
    Wonderwerk
    http://www.southafrica.net/cache/ce_cache/made/3e6619e6c93b131c/Wonderwerk%20Caves_960_472_80auto_s_c1_center_center.jpg

    Apollo
    http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large/apollo-animal-rock-art-asok-mukhopadhyay.jpg

    Aurignacian
    https://media1.britannica.com/eb-media/31/181931-004-8F1C7B52.jpg
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. @Johan Meyer
    Some of the ukhahlamba rock art (Khoi San) achieves at least as much depth or perspective. It is estimated at 25000 years old. I would be interested if the author could present paleo-genetic evidence of gene flow to the South African Khoi San from Europe at or before that time. Ditto Tunga Dutse, for example.

    Nice try (((meyer))) san rock art only 800 years old. its beautiful though and the san are interesting people not really black africans as we understand the term very genetically different oldest people in a way a different species really like the australian aborinals

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johan Meyer
    Nice try yourself. Maqonqo age:
    https://journals.co.za/content/nmsa_sah/15/1/EJC84739

    I also posted earlier Khoisan art, albeit less developed, and references to rock art in Nigeria.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Lay off the ganja, Austen.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  31. @Robert Magill

    The person most responsible for saturating anthropology with Cultural Marxism was Franz Boas, a German-Jewish émigré who found his academic home at Columbia University in 1896, where he stayed until his retirement in 1936. Boas had a profound impact on the field of anthropology, and was unashamedly political in his orientation, placing great emphasis on fighting scientific racism.
     
    This orientation seems to have escaped his prize student who went on to outshine, albeit in a popular sense, her mentor. Margaret Mead seemed little influenced by this cultural correctness and was a dutiful member of the Episcopal Church.


    Although we are all different culturally and genetically from the first modern humans entering Europe some 40,000 years ago, it is clear that something special did happen there at that time.
     
    Interesting that we are not informed of the recent studies of DNA linkage that shows the so called "modern humans entering Europe" mated with Neanderthals who had lived in southern Europe and the Levant for 200+ thousand years. How 'modern' were the offspring?


    http://robertmagill.wordpress.com

    mead like gould actually worse was a fabricator its actually a testament to the jews power that these pseudo scientists like lewontin gould mead etc are even mentioned anymore as anything other than flat earthers

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. (As used here, the term ‘racist’ refers to views that race and racial differences are a legitimate variable in research on humans, with none of the usual negative connotations found in the popular and scientific literature.)

    To make a clearer distinction, you should spell it ‘race-ist’.

    Or maybe ‘race-ite’. Racity or race-ity would be the condition of race reality.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  33. Jake says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    I had to read a lot here to get much additional evidence for my existing prejudice that there are a lot of softheaded anthropologists who want to feel and sound warm and fuzzy about genetically inherited group differences.

    In the course of reading it I came across a somewhat anti-Semitic smear against Boas which remunded me that learning of Margaret Mead's frauds or follies had left me open to anti-Boasian prejudice - and so I looked him up. The Wikipedia article may of course not be perfectly balanced, but I think I would probably end up a Boasian admirer on balance despite all his overoptimistic cultural relativism which seems to have included a genuine belief that the descendants of African slaves would or could build on modern education to become capable productive modern people.

    He seems to have been an Enlightenment empiricist, an admirer of Darwin, largely without the benefit of Mendel and genetic mechanisms, and very sound in his rejection of the doctrines of the cultural evolutionists. Suppose his biography had read that he was the son of a Lutheran or Calvinist missionary pastor and his teacher wife and remembered his carefree years till the age of 10 in German Southwest Africa and his African nanny with nostalgic affection. Although drifting away from religion at University he founded a small society devoted to studying Africa and its cultures and attempting to raise scholarship funds for promising young African women.... Would that seem in any way unlikely? Would his help to Grrman and Austrian (typically Jewish) scholars in the 30s distinguish him from J.M. Keynes and many other great non Jewish scholars?

    Your ending question is going to be easy for most to ignore. The reason is simple: the answer is – NO! It would not be hard to imagine the life and work of Boas if he were the son of a German Protestant pastor. Ditto if he were the son of an Anglican priest or Methodist missionary.

    Cultural/linguistic Germanism (which includes Anglo-Saxonism) has been necessary to the rise of Jews in all endeavors.

    Yiddish is German, a mere Jewish dialect of German. It is most telling, indispensable, that almost all Jews in the Russian Empire right up to WW1 spoke Yiddish fluently.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I'm glad to see your emphasis on Yiddish as a German dialect because it means you aren't one of those repeating Koestler"s nonsense of 60 years ago which would have had a whole lot of Khazars picking up German as their working language despite moving from the East to Poland.

    I was about to dissent from your view of Jewish rise depending on the Anglo-Saxon/♧Germanic connections by reference to the predominant place Jews held in the professions in Catholic Slavic Polish speaking Poland. But that would be to miss your point in emphasising the German character of Yiddish. And even if Yiddish is too remote from Hoch Deutsch and its associated culture to prove your assertion the question you raise can't be dismissed out of hand without close scrutiny. I suspect tbat it was not the Germanness or Anglo-Saxon nature of those cultures which wss critical but Jews coming into intercourse with societies which offered them the intellectual products of the scientific and industrial revolutions and the Enightenment. Catholic culture was eell behind the Protestant in providing those intellectual furnishings (i don't know whether Bavaria was behind the rest of Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire may have been a special case: I'm not sure). It's interesting to note by reference to Spinoza's ostracism from the Dutch Jewish community that proximity to the NW European Enlightenment wasn't enough and it is also perhaps worth observing that there was a French Enlightenment not wholly divorced from the English (or American) and which might have something to do with France even today having Europe's largest Jewish populaation. Have you some kind of Sapir-Whorf thesis backing your German connection theory? Or is it much more than language?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. Wally says:
    @LauraMR
    ... versus the author's obsession with white supremacy?

    Alternatives to the Africa origin hypothesis do not require for everyone else on the planet to be beneath us.

    Right. And the world is breaking down the doors to get into Africa.

    You call it “white supremacy”, the rational call it reality.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. @animalogic
    This article appears, to this non-anthropologist, to have a very strong, indeed compelling argument for its conclusion that Anthropology has demonstrated a systematic bias against the "western" or European basis for the assent of "modern"humans. However...
    The author does his argument no favours by his continual reference to "cultural marxism" & relativism; a phenomenon he blames almost entirely on the Frankfurt School.
    It is true that some "members"of the Frankfurt School (Marcuse especially) pushed PC matters: gender, race, sexuality. However, the relation between this & marxism is dubious at best: if anything it is Freud's influence that drove writers such as Marcuse & Frome.
    Also, it is very easy indeed to over state the influence this branch of philosophy etc had on academic fashions. After the the 70's the Frankfurt School was passe' -- in large part because it was superseded by a French intellectual fashion, we now call Post Modernism(PM). I can not over stress enough that PM is the true enemy of those who believe in a world capable of some degree of knowledge.
    PM is in NO way, shape or form marxist.
    To be a marxist is to be a materialist. That is basic. You can not be a non materialist & a marxist (like being a Christian & not believing in God: utterly ridiculous).
    A materialist believes there is a world which we can try to know. They believe in science, technology & economies. They do NOT believe everything is relative.
    PM's on the other hand believe, essentially in nothing, except language & discourse. Everything is relative: thus, there are no real distinctions between works of literature (A Mills & Boon book is equal to Moby Dick). Whatever distinctions you think you see are the mere effect of (usually privileged white, male) discourse.
    It is very hard to over state the (malign) effect that PM has had on the last 30-40 years of graduates from the Humanities & social sciences. They not only infest universities, but government bureaucracies.
    It may be said all this is of trivial significance -- perhaps: but it is usually best to be able to identify your enemy correctly.

    I’m glad you pointed out the differences amongst the Cultural Marxists.

    Fromm in particular took pains to separate himself from others such as Marcuse.

    Whereas a dyed in the wool Marxist believes that human consciousness is derived from one’s economic class and therefore fixed by environmental (material) conditions, this paradoxically, simultaneously proves that it is infinitely malleable. If our “minds are made up” by our class and if those classes differ then the mind can be programmed to accept any stamp, however inhuman or absurd.

    Fromm disbelieved this. He argued that humans had an intrinsic Nature. As tool-making animals humans need to be productive which is to be effective in transforming their environment in order to satisfy their intrinsic needs.

    Humans need to be members of a community, to feel a sense of rootedness and transcendence, to love, to care, to take responsibility, to respect and to be knowledgeable.

    Fromm’s ‘Revolution of Hope” was to be towards a “humanized technology”, one in which hours spent on the assembly line would be replaced by a kinder, gentler work routine in which, to cite one example, he pointed out Volvo’s attempt to replace the assembly line with a team approach to building cars. Whether this would work or not is not the issue. The point is he did not wish to socialize all manufacturing or replace private ownership with worker communes but wanted to soften the harsh edges of raw capitalism.

    But today, those sentiments have flown the coup. We have transferred our manufacturing to China and it is they, not us, who stand in need of a revolution of hope. Their begrimed cities, the Dickensian miasma of smog that casts their urban landscape in a perpetual semi-darkness, the grinding hours on the demanding lines; all these are for real. And their workers suffer and literally cry out in pain as though calling upon God asking why they are cursed.

    I told them that this period would pass. That they would emerge into the sunlight eventually. That every European country had passed through a similar stage of development. Carry on. Things will get better. You may have to sacrifice the happiness of a generation or two, but it will pay off in the end.

    There is no doubt that manufacturing and science have raised the standard of living of virtually all humankind to unprecedented levels. But I don’t blame the cultural Marxists–not all of them anyway–for all the ills that beset us today. As a poor student, I worked in some of those nasty, old factories and I, for one, am glad that they are gone.

    Fromm was right. We need a humanized technology.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    There is no doubt that manufacturing and science have raised the standard of living of virtually all humankind to unprecedented levels.
     
    Not in the past 50 years. Our "advancements" have been mostly railroaded into the surveillance and control sector. This particular fish is rotting from the head down. The "illuminated" elite got corrupted long time ago. The top of the pyramid is filled with lies, hubris and fear.

    "The things you own end up owning you" - Tyler Durden
     
    , @animalogic
    "Whereas a dyed in the wool Marxist believes that human consciousness is derived from one’s economic class and therefore fixed by environmental (material) conditions, this paradoxically, simultaneously proves that it is infinitely malleable.[my emphasis] If our “minds are made up” by our class and if those classes differ then the mind can be programmed to accept any stamp, however inhuman or absurd."
    The programming of which you speak is often referred to as "ideology" and there's no doubt that many marxists ( & many others) believe this is the most powerful influence on human development.
    I also believe there is something we can call a "human nature". This nature is neither infinitely malleable, nor eternally pre-set. Human nature creates limits & possibilities/probabilities. Humans have, as a part of their nature, a drive to knowledge -- that is a drive to workable truths. We are not only inherently curious, knowledge is, at a minimum, a drive to self preservation. Nietzsche, would add, it's an expression of a will to power.
    Therefore, I do not accept that people are necessarily 100% bound by ideology & culture. Many maybe. However, if you accept that the last 10,000 years demonstrates some kind of development then you also accept that humans are never completely tied to existing ideology & culture.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. Rurik says: • Website
    @LauraMR
    ... versus the author's obsession with white supremacy?

    Alternatives to the Africa origin hypothesis do not require for everyone else on the planet to be beneath us.

    Africa origin hypothesis do not require for everyone else on the planet to be beneath us.

    this is the crux of the matter, because part of Western man’s OBVIOUS and glaring superiority vis-a-vis some other races- is his innate sense of noblesse oblige to the children of lessor Gods.

    it would be crass and beneath him to constantly remind other of their comparative and relative ‘robustness’

    but when push comes to shove, as it has in modern pop culture, (when white people are blamed for all the foibles of others) then at times it’s worth while to notice that there are indeed differences, and that the notable dearth of accomplishments coming from some quarters are not, as the liberals and lying shills would have us all believe, a consequence of white people’s racism, but rather an inconvenient truth, that Europeans are tens of thousands of years more evolutionarily advanced than some others.

    That doesn’t make them better people per se (even tho it often seems to when you consider Negro violent crime or how it was Scandinavian men [as white as they get] who were first to give women full societal rights), But being white is no guarantee that you’re not an asshole, just like being black is no guarantee that you’re not a nice and worthy person all around.

    race is real, but people should not be judged because of it, in either direction

    and all races and peoples all deserve self-determination. A truth that the white people uniquely learned and gave to all the others when it outlawed slavery in the world and abandoned colonialism, but then had that momentum turned against them by Jewish supremacists who saw in the advanced whites an Achilles Heal of genteel ‘goodness’, and decided to use white people’s advanced sense of noblesse oblige as a weapon to utterly destroy them.

    that’s where we’re at today. ;)

    Read More
    • Replies: @iii
    Thank you for that. It's basically the entire basis of how and why we've gotten to this point of sceintific censorship. For a long time, a lot was invested in determining racial superiority until someone said "Hey, we all live on this planet, we all deserve to be respected and assumptions to not be made of our character based on race." That's what this is all about. I prefer truthfulness but understand that a large part of the population can't be reasonable in their conclusions.

    So many people here focus on IQ as a form of superiority but they're missing the point. Why is intelligence held us the ultimate human trait? I mean I can see exactly why people think that but I can also see why it shouldn't be. Intelligence is a double-edged sword. Intelligence has allowed our species to "progress" but where are we even going? What is the end goal? Have you even thought about it?

    We've created as many problems as we have solutions. The problems we are facing today require intelligence to solve yet intelligence is what brought us here. We've become accustomed to our intelligence but is life actually better now than 10,000 years ago? I know I'd be happy making rock formations, I do this in my yard now. Would I want to be at war with other tribes? Would I want to be hunting & gathering food? My ancestors lived in the Arctic, would I want to live there without modern amenities? How about disease? These are the questions most people ask but then I ask myself do I like working 8 hour days doing the same thing? Do I like our modern obsession with time? Do I like corruption and modern politics? How about our constant struggle to be more productive? Internet addiction? Cancer causing foods?

    If you think about it long enough you see we haven't really "progressed" unless you're looking at this from a specific angle. Different races have different abilities and ways of seeing, some of them are alien to us and we don't understand them but that doesn't make them inferior.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. Joe Wong says:
    @Missed something
    http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0177127

    The split happened before the Mediterranean existed. The fucking Homo Genus started in Europe.

    The BTFO's are getting harder and harder as the days go by.

    Lives do not start from a single source, watch the following for the explanation.
    Evolution Is Officially Debunked | SCIENCE PROVES INTELLIGENT DESIGN

    Read More
    • LOL: Delinquent Snail
    • Replies: @Anon
    Evolution IS intelligent design. And god was behind it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. Joe Wong says:
    @jilles dykstra
    I have respect for those who manoevre themselves in deep caves to dig up parts of bones up to two million years old.
    This respect is partly because I'm claustrophobic, but also from what these scientists deduce from these excavations.
    If they're right in their conclusions, possibly, I'm not in a position to criticise.
    But any time still older 'human' remains are found I wonder about the human remains not found, either because nobody found them until now, or because they have disappeared.
    So, to base human history, the history of how present man emerged, on a few lucky finds, it seems hazardous to me.
    On the other hand, if present man has its origins in Africa, so what ?
    Does it change anything in the mess present Africa is ?
    Rhodesia was a prosperous country, it degenerated into Zimbabwe.
    S Africa was a prosperous country, based on racism, that is true.
    But it seems to be zimbabweing.
    In some tv report long ago already someone from N Africa said 'under colonisalism we had a better life'.

    Are you saying the current mess in the ME is the result of the people over there inferior to the White, not because it was created by the bombing, killing and waterboarding created by the White on the fabricated phantom WMD allegation as humanitarian intervention?

    It is really morally defunct and evil for the White to white wash that they are the perpetrators of all the mess and ills on going in Africa as well as all around the world with such psychopathic glorification ‘under colonialism we had a better life’.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Your generalisations are as silly as those they are opposed to. I would have expected more close attention to detail by you.
    , @Wally
    Except that Africans were better off under colonialism, much better.

    Simply look at Africa for proof.
    , @Saxon
    That's part of it, that they just didn't evolve in the same environment as us. Some of it's a behavioral feedback loop--for example part of that inferiority is caused by first cousin inbreeding, but also partly the fact that they took sex slaves which they reproduced with willy-nilly from everywhere they could. Including by the way sub-Saharan Africa. Which is why most of these Arab populations have some of that in them now.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @ThreeCranes
    I'm glad you pointed out the differences amongst the Cultural Marxists.

    Fromm in particular took pains to separate himself from others such as Marcuse.

    Whereas a dyed in the wool Marxist believes that human consciousness is derived from one's economic class and therefore fixed by environmental (material) conditions, this paradoxically, simultaneously proves that it is infinitely malleable. If our "minds are made up" by our class and if those classes differ then the mind can be programmed to accept any stamp, however inhuman or absurd.

    Fromm disbelieved this. He argued that humans had an intrinsic Nature. As tool-making animals humans need to be productive which is to be effective in transforming their environment in order to satisfy their intrinsic needs.

    Humans need to be members of a community, to feel a sense of rootedness and transcendence, to love, to care, to take responsibility, to respect and to be knowledgeable.

    Fromm's 'Revolution of Hope" was to be towards a "humanized technology", one in which hours spent on the assembly line would be replaced by a kinder, gentler work routine in which, to cite one example, he pointed out Volvo's attempt to replace the assembly line with a team approach to building cars. Whether this would work or not is not the issue. The point is he did not wish to socialize all manufacturing or replace private ownership with worker communes but wanted to soften the harsh edges of raw capitalism.

    But today, those sentiments have flown the coup. We have transferred our manufacturing to China and it is they, not us, who stand in need of a revolution of hope. Their begrimed cities, the Dickensian miasma of smog that casts their urban landscape in a perpetual semi-darkness, the grinding hours on the demanding lines; all these are for real. And their workers suffer and literally cry out in pain as though calling upon God asking why they are cursed.

    I told them that this period would pass. That they would emerge into the sunlight eventually. That every European country had passed through a similar stage of development. Carry on. Things will get better. You may have to sacrifice the happiness of a generation or two, but it will pay off in the end.

    There is no doubt that manufacturing and science have raised the standard of living of virtually all humankind to unprecedented levels. But I don't blame the cultural Marxists--not all of them anyway--for all the ills that beset us today. As a poor student, I worked in some of those nasty, old factories and I, for one, am glad that they are gone.

    Fromm was right. We need a humanized technology.

    There is no doubt that manufacturing and science have raised the standard of living of virtually all humankind to unprecedented levels.

    Not in the past 50 years. Our “advancements” have been mostly railroaded into the surveillance and control sector. This particular fish is rotting from the head down. The “illuminated” elite got corrupted long time ago. The top of the pyramid is filled with lies, hubris and fear.

    “The things you own end up owning you” – Tyler Durden

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @LauraMR
    ... versus the author's obsession with white supremacy?

    Alternatives to the Africa origin hypothesis do not require for everyone else on the planet to be beneath us.

    To insist that race is nothing is simply a backhanded way of admitting that race is everything. Otherwise race would never be worth mentioning at all, and there would be no noticeable differences between races, when there plainly is.

    Read More
    • Replies: @LauraMR
    Take a room (or a stadium) full of people, then divide according to whatever random criteria, and finally derive rankings of whatever trait from these groupings. It is not hard to do. If the trait is of any substantive interest, the ranking will be meaningless.

    Feminist, for example, have been doing it (based on biological criteria) for ages and have produced endless amount of completely nonsensical crap.

    Or do you concede, as they claim, that the male of the species is somehow defective and that, by virtue of a uterus, the female of the species is unequivocally superior independently of the actions and characteristics of individual women?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. Biff says:

    Everybody knows humans evolved in Antarctica.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Delinquent Snail
    Dont be silly. Everyone knows we are the genetic experiment of a bored group of intergalactic wlaruses. How else do you explain male humans intersting placement of facial hair? It was to emulate their whiskers.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Anonymous

    This freedom fighter mentality against traditional Western ideals and society has been a mainstay in anthropology since it was introduced at the turn of the twentieth century, and has arguably metastasized into a political-philosophical juggernaut that crushes all dissent and has resulted in the railroading of the discipline into meaningless postmodern, unscientific pursuits of self-interest, such as the field of feminist archaeology (which is so 1980s and has since been eclipsed by black feminist archaeology).
     
    Eh? Is this a thing?

    The tragedy (farce?) here is that the various "We wuz kingz an sheit!!" attempts to rewrite history can not change the present. In terms of your personal capabilities, it makes no difference if your grand-grand-grandfather was a wise king. In the same vein, a 70-75 IQ race won't suddenly improve even if all of that PC, unscientific rubbish is correct (it isn't). It would point to regression, at best.

    Somewhat related: I found the following presentation by Graham Hancock interesting. He's suggesting that we've developed an advanced civilisation many aeons ago - which was (mostly) destroyed around 12 000 years ago (flood?). I haven't done much digging in that direction but his reasoning, and data, seems compelling:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUnaHaIXl44

    The world didn’t have the population count 12,0000 years ago to produce early civilizations. You need population density to build and maintain a civilization vs. having just wandering roving bands of hunter-gatherers of only 100-400 people. Your film is a lot of freaking UFO nonsense.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Your film is a lot of freaking UFO nonsense.
     
    It's not "my" film - and Graham Hancock is explicitly rejecting UFO influence. Like I've said - I haven't researched the theory deep enough to make any firm conclusions - but you can at least watch the video before flashing your ignorance for all to see.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. helena says:
    @Johan Meyer
    For older art, see e.g. the so-called "Apollo 11" cave in Namibia, and the Wonderwerk cave in South Africa. These go back at least 30,000 years.

    Wonderwerk

    Apollo

    Aurignacian

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. @Jake
    Your ending question is going to be easy for most to ignore. The reason is simple: the answer is - NO! It would not be hard to imagine the life and work of Boas if he were the son of a German Protestant pastor. Ditto if he were the son of an Anglican priest or Methodist missionary.

    Cultural/linguistic Germanism (which includes Anglo-Saxonism) has been necessary to the rise of Jews in all endeavors.

    Yiddish is German, a mere Jewish dialect of German. It is most telling, indispensable, that almost all Jews in the Russian Empire right up to WW1 spoke Yiddish fluently.

    I’m glad to see your emphasis on Yiddish as a German dialect because it means you aren’t one of those repeating Koestler”s nonsense of 60 years ago which would have had a whole lot of Khazars picking up German as their working language despite moving from the East to Poland.

    I was about to dissent from your view of Jewish rise depending on the Anglo-Saxon/♧Germanic connections by reference to the predominant place Jews held in the professions in Catholic Slavic Polish speaking Poland. But that would be to miss your point in emphasising the German character of Yiddish. And even if Yiddish is too remote from Hoch Deutsch and its associated culture to prove your assertion the question you raise can’t be dismissed out of hand without close scrutiny. I suspect tbat it was not the Germanness or Anglo-Saxon nature of those cultures which wss critical but Jews coming into intercourse with societies which offered them the intellectual products of the scientific and industrial revolutions and the Enightenment. Catholic culture was eell behind the Protestant in providing those intellectual furnishings (i don’t know whether Bavaria was behind the rest of Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire may have been a special case: I’m not sure). It’s interesting to note by reference to Spinoza’s ostracism from the Dutch Jewish community that proximity to the NW European Enlightenment wasn’t enough and it is also perhaps worth observing that there was a French Enlightenment not wholly divorced from the English (or American) and which might have something to do with France even today having Europe’s largest Jewish populaation. Have you some kind of Sapir-Whorf thesis backing your German connection theory? Or is it much more than language?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    What's wrong with Koestler? Specifics please.

    Are you denying there were Khazars?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. @Joe Wong
    Are you saying the current mess in the ME is the result of the people over there inferior to the White, not because it was created by the bombing, killing and waterboarding created by the White on the fabricated phantom WMD allegation as humanitarian intervention?

    It is really morally defunct and evil for the White to white wash that they are the perpetrators of all the mess and ills on going in Africa as well as all around the world with such psychopathic glorification ‘under colonialism we had a better life’.

    Your generalisations are as silly as those they are opposed to. I would have expected more close attention to detail by you.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Anon
    The world didn't have the population count 12,0000 years ago to produce early civilizations. You need population density to build and maintain a civilization vs. having just wandering roving bands of hunter-gatherers of only 100-400 people. Your film is a lot of freaking UFO nonsense.

    Your film is a lot of freaking UFO nonsense.

    It’s not “my” film – and Graham Hancock is explicitly rejecting UFO influence. Like I’ve said – I haven’t researched the theory deep enough to make any firm conclusions – but you can at least watch the video before flashing your ignorance for all to see.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. it was ancient alien astronauts that made all the accomplishments credited to man. i saw it on the history channel. it has to be true.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  48. Wally says:
    @Joe Wong
    Are you saying the current mess in the ME is the result of the people over there inferior to the White, not because it was created by the bombing, killing and waterboarding created by the White on the fabricated phantom WMD allegation as humanitarian intervention?

    It is really morally defunct and evil for the White to white wash that they are the perpetrators of all the mess and ills on going in Africa as well as all around the world with such psychopathic glorification ‘under colonialism we had a better life’.

    Except that Africans were better off under colonialism, much better.

    Simply look at Africa for proof.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johan Meyer
    Life expectancy? Largely double what it was under colonialism. GDP PPP per capita? No comparison. University educated personnel? Ditto. By which measure do you suggest that Africa was better off?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. Wally says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    I'm glad to see your emphasis on Yiddish as a German dialect because it means you aren't one of those repeating Koestler"s nonsense of 60 years ago which would have had a whole lot of Khazars picking up German as their working language despite moving from the East to Poland.

    I was about to dissent from your view of Jewish rise depending on the Anglo-Saxon/♧Germanic connections by reference to the predominant place Jews held in the professions in Catholic Slavic Polish speaking Poland. But that would be to miss your point in emphasising the German character of Yiddish. And even if Yiddish is too remote from Hoch Deutsch and its associated culture to prove your assertion the question you raise can't be dismissed out of hand without close scrutiny. I suspect tbat it was not the Germanness or Anglo-Saxon nature of those cultures which wss critical but Jews coming into intercourse with societies which offered them the intellectual products of the scientific and industrial revolutions and the Enightenment. Catholic culture was eell behind the Protestant in providing those intellectual furnishings (i don't know whether Bavaria was behind the rest of Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire may have been a special case: I'm not sure). It's interesting to note by reference to Spinoza's ostracism from the Dutch Jewish community that proximity to the NW European Enlightenment wasn't enough and it is also perhaps worth observing that there was a French Enlightenment not wholly divorced from the English (or American) and which might have something to do with France even today having Europe's largest Jewish populaation. Have you some kind of Sapir-Whorf thesis backing your German connection theory? Or is it much more than language?

    What’s wrong with Koestler? Specifics please.

    Are you denying there were Khazars?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I'm sure you can find it easily enough online. It seems Koestler was attracted to the idea of saying Ashkenazi Jews weren't Semites as some sort of protection from anti-Semitism and leapt atthe idea of extrapolating from the conversion of a tiny minority of important Kazars. Obvious rubbish to anyone who had studied the actual well recorded history of Ashkenazim or just noted that they wouldn't have acquired Yiddish, a German dialect, if they came from the East. Now of course the DNA evidence is in and, according to Greg Cochran the 50 or so per cent of non-Semitic ancestry is nearly all Celtic or Germanic.
    , @RaceRealist88
    Koestler is a hack. Ashkenazi Jews are not Khazar.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/04/24/ashkenazi-jews-are-not-khazar/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. El Dato says:
    @Missed something
    http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0177127

    The split happened before the Mediterranean existed. The fucking Homo Genus started in Europe.

    The BTFO's are getting harder and harder as the days go by.

    The fucking Homo Genus started in Europe.

    Today he is mainly found in Gay Bars.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. In a way, Out of Africa theory makes blacks look not-so-good.

    After all, Africa is filled with apes. Gorillas, chimps, bonobos… though no gibbons.

    So, to say humans arose in Sub-Saharan Africa means that apes first turned into proto-humans or ape-men there.
    In other words, Africa is where apes became primitive man. This might be read by some people that black Africans are closest to the original man, the man-ape or mape. And some blacks really do look a bit ape-like. Consider Mike Tyson and Magic Johnson. And the way black folks be acting also seem a bit ape-ish. Blacks surely can be as noisy and wild like the apes, indeed even more so. At a zoo, the apes are more likely to be better-behaved than Negroes.

    So, Out of Africa can be interpreted as “apes turned into man-ape in Africa, and some of these man-apes turned into Negroes. Negroes were acting so crazy that a bunch of man-apes fled from Sub-Saharan Africa and took residence in North Africa where they began to evolve into something closer to humans.”

    Also, out of Sub-Saharan Africa to North Africa is just as crucial as the move out of Africa itself.

    Even if mankind left Africa, say, 70,000 yrs ago, the distance between non-Africans and Sub-Saharan Africans go deeper because the North African and Sub-Saharan Split took place much earlier, indeed over 100,000 yrs ago.

    So, at the very least, the theory should be called Out of North Africa. Treating all of Africa as single region wit same kind of people would be like treating all of Asia as one continent and one people. But in fact, Hindus are different from East Asians who are different from Russians and Turks in western parts of Asia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
    "And some blacks really do look a bit ape-like."

    Why should homo sapiens women runners have to compete with half-ape/half-human hybrids such as this “woman”

    http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/articles/sports/fivering_circus/2016/07/160725_FRC_sports-division-Caster-Semenya.jpg.CROP.promo-xlarge2.jpg

    Check out her pictures. Who can deny that this female is not the proverbial missing link between Homo sapiens and gorillas? Just look at the shape of her head. Prominent jaw, brow ridge, flaring nostrils, very small forehead indicating low cranial capacity, sloping forehead, pointed skull in the back etc. What facial recognition software wouldn’t place the above face with the species Gorilla gorilla?

    Why do we expect civilized people to compete against animals? It’s not only unfair to the competitors, but is ridiculous to stage a fight or athletic contest between humans and brutes; a form of voyeurism. Sick. Roman colosseum stuff.

    http://img3.rnkr-static.com/user_node_img/89/1762853/870/patrick-ewing-basketball-players-photo-u12.jpg

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. LauraMR says:
    @Marshall Lentini
    Geographically, most of them are! Lol.

    But really, you're equally bad with all your "race isn't real" jive.

    I appreciate skepticism hitting the brakes on runaway ideology but even skeptics have an irrational wall where they stop. Yours seems to be race itself.

    Surely we can be reasonable enough to see that reality lies between "race is everything" and "race is nothing", the usual false dichotomy set up by warring whiteskin humans.

    You misunderstand my observations regarding race. I only say it is not real because of how it is here usually defined and elsewhere often postulated.

    Bring forth a theory of race whose fundamental assumptions are hybridity/mongrelism and I might take it seriously.

    However, any assertion that couples “purity” and “race” will continue to remain spurious (to me) considering that, for example, we are not even a “pure” branch of the homo genus.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Marshall Lentini
    I'm not sure there are too many on the right genuinely worried about purity anymore, beyond the usual autistic hairsplitting over Italians, "crypto-Jews", and half-Asians. (You'll note I have the misfortune of belonging to one these undesirable classes.) These days, as a famous German ballad goes, es geht nun um's nackte Überleben.

    But usually behind this sort of reserve is not an affronted scientific integrity, as you seem to suggest, but the argument that goes "since hybridity is as old as bipedalism, you have no grounds for opposing immigration, or saying that being white is better than being black," etc.

    Maybe that isn't you. Maybe those other hominids fought back and were considered backward half-wits for resisting the diversity of their day. Maybe at this point I'd rather have been born black - or worse: in Ohio - so I wouldn't be drawn into idle whiteskin hairsplitting like this.

    In any case, you're working backward from a scientifically advanced perspective of gradients (in this case of hybrids or subspecies) to the primordial linguistic convenience that posits perfectly distinct entities on the basis of observable differences, and judging this habit imperfect. Of course it is. So what?

    So absolute purity doesn't exist: does this mean the proverbial white übermensch must agree that the builders of the proverbial grass huts are as smart as he is? have you come up with some definitive criterion for when an isolated population is allowed to consider itself distinct from others and risk the woefully subjective estimation of "purity"?

    I mean everyone with a basic grasp of natural selection knows classification is fuzzy and can be followed back straight to the eukaryotes, that dividing lines are arbitrary in spite of the basic reliance on factors like time, geography, mutation loads etc. in determining that there are "species" and "races" instead of the extreme linguistic inconvenience of this one thing that looks one way but is really a hybrid of this and that etc. Again, so what? Linguistic relativism may affect to abolish measurable groups, but those groups just stubbornly keep existing, fuzzy boundaries aside.

    Hey, I get it. I frequently define myself against the crude and opportunistic mishandling of theory that goes on in these quarters. But even though purity is relative, we exist in such a way that to posit absolute qualities like purity - based on real qualities - is probably slightly more adaptive as far as the one doing the positing than mulling over the hybrid nature of everything. Do you have children?

    Then again, it's usually the vapid white girls chirping "I'm just a mutt!" who do have them ....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. LauraMR says:
    @Anon
    To insist that race is nothing is simply a backhanded way of admitting that race is everything. Otherwise race would never be worth mentioning at all, and there would be no noticeable differences between races, when there plainly is.

    Take a room (or a stadium) full of people, then divide according to whatever random criteria, and finally derive rankings of whatever trait from these groupings. It is not hard to do. If the trait is of any substantive interest, the ranking will be meaningless.

    Feminist, for example, have been doing it (based on biological criteria) for ages and have produced endless amount of completely nonsensical crap.

    Or do you concede, as they claim, that the male of the species is somehow defective and that, by virtue of a uterus, the female of the species is unequivocally superior independently of the actions and characteristics of individual women?

    Read More
    • Replies: @David
    Other way around, men are better but women can be mothers, so we really like them a lot.
    , @Wally
    You make no sense whatsoever.

    Now you tell me if there is an obvious difference in intelligence here:

    African
    http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/bilder/paleo-negrid.jpg

    Northern European
    http://www.showbizireland.com/images/stars/ladyvictoria03.jpg

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. iii says:
    @Rurik

    Africa origin hypothesis do not require for everyone else on the planet to be beneath us.
     
    this is the crux of the matter, because part of Western man's OBVIOUS and glaring superiority vis-a-vis some other races- is his innate sense of noblesse oblige to the children of lessor Gods.

    it would be crass and beneath him to constantly remind other of their comparative and relative 'robustness'

    but when push comes to shove, as it has in modern pop culture, (when white people are blamed for all the foibles of others) then at times it's worth while to notice that there are indeed differences, and that the notable dearth of accomplishments coming from some quarters are not, as the liberals and lying shills would have us all believe, a consequence of white people's racism, but rather an inconvenient truth, that Europeans are tens of thousands of years more evolutionarily advanced than some others.

    That doesn't make them better people per se (even tho it often seems to when you consider Negro violent crime or how it was Scandinavian men [as white as they get] who were first to give women full societal rights), But being white is no guarantee that you're not an asshole, just like being black is no guarantee that you're not a nice and worthy person all around.

    race is real, but people should not be judged because of it, in either direction

    and all races and peoples all deserve self-determination. A truth that the white people uniquely learned and gave to all the others when it outlawed slavery in the world and abandoned colonialism, but then had that momentum turned against them by Jewish supremacists who saw in the advanced whites an Achilles Heal of genteel 'goodness', and decided to use white people's advanced sense of noblesse oblige as a weapon to utterly destroy them.

    that's where we're at today. ;)

    Thank you for that. It’s basically the entire basis of how and why we’ve gotten to this point of sceintific censorship. For a long time, a lot was invested in determining racial superiority until someone said “Hey, we all live on this planet, we all deserve to be respected and assumptions to not be made of our character based on race.” That’s what this is all about. I prefer truthfulness but understand that a large part of the population can’t be reasonable in their conclusions.

    So many people here focus on IQ as a form of superiority but they’re missing the point. Why is intelligence held us the ultimate human trait? I mean I can see exactly why people think that but I can also see why it shouldn’t be. Intelligence is a double-edged sword. Intelligence has allowed our species to “progress” but where are we even going? What is the end goal? Have you even thought about it?

    We’ve created as many problems as we have solutions. The problems we are facing today require intelligence to solve yet intelligence is what brought us here. We’ve become accustomed to our intelligence but is life actually better now than 10,000 years ago? I know I’d be happy making rock formations, I do this in my yard now. Would I want to be at war with other tribes? Would I want to be hunting & gathering food? My ancestors lived in the Arctic, would I want to live there without modern amenities? How about disease? These are the questions most people ask but then I ask myself do I like working 8 hour days doing the same thing? Do I like our modern obsession with time? Do I like corruption and modern politics? How about our constant struggle to be more productive? Internet addiction? Cancer causing foods?

    If you think about it long enough you see we haven’t really “progressed” unless you’re looking at this from a specific angle. Different races have different abilities and ways of seeing, some of them are alien to us and we don’t understand them but that doesn’t make them inferior.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    We’ve created as many problems as we have solutions. The problems we are facing today require intelligence to solve yet intelligence is what brought us here.
     
    Not exactly. Our "intelligent" have been hijacked by the outsiders. We've never been this suicidal and... evil.
    , @Rurik

    It’s basically the entire basis of how and why we’ve gotten to this point of sceintific censorship.
     
    yep, to the point where one of the single most sublime scientific minds alive today, is scorned by the scientific community and beyond, for simply telling the obvious truth

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/01/dna-james-watson-scientist-selling-nobel-prize-medal


    I prefer truthfulness but understand that a large part of the population can’t be reasonable in their conclusions.
     
    the very existence of rationality is a miracle and is very rare indeed. The thing is, that when the tiny fraction of people are capable of it, they project that onto others who are not, and then make the mistake in their minds that they're talking to other rational people of good faith, when they're really talking to agenda-driven people who simply ape the language of rationality while holding in their 'minds' their emotional/personal/tribal agendas the whole time.

    You can see this very blatantly with the 'Climate Change' agenda-driven liars and "scientists" who claim, among other brazen absurdities, that the 'science' of "Climate Change" is "settled", when there could not be a more unscientific statement made if you tried.

    They're not scientists, but paid whores lying and subverting science to foist an agenda. Which is the exact same thing going on in the universities, especially in the anthropology departments. It's all lies, all day long to suit the Agenda. Hardly science, and this rot at the intellectual level of our societies permeates all the way across the spectrum of our ivory towers and once glorious civilization. Today we're laughed at. It was a Russian guy who purchased James Watson's Nobel prize- he had to sell because he's unemployable now, due to the all-pervasive, politically correct morass of agenda-driven duplicity that has descended like a pall over all intellectual pursuits that don't genuflect to the Agenda. And the benevolent Russian gave the Nobel prize back to Mr. Watson, saying it was a disgrace that he had to pawn it in the first place. He's right about that.


    Intelligence is a double-edged sword. Intelligence has allowed our species to “progress” but where are we even going? What is the end goal? Have you even thought about it?
     
    Yes, I have!

    today intelligence is being used for purely racial, instinctive tribal motivations. We humans are smart, relatively speaking, vis-a-vis the primate community, but if you look at Western man today, all our so-called smarts are all being used for purely animal motivations (and in a suicidal way!). If we're so smart, we wouldn't be bombing and killing and slaughtering other people in contrived wars for fun and profit. We'd be using our intellects to benefit mankind and the rest of creation in ways that have infinite possibilities. We would be colonizing the moon and space itself. We'd be solving the problems that vex this planet, like human overpopulation and the dying environment. We be creating a kind of place on this planet that would make the future generations celebrate us for our benevolent foresight, rather than curse us in our graves for our craven folly.

    Which they surely will do (and should do!) when they realize what we've done.

    We are on the brink today of establishing Orwell's worst nightmare. A dystopian hell on earth of misery and horrors that are unimaginable unless you've spent some time in Gitmo or Gaza today.

    that's how 'smart' we are.

    we're using all these incredible technological marvels and wonders of science...

    ... all in the service of an instinctive, purely ape need to dominate other human apes.

    we have nuclear technology, and it could take us to the stars, but instead we're obsessed with making other alpha apes from distant tribes kowtow and bow down to our ape-need for human/ape social dominance.

    if we could be look at ourselves, and reflect on what motivates all these wars and instinctive imperatives for hegemony, we'd see an ape looking back at us from the mirror, and perhaps learn to mollify it's less endearing holdovers from our evolutionary past.

    that's my humble prayer

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  56. David says:
    @LauraMR
    Take a room (or a stadium) full of people, then divide according to whatever random criteria, and finally derive rankings of whatever trait from these groupings. It is not hard to do. If the trait is of any substantive interest, the ranking will be meaningless.

    Feminist, for example, have been doing it (based on biological criteria) for ages and have produced endless amount of completely nonsensical crap.

    Or do you concede, as they claim, that the male of the species is somehow defective and that, by virtue of a uterus, the female of the species is unequivocally superior independently of the actions and characteristics of individual women?

    Other way around, men are better but women can be mothers, so we really like them a lot.

    Read More
    • Replies: @LauraMR
    Even simpler. Being a man or a woman does not make you "better". You do, as an individual. Gender has nothing to do with it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. PA Polka says:

    Amazing video from Slovenia: Neanderthal bone flute music.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jake
    OK - I thought there might be something to this until he started playing Ode to Joy, which the racist Beethoven stole from a poor black African musician of genius, just like Plato stole his philosophy from the black geniuses of Egypt.

    Am I the only one who thinks that Neanderthals would have wanted to help uplift the new Out of African with affirmative action?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @iii
    Thank you for that. It's basically the entire basis of how and why we've gotten to this point of sceintific censorship. For a long time, a lot was invested in determining racial superiority until someone said "Hey, we all live on this planet, we all deserve to be respected and assumptions to not be made of our character based on race." That's what this is all about. I prefer truthfulness but understand that a large part of the population can't be reasonable in their conclusions.

    So many people here focus on IQ as a form of superiority but they're missing the point. Why is intelligence held us the ultimate human trait? I mean I can see exactly why people think that but I can also see why it shouldn't be. Intelligence is a double-edged sword. Intelligence has allowed our species to "progress" but where are we even going? What is the end goal? Have you even thought about it?

    We've created as many problems as we have solutions. The problems we are facing today require intelligence to solve yet intelligence is what brought us here. We've become accustomed to our intelligence but is life actually better now than 10,000 years ago? I know I'd be happy making rock formations, I do this in my yard now. Would I want to be at war with other tribes? Would I want to be hunting & gathering food? My ancestors lived in the Arctic, would I want to live there without modern amenities? How about disease? These are the questions most people ask but then I ask myself do I like working 8 hour days doing the same thing? Do I like our modern obsession with time? Do I like corruption and modern politics? How about our constant struggle to be more productive? Internet addiction? Cancer causing foods?

    If you think about it long enough you see we haven't really "progressed" unless you're looking at this from a specific angle. Different races have different abilities and ways of seeing, some of them are alien to us and we don't understand them but that doesn't make them inferior.

    We’ve created as many problems as we have solutions. The problems we are facing today require intelligence to solve yet intelligence is what brought us here.

    Not exactly. Our “intelligent” have been hijacked by the outsiders. We’ve never been this suicidal and… evil.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. Wally says:
    @LauraMR
    Take a room (or a stadium) full of people, then divide according to whatever random criteria, and finally derive rankings of whatever trait from these groupings. It is not hard to do. If the trait is of any substantive interest, the ranking will be meaningless.

    Feminist, for example, have been doing it (based on biological criteria) for ages and have produced endless amount of completely nonsensical crap.

    Or do you concede, as they claim, that the male of the species is somehow defective and that, by virtue of a uterus, the female of the species is unequivocally superior independently of the actions and characteristics of individual women?

    You make no sense whatsoever.

    Now you tell me if there is an obvious difference in intelligence here:

    African
    Northern European

    Read More
    • Replies: @LauraMR
    Differences of appearance between individuals can vary greatly, almost abysmally. There is no need to look across "races" to find them. One's humanity is not found in a photograph... unless, of course, you yourself have no depth whatsoever as a human being.

    The issue at stake is the alleged inferiority of one "race" versus another.

    Now, here is something else to make your head spin further. I do consider some cultures (or societies) to be superior to others. "Races", nope.

    Go fetch.
    , @Truth
    Well she has a slight lusty look in her eyes, I wonder if she's being shown his picture. Well, we'll ask their kids.
    , @Anon
    Are we supposed to conclude that dark skin is equivalent to a lack of intelligence?
    , @Pachyderm Pachyderma
    Where did you find that hooker?
    , @Biff
    They're dating each other. So, no, one is not smarter than the other - just lucky.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. LauraMR says:
    @Wally
    You make no sense whatsoever.

    Now you tell me if there is an obvious difference in intelligence here:

    African
    http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/bilder/paleo-negrid.jpg

    Northern European
    http://www.showbizireland.com/images/stars/ladyvictoria03.jpg

    Differences of appearance between individuals can vary greatly, almost abysmally. There is no need to look across “races” to find them. One’s humanity is not found in a photograph… unless, of course, you yourself have no depth whatsoever as a human being.

    The issue at stake is the alleged inferiority of one “race” versus another.

    Now, here is something else to make your head spin further. I do consider some cultures (or societies) to be superior to others. “Races”, nope.

    Go fetch.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. LauraMR says:
    @David
    Other way around, men are better but women can be mothers, so we really like them a lot.

    Even simpler. Being a man or a woman does not make you “better”. You do, as an individual. Gender has nothing to do with it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. @Wally
    Except that Africans were better off under colonialism, much better.

    Simply look at Africa for proof.

    Life expectancy? Largely double what it was under colonialism. GDP PPP per capita? No comparison. University educated personnel? Ditto. By which measure do you suggest that Africa was better off?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jake
    I think everybody should agree that black African peoples - wherever they are born, no matter how long their kin lived outside Africa - are better off without living near whites and without being by whites in any way.

    For the good of black people. force all whites to leave them alone. Help them save themselves from us by large walls, behind which they will flourish.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. @Colleen Pater
    Nice try (((meyer))) san rock art only 800 years old. its beautiful though and the san are interesting people not really black africans as we understand the term very genetically different oldest people in a way a different species really like the australian aborinals

    Nice try yourself. Maqonqo age:

    https://journals.co.za/content/nmsa_sah/15/1/EJC84739

    I also posted earlier Khoisan art, albeit less developed, and references to rock art in Nigeria.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Colleen Pater
    again nice try meyer but your link while better than 90% of the other assertions out there is still short of your assertion by 22000 years so youre only proving yourself a liar, and of course one has to wonder what motivates you to want to do all this anthropologic affirmative action in the first place. Its not like your efforts will convince anyone that people with a well documented IQ of 54 the lowest in thee world are budding michelangelo's.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. Saxon says:
    @Joe Wong
    Are you saying the current mess in the ME is the result of the people over there inferior to the White, not because it was created by the bombing, killing and waterboarding created by the White on the fabricated phantom WMD allegation as humanitarian intervention?

    It is really morally defunct and evil for the White to white wash that they are the perpetrators of all the mess and ills on going in Africa as well as all around the world with such psychopathic glorification ‘under colonialism we had a better life’.

    That’s part of it, that they just didn’t evolve in the same environment as us. Some of it’s a behavioral feedback loop–for example part of that inferiority is caused by first cousin inbreeding, but also partly the fact that they took sex slaves which they reproduced with willy-nilly from everywhere they could. Including by the way sub-Saharan Africa. Which is why most of these Arab populations have some of that in them now.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. @Priss Factor
    In a way, Out of Africa theory makes blacks look not-so-good.

    After all, Africa is filled with apes. Gorillas, chimps, bonobos... though no gibbons.

    So, to say humans arose in Sub-Saharan Africa means that apes first turned into proto-humans or ape-men there.
    In other words, Africa is where apes became primitive man. This might be read by some people that black Africans are closest to the original man, the man-ape or mape. And some blacks really do look a bit ape-like. Consider Mike Tyson and Magic Johnson. And the way black folks be acting also seem a bit ape-ish. Blacks surely can be as noisy and wild like the apes, indeed even more so. At a zoo, the apes are more likely to be better-behaved than Negroes.

    So, Out of Africa can be interpreted as "apes turned into man-ape in Africa, and some of these man-apes turned into Negroes. Negroes were acting so crazy that a bunch of man-apes fled from Sub-Saharan Africa and took residence in North Africa where they began to evolve into something closer to humans."

    Also, out of Sub-Saharan Africa to North Africa is just as crucial as the move out of Africa itself.

    Even if mankind left Africa, say, 70,000 yrs ago, the distance between non-Africans and Sub-Saharan Africans go deeper because the North African and Sub-Saharan Split took place much earlier, indeed over 100,000 yrs ago.

    So, at the very least, the theory should be called Out of North Africa. Treating all of Africa as single region wit same kind of people would be like treating all of Asia as one continent and one people. But in fact, Hindus are different from East Asians who are different from Russians and Turks in western parts of Asia.

    “And some blacks really do look a bit ape-like.”

    Why should homo sapiens women runners have to compete with half-ape/half-human hybrids such as this “woman”

    Check out her pictures. Who can deny that this female is not the proverbial missing link between Homo sapiens and gorillas? Just look at the shape of her head. Prominent jaw, brow ridge, flaring nostrils, very small forehead indicating low cranial capacity, sloping forehead, pointed skull in the back etc. What facial recognition software wouldn’t place the above face with the species Gorilla gorilla?

    Why do we expect civilized people to compete against animals? It’s not only unfair to the competitors, but is ridiculous to stage a fight or athletic contest between humans and brutes; a form of voyeurism. Sick. Roman colosseum stuff.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    Global Olympics makes no sense.

    We should return to the Greek ideal.

    Greek Olympics only included Greeks.

    Greeks kept it to themselves. It was a celebration of Greek speed and strength.

    Greeks didn't want Persians, Africans, and others to take part and whup Greek ass.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. Truth says:
    @Wally
    You make no sense whatsoever.

    Now you tell me if there is an obvious difference in intelligence here:

    African
    http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/bilder/paleo-negrid.jpg

    Northern European
    http://www.showbizireland.com/images/stars/ladyvictoria03.jpg

    Well she has a slight lusty look in her eyes, I wonder if she’s being shown his picture. Well, we’ll ask their kids.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. Josef says:

    Franz Boas looks like he’s the third generation walking upright.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  68. The microcephalin ancestral allele in a Neanderthal individual. Lari M., et al. PLoS One. 2010 May 14;5(5):e10648. “We show that a well-preserved Neanderthal fossil dated at approximately 50,000 years B.P., was homozygous for the ancestral, non-D, allele.”

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/20498832/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  69. Jm8 says:

    It is not only shell beads and crosshatchings that show a beginning of modern behavior in Africa or that have distinguished early African sapiens behavior from that of neanderthals.
    There are several other indicators of distinctly modern behavior in Middle Stone Age and later paleolithic African homo-sapiens.
    Early MSA African homo sapiens (ca. 100-60,000 bc), exhibit many other of the oldest modern behaviors/technologies (sites like Blombos, Pinnacle point, Katanda/Semliki, Gademotta, Sibudu, etc)

    (The proto Aurignacian-like Uluzzian culture, previously speculatively linked to neanderthals, is now attributed to early (pre/proto-Aurignacian) European homo sapiens.)http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2011/11/uluzzian-was-sapiens-not-neanderthal.html

    Many modern behaviors are first seen in MSA Africa (sometimes broadly similar to the Uluzzian or upper paleolithic of homo-Sapiens in Europe):
    Among these are:

    The oldest projectiles (though throwing spears—and possibly spear-throwers) occur ca. 270,000 bc Ethiopia (likely associated with some from of early sapiens)

    There is no evidence that neanderthals used projectiles of any kind. The use of projectiles—the designing of (including early ones such as javelins or atlatls) requires a greater ability to estimate trajectory and distance, and the ability to design weapons with these things in mind). And that (beginning likely with distance javelins) dates to the early period of 279,000 bc

    “Earliest Stone-Tipped Projectiles from the Ethiopian Rift Date to >279,000 Years Ago”

    http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0078092

    “Projectile weapons (i.e. those delivered from a distance) enhanced prehistoric hunting efficiency by enabling higher impact delivery and hunting of a broader range of animals while reducing confrontations with dangerous prey species. Projectiles therefore provided a significant advantage over thrusting spears. Composite projectile technologies are considered indicative of complex behavior and pivotal to the successful spread of Homo sapiens. Direct evidence for such projectiles is thus far unknown from >80,000 years ago. Data from velocity-dependent microfracture features, diagnostic damage patterns, and artifact shape reported here indicate that pointed stone artifacts from Ethiopia were used as projectile weapons (in the form of hafted javelin tips) as early as >279,000 years ago. In combination with the existing archaeological, fossil and genetic evidence, these data isolate eastern Africa as a source of modern cultures and biology.”

    Evidence of arrowheads and adhesives (and of bows and arrows using adhesives) dates at least 60-70,000 in South Africa at Sibudu

    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.466.2274&rep=rep1&type=pdf

    http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2010/08/26/Oldest-arrowheads-found-in-Africa/95431282863088/

    Middle stone age cultures of southern Africa ca 150-70,000 bc show other modern behaviors , including the use of bone tools, shell beads, the trade of minerals across substantial distances, the making of heated fat-based paints from ochre, seasonal fishing and shellfish, use engraved ornaments, and upper paleolithic-style stone points.
    sites; blombos, Howiesons Poort, and Pinnacle point

    The preparation of stone for making microliths by precise heat treating to increase its flakeability was practiced at pinnacle point SA. from ca 164,000 bc-70,000 bc.
    “An early and enduring advanced technology originating 71,000 years ago in South Africa”

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v491/n7425/full/nature11660.html?foxtrotcallback=true

    “The origins of composite tools and advanced projectile weapons figure prominently in modern human evolution research, and the latter have been argued to have been in the exclusive possession of modern humans5, 6. Here we describe a previously unrecognized advanced stone tool technology from Pinnacle Point Site 5–6 on the south coast of South Africa, originating approximately 71,000 years ago. This technology is dominated by the production of small bladelets (microliths) primarily from heat-treated stone. There is agreement that microlithic technology was used to create composite tool components as part of advanced projectile weapons7, 8. Microliths were common worldwide by the mid-Holocene epoch, but have a patchy pattern of first appearance that is rarely earlier than 40,000 years ago9, 10, and were thought to appear briefly between 65,000 and 60,000 years ago in South Africa and then disappear. Our research extends this record to ~71,000 years, shows that microlithic technology originated early in South Africa, evolved over a vast time span (~11,000 years), and was typically coupled to complex heat treatment that persisted for nearly 100,000 years. Advanced technologies in Africa were early and enduring; a small sample of excavated sites in Africa is the best explanation for any perceived ‘flickering’ pattern.”

    (aso see “Howiesons Poort”)

    (the practice or heat treating began earlier (ca. 164,000 BC)
    “Fire As an Engineering Tool of Early Modern Humans” | Science

    http://science.sciencemag.org/content/325/5942/859

    “The controlled use of fire was a breakthrough adaptation in human evolution. It first provided heat and light and later allowed the physical properties of materials to be manipulated for the production of ceramics and metals. The analysis of tools at multiple sites shows that the source stone materials were systematically manipulated with fire to improve their flaking properties. Heat treatment predominates among silcrete tools at ~72 thousand years ago (ka) and appears as early as 164 ka at Pinnacle Point, on the south coast of South Africa. Heat treatment demands a sophisticated knowledge of fire and an elevated cognitive ability and appears at roughly the same time as widespread evidence for symbolic behavior.”

    The significance of the “Howiesons Poort tradition of engraving ostrich eggshell containers dated to 60,000 years ago at Diepkloof Rock Shelter, South Africa” is not solely that they have cross hatched designs. It is also that they were used as containers and to store water; possibly for periods of drought and/or to aid travel in dry areas (there is evidence that they were buried), and the South African Bushmen still (and are known to have) use/used ostrich shell containers in precisely the same way (creating buried cashes of water for these purposes).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blombos_Cave#Ochre_processing_workshop

    Compound heated fat-based paints were made at Blombos by 100,000 BC, before the OOA: paints made not only by simply grinding minerals (as neanderthals sometimes did), but by a more complex process more similar to the paint-making of later ancient cultures and civilizations; of heating ground ocher mixed with animal fat and charcoal.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-15257259

    “Prof Henshilwood added: “It’s possible the paint was used to paint bodies, human skin. It could have been used to paint designs on leather or other objects. It could have been used for paintings on walls, although the surfaces of southern African caves are not ideal for the long-term preservation of rock art.”

    The relative rarity of surviving cave paintings known (so far) from Africa in the period (and in before the Upper Paleolithic) may be in part caused by the fact that the types of deep caves systems most conducive to preserving cave art are more common on Europe than in much of Africa (or Asia). The fact that less is found should not be taken as a reason to assume that it was not made (hopefully more, if they exist, will be discovered). Even the painted plaque at Apollo 11 cave (dating to around 25,000 bc) was found on the cave floor (under layers of sediment) and is thought to have flaked off the cave wall—barely surviving conditions not very favorable for the preservation of cave painting over tens of thousands of years)

    Bone harpoons appear in Central Africa as early as ca. 90,000 bc. (a clear trait of modernity) they were used to hunt giant catfish, a type of fish that only lives at depths much too great for a human to stand, which indicates the use of watercraft (likely rafts or perhaps early canoes).

    http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-katanda-harpoons.html

    The ishango bone (a mathematical object), dates to ca 20,000 bc, in the Katanda/Semliki region.
    (either a tally stick or possibly something more complex—seemingly, showing an understanding at least of multiplication and division, and perhaps of prime numbers). The Lebombo bone from Southern Africa, which is older (ca. 44,000 BC) is likely a tall stick (some suggest a primitive lunar calendar)

    “The central column begins with three notches and then doubles to 6 notches. The process is repeated for the number 4, which doubles to 8 notches, and then reversed for the number 10, which is halved to 5 notches. These numbers may not be purely random and instead suggest some understanding of the principle of multiplication and division by two. The bone may therefore have been used as a counting tool for simple mathematical procedures.

    In the book How Mathematics Happened: The First 50,000 Years, Peter Rudman argues that the development of the concept of prime numbers could have come about only after the concept of division, which he dates to after 10,000 BC, with prime numbers probably not being understood until about 500 BC. He also writes that “no attempt has been made to explain why a tally of something should exhibit multiples of two, prime numbers between 10 and 20, and some numbers that are almost multiples of 10.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishango_bone

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebombo_bone

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jm8
    Edit: "
    "The relative rarity.......in the period (and in before the Upper Paleolithic) may be in part caused by the fact that the types of deep caves systems most conducive to preserving cave art are more common on Europe than in much of Africa (or Asia)—as well as the fact that generally a lot less archaeological work has so far ("a small sample of excavated sites" compared to Europe, as mentioned) has been done in Africa."
    , @Jm8
    Correction/Edit: “The ishango bone…ca 20,000 bc,…a tally stick and possibly something more complex…showing an understanding of…multiplication and division, and possibly prime numbers). The Lebombo bone from Southern Africa, which is older (ca. 44,000 BC) is likely a tall stick (some suggest a primitive lunar calendar)”
    (“tall stick” should of course be “tally stick”)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. @ThreeCranes
    "And some blacks really do look a bit ape-like."

    Why should homo sapiens women runners have to compete with half-ape/half-human hybrids such as this “woman”

    http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/articles/sports/fivering_circus/2016/07/160725_FRC_sports-division-Caster-Semenya.jpg.CROP.promo-xlarge2.jpg

    Check out her pictures. Who can deny that this female is not the proverbial missing link between Homo sapiens and gorillas? Just look at the shape of her head. Prominent jaw, brow ridge, flaring nostrils, very small forehead indicating low cranial capacity, sloping forehead, pointed skull in the back etc. What facial recognition software wouldn’t place the above face with the species Gorilla gorilla?

    Why do we expect civilized people to compete against animals? It’s not only unfair to the competitors, but is ridiculous to stage a fight or athletic contest between humans and brutes; a form of voyeurism. Sick. Roman colosseum stuff.

    http://img3.rnkr-static.com/user_node_img/89/1762853/870/patrick-ewing-basketball-players-photo-u12.jpg

    Global Olympics makes no sense.

    We should return to the Greek ideal.

    Greek Olympics only included Greeks.

    Greeks kept it to themselves. It was a celebration of Greek speed and strength.

    Greeks didn’t want Persians, Africans, and others to take part and whup Greek ass.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Delinquent Snail
    Also, no women, and all men perform naked. Lets take it back to its roots!

    (dont get too excited priss. No black men will be allowed to participate ;) )
    , @ThreeCranes
    People who promote "equality" between races would happily put the family's Golden Retriever in the arena with a wild wolf and watch the wolf tear the trusting, domesticated dog to pieces.

    I tell you Priss, the people setting up these athletic contests are twisted sadists who take a delight in torturing domesticated animals which have lost most of their aggressive impulses to the beneficial effects of cultural selection. And while they enjoy this spectacle they congratulate themselves upon their worldliness and broad-mindedness.

    Would they derive equal satisfaction from a College Bowl-like contest that pits the cream of the crop of Ivy League scholars against the intellects coming out of the South's historically Black Colleges? Would they run this program every week and revel in the spectacle of triumph and high-fiveing on the one side and humiliation and shame on the other?

    As Jimmy the Greek observed, black slaves in America were selectively bred for strength, not intelligence. Pitting them against Euro-whites and enjoying the one-sided outcome is simple cruelty.

    , @BB753
    I agree. But the greatest travesty of the Olympics remains the Paralympics. What the hell! The crippled, the maimed and the retarded competing in athletic ability! Zeus almighty must be laughing his ass off in his Olympian abode.
    , @Pachyderm Pachyderma
    Greeks liked to be whooped... ever heard of the Greek style?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. Jm8 says:
    @Jm8
    It is not only shell beads and crosshatchings that show a beginning of modern behavior in Africa or that have distinguished early African sapiens behavior from that of neanderthals.
    There are several other indicators of distinctly modern behavior in Middle Stone Age and later paleolithic African homo-sapiens.
    Early MSA African homo sapiens (ca. 100-60,000 bc), exhibit many other of the oldest modern behaviors/technologies (sites like Blombos, Pinnacle point, Katanda/Semliki, Gademotta, Sibudu, etc)

    (The proto Aurignacian-like Uluzzian culture, previously speculatively linked to neanderthals, is now attributed to early (pre/proto-Aurignacian) European homo sapiens.)http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2011/11/uluzzian-was-sapiens-not-neanderthal.html

    Many modern behaviors are first seen in MSA Africa (sometimes broadly similar to the Uluzzian or upper paleolithic of homo-Sapiens in Europe):
    Among these are:

    The oldest projectiles (though throwing spears—and possibly spear-throwers) occur ca. 270,000 bc Ethiopia (likely associated with some from of early sapiens)

    There is no evidence that neanderthals used projectiles of any kind. The use of projectiles—the designing of (including early ones such as javelins or atlatls) requires a greater ability to estimate trajectory and distance, and the ability to design weapons with these things in mind). And that (beginning likely with distance javelins) dates to the early period of 279,000 bc

    "Earliest Stone-Tipped Projectiles from the Ethiopian Rift Date to >279,000 Years Ago"
    http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0078092
    “Projectile weapons (i.e. those delivered from a distance) enhanced prehistoric hunting efficiency by enabling higher impact delivery and hunting of a broader range of animals while reducing confrontations with dangerous prey species. Projectiles therefore provided a significant advantage over thrusting spears. Composite projectile technologies are considered indicative of complex behavior and pivotal to the successful spread of Homo sapiens. Direct evidence for such projectiles is thus far unknown from >80,000 years ago. Data from velocity-dependent microfracture features, diagnostic damage patterns, and artifact shape reported here indicate that pointed stone artifacts from Ethiopia were used as projectile weapons (in the form of hafted javelin tips) as early as >279,000 years ago. In combination with the existing archaeological, fossil and genetic evidence, these data isolate eastern Africa as a source of modern cultures and biology.”

    Evidence of arrowheads and adhesives (and of bows and arrows using adhesives) dates at least 60-70,000 in South Africa at Sibudu
    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.466.2274&rep=rep1&type=pdf
    http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2010/08/26/Oldest-arrowheads-found-in-Africa/95431282863088/


    Middle stone age cultures of southern Africa ca 150-70,000 bc show other modern behaviors , including the use of bone tools, shell beads, the trade of minerals across substantial distances, the making of heated fat-based paints from ochre, seasonal fishing and shellfish, use engraved ornaments, and upper paleolithic-style stone points.
    sites; blombos, Howiesons Poort, and Pinnacle point

    The preparation of stone for making microliths by precise heat treating to increase its flakeability was practiced at pinnacle point SA. from ca 164,000 bc-70,000 bc.
    "An early and enduring advanced technology originating 71,000 years ago in South Africa"
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v491/n7425/full/nature11660.html?foxtrotcallback=true

    "The origins of composite tools and advanced projectile weapons figure prominently in modern human evolution research, and the latter have been argued to have been in the exclusive possession of modern humans5, 6. Here we describe a previously unrecognized advanced stone tool technology from Pinnacle Point Site 5–6 on the south coast of South Africa, originating approximately 71,000 years ago. This technology is dominated by the production of small bladelets (microliths) primarily from heat-treated stone. There is agreement that microlithic technology was used to create composite tool components as part of advanced projectile weapons7, 8. Microliths were common worldwide by the mid-Holocene epoch, but have a patchy pattern of first appearance that is rarely earlier than 40,000 years ago9, 10, and were thought to appear briefly between 65,000 and 60,000 years ago in South Africa and then disappear. Our research extends this record to ~71,000 years, shows that microlithic technology originated early in South Africa, evolved over a vast time span (~11,000 years), and was typically coupled to complex heat treatment that persisted for nearly 100,000 years. Advanced technologies in Africa were early and enduring; a small sample of excavated sites in Africa is the best explanation for any perceived ‘flickering’ pattern."

    (aso see "Howiesons Poort")

    (the practice or heat treating began earlier (ca. 164,000 BC)
    "Fire As an Engineering Tool of Early Modern Humans" | Science
    http://science.sciencemag.org/content/325/5942/859


    "The controlled use of fire was a breakthrough adaptation in human evolution. It first provided heat and light and later allowed the physical properties of materials to be manipulated for the production of ceramics and metals. The analysis of tools at multiple sites shows that the source stone materials were systematically manipulated with fire to improve their flaking properties. Heat treatment predominates among silcrete tools at ~72 thousand years ago (ka) and appears as early as 164 ka at Pinnacle Point, on the south coast of South Africa. Heat treatment demands a sophisticated knowledge of fire and an elevated cognitive ability and appears at roughly the same time as widespread evidence for symbolic behavior."

    The significance of the "Howiesons Poort tradition of engraving ostrich eggshell containers dated to 60,000 years ago at Diepkloof Rock Shelter, South Africa" is not solely that they have cross hatched designs. It is also that they were used as containers and to store water; possibly for periods of drought and/or to aid travel in dry areas (there is evidence that they were buried), and the South African Bushmen still (and are known to have) use/used ostrich shell containers in precisely the same way (creating buried cashes of water for these purposes).
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blombos_Cave#Ochre_processing_workshop
    Compound heated fat-based paints were made at Blombos by 100,000 BC, before the OOA: paints made not only by simply grinding minerals (as neanderthals sometimes did), but by a more complex process more similar to the paint-making of later ancient cultures and civilizations; of heating ground ocher mixed with animal fat and charcoal.


    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-15257259
    "Prof Henshilwood added: "It's possible the paint was used to paint bodies, human skin. It could have been used to paint designs on leather or other objects. It could have been used for paintings on walls, although the surfaces of southern African caves are not ideal for the long-term preservation of rock art."


    The relative rarity of surviving cave paintings known (so far) from Africa in the period (and in before the Upper Paleolithic) may be in part caused by the fact that the types of deep caves systems most conducive to preserving cave art are more common on Europe than in much of Africa (or Asia). The fact that less is found should not be taken as a reason to assume that it was not made (hopefully more, if they exist, will be discovered). Even the painted plaque at Apollo 11 cave (dating to around 25,000 bc) was found on the cave floor (under layers of sediment) and is thought to have flaked off the cave wall—barely surviving conditions not very favorable for the preservation of cave painting over tens of thousands of years)

    Bone harpoons appear in Central Africa as early as ca. 90,000 bc. (a clear trait of modernity) they were used to hunt giant catfish, a type of fish that only lives at depths much too great for a human to stand, which indicates the use of watercraft (likely rafts or perhaps early canoes).
    http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-katanda-harpoons.html

    The ishango bone (a mathematical object), dates to ca 20,000 bc, in the Katanda/Semliki region.
    (either a tally stick or possibly something more complex—seemingly, showing an understanding at least of multiplication and division, and perhaps of prime numbers). The Lebombo bone from Southern Africa, which is older (ca. 44,000 BC) is likely a tall stick (some suggest a primitive lunar calendar)

    "The central column begins with three notches and then doubles to 6 notches. The process is repeated for the number 4, which doubles to 8 notches, and then reversed for the number 10, which is halved to 5 notches. These numbers may not be purely random and instead suggest some understanding of the principle of multiplication and division by two. The bone may therefore have been used as a counting tool for simple mathematical procedures.

    In the book How Mathematics Happened: The First 50,000 Years, Peter Rudman argues that the development of the concept of prime numbers could have come about only after the concept of division, which he dates to after 10,000 BC, with prime numbers probably not being understood until about 500 BC. He also writes that "no attempt has been made to explain why a tally of something should exhibit multiples of two, prime numbers between 10 and 20, and some numbers that are almost multiples of 10."
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishango_bone
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebombo_bone

    Edit: ”
    “The relative rarity…….in the period (and in before the Upper Paleolithic) may be in part caused by the fact that the types of deep caves systems most conducive to preserving cave art are more common on Europe than in much of Africa (or Asia)—as well as the fact that generally a lot less archaeological work has so far (“a small sample of excavated sites” compared to Europe, as mentioned) has been done in Africa.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Wally
    You make no sense whatsoever.

    Now you tell me if there is an obvious difference in intelligence here:

    African
    http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/bilder/paleo-negrid.jpg

    Northern European
    http://www.showbizireland.com/images/stars/ladyvictoria03.jpg

    Are we supposed to conclude that dark skin is equivalent to a lack of intelligence?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. Jm8 says:

    “In 2006, scholars at the University of Chicago published research suggesting that mating between ancient humans and Neanderthals in Europe may have introduced a gene variant into the human population that enhanced human brain function. Analyzing the DNA sequence structure of the gene microcephalin, which regulates brain size in humans, indicated that all modern copies of the D alleles in this gene arose from a single progenitor copy around 40,000 years ago…”

    That source is outdated, There is no evidence that the D allele Lahn discovered is associated with intelligence/IQ, no link has been found.
    nor was the allele found the neanderthal genome.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microcephalin#Evolution

    “the haplotype was not found in the individuals used to prepare the first draft of the Neanderthal genome.”

    To review: a genetic mutation for enhanced brain function evolves at the same time when there is an explosion in creative artistic representation in Europe (and advancements of similar magnitude in hunting technologies).

    Artistic expression is in no way lacking in Africa relative to other regions. And Upper Paleolithic-type hunting technologies appeared there at least as early as in Eurasia (in many cases earlier).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jm8
    "In 2006, scholars at the University of Chicago published research suggesting that mating between ancient humans and Neanderthals in Europe may have introduced a gene variant into the human population that enhanced human brain function. Analyzing the DNA sequence structure of the gene microcephalin, which regulates brain size in humans, indicated that all modern copies of the D alleles in this gene arose from a single progenitor copy around 40,000 years ago [9]. This allele must have provided a strong fitness advantage, because it then spread rapidly and is now present in about 70 percent of the world’s population. Further, the researchers found that the D alleles are much more prevalent today in Eurasia and less common in sub-Saharan Africa, which is consistent with the scenario that it originated in Neanderthals and was passed on to modern humans in Europe."

    That source is outdated, There is no evidence that the D allele Lahn discovered is associated with intelligence/IQ, no link has been found.
    nor was the allele found the neanderthal genome.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microcephalin#Evolution

    “the haplotype was not found in the individuals used to prepare the first draft of the Neanderthal genome.[16][17]”

    Also

    "The Microcephalin Ancestral Allele in a Neanderthal Individual"

    "The MCPH1 genotype of the Monti Lessini (MLS) Neanderthal does not prove that there was no interbreeding between anatomically archaic and modern humans in Europe, but certainly shows that speculations on a possible Neanderthal origin of what is now the most common MCPH1 haplogroup are not supported by empirical evidence from ancient DNA."

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2871044/


    "To review: a genetic mutation for enhanced brain function evolves at the same time when there is an explosion in creative artistic representation in Europe (and advancements of similar magnitude in hunting technologies)."

    Artistic expression is in no way lacking in Africa relative to other regions. And Upper Paleolithic hunting technologies appeared there at least as early as in Eurasia (in many cases earlier).

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. Ivy Mike says:

    So the gist of this article is that black africans aren’t human and the damn Jewish intellectuals started the lie that they are. I just want to be sure somebody calls this sort of writing what it is, a bunch of ignorant racist claptrap not worth the trouble of refuting.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
    Ivy Mike says; "I just want to be sure somebody calls this sort of writing what it is, a bunch of ignorant racist claptrap not worth the trouble of refuting."

    If that's what you took as the gist then I would assert that you are not Ivy material.

    The real gist is that Black African evolution took a different trajectory from that of the people who now occupy the European continent. Both people share a common ancestor dating dating back 50-60,000 years. Natural Selection has sculpted both respective gene pools into different physiognomies, body types and psyches.

    Jewish intellectuals crow about their epoch-changing influence in the composition of America's and Europe's populations. They are proud of having been at the forefront of social movements that advocate interchangeability of races, sexes etc.

    None of this is disputable by any adult who has had both eyes open for the last 50 years.

    If you are young I suggest you view some videos that are available on YouTube which came out in the early 1970's. The Mondo series. They will provide you with a glimpse into life in Africa before the civilizing influence of Europeans. Also look at the book Negroes in Negroland available from Amazon, an unvarnished presentation of what the early explorers, traders and missionaries encountered when Europeans first penetrated the Dark Continent. Prepare to be shocked. Or amused. It won't resemble what you were taught in your Anthropology course at college.
    , @ThreeCranes
    Here's a link:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICgj03-Jo0Y

    Start about 47:00 for real African hunting. This ought to dispel the myth about North American Indians and Africans being peaceful Stone Age peoples.

    Warning; not for the squeamish.
    , @Rurik

    that black africans aren’t human and the damn Jewish intellectuals started the lie that they are
     
    not that they aren't human, (they obviously are), rather that the Jewish lie is that they are intellectually exactly at the same level as (particularly) white Americans.

    the main reason why this lie is so morally loathsome, is because they use the lie to foster the other nefarious lie that all the foibles of the black community (the performance gap, representation in the criminal justice system, etc...) are a direct consequence of white (Americans in particular) racism . rather than the truth, which is that all races have different collective gifts, and whites are simply better suited to competing and thriving in a white-created civilization.

    and it is specifically that egregious and momentous lie, that causes so much hostility in the black community for white people, who they are told are to blame for all their (very real) struggles because of the white people's eternal racism. Which makes the blacks even more hostile and violent and hate-filled and criminal. Which also ruins their well-being and ruins so many of their lives. For which the Jews telling the lies could not give a fuck.

    The blacks (and other minorities) are being cynically used by these Jewish supremacist liars as weapons against the white Americans and others whom the Jews consider eternal, congenital enemies.

    K?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. Jm8 says:
    @Jm8
    "In 2006, scholars at the University of Chicago published research suggesting that mating between ancient humans and Neanderthals in Europe may have introduced a gene variant into the human population that enhanced human brain function. Analyzing the DNA sequence structure of the gene microcephalin, which regulates brain size in humans, indicated that all modern copies of the D alleles in this gene arose from a single progenitor copy around 40,000 years ago..."

    That source is outdated, There is no evidence that the D allele Lahn discovered is associated with intelligence/IQ, no link has been found.
    nor was the allele found the neanderthal genome.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microcephalin#Evolution

    “the haplotype was not found in the individuals used to prepare the first draft of the Neanderthal genome.”

    To review: a genetic mutation for enhanced brain function evolves at the same time when there is an explosion in creative artistic representation in Europe (and advancements of similar magnitude in hunting technologies).

    Artistic expression is in no way lacking in Africa relative to other regions. And Upper Paleolithic-type hunting technologies appeared there at least as early as in Eurasia (in many cases earlier).

    “In 2006, scholars at the University of Chicago published research suggesting that mating between ancient humans and Neanderthals in Europe may have introduced a gene variant into the human population that enhanced human brain function. Analyzing the DNA sequence structure of the gene microcephalin, which regulates brain size in humans, indicated that all modern copies of the D alleles in this gene arose from a single progenitor copy around 40,000 years ago [9]. This allele must have provided a strong fitness advantage, because it then spread rapidly and is now present in about 70 percent of the world’s population. Further, the researchers found that the D alleles are much more prevalent today in Eurasia and less common in sub-Saharan Africa, which is consistent with the scenario that it originated in Neanderthals and was passed on to modern humans in Europe.”

    That source is outdated, There is no evidence that the D allele Lahn discovered is associated with intelligence/IQ, no link has been found.
    nor was the allele found the neanderthal genome.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microcephalin#Evolution

    “the haplotype was not found in the individuals used to prepare the first draft of the Neanderthal genome.[16][17]”

    Also

    “The Microcephalin Ancestral Allele in a Neanderthal Individual”

    “The MCPH1 genotype of the Monti Lessini (MLS) Neanderthal does not prove that there was no interbreeding between anatomically archaic and modern humans in Europe, but certainly shows that speculations on a possible Neanderthal origin of what is now the most common MCPH1 haplogroup are not supported by empirical evidence from ancient DNA.”

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2871044/

    “To review: a genetic mutation for enhanced brain function evolves at the same time when there is an explosion in creative artistic representation in Europe (and advancements of similar magnitude in hunting technologies).”

    Artistic expression is in no way lacking in Africa relative to other regions. And Upper Paleolithic hunting technologies appeared there at least as early as in Eurasia (in many cases earlier).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. Jm8 says:
    @Jm8
    It is not only shell beads and crosshatchings that show a beginning of modern behavior in Africa or that have distinguished early African sapiens behavior from that of neanderthals.
    There are several other indicators of distinctly modern behavior in Middle Stone Age and later paleolithic African homo-sapiens.
    Early MSA African homo sapiens (ca. 100-60,000 bc), exhibit many other of the oldest modern behaviors/technologies (sites like Blombos, Pinnacle point, Katanda/Semliki, Gademotta, Sibudu, etc)

    (The proto Aurignacian-like Uluzzian culture, previously speculatively linked to neanderthals, is now attributed to early (pre/proto-Aurignacian) European homo sapiens.)http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2011/11/uluzzian-was-sapiens-not-neanderthal.html

    Many modern behaviors are first seen in MSA Africa (sometimes broadly similar to the Uluzzian or upper paleolithic of homo-Sapiens in Europe):
    Among these are:

    The oldest projectiles (though throwing spears—and possibly spear-throwers) occur ca. 270,000 bc Ethiopia (likely associated with some from of early sapiens)

    There is no evidence that neanderthals used projectiles of any kind. The use of projectiles—the designing of (including early ones such as javelins or atlatls) requires a greater ability to estimate trajectory and distance, and the ability to design weapons with these things in mind). And that (beginning likely with distance javelins) dates to the early period of 279,000 bc

    "Earliest Stone-Tipped Projectiles from the Ethiopian Rift Date to >279,000 Years Ago"
    http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0078092
    “Projectile weapons (i.e. those delivered from a distance) enhanced prehistoric hunting efficiency by enabling higher impact delivery and hunting of a broader range of animals while reducing confrontations with dangerous prey species. Projectiles therefore provided a significant advantage over thrusting spears. Composite projectile technologies are considered indicative of complex behavior and pivotal to the successful spread of Homo sapiens. Direct evidence for such projectiles is thus far unknown from >80,000 years ago. Data from velocity-dependent microfracture features, diagnostic damage patterns, and artifact shape reported here indicate that pointed stone artifacts from Ethiopia were used as projectile weapons (in the form of hafted javelin tips) as early as >279,000 years ago. In combination with the existing archaeological, fossil and genetic evidence, these data isolate eastern Africa as a source of modern cultures and biology.”

    Evidence of arrowheads and adhesives (and of bows and arrows using adhesives) dates at least 60-70,000 in South Africa at Sibudu
    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.466.2274&rep=rep1&type=pdf
    http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2010/08/26/Oldest-arrowheads-found-in-Africa/95431282863088/


    Middle stone age cultures of southern Africa ca 150-70,000 bc show other modern behaviors , including the use of bone tools, shell beads, the trade of minerals across substantial distances, the making of heated fat-based paints from ochre, seasonal fishing and shellfish, use engraved ornaments, and upper paleolithic-style stone points.
    sites; blombos, Howiesons Poort, and Pinnacle point

    The preparation of stone for making microliths by precise heat treating to increase its flakeability was practiced at pinnacle point SA. from ca 164,000 bc-70,000 bc.
    "An early and enduring advanced technology originating 71,000 years ago in South Africa"
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v491/n7425/full/nature11660.html?foxtrotcallback=true

    "The origins of composite tools and advanced projectile weapons figure prominently in modern human evolution research, and the latter have been argued to have been in the exclusive possession of modern humans5, 6. Here we describe a previously unrecognized advanced stone tool technology from Pinnacle Point Site 5–6 on the south coast of South Africa, originating approximately 71,000 years ago. This technology is dominated by the production of small bladelets (microliths) primarily from heat-treated stone. There is agreement that microlithic technology was used to create composite tool components as part of advanced projectile weapons7, 8. Microliths were common worldwide by the mid-Holocene epoch, but have a patchy pattern of first appearance that is rarely earlier than 40,000 years ago9, 10, and were thought to appear briefly between 65,000 and 60,000 years ago in South Africa and then disappear. Our research extends this record to ~71,000 years, shows that microlithic technology originated early in South Africa, evolved over a vast time span (~11,000 years), and was typically coupled to complex heat treatment that persisted for nearly 100,000 years. Advanced technologies in Africa were early and enduring; a small sample of excavated sites in Africa is the best explanation for any perceived ‘flickering’ pattern."

    (aso see "Howiesons Poort")

    (the practice or heat treating began earlier (ca. 164,000 BC)
    "Fire As an Engineering Tool of Early Modern Humans" | Science
    http://science.sciencemag.org/content/325/5942/859


    "The controlled use of fire was a breakthrough adaptation in human evolution. It first provided heat and light and later allowed the physical properties of materials to be manipulated for the production of ceramics and metals. The analysis of tools at multiple sites shows that the source stone materials were systematically manipulated with fire to improve their flaking properties. Heat treatment predominates among silcrete tools at ~72 thousand years ago (ka) and appears as early as 164 ka at Pinnacle Point, on the south coast of South Africa. Heat treatment demands a sophisticated knowledge of fire and an elevated cognitive ability and appears at roughly the same time as widespread evidence for symbolic behavior."

    The significance of the "Howiesons Poort tradition of engraving ostrich eggshell containers dated to 60,000 years ago at Diepkloof Rock Shelter, South Africa" is not solely that they have cross hatched designs. It is also that they were used as containers and to store water; possibly for periods of drought and/or to aid travel in dry areas (there is evidence that they were buried), and the South African Bushmen still (and are known to have) use/used ostrich shell containers in precisely the same way (creating buried cashes of water for these purposes).
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blombos_Cave#Ochre_processing_workshop
    Compound heated fat-based paints were made at Blombos by 100,000 BC, before the OOA: paints made not only by simply grinding minerals (as neanderthals sometimes did), but by a more complex process more similar to the paint-making of later ancient cultures and civilizations; of heating ground ocher mixed with animal fat and charcoal.


    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-15257259
    "Prof Henshilwood added: "It's possible the paint was used to paint bodies, human skin. It could have been used to paint designs on leather or other objects. It could have been used for paintings on walls, although the surfaces of southern African caves are not ideal for the long-term preservation of rock art."


    The relative rarity of surviving cave paintings known (so far) from Africa in the period (and in before the Upper Paleolithic) may be in part caused by the fact that the types of deep caves systems most conducive to preserving cave art are more common on Europe than in much of Africa (or Asia). The fact that less is found should not be taken as a reason to assume that it was not made (hopefully more, if they exist, will be discovered). Even the painted plaque at Apollo 11 cave (dating to around 25,000 bc) was found on the cave floor (under layers of sediment) and is thought to have flaked off the cave wall—barely surviving conditions not very favorable for the preservation of cave painting over tens of thousands of years)

    Bone harpoons appear in Central Africa as early as ca. 90,000 bc. (a clear trait of modernity) they were used to hunt giant catfish, a type of fish that only lives at depths much too great for a human to stand, which indicates the use of watercraft (likely rafts or perhaps early canoes).
    http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-katanda-harpoons.html

    The ishango bone (a mathematical object), dates to ca 20,000 bc, in the Katanda/Semliki region.
    (either a tally stick or possibly something more complex—seemingly, showing an understanding at least of multiplication and division, and perhaps of prime numbers). The Lebombo bone from Southern Africa, which is older (ca. 44,000 BC) is likely a tall stick (some suggest a primitive lunar calendar)

    "The central column begins with three notches and then doubles to 6 notches. The process is repeated for the number 4, which doubles to 8 notches, and then reversed for the number 10, which is halved to 5 notches. These numbers may not be purely random and instead suggest some understanding of the principle of multiplication and division by two. The bone may therefore have been used as a counting tool for simple mathematical procedures.

    In the book How Mathematics Happened: The First 50,000 Years, Peter Rudman argues that the development of the concept of prime numbers could have come about only after the concept of division, which he dates to after 10,000 BC, with prime numbers probably not being understood until about 500 BC. He also writes that "no attempt has been made to explain why a tally of something should exhibit multiples of two, prime numbers between 10 and 20, and some numbers that are almost multiples of 10."
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishango_bone
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebombo_bone

    Correction/Edit: “The ishango bone…ca 20,000 bc,…a tally stick and possibly something more complex…showing an understanding of…multiplication and division, and possibly prime numbers). The Lebombo bone from Southern Africa, which is older (ca. 44,000 BC) is likely a tall stick (some suggest a primitive lunar calendar)”
    (“tall stick” should of course be “tally stick”)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. @Wally
    What's wrong with Koestler? Specifics please.

    Are you denying there were Khazars?

    I’m sure you can find it easily enough online. It seems Koestler was attracted to the idea of saying Ashkenazi Jews weren’t Semites as some sort of protection from anti-Semitism and leapt atthe idea of extrapolating from the conversion of a tiny minority of important Kazars. Obvious rubbish to anyone who had studied the actual well recorded history of Ashkenazim or just noted that they wouldn’t have acquired Yiddish, a German dialect, if they came from the East. Now of course the DNA evidence is in and, according to Greg Cochran the 50 or so per cent of non-Semitic ancestry is nearly all Celtic or Germanic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jm8
    Most of the 50 or so per cent of non-Semitic ancestry in Ashkenazim is Roman/Italian rather than Celtic or Germanic (only a very small amount is Celtic and Germanic, or sometimes Slavic)—Cochran (as well was the dna studies) says as much too—(their ancestors entered Europe through Italy and intermixed with Europeans much less after they arrived in Germany from Italy), or possibly Greco/Italo-Roman. But otherwise, you are correct (the other 50 percent or so—perhaps slightly over 50—of course being Semitic/Levantine).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. @anarchyst
    As much as cultural marxists deny substantial differences in the various races, one only has to observe the efficacy of various drugs and substances on the various races.
    Many medications are more effective on one race, and have reduced efficacy in other races.
    The same goes for various substances, alcohol being one such substance.
    There are races that absolutely cannot "hold their alcohol" and as a result have great problems with uncontrollable drinking, and the subsequent problems that alcohol introduces.
    There are many such examples of natural inequality of the races...

    A note in the “holding their alcohol”.

    A major reason Europeans can handle drinking compared to other groups, is that europeans have been consuming beer and wine for several thousand years.

    Afticans werent farmers. They didnt make beer. Native americans werent farmers, they didn’t make beer. Thats why those 2 groups have issues with alcohol.

    More evidence of racial differences and its usually glossed over because it implies that africans and native americans were more primitive for much longer. Which is true. Anyone without their head in their ass knows this…….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. @Truth

    I believe we all evolved from monkeys. But I don’t believe we all came from Africa.
     
    Evolution is a theory, there is no evidence of it.

    Really? Thats interesting.

    Guess I’ll fly to work tomorrow. Seeing as how gravity is a theory.

    A scientific theory is not the same as a laymans theory. A scientific HYPOTHESIS is what a layman would call a theory.

    Using the handle “truth”, one would expect a bit more knowledge and, you know, truth.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth
    Gravity is a theory (on your level, I won't get into what it really is, it takes too long). No one can give you a good definition for what it really is.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRmR88Gx_dc
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. @BB753
    Boas only proved to be an empiricist when describing languages. His preface to the Handbook of American Indian Languages still stands as a great primer for descriptive linguistics.
    It's harder to remain impartial when describing human societies and human values. Boas certainly had an axe to grind. But who hasn't? That's why humanities cannot ever become a real science. Human bias gets in the way.
    To wit, paleontology has advanced incredibly since Cavalli-Sforza started using genetic analysis to study human populations. In ten tears the Out-of-Africa thesis will definitely be buried by geneticist without having to dig up new bones. You just need to test living humans.

    Geneticists are afraid to come out and describe what they have found. And that wont change untill our over the top PC culture does a 180 and stops putting so much emphasis on feelings.

    I read a few years ago how several geneticists from around the world have found all kinds of things in our dna but they would never share any of it. The reason they wont publish papers and books on it is because it would kill their careers, their personal lives and throw a wrench in our current belief system regarding humans place on earth.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. @Che Guava
    Yes, I've long had doubts about the out-of-Africa 50,000 years ago hypothesis. In fact, beyond doubt to disbelief. Some Dravidians in India, their Australian aboriginal cousins , and some groups that have been almost wiped out in southern Africa have some common features, they used to be grouped together, and the reasons for it are clear.

    Their radiation from Africa may have been around 50.000 years ago, considering the arrival in Australia is said to have been about 40,000 years ago. The African branch of those peoples is in danger now, in any case.

    I still find the acquatic theory convincing. One of the many morphological arguments for it is alignment of hair, body and head, for streamlining by water. That does not apply to all populations, mainly to east Asians, our Arctic Circle and American Indian relatives, the Polynesians, much of south Asia and Europeans, although many of those of the south have lost that characteristic.

    It is not characteristic of Sephardic Jews, most Arabs, or sub-Saharan Africans, particularly in the east. The latter also tend to lack the enlarged sinus, another morphological point of the acquatic theory.

    As for Boas, that is the first time I saw his photo. He looks like a nutty fanatic. We have him to thank for Margaret Mead (I still believe she was accurate on pre-Christian Samoa), Ursula Le Guinn (still like much of her writing, but she sure hates her own people and has no idea of east Asians), and the mother of Barack Hussein Obama.

    For Le Guinn, it is very funny how she licensed Earthsea to Studio Ghibli, made money from it, then whined about their Ghibli way of making it. The characters had big eyes! LOL.

    Recent discoveries put earliest humans in Australia at about 65000 years ago.

    https://m.phys.org/news/2017-07-artifacts-humans-australia-earlier-thought.html

    Im a big fan of studio ghibli, what movie are you referencing?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    Their version of Earthsea of course. I am not a huge fan, but love some scenes in some of the movies.

    My fave, as a whole movie, is Mononoke, but some scenes in others also transcend the lines between life and death, reality and dreams.

    Those are the parts I love. The train in, I think the English title is Spirited Away, is very great, but on some real lines, the feeling is almost the same. Never bullet trains, riding them occasionally, boring.

    The cat bus in Tottoro, same kind of impression.

    Many more scenes.

    On the other hand, I know a man running a tiny art bookshop and gallery near my home. His opinion is that Miyazaki has a Lolita complex, I am thinking that is, unfortunately, a valid opinion.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. @Anonymous

    This freedom fighter mentality against traditional Western ideals and society has been a mainstay in anthropology since it was introduced at the turn of the twentieth century, and has arguably metastasized into a political-philosophical juggernaut that crushes all dissent and has resulted in the railroading of the discipline into meaningless postmodern, unscientific pursuits of self-interest, such as the field of feminist archaeology (which is so 1980s and has since been eclipsed by black feminist archaeology).
     
    Eh? Is this a thing?

    The tragedy (farce?) here is that the various "We wuz kingz an sheit!!" attempts to rewrite history can not change the present. In terms of your personal capabilities, it makes no difference if your grand-grand-grandfather was a wise king. In the same vein, a 70-75 IQ race won't suddenly improve even if all of that PC, unscientific rubbish is correct (it isn't). It would point to regression, at best.

    Somewhat related: I found the following presentation by Graham Hancock interesting. He's suggesting that we've developed an advanced civilisation many aeons ago - which was (mostly) destroyed around 12 000 years ago (flood?). I haven't done much digging in that direction but his reasoning, and data, seems compelling:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUnaHaIXl44

    I havent seen the film but ive heard the theory. There are several megalithic structures around the planet that arent natural and are much too old to be from “current” humans. Not to mention, the oldest map in existence shows a non frozen antartica, and the owner claimed to have copied the map from much older maps.

    Theres just too large of a gap of time for nothing to have happened (society wise). Humans in 4 thousand years have done more then the previous 90 thousand years? Really?

    Im not a believer in the flood, but a self inflicted disaster could easily have wiped out previous societies. Nuclear war, a pandemic, causing a global cool down/heat up…..

    Why does this planet have such a high background radiation level?

    The ancient indians have stories of nuclear bomb blasts, lasers, and flying fighting craft. From over 4 thousand years ago. The ancient sumarians or Babylonians described our outer planets (neptune and uranus), their color and orbits, a couple thousand years before they were “discovered” with telescopes….

    Humans are a species with amnesia. What we dont forget, our “leaders” destroy to “insulate” us from a reality that goes against what they want us to beleive.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    ''Humans in 4 thousand years have done more then the previous 90 thousand years? Really?''

    Actually twelve thousand years not four thousand. Look up gobekli tepe. Its possible. The same way we did more in the last 200 years than we did in the last twelve thousand years.

    And we will do in the next 'twenty years' what we did in the last 90,000 years.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. @Biff
    Everybody knows humans evolved in Antarctica.

    Dont be silly. Everyone knows we are the genetic experiment of a bored group of intergalactic wlaruses. How else do you explain male humans intersting placement of facial hair? It was to emulate their whiskers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. @Priss Factor
    Global Olympics makes no sense.

    We should return to the Greek ideal.

    Greek Olympics only included Greeks.

    Greeks kept it to themselves. It was a celebration of Greek speed and strength.

    Greeks didn't want Persians, Africans, and others to take part and whup Greek ass.

    Also, no women, and all men perform naked. Lets take it back to its roots!

    (dont get too excited priss. No black men will be allowed to participate ;) )

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    Also, no women, and all men perform naked. Lets take it back to its roots!
    (dont get too excited priss. No black men will be allowed to participate ;) )


    Greeks had good sense. I mean it was their games. Why invite a bunch of Persians and barbarian peoples to take part in the games and beat Greeks? The Olympics were not about the BEST in the world but best among Greeks. To glorify Greek power, it had to be kept to Greeks.

    It's like humans exclude other animals in sports. Surely, most animals can outrun humans. And lots of animals can outjump humans. And many animals can beat up humans. So, sports are only for humans. And even among humans, some races are stronger, so you gotta keep some out if YOUR people are to be glorified. If you INCLUDE outsiders, their dominance may lead to the EXCLUSION of your own kind. Blacks were included in US sports, and it led to the exclusion of whites from many sports as whites cannot compete with blacks.

    So, ball games must take color into account. There are white balls and black balls. Let whites play for white balls, and let blacks play with black balls. If whites are allowed to play black balls, it will still remain black balls because blacks will beat whites. But if blacks are allowed to play white balls, it will soon become black balls because, again, blacks will beat whites. So, white balls need safe space from black balls. We need to understand the Law of Ballitics. Nature is race-ist in having created different races with different abilities.

    Let's say there's a sport that allows blacks to play but bans Mexicans. So, we might argue that Mexicans aren't in the game because of discrimination. But even if the discrimination were lifted, the game will be all black because blacks are better than Mexicans in sports.

    Now, let's say there's a sport that allows Mexicans to play but bans blacks. So, we might argue that blacks aren't in the game because of discrimination. When discrimination is lifted, however, blacks will totally dominate and Mexicans will be excluded by biological or natural discrimination.

    So, if browns wanna play, they must have Brown Balls that keep safe space from Black Balls.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. @animalogic
    This article appears, to this non-anthropologist, to have a very strong, indeed compelling argument for its conclusion that Anthropology has demonstrated a systematic bias against the "western" or European basis for the assent of "modern"humans. However...
    The author does his argument no favours by his continual reference to "cultural marxism" & relativism; a phenomenon he blames almost entirely on the Frankfurt School.
    It is true that some "members"of the Frankfurt School (Marcuse especially) pushed PC matters: gender, race, sexuality. However, the relation between this & marxism is dubious at best: if anything it is Freud's influence that drove writers such as Marcuse & Frome.
    Also, it is very easy indeed to over state the influence this branch of philosophy etc had on academic fashions. After the the 70's the Frankfurt School was passe' -- in large part because it was superseded by a French intellectual fashion, we now call Post Modernism(PM). I can not over stress enough that PM is the true enemy of those who believe in a world capable of some degree of knowledge.
    PM is in NO way, shape or form marxist.
    To be a marxist is to be a materialist. That is basic. You can not be a non materialist & a marxist (like being a Christian & not believing in God: utterly ridiculous).
    A materialist believes there is a world which we can try to know. They believe in science, technology & economies. They do NOT believe everything is relative.
    PM's on the other hand believe, essentially in nothing, except language & discourse. Everything is relative: thus, there are no real distinctions between works of literature (A Mills & Boon book is equal to Moby Dick). Whatever distinctions you think you see are the mere effect of (usually privileged white, male) discourse.
    It is very hard to over state the (malign) effect that PM has had on the last 30-40 years of graduates from the Humanities & social sciences. They not only infest universities, but government bureaucracies.
    It may be said all this is of trivial significance -- perhaps: but it is usually best to be able to identify your enemy correctly.

    The modern left is just a messy self-serving blend of left-wing egalitarianism and post modernism. In theory neither Marxism or post modernism is particularly left-wing in a cultural sense. Traditional economic Marxists tend to be supportive of western science and western technological achievements. Karl Marx was pretty explicit that technologically primitive non-western cultures were inferior to western cultures. Similarly, post modernism argues that there is no objective truth, hence a left-wing narrative is no better or worse than a right-wing one. However, as Jordan Peterson points out, modern leftists switch back and forth between egalitarian leftist and post modernism whenever it suits their agenda.

    They use post modernism to attack western science and culture, then switch to left-wing egalitarianism when right-wingers point out the weaknesses of post modernism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @helena
    "However, as Jordan Peterson points out, modern leftists switch back and forth between egalitarian leftist and post modernism whenever it suits their agenda. They use post modernism to attack western science and culture, then switch to left-wing egalitarianism when right-wingers point out the weaknesses of post modernism."

    That's a good point. Just a couple of times lately I've heard a right-winger using post-modernism in debate with a left-lib by mirroring the left-lib's false logic back onto the leftist point of view. More needs to be done but it's hard for righties to step out of actual logic even if that may be the most effective way to counter left-lib arguments or rather demands.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. @ThreeCranes
    I'm glad you pointed out the differences amongst the Cultural Marxists.

    Fromm in particular took pains to separate himself from others such as Marcuse.

    Whereas a dyed in the wool Marxist believes that human consciousness is derived from one's economic class and therefore fixed by environmental (material) conditions, this paradoxically, simultaneously proves that it is infinitely malleable. If our "minds are made up" by our class and if those classes differ then the mind can be programmed to accept any stamp, however inhuman or absurd.

    Fromm disbelieved this. He argued that humans had an intrinsic Nature. As tool-making animals humans need to be productive which is to be effective in transforming their environment in order to satisfy their intrinsic needs.

    Humans need to be members of a community, to feel a sense of rootedness and transcendence, to love, to care, to take responsibility, to respect and to be knowledgeable.

    Fromm's 'Revolution of Hope" was to be towards a "humanized technology", one in which hours spent on the assembly line would be replaced by a kinder, gentler work routine in which, to cite one example, he pointed out Volvo's attempt to replace the assembly line with a team approach to building cars. Whether this would work or not is not the issue. The point is he did not wish to socialize all manufacturing or replace private ownership with worker communes but wanted to soften the harsh edges of raw capitalism.

    But today, those sentiments have flown the coup. We have transferred our manufacturing to China and it is they, not us, who stand in need of a revolution of hope. Their begrimed cities, the Dickensian miasma of smog that casts their urban landscape in a perpetual semi-darkness, the grinding hours on the demanding lines; all these are for real. And their workers suffer and literally cry out in pain as though calling upon God asking why they are cursed.

    I told them that this period would pass. That they would emerge into the sunlight eventually. That every European country had passed through a similar stage of development. Carry on. Things will get better. You may have to sacrifice the happiness of a generation or two, but it will pay off in the end.

    There is no doubt that manufacturing and science have raised the standard of living of virtually all humankind to unprecedented levels. But I don't blame the cultural Marxists--not all of them anyway--for all the ills that beset us today. As a poor student, I worked in some of those nasty, old factories and I, for one, am glad that they are gone.

    Fromm was right. We need a humanized technology.

    “Whereas a dyed in the wool Marxist believes that human consciousness is derived from one’s economic class and therefore fixed by environmental (material) conditions, this paradoxically, simultaneously proves that it is infinitely malleable.[my emphasis] If our “minds are made up” by our class and if those classes differ then the mind can be programmed to accept any stamp, however inhuman or absurd.”
    The programming of which you speak is often referred to as “ideology” and there’s no doubt that many marxists ( & many others) believe this is the most powerful influence on human development.
    I also believe there is something we can call a “human nature”. This nature is neither infinitely malleable, nor eternally pre-set. Human nature creates limits & possibilities/probabilities. Humans have, as a part of their nature, a drive to knowledge — that is a drive to workable truths. We are not only inherently curious, knowledge is, at a minimum, a drive to self preservation. Nietzsche, would add, it’s an expression of a will to power.
    Therefore, I do not accept that people are necessarily 100% bound by ideology & culture. Many maybe. However, if you accept that the last 10,000 years demonstrates some kind of development then you also accept that humans are never completely tied to existing ideology & culture.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Joe Wong
    Lives do not start from a single source, watch the following for the explanation.
    Evolution Is Officially Debunked | SCIENCE PROVES INTELLIGENT DESIGN
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wCxkBnm3ow#t=1325.181895

    Evolution IS intelligent design. And god was behind it.

    Read More
    • Troll: Wizard of Oz
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    The author says boas was jewish and implied he was promoting jewish interests. If he was why would have favour the african behavioral modernity idea even after finds in israel of similar beads, tools etc Boas could have argued for an israeli origin of behavioral modernity, but he didnt.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Delinquent Snail
    Because isreal is a modern construct. Ancient peoples in that area weren't jewish, so it wouldnt have helped any. But claiming that human intelligence and society came from africa helps discredit white Europeans further, which is a zionist "main goal". White europeans, have done more for the humans race over the last 2 thousand years then any other group. By discrediting them, and supplementing their history with lies, zionists hope to "break" whites and make it easier for them (zionists) to dominate the world.
    , @Jm8
    I don't think Boas argued so much re: the origin of behavioral modernity (since the origin of homo sapiens in Africa was unknown then) because of that evidence, (which is more recent, thus unknown to him). It's mostly much more recent evidence (discovered long after his death—not much excavation was done in Africa relative to Europe til fairly recently), that supports an African origin of behavioral modernity.

    It's not just shell beads and crosshatchings (as this article claims) that show a beginning of modern behavior in Africa or that have distinguished early African sapiens behavior from that of neanderthals.
    Many middle stone age cultures of southern Africa ca 150-70,000 bc (and later—and a few earlier) also show other evidence of modern behaviors, including the use of bone tools, shell beads, the trade of minerals across substantial distances, the making of heated fat-based paints from ochre.

    Many other of the oldest modern behaviors/technologies: are seen at such sites (among others) as Blombos (heat treated paints from 100,000 bc), Pinnacle Point South Africa (heat treating to change the property of silicrete stone using it to make making microliths for compound weapons from 164,000-70,000 bc), Katanda/Semliki Central Africa (bone harpoons to hunt giant deep water cat fish by 90,ooo bc, requiring the use of water craft), Gademotta Ethiopia (the first projectiles, javelins/throwing spears by 279,000 bc), Sibudu South Africa (bone and stone arrows, adhesive, and a needle found), Ishango and Lebombo Swaziland (bone tally sticks showing the understanding of multiplication, division, and possibly prime numbers, from 20,000 bc and 40,000)

    Neanderthals did not use projectiles but rather the close-range thrusting spears.
    The use of projectiles—the designing of (including early ones such as javelins or atlatls) requires a greater ability to estimate trajectory and distance, and the ability to design weapons with these things in mind)—and allows hunting at a safer distance. And that (beginning likely with distance javelins) dates to the early period of 279,000 bc in Ethiopia.
    And bone tools (as found at Blombos) are never (0r almost never) associated with neanderthals, or other early hominids (other than sapiens)
    Also, the cases of neanderthal bead making come the period from when sapiens had already entered Europe, and some suggest they may reflect sapiens influence.

    What Boas claimed was, to quote the article: " Boas claimed that African cultural inventions in agriculture and iron smelting were crucial to “the advancement of the human race.” Subsequent research has shown that neither agriculture nor iron smelting was an African invention"

    Actually, subsequent research does show that agriculture and (likely) iron smelting (as indicated by very early iron dates including those from South East and Central Nigeria) were likely invented in SS Africa. But they were also separately invented in other places (agriculture was invented several times in the world, and iron smelting at least one other time in the Near East in Turkey/Anatolia), so Africa was not the origin of iron smelting in Europe or in the Near East—that is, agriculture and iron in Europe and the Near East did not come form Africa (if Boas claimed it did, he would be wrong) but rather from the Near East/Anatolia and Mesopotamia, but SS Africa does seem to have invented those things independently (millet and sorghum domesticated in the West African Savannah and yams and oil palms in the West African forest region).


    “Earliest Stone-Tipped Projectiles from the Ethiopian Rift Date to >279,000 Years Ago”

    http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0078092

    Evidence of arrowheads and adhesives (and of bows and arrows using adhesives) were made at least by 60-70,000 in Sibudu South Africa (some evidence from Pinnacle Point S.A. suggests earlier date).

    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.466.2274&rep=rep1&type=pdf

    http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2010/08/26/Oldest-arrowheads-found-in-Africa/95431282863088/

    The preparation of stone for making microliths by precise heat treating to increase its flakeability was practiced at pinnacle point SA. from ca 164,000 bc-70,000 bc.
    “An early and enduring advanced technology originating 71,000 years ago in South Africa”

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v491/n7425/full/nature11660.html?foxtrotcallback=true

    “The origins of composite tools and advanced projectile weapons figure prominently in modern human evolution research, and the latter have been argued to have been in the exclusive possession of modern humans5, 6. Here we describe a previously unrecognized advanced stone tool technology from Pinnacle Point Site 5–6 on the south coast of South Africa, originating approximately 71,000 years ago. This technology is dominated by the production of small bladelets (microliths) primarily from heat-treated stone. There is agreement that microlithic technology was used to create composite tool components as part of advanced projectile weapons7, 8. Microliths were common worldwide by the mid-Holocene epoch, but have a patchy pattern of first appearance that is rarely earlier than 40,000 years ago9, 10, and were thought to appear briefly between 65,000 and 60,000 years ago in South Africa and then disappear. Our research extends this record to ~71,000 years, shows that microlithic technology originated early in South Africa, evolved over a vast time span (~11,000 years), and was typically coupled to complex heat treatment that persisted for nearly 100,000 years. Advanced technologies in Africa were early and enduring; a small sample of excavated sites in Africa is the best explanation for any perceived ‘flickering’ pattern.”

    (the practice of heat treating began earlier (ca. 164,000 BC)
    “Fire As an Engineering Tool of Early Modern Humans” | Science

    http://science.sciencemag.org/content/325/5942/859

    “...The analysis of tools at multiple sites shows that the source stone materials were systematically manipulated with fire to improve their flaking properties. Heat treatment predominates among silcrete tools at ~72 thousand years ago (ka) and appears as early as 164 ka at Pinnacle Point, on the south coast of South Africa. Heat treatment demands a sophisticated knowledge of fire and an elevated cognitive ability and appears at roughly the same time as widespread evidence for symbolic behavior.”


    Compound heated fat-based paints were made at Blombos by 100,000 BC: paints made not only by simply grinding minerals (as neanderthals also sometimes did), but by a more complex process more like the paint-making/formulas of later ancient cultures and civilizations (and like those of later stone age homo sapiens in Africa and Europe/Eurasia); of heating ground ocher mixed with animal fat and charcoal.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-15257259


    Bone harpoons appear in Central Africa as early as ca. 90,000 bc. (a modern tool type) that were used to hunt giant catfish, a type of fish that only lives at depths much too great for a human to stand, which indicates the use of watercraft (likely rafts or early canoes).

    http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-katanda-harpoons.html

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishango_bone

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebombo_bone


    The significance of the “Howiesons Poort tradition of engraving ostrich eggshell containers dated to 60,000 years ago at Diepkloof Rock Shelter, South Africa” is not simply that they have cross hatched designs (as this article seems to innacurately imply). It is that, but also that they were used as containers, and to store water possibly for periods of drought and/or to allow them to occupy drier areas (there is evidence that the 60,000 containers were buried), and the South African Bushmen still use ostrich shell containers in the same way (creating buried stores of water).

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. Jake says:
    @PA Polka
    Amazing video from Slovenia: Neanderthal bone flute music.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHy9FOblt7Y

    OK – I thought there might be something to this until he started playing Ode to Joy, which the racist Beethoven stole from a poor black African musician of genius, just like Plato stole his philosophy from the black geniuses of Egypt.

    Am I the only one who thinks that Neanderthals would have wanted to help uplift the new Out of African with affirmative action?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. Jake says:
    @Johan Meyer
    Life expectancy? Largely double what it was under colonialism. GDP PPP per capita? No comparison. University educated personnel? Ditto. By which measure do you suggest that Africa was better off?

    I think everybody should agree that black African peoples – wherever they are born, no matter how long their kin lived outside Africa – are better off without living near whites and without being by whites in any way.

    For the good of black people. force all whites to leave them alone. Help them save themselves from us by large walls, behind which they will flourish.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Delinquent Snail
    Yes. Whites would be better off as well. If only black africans had a landmass to call their own, some place large with plenty of land for crops and new towns......
    , @Truth

    For the good of black people. force all whites to leave them alone. Help them save themselves from us by large walls, behind which they will flourish
     
    Do you guys realize, that I don't think you could go one day on this website without someone making this Eunuchy, "cuck" comment.

    As Jimmy DiBella told you in the 4th grade when he took your lunch money, DO SUMTHIN' ABOUT IT!

    If you don't plan on doing anything than shut up, take it, like it, and and ask for more. Oh wait, that's what you do, minus the "shut up" part. "Your people" invented "multiculturalism" got very rich on it, and will continue it, you do not count because, well, to be perfectly frank, Sport; You ain't shit.

    So please, for your own manhood, you're too old to sitting on the nerd table during lunch hour,
    attempting to make jokes about the football team - who, happen to be walking by with actual, real-life girls - at EXTREMELY low volume, of course.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. @Priss Factor
    Global Olympics makes no sense.

    We should return to the Greek ideal.

    Greek Olympics only included Greeks.

    Greeks kept it to themselves. It was a celebration of Greek speed and strength.

    Greeks didn't want Persians, Africans, and others to take part and whup Greek ass.

    People who promote “equality” between races would happily put the family’s Golden Retriever in the arena with a wild wolf and watch the wolf tear the trusting, domesticated dog to pieces.

    I tell you Priss, the people setting up these athletic contests are twisted sadists who take a delight in torturing domesticated animals which have lost most of their aggressive impulses to the beneficial effects of cultural selection. And while they enjoy this spectacle they congratulate themselves upon their worldliness and broad-mindedness.

    Would they derive equal satisfaction from a College Bowl-like contest that pits the cream of the crop of Ivy League scholars against the intellects coming out of the South’s historically Black Colleges? Would they run this program every week and revel in the spectacle of triumph and high-fiveing on the one side and humiliation and shame on the other?

    As Jimmy the Greek observed, black slaves in America were selectively bred for strength, not intelligence. Pitting them against Euro-whites and enjoying the one-sided outcome is simple cruelty.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Delinquent Snail
    Blacks are typically more athletic. Period. While other races were busy making things and expanding their brains, africans were stuck in a primitive rutt, and never progressed from tribal hunter gatherers (there are a few exceptions, but those arent the rule). This allowed them to stay in top physical form. Don't twist this, im not saying blacks are better, in many ways they are worse. Its just that they didnt spend the last 500 generations doing anything but running, walking, and carrying. Whites, east asian, arabs, we all spent that time developing our brains and our societies, which left little room for near constant physical labor, which has had the effect to lower bone mass and muscle density, which lowers physical aptitude.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. helena says:
    @unpc downunder
    The modern left is just a messy self-serving blend of left-wing egalitarianism and post modernism. In theory neither Marxism or post modernism is particularly left-wing in a cultural sense. Traditional economic Marxists tend to be supportive of western science and western technological achievements. Karl Marx was pretty explicit that technologically primitive non-western cultures were inferior to western cultures. Similarly, post modernism argues that there is no objective truth, hence a left-wing narrative is no better or worse than a right-wing one. However, as Jordan Peterson points out, modern leftists switch back and forth between egalitarian leftist and post modernism whenever it suits their agenda.

    They use post modernism to attack western science and culture, then switch to left-wing egalitarianism when right-wingers point out the weaknesses of post modernism.

    “However, as Jordan Peterson points out, modern leftists switch back and forth between egalitarian leftist and post modernism whenever it suits their agenda. They use post modernism to attack western science and culture, then switch to left-wing egalitarianism when right-wingers point out the weaknesses of post modernism.”

    That’s a good point. Just a couple of times lately I’ve heard a right-winger using post-modernism in debate with a left-lib by mirroring the left-lib’s false logic back onto the leftist point of view. More needs to be done but it’s hard for righties to step out of actual logic even if that may be the most effective way to counter left-lib arguments or rather demands.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. Che Guava says:
    @Delinquent Snail
    Recent discoveries put earliest humans in Australia at about 65000 years ago.

    https://m.phys.org/news/2017-07-artifacts-humans-australia-earlier-thought.html

    Im a big fan of studio ghibli, what movie are you referencing?

    Their version of Earthsea of course. I am not a huge fan, but love some scenes in some of the movies.

    My fave, as a whole movie, is Mononoke, but some scenes in others also transcend the lines between life and death, reality and dreams.

    Those are the parts I love. The train in, I think the English title is Spirited Away, is very great, but on some real lines, the feeling is almost the same. Never bullet trains, riding them occasionally, boring.

    The cat bus in Tottoro, same kind of impression.

    Many more scenes.

    On the other hand, I know a man running a tiny art bookshop and gallery near my home. His opinion is that Miyazaki has a Lolita complex, I am thinking that is, unfortunately, a valid opinion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Delinquent Snail
    Miyazaki does like to have little girls as the central characters. Could be a lolita thing, or could be to further emphasise the contrast of innocence and the harshness of reality. Grave of the fireflies, i think, showcases it best.

    Im not sure if i have a favorite one. Mononoke was good, and my kids love spirited away and totorro (that cat bus makes them light up with joy). I loved the style and the detail in howl's moving castle(i think that was the name).

    I was reading that theres another studio thats following in ghibli's art style, know anything about it?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. BB753 says:
    @Priss Factor
    Global Olympics makes no sense.

    We should return to the Greek ideal.

    Greek Olympics only included Greeks.

    Greeks kept it to themselves. It was a celebration of Greek speed and strength.

    Greeks didn't want Persians, Africans, and others to take part and whup Greek ass.

    I agree. But the greatest travesty of the Olympics remains the Paralympics. What the hell! The crippled, the maimed and the retarded competing in athletic ability! Zeus almighty must be laughing his ass off in his Olympian abode.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    Paralympics is ridiculous.

    I don't mind there being events and facilities for cripples.

    But paralympics is just expensive virtue-signaling.

    NO ONE cares about those events. Stadiums are empty and TV stations ignore them.

    But the elites can smugly pat themselves for putting on Compassion Events.

    Yet, these are the same elites who push globalist wars that have turned so many people into paraplegics in the Middle East and North Africa. And Donbass in Ukraine.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. Rurik says: • Website
    @iii
    Thank you for that. It's basically the entire basis of how and why we've gotten to this point of sceintific censorship. For a long time, a lot was invested in determining racial superiority until someone said "Hey, we all live on this planet, we all deserve to be respected and assumptions to not be made of our character based on race." That's what this is all about. I prefer truthfulness but understand that a large part of the population can't be reasonable in their conclusions.

    So many people here focus on IQ as a form of superiority but they're missing the point. Why is intelligence held us the ultimate human trait? I mean I can see exactly why people think that but I can also see why it shouldn't be. Intelligence is a double-edged sword. Intelligence has allowed our species to "progress" but where are we even going? What is the end goal? Have you even thought about it?

    We've created as many problems as we have solutions. The problems we are facing today require intelligence to solve yet intelligence is what brought us here. We've become accustomed to our intelligence but is life actually better now than 10,000 years ago? I know I'd be happy making rock formations, I do this in my yard now. Would I want to be at war with other tribes? Would I want to be hunting & gathering food? My ancestors lived in the Arctic, would I want to live there without modern amenities? How about disease? These are the questions most people ask but then I ask myself do I like working 8 hour days doing the same thing? Do I like our modern obsession with time? Do I like corruption and modern politics? How about our constant struggle to be more productive? Internet addiction? Cancer causing foods?

    If you think about it long enough you see we haven't really "progressed" unless you're looking at this from a specific angle. Different races have different abilities and ways of seeing, some of them are alien to us and we don't understand them but that doesn't make them inferior.

    It’s basically the entire basis of how and why we’ve gotten to this point of sceintific censorship.

    yep, to the point where one of the single most sublime scientific minds alive today, is scorned by the scientific community and beyond, for simply telling the obvious truth

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/01/dna-james-watson-scientist-selling-nobel-prize-medal

    I prefer truthfulness but understand that a large part of the population can’t be reasonable in their conclusions.

    the very existence of rationality is a miracle and is very rare indeed. The thing is, that when the tiny fraction of people are capable of it, they project that onto others who are not, and then make the mistake in their minds that they’re talking to other rational people of good faith, when they’re really talking to agenda-driven people who simply ape the language of rationality while holding in their ‘minds’ their emotional/personal/tribal agendas the whole time.

    You can see this very blatantly with the ‘Climate Change’ agenda-driven liars and “scientists” who claim, among other brazen absurdities, that the ‘science’ of “Climate Change” is “settled”, when there could not be a more unscientific statement made if you tried.

    They’re not scientists, but paid whores lying and subverting science to foist an agenda. Which is the exact same thing going on in the universities, especially in the anthropology departments. It’s all lies, all day long to suit the Agenda. Hardly science, and this rot at the intellectual level of our societies permeates all the way across the spectrum of our ivory towers and once glorious civilization. Today we’re laughed at. It was a Russian guy who purchased James Watson’s Nobel prize- he had to sell because he’s unemployable now, due to the all-pervasive, politically correct morass of agenda-driven duplicity that has descended like a pall over all intellectual pursuits that don’t genuflect to the Agenda. And the benevolent Russian gave the Nobel prize back to Mr. Watson, saying it was a disgrace that he had to pawn it in the first place. He’s right about that.

    Intelligence is a double-edged sword. Intelligence has allowed our species to “progress” but where are we even going? What is the end goal? Have you even thought about it?

    Yes, I have!

    today intelligence is being used for purely racial, instinctive tribal motivations. We humans are smart, relatively speaking, vis-a-vis the primate community, but if you look at Western man today, all our so-called smarts are all being used for purely animal motivations (and in a suicidal way!). If we’re so smart, we wouldn’t be bombing and killing and slaughtering other people in contrived wars for fun and profit. We’d be using our intellects to benefit mankind and the rest of creation in ways that have infinite possibilities. We would be colonizing the moon and space itself. We’d be solving the problems that vex this planet, like human overpopulation and the dying environment. We be creating a kind of place on this planet that would make the future generations celebrate us for our benevolent foresight, rather than curse us in our graves for our craven folly.

    Which they surely will do (and should do!) when they realize what we’ve done.

    We are on the brink today of establishing Orwell’s worst nightmare. A dystopian hell on earth of misery and horrors that are unimaginable unless you’ve spent some time in Gitmo or Gaza today.

    that’s how ‘smart’ we are.

    we’re using all these incredible technological marvels and wonders of science…

    … all in the service of an instinctive, purely ape need to dominate other human apes.

    we have nuclear technology, and it could take us to the stars, but instead we’re obsessed with making other alpha apes from distant tribes kowtow and bow down to our ape-need for human/ape social dominance.

    if we could be look at ourselves, and reflect on what motivates all these wars and instinctive imperatives for hegemony, we’d see an ape looking back at us from the mirror, and perhaps learn to mollify it’s less endearing holdovers from our evolutionary past.

    that’s my humble prayer

    Read More
    • Replies: @Delinquent Snail
    Thanks for that link. I was unaware that happened. Its a shame. A great mind reduced to that because of our PC culture. The author of that article sounds like a real twat.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. @Ivy Mike
    So the gist of this article is that black africans aren't human and the damn Jewish intellectuals started the lie that they are. I just want to be sure somebody calls this sort of writing what it is, a bunch of ignorant racist claptrap not worth the trouble of refuting.

    Ivy Mike says; “I just want to be sure somebody calls this sort of writing what it is, a bunch of ignorant racist claptrap not worth the trouble of refuting.”

    If that’s what you took as the gist then I would assert that you are not Ivy material.

    The real gist is that Black African evolution took a different trajectory from that of the people who now occupy the European continent. Both people share a common ancestor dating dating back 50-60,000 years. Natural Selection has sculpted both respective gene pools into different physiognomies, body types and psyches.

    Jewish intellectuals crow about their epoch-changing influence in the composition of America’s and Europe’s populations. They are proud of having been at the forefront of social movements that advocate interchangeability of races, sexes etc.

    None of this is disputable by any adult who has had both eyes open for the last 50 years.

    If you are young I suggest you view some videos that are available on YouTube which came out in the early 1970′s. The Mondo series. They will provide you with a glimpse into life in Africa before the civilizing influence of Europeans. Also look at the book Negroes in Negroland available from Amazon, an unvarnished presentation of what the early explorers, traders and missionaries encountered when Europeans first penetrated the Dark Continent. Prepare to be shocked. Or amused. It won’t resemble what you were taught in your Anthropology course at college.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. @Ivy Mike
    So the gist of this article is that black africans aren't human and the damn Jewish intellectuals started the lie that they are. I just want to be sure somebody calls this sort of writing what it is, a bunch of ignorant racist claptrap not worth the trouble of refuting.

    Here’s a link:

    Start about 47:00 for real African hunting. This ought to dispel the myth about North American Indians and Africans being peaceful Stone Age peoples.

    Warning; not for the squeamish.

    Read More
    • Replies: @hyperbola
    You can see versions of the same thing in Europe today, say in Spain or France in the "fiestas" of villages.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. @Che Guava
    Their version of Earthsea of course. I am not a huge fan, but love some scenes in some of the movies.

    My fave, as a whole movie, is Mononoke, but some scenes in others also transcend the lines between life and death, reality and dreams.

    Those are the parts I love. The train in, I think the English title is Spirited Away, is very great, but on some real lines, the feeling is almost the same. Never bullet trains, riding them occasionally, boring.

    The cat bus in Tottoro, same kind of impression.

    Many more scenes.

    On the other hand, I know a man running a tiny art bookshop and gallery near my home. His opinion is that Miyazaki has a Lolita complex, I am thinking that is, unfortunately, a valid opinion.

    Miyazaki does like to have little girls as the central characters. Could be a lolita thing, or could be to further emphasise the contrast of innocence and the harshness of reality. Grave of the fireflies, i think, showcases it best.

    Im not sure if i have a favorite one. Mononoke was good, and my kids love spirited away and totorro (that cat bus makes them light up with joy). I loved the style and the detail in howl’s moving castle(i think that was the name).

    I was reading that theres another studio thats following in ghibli’s art style, know anything about it?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    No. It is likely just a strange rumour because the son taking over.

    How could there be a point to it?

    For an adult, I would recommending some from Studio 4°C, and many by Mamoru Oshii, Ghost in the Shell the most famous, but many more are great.

    For a child, I would recommend Soviet animations of classic European fairy tales, also old Astro-boy, anything by Osamu Tezuka, incidentally, Miyazaki of Ghibli, said that his ambition was to surpass that cel-based style, but now that it is reliant on CG, that it is not meaning much now.

    Also, art animations from here, also from Warsaw Pact places, from Russia, Estonian, Czech makers excelled in USSR times. The Estonian studio still does, but not for children. The pre-semi-indepemce ones (the place moved from USSR to EUSSR, so not independent), many very beautiful.

    Also to recommending, Nagai Go's Cutie Honey, turned into live action and effects by Hideaki Anno, alright for children, I think, but perhaps not for pubescent and adolescent men, the star as Cutie Honey, Eriko Sato, too stunnimg


    Sorry that I do not have concrete links to posting now, too tired.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. Rurik says: • Website
    @Ivy Mike
    So the gist of this article is that black africans aren't human and the damn Jewish intellectuals started the lie that they are. I just want to be sure somebody calls this sort of writing what it is, a bunch of ignorant racist claptrap not worth the trouble of refuting.

    that black africans aren’t human and the damn Jewish intellectuals started the lie that they are

    not that they aren’t human, (they obviously are), rather that the Jewish lie is that they are intellectually exactly at the same level as (particularly) white Americans.

    the main reason why this lie is so morally loathsome, is because they use the lie to foster the other nefarious lie that all the foibles of the black community (the performance gap, representation in the criminal justice system, etc…) are a direct consequence of white (Americans in particular) racism . rather than the truth, which is that all races have different collective gifts, and whites are simply better suited to competing and thriving in a white-created civilization.

    and it is specifically that egregious and momentous lie, that causes so much hostility in the black community for white people, who they are told are to blame for all their (very real) struggles because of the white people’s eternal racism. Which makes the blacks even more hostile and violent and hate-filled and criminal. Which also ruins their well-being and ruins so many of their lives. For which the Jews telling the lies could not give a fuck.

    The blacks (and other minorities) are being cynically used by these Jewish supremacist liars as weapons against the white Americans and others whom the Jews consider eternal, congenital enemies.

    K?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. @Anonymous
    The author says boas was jewish and implied he was promoting jewish interests. If he was why would have favour the african behavioral modernity idea even after finds in israel of similar beads, tools etc Boas could have argued for an israeli origin of behavioral modernity, but he didnt.

    Because isreal is a modern construct. Ancient peoples in that area weren’t jewish, so it wouldnt have helped any. But claiming that human intelligence and society came from africa helps discredit white Europeans further, which is a zionist “main goal”. White europeans, have done more for the humans race over the last 2 thousand years then any other group. By discrediting them, and supplementing their history with lies, zionists hope to “break” whites and make it easier for them (zionists) to dominate the world.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. @Jake
    I think everybody should agree that black African peoples - wherever they are born, no matter how long their kin lived outside Africa - are better off without living near whites and without being by whites in any way.

    For the good of black people. force all whites to leave them alone. Help them save themselves from us by large walls, behind which they will flourish.

    Yes. Whites would be better off as well. If only black africans had a landmass to call their own, some place large with plenty of land for crops and new towns……

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. @ThreeCranes
    People who promote "equality" between races would happily put the family's Golden Retriever in the arena with a wild wolf and watch the wolf tear the trusting, domesticated dog to pieces.

    I tell you Priss, the people setting up these athletic contests are twisted sadists who take a delight in torturing domesticated animals which have lost most of their aggressive impulses to the beneficial effects of cultural selection. And while they enjoy this spectacle they congratulate themselves upon their worldliness and broad-mindedness.

    Would they derive equal satisfaction from a College Bowl-like contest that pits the cream of the crop of Ivy League scholars against the intellects coming out of the South's historically Black Colleges? Would they run this program every week and revel in the spectacle of triumph and high-fiveing on the one side and humiliation and shame on the other?

    As Jimmy the Greek observed, black slaves in America were selectively bred for strength, not intelligence. Pitting them against Euro-whites and enjoying the one-sided outcome is simple cruelty.

    Blacks are typically more athletic. Period. While other races were busy making things and expanding their brains, africans were stuck in a primitive rutt, and never progressed from tribal hunter gatherers (there are a few exceptions, but those arent the rule). This allowed them to stay in top physical form. Don’t twist this, im not saying blacks are better, in many ways they are worse. Its just that they didnt spend the last 500 generations doing anything but running, walking, and carrying. Whites, east asian, arabs, we all spent that time developing our brains and our societies, which left little room for near constant physical labor, which has had the effect to lower bone mass and muscle density, which lowers physical aptitude.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
    Here's a copy of the movie Addio Africa in English. The MauMaus in Kenya are covered in the first part. Very instructive of the black mindset and lifestyle. They destroy that which they don't understand and that means most of the white world they find themselves in.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7K5qVWG5CXU

    I don't entirely agree with you in your saying that blacks are more athletic. This has to be qualified. Generally the men sit around all day getting drunk while their women work like slaves. The males were hunters and warriors and chased game as the video shows and this is how they see themselves to this day. They distain agricultural work which is why they didn't do well as slaves in the South. Now, instead of hunting they engage in feral warfare in their ghetto. This is what natural selection has shaped them into and no amount of social reprogramming will change that.

    So their athleticism lies in sports related to primitive warfare and hunting. Pretty comprehensive but not exhaustive. Based mainly on sprinting after game and hurling a spear, just as today they gang up on white intruders into their territory.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. @Marshall Lentini
    Author is painfully under-read, like every other white nationalist who trundles into science. For them, conveniently, all of anthropology boils down to Franz Boas.

    The findings in Blombos Cave, just to name one case, have been assigned a range of 100,000 to 700,000 BP. And what are the artefacts? Ochre artwork, shell beads, stone and bone tools.

    And then there are the pesky facts of Khoisan and, to a lesser extent, Pygmy DNA (oldest lineages), evidence of a return to Africa and comingling ~80,000BP, etc.

    Once again white nationalists, in trying to correct extremism from the other side, overcompensate and pretend they themselves do not make emotional or ideological arguments: the need not to share anything with Africa is most apparent in all the breathless ad hoc.

    Lentini makes the most sense I have seen here so far. but I wont see much more however because this is as far as I go in here.
    most of this is white western rubbish to me, out of cultural marxism and post modern european claptrap… like religion created to misdirect the world. ..and all here seem seriously caught up in it.

    at university I walked away from the humanities and I warned my own children to steer clear..that if they were going to go major in humanities they would have to do so on their own
    happily they chose science and business

    on my own I studied Gerald Massey and found his body of work compelling. since then the black scholars have done yeoman work ..they are treasures e and well meant biology since
    then of course there is africa itself right there and all its works..like the Precession of the Equinoxes..the great year. then there is the second great year…Polar great year based on the precession of the pole stars

    how does one account for proven african history going back towards 100 thousand years with artifacts to prove? how to explain the forensic evidence of the rebuilt facial representation of skulls found in latin american, towards the southern tip that show black faces……..

    then what about earthbound cyclic weather as far back as we can tell. they do not tell of human habitation anywhere other in africa as possible..in any time frame consistent with the humanity we have come to know as us, that we are a part of.

    europe has been telling lies about africa as soon as they were taught to speak and write, taught how to ‘build a house with a window’.

    europe was/is sick mentally, crazy people with anti human conceptions of life…mostly homicidal maniacs involved in the massive extermination of humanity from as long as we have known them. if anything is hard to imagine is that the same human sources that gave rise to the magnificent people who built ancient Kemet are the same who gave rise to europeans..opposites that are really hard to reconcile for me. but that is what the evidence establishes

    the simple story seems to to be right there in front of us the rudiments of which cannot even be contemplated by the insanes I have been reading here. Gerald Massey dug deeply into africa through what the euros call egypt. but what else is there to dig into..where is the basis, evidence for alternate construction of human origins and history up to now…?

    I have found little here of substance, of use, to add to my impression of things. this has been almost a waste of time, the author a fool, a racially traumatized individual hell bent on the finding of, and assumption of some dreamed of white initial/initiating glory, evidence of which must be lying about somewhere awaiting our discovery. good luck to him

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    As I said #11 I too found it hard to get much out of the article. However you leave me puzzled. As one with a scoentific bent and an interest in these matters I look in vain for your views on the rate of gene mutation in Malthusian human populations according to size and what bearing that might hsve had on observed, measured and supposed differences between what we conveniently call "races" (say intrabreeding extended family groups).

    Is there not evidence of specific genetic chsnges outdide Africa in the last 60,000 years which may have been selected for meeting cognitive challenges such as the Ice Ages must have presented?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. corrections

    [on my own I studied Gerald Massey and found his body of work compelling. since then the black scholars have done yeoman work ..they are treasures e and well meant biology since]

    1. the black scholars are treasures: Chiekeh Anta Diop perhaps the best of them all, Theophille Obenga and many more.

    2. the Rebecca Cann and all the well meant scholarly biology she inspired

    3. the latin skulls have been dated 50 thousand plus years old and the the forensic work has revealed them to have been black

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    As to the "forensic work" which has shown the skulls (sic) to be "black", can you elaborate?
    Presumably you mean "covered with black skin". N'est-ce pas? Then I infer that you are referring to the early kind of "forensic" evidence which relied - accurately enough in most circumstaances - on phrenology e.g the size and shape of the skull???

    What do DNA studies show? Links or references please.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. @Rurik

    It’s basically the entire basis of how and why we’ve gotten to this point of sceintific censorship.
     
    yep, to the point where one of the single most sublime scientific minds alive today, is scorned by the scientific community and beyond, for simply telling the obvious truth

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/01/dna-james-watson-scientist-selling-nobel-prize-medal


    I prefer truthfulness but understand that a large part of the population can’t be reasonable in their conclusions.
     
    the very existence of rationality is a miracle and is very rare indeed. The thing is, that when the tiny fraction of people are capable of it, they project that onto others who are not, and then make the mistake in their minds that they're talking to other rational people of good faith, when they're really talking to agenda-driven people who simply ape the language of rationality while holding in their 'minds' their emotional/personal/tribal agendas the whole time.

    You can see this very blatantly with the 'Climate Change' agenda-driven liars and "scientists" who claim, among other brazen absurdities, that the 'science' of "Climate Change" is "settled", when there could not be a more unscientific statement made if you tried.

    They're not scientists, but paid whores lying and subverting science to foist an agenda. Which is the exact same thing going on in the universities, especially in the anthropology departments. It's all lies, all day long to suit the Agenda. Hardly science, and this rot at the intellectual level of our societies permeates all the way across the spectrum of our ivory towers and once glorious civilization. Today we're laughed at. It was a Russian guy who purchased James Watson's Nobel prize- he had to sell because he's unemployable now, due to the all-pervasive, politically correct morass of agenda-driven duplicity that has descended like a pall over all intellectual pursuits that don't genuflect to the Agenda. And the benevolent Russian gave the Nobel prize back to Mr. Watson, saying it was a disgrace that he had to pawn it in the first place. He's right about that.


    Intelligence is a double-edged sword. Intelligence has allowed our species to “progress” but where are we even going? What is the end goal? Have you even thought about it?
     
    Yes, I have!

    today intelligence is being used for purely racial, instinctive tribal motivations. We humans are smart, relatively speaking, vis-a-vis the primate community, but if you look at Western man today, all our so-called smarts are all being used for purely animal motivations (and in a suicidal way!). If we're so smart, we wouldn't be bombing and killing and slaughtering other people in contrived wars for fun and profit. We'd be using our intellects to benefit mankind and the rest of creation in ways that have infinite possibilities. We would be colonizing the moon and space itself. We'd be solving the problems that vex this planet, like human overpopulation and the dying environment. We be creating a kind of place on this planet that would make the future generations celebrate us for our benevolent foresight, rather than curse us in our graves for our craven folly.

    Which they surely will do (and should do!) when they realize what we've done.

    We are on the brink today of establishing Orwell's worst nightmare. A dystopian hell on earth of misery and horrors that are unimaginable unless you've spent some time in Gitmo or Gaza today.

    that's how 'smart' we are.

    we're using all these incredible technological marvels and wonders of science...

    ... all in the service of an instinctive, purely ape need to dominate other human apes.

    we have nuclear technology, and it could take us to the stars, but instead we're obsessed with making other alpha apes from distant tribes kowtow and bow down to our ape-need for human/ape social dominance.

    if we could be look at ourselves, and reflect on what motivates all these wars and instinctive imperatives for hegemony, we'd see an ape looking back at us from the mirror, and perhaps learn to mollify it's less endearing holdovers from our evolutionary past.

    that's my humble prayer

    Thanks for that link. I was unaware that happened. Its a shame. A great mind reduced to that because of our PC culture. The author of that article sounds like a real twat.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. Truth says:
    @Delinquent Snail
    Really? Thats interesting.

    Guess I'll fly to work tomorrow. Seeing as how gravity is a theory.

    A scientific theory is not the same as a laymans theory. A scientific HYPOTHESIS is what a layman would call a theory.


    Using the handle "truth", one would expect a bit more knowledge and, you know, truth.

    Gravity is a theory (on your level, I won’t get into what it really is, it takes too long). No one can give you a good definition for what it really is.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRmR88Gx_dc

    Read More
    • Replies: @Delinquent Snail
    Only fools blindly follow. Science asks questions and follows up with experimentation. Thoughts and ideas can be replaced, but it needs evidence to give reason to switching. You're video was a fool picking and choosing quotes. Great choice.

    You have a better understanding of gravity then some of the brightest minds in the field? Oh, do tell!

    On second thought, its probably some flat earth bullshit.


    https://m.phys.org/news/2016-02-gravitational-discoveredtop-scientistsrespond.html

    Thats the article about the detection of gravitational waves. Spend some more time reading about actual science, instead of watching some idiot on YouTube with a mic and video editing software.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. Truth says:
    @Jake
    I think everybody should agree that black African peoples - wherever they are born, no matter how long their kin lived outside Africa - are better off without living near whites and without being by whites in any way.

    For the good of black people. force all whites to leave them alone. Help them save themselves from us by large walls, behind which they will flourish.

    For the good of black people. force all whites to leave them alone. Help them save themselves from us by large walls, behind which they will flourish

    Do you guys realize, that I don’t think you could go one day on this website without someone making this Eunuchy, “cuck” comment.

    As Jimmy DiBella told you in the 4th grade when he took your lunch money, DO SUMTHIN’ ABOUT IT!

    If you don’t plan on doing anything than shut up, take it, like it, and and ask for more. Oh wait, that’s what you do, minus the “shut up” part. “Your people” invented “multiculturalism” got very rich on it, and will continue it, you do not count because, well, to be perfectly frank, Sport; You ain’t shit.

    So please, for your own manhood, you’re too old to sitting on the nerd table during lunch hour,
    attempting to make jokes about the football team – who, happen to be walking by with actual, real-life girls – at EXTREMELY low volume, of course.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. @Delinquent Snail
    Blacks are typically more athletic. Period. While other races were busy making things and expanding their brains, africans were stuck in a primitive rutt, and never progressed from tribal hunter gatherers (there are a few exceptions, but those arent the rule). This allowed them to stay in top physical form. Don't twist this, im not saying blacks are better, in many ways they are worse. Its just that they didnt spend the last 500 generations doing anything but running, walking, and carrying. Whites, east asian, arabs, we all spent that time developing our brains and our societies, which left little room for near constant physical labor, which has had the effect to lower bone mass and muscle density, which lowers physical aptitude.

    Here’s a copy of the movie Addio Africa in English. The MauMaus in Kenya are covered in the first part. Very instructive of the black mindset and lifestyle. They destroy that which they don’t understand and that means most of the white world they find themselves in.

    I don’t entirely agree with you in your saying that blacks are more athletic. This has to be qualified. Generally the men sit around all day getting drunk while their women work like slaves. The males were hunters and warriors and chased game as the video shows and this is how they see themselves to this day. They distain agricultural work which is why they didn’t do well as slaves in the South. Now, instead of hunting they engage in feral warfare in their ghetto. This is what natural selection has shaped them into and no amount of social reprogramming will change that.

    So their athleticism lies in sports related to primitive warfare and hunting. Pretty comprehensive but not exhaustive. Based mainly on sprinting after game and hurling a spear, just as today they gang up on white intruders into their territory.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Delinquent Snail
    "I don’t entirely agree with you in your saying that blacks are more athletic. This has to be qualified. "

    American sports and the Olympics. Blacks are by far over represented in sports for what their population is. They often exceed the skill level of most other races in the sports they dominate. Blacks exceed the skill level of most other races in most track and field events as well.

    The few sports activities they don't do well in are the obvious ones: anything in the cold, fine motor skill, water sports and intellectual sports (there are exceptions to all these, but generally speaking, its spot on).

    I agree that tribal warfare had a huge impact on their development. When i said "tribal hunter gatherers", i figured that fighting other tribes was part of the term. In ancient wars, you basically do nothing but walk, run and carry. A few bouts of frantic combat, then more walking, running and carrying.

    When i get a chance, i'll watch that film.
    , @Johan Meyer
    Do we need a discussion of British tactics on Kenya? Perhaps I should start with the first counter guerrilla tactic that they used. The Meru, a satellite ethnic group of the Kikuyu (the ethnic group starved and taxed to rebellion), and the British imperial managers were concerned that the rebellion would spread to the Meru.

    To understand the British tactic, a bit of background on the Kikuyu and the rebellion is needed. The Kikuyu had (and to some extent still have) the (presumably borrowed from Egypt) practice of cutting out the clitoris, also known as female genital mutilation. Among the Kikuyu, it was a rite of passage into adulthood, carried out by an aunt, when the girl reached 18 years. As the rebellion was seen as an adult matter, girls who participated (female soldiers were about 30% of the "Mau Mau"---British name---rebels), would (superficially) cut each other (when they reached 18, the usual procedure would be carried out by an aunt). To stop the rebellion from spreading to the Meru, the British empire elected to compel the Meru to cut infants.

    Then again, the British empire killed far more Kikuyu civilians than the Kikuyu rebels did, although the rebels did kill far more Kikuyu civilians (whom they accused of collaboration) than they killed imperial personnel.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. @Truth
    Gravity is a theory (on your level, I won't get into what it really is, it takes too long). No one can give you a good definition for what it really is.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRmR88Gx_dc

    Only fools blindly follow. Science asks questions and follows up with experimentation. Thoughts and ideas can be replaced, but it needs evidence to give reason to switching. You’re video was a fool picking and choosing quotes. Great choice.

    You have a better understanding of gravity then some of the brightest minds in the field? Oh, do tell!

    On second thought, its probably some flat earth bullshit.

    https://m.phys.org/news/2016-02-gravitational-discoveredtop-scientistsrespond.html

    Thats the article about the detection of gravitational waves. Spend some more time reading about actual science, instead of watching some idiot on YouTube with a mic and video editing software.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth

    Only fools blindly follow.
     
    Full stop.

    If it's heavier than air, it rises; if it's lighter than air, it falls. All the rest of that shit is pure deception, and nothing more.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. @ThreeCranes
    Here's a copy of the movie Addio Africa in English. The MauMaus in Kenya are covered in the first part. Very instructive of the black mindset and lifestyle. They destroy that which they don't understand and that means most of the white world they find themselves in.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7K5qVWG5CXU

    I don't entirely agree with you in your saying that blacks are more athletic. This has to be qualified. Generally the men sit around all day getting drunk while their women work like slaves. The males were hunters and warriors and chased game as the video shows and this is how they see themselves to this day. They distain agricultural work which is why they didn't do well as slaves in the South. Now, instead of hunting they engage in feral warfare in their ghetto. This is what natural selection has shaped them into and no amount of social reprogramming will change that.

    So their athleticism lies in sports related to primitive warfare and hunting. Pretty comprehensive but not exhaustive. Based mainly on sprinting after game and hurling a spear, just as today they gang up on white intruders into their territory.

    “I don’t entirely agree with you in your saying that blacks are more athletic. This has to be qualified. ”

    American sports and the Olympics. Blacks are by far over represented in sports for what their population is. They often exceed the skill level of most other races in the sports they dominate. Blacks exceed the skill level of most other races in most track and field events as well.

    The few sports activities they don’t do well in are the obvious ones: anything in the cold, fine motor skill, water sports and intellectual sports (there are exceptions to all these, but generally speaking, its spot on).

    I agree that tribal warfare had a huge impact on their development. When i said “tribal hunter gatherers”, i figured that fighting other tribes was part of the term. In ancient wars, you basically do nothing but walk, run and carry. A few bouts of frantic combat, then more walking, running and carrying.

    When i get a chance, i’ll watch that film.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. @BB753
    I agree. But the greatest travesty of the Olympics remains the Paralympics. What the hell! The crippled, the maimed and the retarded competing in athletic ability! Zeus almighty must be laughing his ass off in his Olympian abode.

    Paralympics is ridiculous.

    I don’t mind there being events and facilities for cripples.

    But paralympics is just expensive virtue-signaling.

    NO ONE cares about those events. Stadiums are empty and TV stations ignore them.

    But the elites can smugly pat themselves for putting on Compassion Events.

    Yet, these are the same elites who push globalist wars that have turned so many people into paraplegics in the Middle East and North Africa. And Donbass in Ukraine.

    Read More
    • Agree: BB753
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. Skeptical says:

    The scientific inquiry, discovery and determinations are being edited in such a way that they serve our current political “needs,” i.e., the need to accommodate a multi-racial society/nations (Europe included). There may come a time in the not so near future, when the overwhelming population boom in Africa requires a different rational justification for what drastic measures may need doing to preserve ourselves. On an individual and on a collective basis, the rational simply serves the needs of what we want, usually ex-post facto. Widespread publication of this science may eventually be necessary to allow the justification for what the west to preserve itself.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  113. @Wally
    You make no sense whatsoever.

    Now you tell me if there is an obvious difference in intelligence here:

    African
    http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/bilder/paleo-negrid.jpg

    Northern European
    http://www.showbizireland.com/images/stars/ladyvictoria03.jpg

    Where did you find that hooker?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. @Priss Factor
    Global Olympics makes no sense.

    We should return to the Greek ideal.

    Greek Olympics only included Greeks.

    Greeks kept it to themselves. It was a celebration of Greek speed and strength.

    Greeks didn't want Persians, Africans, and others to take part and whup Greek ass.

    Greeks liked to be whooped… ever heard of the Greek style?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pachyderm Pachyderma
    What am I talking about? Of course you did, after all, you are Prissy!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. @Pachyderm Pachyderma
    Greeks liked to be whooped... ever heard of the Greek style?

    What am I talking about? Of course you did, after all, you are Prissy!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. Truth says:
    @Delinquent Snail
    Only fools blindly follow. Science asks questions and follows up with experimentation. Thoughts and ideas can be replaced, but it needs evidence to give reason to switching. You're video was a fool picking and choosing quotes. Great choice.

    You have a better understanding of gravity then some of the brightest minds in the field? Oh, do tell!

    On second thought, its probably some flat earth bullshit.


    https://m.phys.org/news/2016-02-gravitational-discoveredtop-scientistsrespond.html

    Thats the article about the detection of gravitational waves. Spend some more time reading about actual science, instead of watching some idiot on YouTube with a mic and video editing software.

    Only fools blindly follow.

    Full stop.

    If it’s heavier than air, it rises; if it’s lighter than air, it falls. All the rest of that shit is pure deception, and nothing more.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Delinquent Snail
    Really? Im sure 747s are NOT lighter then air. Pretty sure all the rockets EVER fired are not lighter then air. There is a mathematical formula showing the amount of force you need to leave the gravity well of earth as well as how much lift you need to generate to get a plane airborn. Those equations both take gravity into consideration, and wouldnt work if it didnt accomidate the constant pull towards the center of our planet, and every other celestial body we interact with. Math & science, unlike you, are based on logic. I'd ask you if ever thought about how we manage to get probes the size of a fridge around other planets, but you probably think its all a hoax. Its recognizing that gravity is a thing, its measurable, and its a fundamental force of our universe.

    So are you going to explain how its all bullshit and deception? Unlike religious people, people with a rational mind are more then willing to change their opinions based on evidence. Just dont post another link to youtube with some idiot yelling and taking quotes out of context.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. RodW says:

    core tenants

    It ‘tenet’, not ‘tenant’.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  118. Biff says:
    @Wally
    You make no sense whatsoever.

    Now you tell me if there is an obvious difference in intelligence here:

    African
    http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/bilder/paleo-negrid.jpg

    Northern European
    http://www.showbizireland.com/images/stars/ladyvictoria03.jpg

    They’re dating each other. So, no, one is not smarter than the other – just lucky.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. @Truth

    Only fools blindly follow.
     
    Full stop.

    If it's heavier than air, it rises; if it's lighter than air, it falls. All the rest of that shit is pure deception, and nothing more.

    Really? Im sure 747s are NOT lighter then air. Pretty sure all the rockets EVER fired are not lighter then air. There is a mathematical formula showing the amount of force you need to leave the gravity well of earth as well as how much lift you need to generate to get a plane airborn. Those equations both take gravity into consideration, and wouldnt work if it didnt accomidate the constant pull towards the center of our planet, and every other celestial body we interact with. Math & science, unlike you, are based on logic. I’d ask you if ever thought about how we manage to get probes the size of a fridge around other planets, but you probably think its all a hoax. Its recognizing that gravity is a thing, its measurable, and its a fundamental force of our universe.

    So are you going to explain how its all bullshit and deception? Unlike religious people, people with a rational mind are more then willing to change their opinions based on evidence. Just dont post another link to youtube with some idiot yelling and taking quotes out of context.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth
    I was clearly and obviously describing non-powered objects.

    There is only one "planet" and one "galaxy."


    Explain something to me; if the earth rotates the sun at 70,000 mph, how fast are the satellites rotating the earth moving? I've read that they max at about 28,000 mph. How does gravity help them stay exactly in sync with the earth as it hurdles 70,000 mph through space? Why do they not fall to earth, or get left behind and hurdle out of orbit?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. @Missed something
    http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0177127

    The split happened before the Mediterranean existed. The fucking Homo Genus started in Europe.

    The BTFO's are getting harder and harder as the days go by.
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. @Rhett Hardwick
    I don't doubt that anthropology can be hijacked.. I am a regular subscriber to several archaeological news forums, I have noted the astounding number of articles referencing "climate change" and it's effects on early humans.

    The climate changes. That isn’t up for debate.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. @Rdm
    I believe we all evolved from monkeys. But I don't believe we all came from Africa.

    If any Africans believe all humans evolved from out of Africa, they're shooting their own foots. They're already shackled with all the theories.

    If they believe the theory, they're saying they're remnants of this evolutionary tree.
    If they don't, they're saying they can't catch up with advanced civilization because of the lack of such evidence.

    “I believe we all evolved from monkeys. But I don’t believe we all came from Africa.”

    We share a common ancestor with “monkeys” (chimpanzees).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth
    There is no evidece of us coming from monkeys, or evolution.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. @Delinquent Snail
    Also, no women, and all men perform naked. Lets take it back to its roots!

    (dont get too excited priss. No black men will be allowed to participate ;) )

    Also, no women, and all men perform naked. Lets take it back to its roots!
    (dont get too excited priss. No black men will be allowed to participate ;) )

    Greeks had good sense. I mean it was their games. Why invite a bunch of Persians and barbarian peoples to take part in the games and beat Greeks? The Olympics were not about the BEST in the world but best among Greeks. To glorify Greek power, it had to be kept to Greeks.

    It’s like humans exclude other animals in sports. Surely, most animals can outrun humans. And lots of animals can outjump humans. And many animals can beat up humans. So, sports are only for humans. And even among humans, some races are stronger, so you gotta keep some out if YOUR people are to be glorified. If you INCLUDE outsiders, their dominance may lead to the EXCLUSION of your own kind. Blacks were included in US sports, and it led to the exclusion of whites from many sports as whites cannot compete with blacks.

    So, ball games must take color into account. There are white balls and black balls. Let whites play for white balls, and let blacks play with black balls. If whites are allowed to play black balls, it will still remain black balls because blacks will beat whites. But if blacks are allowed to play white balls, it will soon become black balls because, again, blacks will beat whites. So, white balls need safe space from black balls. We need to understand the Law of Ballitics. Nature is race-ist in having created different races with different abilities.

    Let’s say there’s a sport that allows blacks to play but bans Mexicans. So, we might argue that Mexicans aren’t in the game because of discrimination. But even if the discrimination were lifted, the game will be all black because blacks are better than Mexicans in sports.

    Now, let’s say there’s a sport that allows Mexicans to play but bans blacks. So, we might argue that blacks aren’t in the game because of discrimination. When discrimination is lifted, however, blacks will totally dominate and Mexicans will be excluded by biological or natural discrimination.

    So, if browns wanna play, they must have Brown Balls that keep safe space from Black Balls.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. @Wally
    What's wrong with Koestler? Specifics please.

    Are you denying there were Khazars?

    Koestler is a hack. Ashkenazi Jews are not Khazar.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/04/24/ashkenazi-jews-are-not-khazar/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. @ThreeCranes
    Here's a copy of the movie Addio Africa in English. The MauMaus in Kenya are covered in the first part. Very instructive of the black mindset and lifestyle. They destroy that which they don't understand and that means most of the white world they find themselves in.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7K5qVWG5CXU

    I don't entirely agree with you in your saying that blacks are more athletic. This has to be qualified. Generally the men sit around all day getting drunk while their women work like slaves. The males were hunters and warriors and chased game as the video shows and this is how they see themselves to this day. They distain agricultural work which is why they didn't do well as slaves in the South. Now, instead of hunting they engage in feral warfare in their ghetto. This is what natural selection has shaped them into and no amount of social reprogramming will change that.

    So their athleticism lies in sports related to primitive warfare and hunting. Pretty comprehensive but not exhaustive. Based mainly on sprinting after game and hurling a spear, just as today they gang up on white intruders into their territory.

    Do we need a discussion of British tactics on Kenya? Perhaps I should start with the first counter guerrilla tactic that they used. The Meru, a satellite ethnic group of the Kikuyu (the ethnic group starved and taxed to rebellion), and the British imperial managers were concerned that the rebellion would spread to the Meru.

    To understand the British tactic, a bit of background on the Kikuyu and the rebellion is needed. The Kikuyu had (and to some extent still have) the (presumably borrowed from Egypt) practice of cutting out the clitoris, also known as female genital mutilation. Among the Kikuyu, it was a rite of passage into adulthood, carried out by an aunt, when the girl reached 18 years. As the rebellion was seen as an adult matter, girls who participated (female soldiers were about 30% of the “Mau Mau”—British name—rebels), would (superficially) cut each other (when they reached 18, the usual procedure would be carried out by an aunt). To stop the rebellion from spreading to the Meru, the British empire elected to compel the Meru to cut infants.

    Then again, the British empire killed far more Kikuyu civilians than the Kikuyu rebels did, although the rebels did kill far more Kikuyu civilians (whom they accused of collaboration) than they killed imperial personnel.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. Truth says:
    @Delinquent Snail
    Really? Im sure 747s are NOT lighter then air. Pretty sure all the rockets EVER fired are not lighter then air. There is a mathematical formula showing the amount of force you need to leave the gravity well of earth as well as how much lift you need to generate to get a plane airborn. Those equations both take gravity into consideration, and wouldnt work if it didnt accomidate the constant pull towards the center of our planet, and every other celestial body we interact with. Math & science, unlike you, are based on logic. I'd ask you if ever thought about how we manage to get probes the size of a fridge around other planets, but you probably think its all a hoax. Its recognizing that gravity is a thing, its measurable, and its a fundamental force of our universe.

    So are you going to explain how its all bullshit and deception? Unlike religious people, people with a rational mind are more then willing to change their opinions based on evidence. Just dont post another link to youtube with some idiot yelling and taking quotes out of context.

    I was clearly and obviously describing non-powered objects.

    There is only one “planet” and one “galaxy.”

    Explain something to me; if the earth rotates the sun at 70,000 mph, how fast are the satellites rotating the earth moving? I’ve read that they max at about 28,000 mph. How does gravity help them stay exactly in sync with the earth as it hurdles 70,000 mph through space? Why do they not fall to earth, or get left behind and hurdle out of orbit?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Delinquent Snail
    "There is only one “planet” and one “galaxy.”"

    Ok im done. Good day to you.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. Truth says:
    @RaceRealist88
    "I believe we all evolved from monkeys. But I don’t believe we all came from Africa."

    We share a common ancestor with "monkeys" (chimpanzees).

    There is no evidece of us coming from monkeys, or evolution.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "There is no evidece of us coming from monkeys"

    Chimpanzees *

    Yes there is. We are derived from a common ancestor.

    "evolution"

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4048083/

    http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMTExMy9leHBwaHlzaW9sLjIwMTIuMDcxMTM0/10.1113%40expphysiol.2012.071134.pdf

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3060581/

    Educate yourself. There is evidence for evolution. Species change, that's not up for debate. What is up for debate are the mechanisms by which it occurs.

    Read those articles and get back to me. Then when you do reply don't reply with creationist dribble. It's very very old now.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. We have to cut Franz Boas and others of his kind some slack given the context of the times.

    After all, even if many of their ideas turned out to be crackpot, there were many crackpot racial theories in the 19th and early 20th century. Worse, these ideas did play a role in justifying some of the nastier aspects of imperialism and were the ideological underpinning of Nazism that really did horrible things.
    Sure, one could say radical egalitarianism of communism also piled up stacks of bodies a mile high with Stalin, Mao, and etc. But then, two wrongs don’t make a right.

    Even so, it was understandable why many saw radical anti-racism or radical egalitarianism as a lesser evil than radical racism. While the Soviets could be murderous and ruthless, they still regarded other peoples as peoples. So, ultra-violence was a means to an end whereupon everyone would get along with equal dignity and peace. In contrast, ultra-violence was the very end of radical racists who, at their most extreme, called for mass extermination or permanent enslavement of certain peoples.

    Soviets defeated Germans but still regarded Germans as fellow comrades. Soviet antipathy toward Germans was ideological. Soviets didn’t regard Germans as subhuman. If Germans were to change their ways, they were comrades too.
    In contrast, it didn’t matter what the Russians believed. Even if they renounced communism, they were little more than cattle to the Nazis.
    Soviets were like Christians in the Middle Ages. They were hellbent on burning heretics, but there was chance of life IF one converted. But there wasn’t even that outlet offered by the Nazis. You could agree with the Nazis 100% but if they wanted you dead, you were dead.

    And that was the dark side of radical racism.
    Even so, we may now be entering into an era when radical anti-racism may prove to be far more dangerous than radical racism. Why? Because of the African invasion of Europe.

    [MORE]

    The fact was Germans and Russians were very similar people. The Russians might be bit more Asiatic or Turkic, but they were mostly European. So, Nazi racial theories about ‘Aryans’ vs Slavs was over-the-top ludicrous. The difference between Germs and Slavs are like between Chinese and Japanese.
    So, contrary to German fears, the victory of Russian Slavs didn’t mean the end of civilization. Russians may drink too much and act boorish, but they can maintain civilization. And they get along with others. Their domination over Eastern Europe held it back economically, but there was stable civilization in all those nations. And there were also some achievements in commie nations in the post-war era.
    So, dropping radical racism between Germs and Slavs made good sense.

    But if the racial differences between Germans and Russians were largely illusory, the differences between Europeans and Africans are all too real. Paradoxically, the radical anti-racism does great harm by allowing natural racism to run its course. Under the cover of radical anti-racism, natural racism is allowed to run riot and destroy everything.

    A Germany occupied by Russians is still a civilization because Russians know civilization. But Europe overrun by Africans is a rape gangsta paradise.

    On the matter of ‘which race is superior, black or white?’, it depends on the criteria. When it comes to intelligence, diligence, patience, reason, logic, introspection, and overall sanity, whites are superior to blacks. Whites are superior for civilizational purposes. If whites and blacks had to compete on the basis of civilizational needs, whites would win.

    But when it comes to muscle power, sexual drives, funk, loudness, hollering and walloping, ‘twerking’, spear-tossing, running, jumping, punching, yapping, and acting thug or whore, blacks are superior to whites. Blacks are superior for natural-savage purposes. If whites and blacks had to compete on the basis of natural-savage needs, blacks would win.
    Suppose we take a 1000 Frenchmen/women and a 1000 Nigerian men/women. Suppose we strip all of them naked and put them on a island. Suppose they have no high technology and must rely on simple tools. Blacks would win. Black guys would beat white guys. Blacks would be hollering louder, pushing white guys around. White women would notice their men getting beaten and also notice black men got more muscle and bigger genitals So, It’d be like putting a bunch of pitbulls and beagles together. Pitbull males will hump the beagle females while beagle males will be cucked.

    Because of Afro-Americanization of Europe, there is the ever decreasing levels of civilizational modes. Churches are empty. There is no more culture of restraint or sobriety. European women are a bunch of whores. Even in Catholic Poland, a whole bunch of women got HIV from Simon Mol the Horny of Africa. In France, the white women are a bunch of sluts. They all be into partying and whoring around. So, even though the West is most advanced technologically and most rich, their culture and behavior have become ‘liberated’ by Afromania. So, white girls are encouraged to listen and watch Ariana Grande’s interracist fantasies. So, neo-savagery is the culture of the New West. And in this struggle along natural drives, black race is superior to the white race. When it comes to ‘muh brawn’ as opposed to ‘muh brains’, blacks win.

    So, why isn’t this problem being addressed? Because radical anti-racism forces people to believe that all races are the same. Also, anti-racism attacks the notion of white supremacism. It assumes that issues of racial differences are always about white arrogance and chauvinism. It fails to address the fact that the new race-ism is morally justified on the basis of white inferioritism against thuggish black supremacism. Because whites are inferior to blacks in natural-savage competition, whites need safe spaces from the more muscular Negroes who be coming to colonize white wombs and beat up white boys.

    But then, the white right is to blame too. By focusing so much on the issue of IQ where whites are indeed superior, they only perpetuate the narrative that discussion of race differences is about white racial supremacism. If white race-ists were to discuss white inferioritism, things might be different. After all, the inferior need protection or defenses against the superior. Take leopards and chimps. Leopards are the superior predator and killer. A chimp has no chance against a leopard. Because chimps cannot win one-on-one against the superior leopard, they bunch together and work as a team. When a leopard comes near, chimps gather together and holler in unison, ‘there goes the neighborhood, there goes the neighborhood! keep the leopard out, keep the leopard out’

    Organisms are organized around overcoming inferiority. Take lions. A single lion is inferior in strength to a cape buffalo. That is why lions must work as a team to bring down buffaloes. It’s like a wolf is inferior to a bear or moose. A single wolf cannot beat a bear or moose who can easily kill wolf if confronted one on one. So, wolves work as a team to overcome their inferiority. All organisms are inferior in some way and have mechanisms to overcome it. Turtles are slow, so they need a shell. Skunks are small and weak, so they got the musky spray. Porcupines are clumsy and awkward, so they got all those quills. Prairie dogs are wimpy, so they hide in the ground when eagles come flying. Snakes got no limbs so they have fangs and venom.
    Because whites are inferior to blacks on a one-on-one basis in the realm of natural-savage competition, whites must use other attributes to overcome the negro threat. Since the Negro is superior in brawn, the whites must use his superiority in brain to push back against the savage Jungle warrior. And in the past, this was the path to white greatness. Sure, Asians had more in numbers and obedience. And Africans had more muscle. But white man used superior organizational and innovative skills to make ships and guns and gain domination over others. But now, we see the crazy business of white superiority in brains aiding black superiority in brawn to attack white inferiority in brawn. White superiority in brains is supposed to aid white inferiority in brawn against black superiority in brawn. Without the edge in brain power, whites would be defenseless against blacks. Imagine a community where blacks and whites have same IQ. Blacks would totally dominate since they got more muscle. But because whites have more brains, they can study more and make more money and move to other communities or organize and form militias to have vigilance against black virulence. But now, white brains in media and academia are favoring black brawn superiority over white brawn inferiority. White brains in media and academia are filling white minds with the ideal of Magic Negro and Mandingo.

    Imagine two sides. Each side has a bodyguard. Side A has a body guard who isn’t big but has a big sword. Side B has a body guard who is big but has just a knife. So, bodyguard of side A is inferior in physique but superior in weapon. In contrast, bodyguard of side B is superior in physique but inferior in weapon. That balances things out.
    Anyway, if you are part of A, you should be glad that your bodyguard has a big sword to compensate for his inferior physique. But… suppose it’s decided that it’s not fair that your bodyguard should have the bigger sword. So, the bigger sword is given to the bigger bodyguard of B while smaller bodyguard of A is given the knife. What will happen? Side A is in big trouble.

    Because whites are inferior to black in natural-savage-competition, they must compensate with their superiority in civilizational competition. But the globalists have reprogrammed white elite civilization to stop using white civilizational superiority to compensate for white natural-savage inferiority. So, the result is white brains aiding and abetting black brawn to beat white boys and conquer white wombs.

    It’s the stupidest arrangement ever. After all, Jews have long used their superiority in wit/brain to compensate for their inferiority in demographics/numbers and brawn. There were many more ‘dumb poles’ who were bigger and stronger from eating all those kielbasas while Jews ate bagels and cream cheese. So, Jews had to rely on their superior wit to run circles around the Poles.

    Every organism is inferior in some ways and seeks means of overcoming this inferiority. That is the very trick of life. Paradoxically, to gain superiority in one way, one must assess one’s inferiority in other ways. It’s the same thing in military. Every side must assess its weaknesses and vulnerabilities in order to formulate a strategy that overcomes those inferiorities, thereby making it possible to perhaps gain superiority over the other. Germans understood this in WWII. They knew Russia was vast and gigantic and had huge industry. So, Germany had to overcome this problem with a surprise attack. In the end, it didn’t succeed, but the ONLY chance it might have worked was with an ambush. As for Russians, they knew that Wehrmacht was a more powerful and disciplined fighting machine than the Soviet military. A German soldier was better than a Russian soldier on a one-on-one basis. So, Russia had to rely on its vast territory and transport industries to the east. And it had to rely on superior numbers.
    All organisms and systems must ask, “In what ways are we inferior compared to the other side? And in what ways do we have an advantage that can overcome our inferiority?”
    It’s like in basketball, a shorter player is inferior in reach, but he has advantage in speed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    When dealing with races, it's not a simple case of one race is totally SUPERIOR to another. Rather, it is superior in some areas, inferior in others. It's like comparing nations. Which nation is superior? Italy or Saudi Arabia? When it comes to growing grapes, Italy is superior. When it comes to drilling for oil, Saudis are superior.
    Which nation is superior? China or Russia? In numbers and work ethic, Chinese are superior. In natural resources and industrial-tech tradition, Russia is superior. Anyway, just as a nation that is inferior in one area must compensate with superiority in another area, a race that is inferior in one area must compensate with superiority in another area. When Japan invaded China, Japan had superiority in technology and organization. So, Chinese could not compete in that area. But China was so much bigger and had so many more people, and this meant Japanese quality would become bogged down in Chinese quantity.

    So, if white race wants to survive, it must first ask, "where are we inferior vis-a-vis the Negro?" And it is in muscle. The Negro can beat up white boys. And by the rules of natural-savagery, women go for men with more funk and larger privates. For that reason, black men are a threat in those departments.
    So, how does the white man save his manhood and his own race? After assessing his weakness vis-a-vis the Negro in natural-savage competition, he realizes he has the advantage over the negro in brains and organizational skills and overall sanity(as Negros be junglopathic in many cases). So, white men use brains and superior organization to fight the Negro... like in Zulu. Those black warriors could beat any white guy in one-on-one fight. And they are tough and hollering and walloping with spears. But the Brits got organization, discipline, and superior weapons created by superior white intelligence. Now, imagine a white guy in the movie deciding to offer his white intelligence to aid the muscled Negroes against physically weaker whites. That would mean disaster... but that is the current state of the West. The best white minds, infected with PC, are going out of their way to cuck out and aid the Negro brawn to beat whitey and colonize white wombs.
    White intelligence, which is supposed to compensate for white inferiority in physique vis-a-vis blacks, is going out of its way to aid black fist against white folks.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQrE8vOM0ss

    Anyway, returning to Boas...

    Maybe he was a charlatan and etc, but the fact is there were too many crackpot radical racist thinkers in the past, and their ideas did do great harm, especially with rise of Nazism and WWII. Those ideas did shape the minds of men like Hitler, and their crimes were on a unprecedented scale. If WWII had never happened, maybe it'd be fair to just dump on Boas as a fraud, but in light of historical events, we have to admit that that anti-racists, even if wrong on many counts, were right to oppose some of ludicrous claims of the radical racists who were pseudo-scientific in their own ways.
    Now, there were decent scientific race-ists, and they existed on the left as well as on the right. Indeed, it's been said that the most educated and liberal elites in the 19th century all believed in races and racial differences. But at some point, this scientific inquiry became intertwined with radical politics or with imperialism in search for justification for white rule around the world. White superiority came in two forms: domineering and generous. Domineering types believed whites had a right to lord over non-whites who were inferior and should be treated like chattel. Generous types believed that, because whites are superior, it is the white man's burden to lift up the rest of the benighted races and bring them to light of reason and knowledge. In many cases, the domineering and generous strains of white superiority-ism were intertwined... like in the American South where blacks were used as slaves and sometimes treated badly... but also seen as making progress under white guidance cuz, otherwise, they'd be in Africa just beating bongo drums and hurling spears at rhinos that want to stomp Negroes to death.

    Anyway, all ideas must be seen in social and historical context. And given the political and cultural climate of the first half of the 20th century when radical racist ideas led to horrible things, I'd be a bit more understanding of Boas and the Frankfurt School.
    But things are different today, and the ongoing PC of Anthropology departments is just a lot of tiresome hokum that prefers dogma over science. That being the case, Anthropology should remove itself from academia and declare itself a New Age theology. True academia must be open to all inquiries, all ideas, all facts.

    Anyway, it's understandable why Jews fixated on blacks. For one thing, there was the history of slavery and mistreatment of blacks by whites. That was a historical certainty. So, the black issue morally undermined white prestige and power. For Jews who heard from Christians, 'You Jews killed Christ' for over 1000 yrs, it must have felt good to accuse whites with, 'You enslaved noble blacks'.

    But it was also because black brawn could be used as bodyguard to the Jew.
    In an 'Aryan' vs Semite struggle, the Semite has superior brains but inferior brawn, at least in relation to Germanics and certain Slavs. While Latins and Greeks are physically more or less like Jews, some Germanics and Slavs are bigger and brawnier than the Semites. And they also had advantage in numbers, like in pogroms. So, what was the Jew to do against the 'big dumb polack' or 'big brutish kraut'? Get a Negro as muscle. It's like how the kid in MY BODYGUARD gets himself protection.

    https://youtu.be/QexN6K0kq5I?t=31s

    In the US, Jews competed with snobby Wasps. In Germany, things got more heated with rise of National Socialism.
    Now, Wasps in the US, like Anglos in UK, were more subtle in their anti-Jewishness. They let Jews get rich but it was 'no Jews in country clubs and no Jews marrying my daughter'. Things got much more dire in Germany. It wasn't a matter of country club exclusions but concentration camp coercion.

    So, Jews needed some kind of symbolism to break white pride. And what is more symbolic of power and prowess and glory in modern era than sports and music?

    Jews couldn't beat the 'Aryans' in fighting and running. While Max Baer was a good boxer and beat some top Germans, he wasn't really Jewish-Jewish.
    But the Negro could outrun and outfight the whites.
    So, Joe Louis and Jesse Owens became the icons of anti-racism. But it was paradoxical because what they demonstrated was racial superiority. If Owens had tied with German runners and if Joe Louis had fought to a draw against Max Schmeling, the results would have suggested racial equality. But blacks beat whites badly. Schmeliing eked out a win against Louis in the first fight, but Louis totally flattened him in the first round of the second fight. And three negroes outran German runners by a mile in the 100 and 200 sprint. So, what was established was the racial superiority of blacks in sports. But the Narrative spun it as 'Louis and Owens demolished the myth of Aryan supremacy'. But what about how their feats established the fact of black racial superiority in running and fighting? It goes to show the power of the Narrative. The Narrative shapes reality to favor certain views over others.

    Because of the power of the Narrative, a fact of racial superiority has long been sold as a case of racial justice and equality. When Jack Johnson beat all those white guys and humped all those white women, it was a case of black superiority in the natural-savage competition. But CucKen Burns made the docu Unforgivable Blackness where the story is spun as 'black man fights for racial justice'. And even though the story of Ali is about black superiority in beating and humiliating white male pride, it's spun as 'black pride' in the age of Civil Rights Era. This is nothing new. It's like how the South spun a romantic narrative about Jesse James who was really a killer and psycho. But given the context of Southern defeat and hurt pride, James' criminality was romanticized in terms of revenge and robin-hoodery. And Bonnie and Clyde were similarly romanticized as proto-revolutionaries by 60s radicals.
    And according to a book TOUGH JEWS, Jewish gangsters were inspiring despite their thuggery and criminality because they were counter-stereotypes against the nebbish cowardly Jew.

    But the black problem can't be blamed only on Jews. Much of the blame must go to vain white male pride that failed to speak the truth about racial differences when there was NO PC to stop them. PC has a stifling effect on today's discourse, but one could say the most un-PC things 100 yrs ago and be part of the Power and respectable society. Back then, you fell out of respectable society if you said, "My daughter can marry a Negro, and my wife can go with one too."

    Just think. When Jack Johnson was beating whites, white males could have been honest and say, "Those Negroes are awful strong and beat us up and make white manhood impossible around them. If we live with blacks, they will beat up our sons, impregnate our daughters, and turn streets into jungles."

    This is why Honest Abe wanted to free the slaves and send them to Africa. He saw how slavery was unjust, but he understood that racial integration would also be unjust because the Negro would beat whites. As a young man chopping down trees, it's possible he met some Negroes. So, while he chopped down one tree, some big Negro was chopping down three. It's like Woody Allen is no match to a Negro when it comes to breaking rocks.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqWW2pSL2Bc

    Now, one may ask, why would Jews side with Negroes when Negroes can beat Jews too? Well, with higher IQ and teamwork, Jews can move to safe areas away from dangerous blacks. Very few Jews are low IQ. Most are smart enough to do well in school and get good jobs and live in safe areas. So, they don't have to worry about Negroes kicking their behind. Also, Jews own much of media and sports teams, and they rake in billions from Negro sports. So, it's very lucrative for Jews to manage black athletes and rappers.

    Anyway, only the truth shall set people free.
    And every side tells some truth but ignores others.

    White folks must address their inferiority vis-a-vis other races and then guard and use their superiority to compensate for their inferiority.

    For whites to use white superior intelligence against blacks, they must first address black superior brawn against whites.

    Only in that way is white intelligence morally justified as counter-weapon against thuggish black brawn.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. @Priss Factor
    We have to cut Franz Boas and others of his kind some slack given the context of the times.

    After all, even if many of their ideas turned out to be crackpot, there were many crackpot racial theories in the 19th and early 20th century. Worse, these ideas did play a role in justifying some of the nastier aspects of imperialism and were the ideological underpinning of Nazism that really did horrible things.
    Sure, one could say radical egalitarianism of communism also piled up stacks of bodies a mile high with Stalin, Mao, and etc. But then, two wrongs don't make a right.

    Even so, it was understandable why many saw radical anti-racism or radical egalitarianism as a lesser evil than radical racism. While the Soviets could be murderous and ruthless, they still regarded other peoples as peoples. So, ultra-violence was a means to an end whereupon everyone would get along with equal dignity and peace. In contrast, ultra-violence was the very end of radical racists who, at their most extreme, called for mass extermination or permanent enslavement of certain peoples.

    Soviets defeated Germans but still regarded Germans as fellow comrades. Soviet antipathy toward Germans was ideological. Soviets didn't regard Germans as subhuman. If Germans were to change their ways, they were comrades too.
    In contrast, it didn't matter what the Russians believed. Even if they renounced communism, they were little more than cattle to the Nazis.
    Soviets were like Christians in the Middle Ages. They were hellbent on burning heretics, but there was chance of life IF one converted. But there wasn't even that outlet offered by the Nazis. You could agree with the Nazis 100% but if they wanted you dead, you were dead.

    And that was the dark side of radical racism.
    Even so, we may now be entering into an era when radical anti-racism may prove to be far more dangerous than radical racism. Why? Because of the African invasion of Europe.

    The fact was Germans and Russians were very similar people. The Russians might be bit more Asiatic or Turkic, but they were mostly European. So, Nazi racial theories about 'Aryans' vs Slavs was over-the-top ludicrous. The difference between Germs and Slavs are like between Chinese and Japanese.
    So, contrary to German fears, the victory of Russian Slavs didn't mean the end of civilization. Russians may drink too much and act boorish, but they can maintain civilization. And they get along with others. Their domination over Eastern Europe held it back economically, but there was stable civilization in all those nations. And there were also some achievements in commie nations in the post-war era.
    So, dropping radical racism between Germs and Slavs made good sense.

    But if the racial differences between Germans and Russians were largely illusory, the differences between Europeans and Africans are all too real. Paradoxically, the radical anti-racism does great harm by allowing natural racism to run its course. Under the cover of radical anti-racism, natural racism is allowed to run riot and destroy everything.

    A Germany occupied by Russians is still a civilization because Russians know civilization. But Europe overrun by Africans is a rape gangsta paradise.

    On the matter of 'which race is superior, black or white?', it depends on the criteria. When it comes to intelligence, diligence, patience, reason, logic, introspection, and overall sanity, whites are superior to blacks. Whites are superior for civilizational purposes. If whites and blacks had to compete on the basis of civilizational needs, whites would win.

    But when it comes to muscle power, sexual drives, funk, loudness, hollering and walloping, 'twerking', spear-tossing, running, jumping, punching, yapping, and acting thug or whore, blacks are superior to whites. Blacks are superior for natural-savage purposes. If whites and blacks had to compete on the basis of natural-savage needs, blacks would win.
    Suppose we take a 1000 Frenchmen/women and a 1000 Nigerian men/women. Suppose we strip all of them naked and put them on a island. Suppose they have no high technology and must rely on simple tools. Blacks would win. Black guys would beat white guys. Blacks would be hollering louder, pushing white guys around. White women would notice their men getting beaten and also notice black men got more muscle and bigger genitals So, It'd be like putting a bunch of pitbulls and beagles together. Pitbull males will hump the beagle females while beagle males will be cucked.

    Because of Afro-Americanization of Europe, there is the ever decreasing levels of civilizational modes. Churches are empty. There is no more culture of restraint or sobriety. European women are a bunch of whores. Even in Catholic Poland, a whole bunch of women got HIV from Simon Mol the Horny of Africa. In France, the white women are a bunch of sluts. They all be into partying and whoring around. So, even though the West is most advanced technologically and most rich, their culture and behavior have become 'liberated' by Afromania. So, white girls are encouraged to listen and watch Ariana Grande's interracist fantasies. So, neo-savagery is the culture of the New West. And in this struggle along natural drives, black race is superior to the white race. When it comes to 'muh brawn' as opposed to 'muh brains', blacks win.

    So, why isn't this problem being addressed? Because radical anti-racism forces people to believe that all races are the same. Also, anti-racism attacks the notion of white supremacism. It assumes that issues of racial differences are always about white arrogance and chauvinism. It fails to address the fact that the new race-ism is morally justified on the basis of white inferioritism against thuggish black supremacism. Because whites are inferior to blacks in natural-savage competition, whites need safe spaces from the more muscular Negroes who be coming to colonize white wombs and beat up white boys.

    But then, the white right is to blame too. By focusing so much on the issue of IQ where whites are indeed superior, they only perpetuate the narrative that discussion of race differences is about white racial supremacism. If white race-ists were to discuss white inferioritism, things might be different. After all, the inferior need protection or defenses against the superior. Take leopards and chimps. Leopards are the superior predator and killer. A chimp has no chance against a leopard. Because chimps cannot win one-on-one against the superior leopard, they bunch together and work as a team. When a leopard comes near, chimps gather together and holler in unison, 'there goes the neighborhood, there goes the neighborhood! keep the leopard out, keep the leopard out'

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKpZUsRJWBg

    Organisms are organized around overcoming inferiority. Take lions. A single lion is inferior in strength to a cape buffalo. That is why lions must work as a team to bring down buffaloes. It's like a wolf is inferior to a bear or moose. A single wolf cannot beat a bear or moose who can easily kill wolf if confronted one on one. So, wolves work as a team to overcome their inferiority. All organisms are inferior in some way and have mechanisms to overcome it. Turtles are slow, so they need a shell. Skunks are small and weak, so they got the musky spray. Porcupines are clumsy and awkward, so they got all those quills. Prairie dogs are wimpy, so they hide in the ground when eagles come flying. Snakes got no limbs so they have fangs and venom.
    Because whites are inferior to blacks on a one-on-one basis in the realm of natural-savage competition, whites must use other attributes to overcome the negro threat. Since the Negro is superior in brawn, the whites must use his superiority in brain to push back against the savage Jungle warrior. And in the past, this was the path to white greatness. Sure, Asians had more in numbers and obedience. And Africans had more muscle. But white man used superior organizational and innovative skills to make ships and guns and gain domination over others. But now, we see the crazy business of white superiority in brains aiding black superiority in brawn to attack white inferiority in brawn. White superiority in brains is supposed to aid white inferiority in brawn against black superiority in brawn. Without the edge in brain power, whites would be defenseless against blacks. Imagine a community where blacks and whites have same IQ. Blacks would totally dominate since they got more muscle. But because whites have more brains, they can study more and make more money and move to other communities or organize and form militias to have vigilance against black virulence. But now, white brains in media and academia are favoring black brawn superiority over white brawn inferiority. White brains in media and academia are filling white minds with the ideal of Magic Negro and Mandingo.

    Imagine two sides. Each side has a bodyguard. Side A has a body guard who isn't big but has a big sword. Side B has a body guard who is big but has just a knife. So, bodyguard of side A is inferior in physique but superior in weapon. In contrast, bodyguard of side B is superior in physique but inferior in weapon. That balances things out.
    Anyway, if you are part of A, you should be glad that your bodyguard has a big sword to compensate for his inferior physique. But... suppose it's decided that it's not fair that your bodyguard should have the bigger sword. So, the bigger sword is given to the bigger bodyguard of B while smaller bodyguard of A is given the knife. What will happen? Side A is in big trouble.

    Because whites are inferior to black in natural-savage-competition, they must compensate with their superiority in civilizational competition. But the globalists have reprogrammed white elite civilization to stop using white civilizational superiority to compensate for white natural-savage inferiority. So, the result is white brains aiding and abetting black brawn to beat white boys and conquer white wombs.

    It's the stupidest arrangement ever. After all, Jews have long used their superiority in wit/brain to compensate for their inferiority in demographics/numbers and brawn. There were many more 'dumb poles' who were bigger and stronger from eating all those kielbasas while Jews ate bagels and cream cheese. So, Jews had to rely on their superior wit to run circles around the Poles.

    Every organism is inferior in some ways and seeks means of overcoming this inferiority. That is the very trick of life. Paradoxically, to gain superiority in one way, one must assess one's inferiority in other ways. It's the same thing in military. Every side must assess its weaknesses and vulnerabilities in order to formulate a strategy that overcomes those inferiorities, thereby making it possible to perhaps gain superiority over the other. Germans understood this in WWII. They knew Russia was vast and gigantic and had huge industry. So, Germany had to overcome this problem with a surprise attack. In the end, it didn't succeed, but the ONLY chance it might have worked was with an ambush. As for Russians, they knew that Wehrmacht was a more powerful and disciplined fighting machine than the Soviet military. A German soldier was better than a Russian soldier on a one-on-one basis. So, Russia had to rely on its vast territory and transport industries to the east. And it had to rely on superior numbers.
    All organisms and systems must ask, "In what ways are we inferior compared to the other side? And in what ways do we have an advantage that can overcome our inferiority?"
    It's like in basketball, a shorter player is inferior in reach, but he has advantage in speed.

    When dealing with races, it’s not a simple case of one race is totally SUPERIOR to another. Rather, it is superior in some areas, inferior in others. It’s like comparing nations. Which nation is superior? Italy or Saudi Arabia? When it comes to growing grapes, Italy is superior. When it comes to drilling for oil, Saudis are superior.
    Which nation is superior? China or Russia? In numbers and work ethic, Chinese are superior. In natural resources and industrial-tech tradition, Russia is superior. Anyway, just as a nation that is inferior in one area must compensate with superiority in another area, a race that is inferior in one area must compensate with superiority in another area. When Japan invaded China, Japan had superiority in technology and organization. So, Chinese could not compete in that area. But China was so much bigger and had so many more people, and this meant Japanese quality would become bogged down in Chinese quantity.

    So, if white race wants to survive, it must first ask, “where are we inferior vis-a-vis the Negro?” And it is in muscle. The Negro can beat up white boys. And by the rules of natural-savagery, women go for men with more funk and larger privates. For that reason, black men are a threat in those departments.
    So, how does the white man save his manhood and his own race? After assessing his weakness vis-a-vis the Negro in natural-savage competition, he realizes he has the advantage over the negro in brains and organizational skills and overall sanity(as Negros be junglopathic in many cases). So, white men use brains and superior organization to fight the Negro… like in Zulu. Those black warriors could beat any white guy in one-on-one fight. And they are tough and hollering and walloping with spears. But the Brits got organization, discipline, and superior weapons created by superior white intelligence. Now, imagine a white guy in the movie deciding to offer his white intelligence to aid the muscled Negroes against physically weaker whites. That would mean disaster… but that is the current state of the West. The best white minds, infected with PC, are going out of their way to cuck out and aid the Negro brawn to beat whitey and colonize white wombs.
    White intelligence, which is supposed to compensate for white inferiority in physique vis-a-vis blacks, is going out of its way to aid black fist against white folks.

    [MORE]

    Anyway, returning to Boas…

    Maybe he was a charlatan and etc, but the fact is there were too many crackpot radical racist thinkers in the past, and their ideas did do great harm, especially with rise of Nazism and WWII. Those ideas did shape the minds of men like Hitler, and their crimes were on a unprecedented scale. If WWII had never happened, maybe it’d be fair to just dump on Boas as a fraud, but in light of historical events, we have to admit that that anti-racists, even if wrong on many counts, were right to oppose some of ludicrous claims of the radical racists who were pseudo-scientific in their own ways.
    Now, there were decent scientific race-ists, and they existed on the left as well as on the right. Indeed, it’s been said that the most educated and liberal elites in the 19th century all believed in races and racial differences. But at some point, this scientific inquiry became intertwined with radical politics or with imperialism in search for justification for white rule around the world. White superiority came in two forms: domineering and generous. Domineering types believed whites had a right to lord over non-whites who were inferior and should be treated like chattel. Generous types believed that, because whites are superior, it is the white man’s burden to lift up the rest of the benighted races and bring them to light of reason and knowledge. In many cases, the domineering and generous strains of white superiority-ism were intertwined… like in the American South where blacks were used as slaves and sometimes treated badly… but also seen as making progress under white guidance cuz, otherwise, they’d be in Africa just beating bongo drums and hurling spears at rhinos that want to stomp Negroes to death.

    Anyway, all ideas must be seen in social and historical context. And given the political and cultural climate of the first half of the 20th century when radical racist ideas led to horrible things, I’d be a bit more understanding of Boas and the Frankfurt School.
    But things are different today, and the ongoing PC of Anthropology departments is just a lot of tiresome hokum that prefers dogma over science. That being the case, Anthropology should remove itself from academia and declare itself a New Age theology. True academia must be open to all inquiries, all ideas, all facts.

    Anyway, it’s understandable why Jews fixated on blacks. For one thing, there was the history of slavery and mistreatment of blacks by whites. That was a historical certainty. So, the black issue morally undermined white prestige and power. For Jews who heard from Christians, ‘You Jews killed Christ’ for over 1000 yrs, it must have felt good to accuse whites with, ‘You enslaved noble blacks’.

    But it was also because black brawn could be used as bodyguard to the Jew.
    In an ‘Aryan’ vs Semite struggle, the Semite has superior brains but inferior brawn, at least in relation to Germanics and certain Slavs. While Latins and Greeks are physically more or less like Jews, some Germanics and Slavs are bigger and brawnier than the Semites. And they also had advantage in numbers, like in pogroms. So, what was the Jew to do against the ‘big dumb polack’ or ‘big brutish kraut’? Get a Negro as muscle. It’s like how the kid in MY BODYGUARD gets himself protection.

    In the US, Jews competed with snobby Wasps. In Germany, things got more heated with rise of National Socialism.
    Now, Wasps in the US, like Anglos in UK, were more subtle in their anti-Jewishness. They let Jews get rich but it was ‘no Jews in country clubs and no Jews marrying my daughter’. Things got much more dire in Germany. It wasn’t a matter of country club exclusions but concentration camp coercion.

    So, Jews needed some kind of symbolism to break white pride. And what is more symbolic of power and prowess and glory in modern era than sports and music?

    Jews couldn’t beat the ‘Aryans’ in fighting and running. While Max Baer was a good boxer and beat some top Germans, he wasn’t really Jewish-Jewish.
    But the Negro could outrun and outfight the whites.
    So, Joe Louis and Jesse Owens became the icons of anti-racism. But it was paradoxical because what they demonstrated was racial superiority. If Owens had tied with German runners and if Joe Louis had fought to a draw against Max Schmeling, the results would have suggested racial equality. But blacks beat whites badly. Schmeliing eked out a win against Louis in the first fight, but Louis totally flattened him in the first round of the second fight. And three negroes outran German runners by a mile in the 100 and 200 sprint. So, what was established was the racial superiority of blacks in sports. But the Narrative spun it as ‘Louis and Owens demolished the myth of Aryan supremacy’. But what about how their feats established the fact of black racial superiority in running and fighting? It goes to show the power of the Narrative. The Narrative shapes reality to favor certain views over others.

    Because of the power of the Narrative, a fact of racial superiority has long been sold as a case of racial justice and equality. When Jack Johnson beat all those white guys and humped all those white women, it was a case of black superiority in the natural-savage competition. But CucKen Burns made the docu Unforgivable Blackness where the story is spun as ‘black man fights for racial justice’. And even though the story of Ali is about black superiority in beating and humiliating white male pride, it’s spun as ‘black pride’ in the age of Civil Rights Era. This is nothing new. It’s like how the South spun a romantic narrative about Jesse James who was really a killer and psycho. But given the context of Southern defeat and hurt pride, James’ criminality was romanticized in terms of revenge and robin-hoodery. And Bonnie and Clyde were similarly romanticized as proto-revolutionaries by 60s radicals.
    And according to a book TOUGH JEWS, Jewish gangsters were inspiring despite their thuggery and criminality because they were counter-stereotypes against the nebbish cowardly Jew.

    But the black problem can’t be blamed only on Jews. Much of the blame must go to vain white male pride that failed to speak the truth about racial differences when there was NO PC to stop them. PC has a stifling effect on today’s discourse, but one could say the most un-PC things 100 yrs ago and be part of the Power and respectable society. Back then, you fell out of respectable society if you said, “My daughter can marry a Negro, and my wife can go with one too.”

    Just think. When Jack Johnson was beating whites, white males could have been honest and say, “Those Negroes are awful strong and beat us up and make white manhood impossible around them. If we live with blacks, they will beat up our sons, impregnate our daughters, and turn streets into jungles.”

    This is why Honest Abe wanted to free the slaves and send them to Africa. He saw how slavery was unjust, but he understood that racial integration would also be unjust because the Negro would beat whites. As a young man chopping down trees, it’s possible he met some Negroes. So, while he chopped down one tree, some big Negro was chopping down three. It’s like Woody Allen is no match to a Negro when it comes to breaking rocks.

    Now, one may ask, why would Jews side with Negroes when Negroes can beat Jews too? Well, with higher IQ and teamwork, Jews can move to safe areas away from dangerous blacks. Very few Jews are low IQ. Most are smart enough to do well in school and get good jobs and live in safe areas. So, they don’t have to worry about Negroes kicking their behind. Also, Jews own much of media and sports teams, and they rake in billions from Negro sports. So, it’s very lucrative for Jews to manage black athletes and rappers.

    Anyway, only the truth shall set people free.
    And every side tells some truth but ignores others.

    White folks must address their inferiority vis-a-vis other races and then guard and use their superiority to compensate for their inferiority.

    For whites to use white superior intelligence against blacks, they must first address black superior brawn against whites.

    Only in that way is white intelligence morally justified as counter-weapon against thuggish black brawn.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "And it is in muscle."

    How so? You must mean that blacks have lower body fat and thus look more muscular but that doesn't mean anything for strength.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/03/17/racial-differences-in-muscle-fiber-typing-cause-differences-in-elite-sporting-competition/

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/01/18/expounding-on-my-theory-for-racial-differences-in-sports/

    Somatype comes into play as well.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/03/25/racial-differences-in-somatype/

    Endomorphy is a more strength oriented somatype. The best example of an endomorph, despite being black, is Mark Henry.

    "larger privates"

    This isn't true.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/12/01/are-there-racial-differences-in-penis-size/

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/12/03/are-there-race-differences-in-penis-size-part-ii/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. @Truth
    I was clearly and obviously describing non-powered objects.

    There is only one "planet" and one "galaxy."


    Explain something to me; if the earth rotates the sun at 70,000 mph, how fast are the satellites rotating the earth moving? I've read that they max at about 28,000 mph. How does gravity help them stay exactly in sync with the earth as it hurdles 70,000 mph through space? Why do they not fall to earth, or get left behind and hurdle out of orbit?

    “There is only one “planet” and one “galaxy.””

    Ok im done. Good day to you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth



    Ok im done.
     
    OK, you got that one right, but I'm not sure you understand it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. Xerxes says:

    Whether the Out of Africa hypothesis turn out to be correct or false is to be seen. What I find disturbing about a whole host of contributors’ writings in Unz Review is the tendency to attribute all that humans have achieved to Western Europe, ignoring the vast contributions from people of China, Southeast Asia, Persia and what is now Syria.

    Following the author’s line of argument, something must have happened to these non-European people that enabled them to master arts and sciences at the time when Western Europeans were rubbing stones. And that was only 1,500 years ago.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  132. Allow me to clarify something. From the standpoint of “cultural relativism”, bear in mind that whether you are a black African or a white European, your “humanity” has been a horror show for eons. While white Europeans may lay claim to a few (a statistically small number) cognitive innovators, the vast majority of them have retained whatever cognitive disadvantages might be attributed to any “primitive” who practices ritual scarification, engages in cannibalism or wears a bone in his nose. The mindless adherents of any of the major religions – such as the essentially voodoo like Catholic persuasion – are cognitively incapable of distinguishing the difference between ‘abstractions’ based on empirical reality and ‘abstractions’ based on other ‘abstractions’. This allows them to engage in fanciful interpretations of reality which may take on a superficially ‘scientific’ quality while ignoring the fundamental foundation of science. That foundation is empiricism. It would not permit discussion of concepts for which there is no empirical evidence in the first place. These include such fanciful notions as “creation”, “afterlife”, and “alien intervention”. If you believe in that stuff, you are a proud progenitor of your essentially African origins, black, white or indifferent. So, in that sense at least, the Boasian “egalitarians” are probably quite correct. An African shaman who practices scapulamancy is no less looney than a Catholic priest who hands you a cracker and tells you it’s the body of your ‘savior’. They are both living proof that, white or black, most of us retain the essence of our African origins.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  133. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Delinquent Snail
    I havent seen the film but ive heard the theory. There are several megalithic structures around the planet that arent natural and are much too old to be from "current" humans. Not to mention, the oldest map in existence shows a non frozen antartica, and the owner claimed to have copied the map from much older maps.

    Theres just too large of a gap of time for nothing to have happened (society wise). Humans in 4 thousand years have done more then the previous 90 thousand years? Really?

    Im not a believer in the flood, but a self inflicted disaster could easily have wiped out previous societies. Nuclear war, a pandemic, causing a global cool down/heat up.....

    Why does this planet have such a high background radiation level?

    The ancient indians have stories of nuclear bomb blasts, lasers, and flying fighting craft. From over 4 thousand years ago. The ancient sumarians or Babylonians described our outer planets (neptune and uranus), their color and orbits, a couple thousand years before they were "discovered" with telescopes....


    Humans are a species with amnesia. What we dont forget, our "leaders" destroy to "insulate" us from a reality that goes against what they want us to beleive.

    ”Humans in 4 thousand years have done more then the previous 90 thousand years? Really?”

    Actually twelve thousand years not four thousand. Look up gobekli tepe. Its possible. The same way we did more in the last 200 years than we did in the last twelve thousand years.

    And we will do in the next ‘twenty years’ what we did in the last 90,000 years.

    Read More
    • Replies: @helena
    It's maybe a bit out there but I was rather surprised when I realised that the booms in European culture go something like this:
    Aurignacian 32kya
    Magdelanian 16kya
    LBK/Vinca 8kya
    Beaker 4kya
    Rome 2kya
    1st Parliament 1kya
    Prot Ref 500ya
    Indust Rev 250ya

    Ok, I just added the last 3 for fun. It was the earlier ones that really grabbed my attention because everyone focuses on studying the culture and no one seems interested in the gaps between or in trying to work out why the culture arose at that particular time.
    , @Delinquent Snail
    Im not trying to discredit humans ingenuity, or our amazing ability to solve complex problems when we work together, its just hard to think that "modern humans" have been around for what? 100k years? And only in the last 10% of that time have we done 95% of our accomplishments. Its hard to beleive that 10s of thousands of generations didn't have any smart people, or ambitious people, or driven people? What about previous religious groups? Religion is one of the major factors of human development, its the center of whole societies, so where are the societies that sprung up around these primitive pantheons?

    You make a good point. I completly forgot about gobekli tepe. They demonstrate skills at that temple (?) that were thought to have not been invented yet. We know the world came out of an ice age about 12000 years ago, a few hundred years before the site is dated. We are told there were no advanced civilizations at that period, people are just starting to settle down. So how did they come up with the techniques? They invented them and then passed them down? Or are they emulating what they knew about from before the global ice age froze the north and forced the advanced people's of europe to the Mediterranean and middle east?

    That site just reinforces my point about humans having amnesia. We know almost nothing about those people. What time didn't erase. Other humans did. Its like that all over the world. Currently, radical islamists are destroying ancient sites throughout their territory. The crusades destroyed ancient sites, the catholic church has funded destruction of "pagan" or "heretical" sites, romans even destroyed sites from other peoples.
    The city of troy was pulled down to its foundations.


    The few "craddles of humanity" have been infected for several thousand years by religious fanatics that destroy what they dont understand or contradicts their flawed world veiw. This leads to ancient temples, structures and sites being destroyed.


    Ps. More proof of humans having amnesia and other humans helping that cause:

    Vikings discovered north america before columbus.

    Chinese discovered south america nearly 2000 years ago (archeologists have found pottery on the west coast of SA that's nearly identical to chinese pottery of the time (pottery techniques are unique to each culture, every culture made pots, but they were all of unique styles.))

    I could even go into the hundreds of instances in modern history were events are flushed down the Memory hole.

    Id write a few more but I'm in need of food.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. @Truth
    There is no evidece of us coming from monkeys, or evolution.

    “There is no evidece of us coming from monkeys”

    Chimpanzees *

    Yes there is. We are derived from a common ancestor.

    “evolution”

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4048083/

    http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMTExMy9leHBwaHlzaW9sLjIwMTIuMDcxMTM0/10.1113%40expphysiol.2012.071134.pdf

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3060581/

    Educate yourself. There is evidence for evolution. Species change, that’s not up for debate. What is up for debate are the mechanisms by which it occurs.

    Read those articles and get back to me. Then when you do reply don’t reply with creationist dribble. It’s very very old now.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anarchyst
    Where are the "interspecies"? Where are the intermediate species between changes? If humans ascended from apes, why are there still apes? It would seem that the superior species (human) would overtake and eliminate the lesser (ape) species.
    , @Truth
    50 pages of words, mumbo-jumbo and citations.

    Please just show me a "scholarly" work that definitely and conclusively proves that we have a direct lineage with chimpanzees.

    You can't, it doesn't exist.
    , @Delinquent Snail
    Just ignore truth, they are a flat earther creationist.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. helena says:
    @Anon
    ''Humans in 4 thousand years have done more then the previous 90 thousand years? Really?''

    Actually twelve thousand years not four thousand. Look up gobekli tepe. Its possible. The same way we did more in the last 200 years than we did in the last twelve thousand years.

    And we will do in the next 'twenty years' what we did in the last 90,000 years.

    It’s maybe a bit out there but I was rather surprised when I realised that the booms in European culture go something like this:
    Aurignacian 32kya
    Magdelanian 16kya
    LBK/Vinca 8kya
    Beaker 4kya
    Rome 2kya
    1st Parliament 1kya
    Prot Ref 500ya
    Indust Rev 250ya

    Ok, I just added the last 3 for fun. It was the earlier ones that really grabbed my attention because everyone focuses on studying the culture and no one seems interested in the gaps between or in trying to work out why the culture arose at that particular time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Delinquent Snail
    Thats a great list. Theres a 16k year gap between the first two. Thats a larger gap in time then the whole of recorded history. It seems like a whole lot could have happened, been destroyed, been forgotten, then relearned, destroyed, forgotten....

    Humanity has amnesia and the people that pull the strings help guarantee we keep it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. hyperbola says:
    @Robert Magill

    The person most responsible for saturating anthropology with Cultural Marxism was Franz Boas, a German-Jewish émigré who found his academic home at Columbia University in 1896, where he stayed until his retirement in 1936. Boas had a profound impact on the field of anthropology, and was unashamedly political in his orientation, placing great emphasis on fighting scientific racism.
     
    This orientation seems to have escaped his prize student who went on to outshine, albeit in a popular sense, her mentor. Margaret Mead seemed little influenced by this cultural correctness and was a dutiful member of the Episcopal Church.


    Although we are all different culturally and genetically from the first modern humans entering Europe some 40,000 years ago, it is clear that something special did happen there at that time.
     
    Interesting that we are not informed of the recent studies of DNA linkage that shows the so called "modern humans entering Europe" mated with Neanderthals who had lived in southern Europe and the Levant for 200+ thousand years. How 'modern' were the offspring?


    http://robertmagill.wordpress.com

    Picking “credible” lackeys is often practised. Freud, for example, did the same with Jung to try to “improve” the acceptability of his jewish “psychology”.

    Sigmund Freud, Psychoanalysis, and the War on the West

    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/12/24/sigmund-freud-psychoanalysis-and-the-war-on-the-west/

    “We are bringing them the plague.”—Sigmund Freud, on his way to America in 1909[1]

    Like Carl Jung, Sigmund Freud did not base psychoanalysis, which he championed to the entire Western world, on scientific premises…. Freud was on a Jewish mission. Jewish professor of psychiatry Thomas Szasz of New York University writes that “one of Freud’s most powerful motives in life was…to inflict vengeance on Christianity.”[10] Other Jewish scholars such as Stanley Rothman and S. Robert Lichter noted the same thing, adding that…..

    ….Psychoanalysis was almost entirely a Jewish revolutionary movement, and it used to be referred to as a “Jewish science.” Freud had to find some Gentile to make the movement more inclusive. This is one reason why he worked tirelessly to make Jung a figurehead in the psychoanalytic movement. He told Jung in a letter written in 1908,

    “You really are the only one capable of making an original contribution to [psychoanalysis].”[26]

    He also wrote to a Swiss psychologist named Ludwig Binswanger, “When the realm I have found is orphaned, no one but Jung shall inherit it.”[27] For Freud, according to David Bakan, Jung was “a bridge to the Gentile world.”[28]

    But Freud’s Jewish fellows were not satisfied with Jung, wishing Freud had chosen a Jew for the task. Freud took great pains to ensure that a gentile, Jung, would be the head of his psychoanalytic movement—a move that infuriated his Jewish colleagues in Vienna, but one that was clearly intended to de-emphasize the very large overrepresentation of Jews in the movement during this period…..

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. anarchyst says:
    @RaceRealist88
    "There is no evidece of us coming from monkeys"

    Chimpanzees *

    Yes there is. We are derived from a common ancestor.

    "evolution"

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4048083/

    http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMTExMy9leHBwaHlzaW9sLjIwMTIuMDcxMTM0/10.1113%40expphysiol.2012.071134.pdf

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3060581/

    Educate yourself. There is evidence for evolution. Species change, that's not up for debate. What is up for debate are the mechanisms by which it occurs.

    Read those articles and get back to me. Then when you do reply don't reply with creationist dribble. It's very very old now.

    Where are the “interspecies”? Where are the intermediate species between changes? If humans ascended from apes, why are there still apes? It would seem that the superior species (human) would overtake and eliminate the lesser (ape) species.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Where are the “interspecies”? Where are the intermediate species between changes? If humans ascended from apes, why are there still apes? It would seem that the superior species (human) would overtake and eliminate the lesser (ape) species.
     
    You creationist wackadoodles are a dreary lot.
    , @Delinquent Snail
    Humans kill other humans based on skin color. You think we would have a problem killing a race of pygmies, or giants, or any other species? There is evidence of other early human species. The pygmies of africa are still in existence. There were pygmies in the south pacific.

    As for their still being apes, we just arn't as thorough as we want to be.
    , @RaceRealist88
    "Where are the “interspecies”?"

    Care to rephrase this? You mean 'half X and half Y' species? Not how it works.

    "Where are the intermediate species between changes? If humans ascended from apes, why are there still apes? It would seem that the superior species (human) would overtake and eliminate the lesser (ape) species."

    We descend from a common ancestor with chimpanzees. Around 6mya, 2 ancestral ape chromosomes fused to create chromosome 2.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/88/20/9051

    2p and 2q are the ancestral equivalents that formed chromosome 2.

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/01/bill-nye-creationism-evolution

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7034/full/nature03466.html

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/04/15/evolution-denial-part-ii/

    Other species in our genus have 24 chromosomes while we have 23. So that means that 2 ancestral ape chromosomes fused to create chromosome 2. This is what we see when comparing chromosomes.

    Even then, teaching genetics before evolution does increase understanding, but it doesn't increase acceptance.

    http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.2002255

    For lower ability students, an improvement in evolution understanding was seen only if genetics was taught first. Teaching genetics first additionally had positive effects on genetics understanding, by increasing knowledge. These results suggest a simple, minimally disruptive, zero-cost intervention to improve evolution understanding: teach genetics first. This same alteration does not, however, result in a significantly increased acceptance of evolution, which reflects a weak correlation between knowledge and acceptance of evolution. Qualitative focus group data highlights the role of authority figures in determination of acceptance.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. Truth says:
    @Delinquent Snail
    "There is only one “planet” and one “galaxy.”"

    Ok im done. Good day to you.

    Ok im done.

    OK, you got that one right, but I’m not sure you understand it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. @Johan Meyer
    Nice try yourself. Maqonqo age:
    https://journals.co.za/content/nmsa_sah/15/1/EJC84739

    I also posted earlier Khoisan art, albeit less developed, and references to rock art in Nigeria.

    again nice try meyer but your link while better than 90% of the other assertions out there is still short of your assertion by 22000 years so youre only proving yourself a liar, and of course one has to wonder what motivates you to want to do all this anthropologic affirmative action in the first place. Its not like your efforts will convince anyone that people with a well documented IQ of 54 the lowest in thee world are budding michelangelo’s.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @anarchyst
    Where are the "interspecies"? Where are the intermediate species between changes? If humans ascended from apes, why are there still apes? It would seem that the superior species (human) would overtake and eliminate the lesser (ape) species.

    Where are the “interspecies”? Where are the intermediate species between changes? If humans ascended from apes, why are there still apes? It would seem that the superior species (human) would overtake and eliminate the lesser (ape) species.

    You creationist wackadoodles are a dreary lot.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    Such elementary questions that are easily answered with a Google search. It's clear he wants to not believe the reality that species change through evolution by natural selection, drift, mutation and migration.
    , @anarchyst
    wackadoodle?? Not at all. The interspecies question is valid. Instead of name-calling you might ask how a scientist can explain "the big bang". NO scientist can explain "something from nothing". Ever hear of entropy?
    I think not.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. hyperbola says:
    @ThreeCranes
    Here's a link:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICgj03-Jo0Y

    Start about 47:00 for real African hunting. This ought to dispel the myth about North American Indians and Africans being peaceful Stone Age peoples.

    Warning; not for the squeamish.

    You can see versions of the same thing in Europe today, say in Spain or France in the “fiestas” of villages.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. RAF says: • Website

    I am glad to see others point out that there is NO proof of the poisonous lie that ‘we are all Africans’, and a great deal of evidence that refutes it.

    I began arguing against the ‘OoA with replacement’ nearly two decades ago, (with Age and Origin see: rafonda.com) and every year the evidence against it keeps adding up, but there is never any recognition of that in the media.

    Sadly, there has been little or no attention to this from the AltRight; hopefully, this article is an indication that others are beginning to realize how much damage this afrocentric propagand does to our college educated women.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    Out of Africa is true.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/02/09/out-of-factfrica/
    , @helena
    Are you associated with this article?
    A phylogenetic view of the Out of Asia/Eurasia and Out of Africa hypotheses in the light of recent molecular and palaeontological finds  Gene
    Volume 627, 5 September 2017, Pages 473–476
    The substantiality of the Out of Africa hypothesis was addressed in the light of recent genomic analysis of extant humans (Homo sapiens sapiens, Hss) and progress in Neanderthal palaeontology. The examination lent no support to the commonly assumed Out of Africa scenario but favoured instead a Eurasian divergence between Neanderthals and Hss (the Askur/Embla hypothesis) and an Out of Asia/Eurasia hypothesis according to which all other parts of the world were colonized by Hss migrations from Asia. The examination suggested furthermore that the ancestors of extant KhoeSan and Mbuti composed the first Hss dispersal(s) into Africa and that the ancestors of Yoruba made up a later wave into the same continent. The conclusions constitute a change in paradigm for the study of human evolution.
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378111917305176
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. @Anonymous

    Where are the “interspecies”? Where are the intermediate species between changes? If humans ascended from apes, why are there still apes? It would seem that the superior species (human) would overtake and eliminate the lesser (ape) species.
     
    You creationist wackadoodles are a dreary lot.

    Such elementary questions that are easily answered with a Google search. It’s clear he wants to not believe the reality that species change through evolution by natural selection, drift, mutation and migration.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth
    Hoyle's 747 analogy pretty much says it all...

    http://wasdarwinwrong.com/kortho46a.htm
    , @Anonymous

    Such elementary questions that are easily answered with a Google search. It’s clear he wants to not believe the reality that species change through evolution by natural selection, drift, mutation and migration.
     
    There is no "theory" more massively supported by confirmed research than evolutionary "theory".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. Truth says:
    @RaceRealist88
    "There is no evidece of us coming from monkeys"

    Chimpanzees *

    Yes there is. We are derived from a common ancestor.

    "evolution"

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4048083/

    http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMTExMy9leHBwaHlzaW9sLjIwMTIuMDcxMTM0/10.1113%40expphysiol.2012.071134.pdf

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3060581/

    Educate yourself. There is evidence for evolution. Species change, that's not up for debate. What is up for debate are the mechanisms by which it occurs.

    Read those articles and get back to me. Then when you do reply don't reply with creationist dribble. It's very very old now.

    50 pages of words, mumbo-jumbo and citations.

    Please just show me a “scholarly” work that definitely and conclusively proves that we have a direct lineage with chimpanzees.

    You can’t, it doesn’t exist.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5035889/

    http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMTAzOC9uYXR1cmUwNDc4OQ==/10.1038%40nature04789.pdf

    Keep digging that hole.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. Truth says:
    @RaceRealist88
    Such elementary questions that are easily answered with a Google search. It's clear he wants to not believe the reality that species change through evolution by natural selection, drift, mutation and migration.

    Hoyle’s 747 analogy pretty much says it all…

    http://wasdarwinwrong.com/kortho46a.htm

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @RaceRealist88
    Such elementary questions that are easily answered with a Google search. It's clear he wants to not believe the reality that species change through evolution by natural selection, drift, mutation and migration.

    Such elementary questions that are easily answered with a Google search. It’s clear he wants to not believe the reality that species change through evolution by natural selection, drift, mutation and migration.

    There is no “theory” more massively supported by confirmed research than evolutionary “theory”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    Why is "theory" in quotes?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. @Anon
    ''Humans in 4 thousand years have done more then the previous 90 thousand years? Really?''

    Actually twelve thousand years not four thousand. Look up gobekli tepe. Its possible. The same way we did more in the last 200 years than we did in the last twelve thousand years.

    And we will do in the next 'twenty years' what we did in the last 90,000 years.

    Im not trying to discredit humans ingenuity, or our amazing ability to solve complex problems when we work together, its just hard to think that “modern humans” have been around for what? 100k years? And only in the last 10% of that time have we done 95% of our accomplishments. Its hard to beleive that 10s of thousands of generations didn’t have any smart people, or ambitious people, or driven people? What about previous religious groups? Religion is one of the major factors of human development, its the center of whole societies, so where are the societies that sprung up around these primitive pantheons?

    You make a good point. I completly forgot about gobekli tepe. They demonstrate skills at that temple (?) that were thought to have not been invented yet. We know the world came out of an ice age about 12000 years ago, a few hundred years before the site is dated. We are told there were no advanced civilizations at that period, people are just starting to settle down. So how did they come up with the techniques? They invented them and then passed them down? Or are they emulating what they knew about from before the global ice age froze the north and forced the advanced people’s of europe to the Mediterranean and middle east?

    That site just reinforces my point about humans having amnesia. We know almost nothing about those people. What time didn’t erase. Other humans did. Its like that all over the world. Currently, radical islamists are destroying ancient sites throughout their territory. The crusades destroyed ancient sites, the catholic church has funded destruction of “pagan” or “heretical” sites, romans even destroyed sites from other peoples.
    The city of troy was pulled down to its foundations.

    The few “craddles of humanity” have been infected for several thousand years by religious fanatics that destroy what they dont understand or contradicts their flawed world veiw. This leads to ancient temples, structures and sites being destroyed.

    Ps. More proof of humans having amnesia and other humans helping that cause:

    Vikings discovered north america before columbus.

    Chinese discovered south america nearly 2000 years ago (archeologists have found pottery on the west coast of SA that’s nearly identical to chinese pottery of the time (pottery techniques are unique to each culture, every culture made pots, but they were all of unique styles.))

    I could even go into the hundreds of instances in modern history were events are flushed down the Memory hole.

    Id write a few more but I’m in need of food.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. @helena
    It's maybe a bit out there but I was rather surprised when I realised that the booms in European culture go something like this:
    Aurignacian 32kya
    Magdelanian 16kya
    LBK/Vinca 8kya
    Beaker 4kya
    Rome 2kya
    1st Parliament 1kya
    Prot Ref 500ya
    Indust Rev 250ya

    Ok, I just added the last 3 for fun. It was the earlier ones that really grabbed my attention because everyone focuses on studying the culture and no one seems interested in the gaps between or in trying to work out why the culture arose at that particular time.

    Thats a great list. Theres a 16k year gap between the first two. Thats a larger gap in time then the whole of recorded history. It seems like a whole lot could have happened, been destroyed, been forgotten, then relearned, destroyed, forgotten….

    Humanity has amnesia and the people that pull the strings help guarantee we keep it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. @anarchyst
    Where are the "interspecies"? Where are the intermediate species between changes? If humans ascended from apes, why are there still apes? It would seem that the superior species (human) would overtake and eliminate the lesser (ape) species.

    Humans kill other humans based on skin color. You think we would have a problem killing a race of pygmies, or giants, or any other species? There is evidence of other early human species. The pygmies of africa are still in existence. There were pygmies in the south pacific.

    As for their still being apes, we just arn’t as thorough as we want to be.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    Also, for children, Chubrashika, a ragged teddy bear, it has many late USSR themes (he tries to join the Young Pioneers), but no heavy politics in all but one episode. Also very charming, remains popular in Russia and Japan, like Kin Dza Dza.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. @RaceRealist88
    "There is no evidece of us coming from monkeys"

    Chimpanzees *

    Yes there is. We are derived from a common ancestor.

    "evolution"

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4048083/

    http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMTExMy9leHBwaHlzaW9sLjIwMTIuMDcxMTM0/10.1113%40expphysiol.2012.071134.pdf

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3060581/

    Educate yourself. There is evidence for evolution. Species change, that's not up for debate. What is up for debate are the mechanisms by which it occurs.

    Read those articles and get back to me. Then when you do reply don't reply with creationist dribble. It's very very old now.

    Just ignore truth, they are a flat earther creationist.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. @RAF
    I am glad to see others point out that there is NO proof of the poisonous lie that 'we are all Africans', and a great deal of evidence that refutes it.

    I began arguing against the 'OoA with replacement' nearly two decades ago, (with Age and Origin see: rafonda.com) and every year the evidence against it keeps adding up, but there is never any recognition of that in the media.

    Sadly, there has been little or no attention to this from the AltRight; hopefully, this article is an indication that others are beginning to realize how much damage this afrocentric propagand does to our college educated women.
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. @Anonymous

    Such elementary questions that are easily answered with a Google search. It’s clear he wants to not believe the reality that species change through evolution by natural selection, drift, mutation and migration.
     
    There is no "theory" more massively supported by confirmed research than evolutionary "theory".

    Why is “theory” in quotes?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Why is “theory” in quotes?
     
    Because evolution is fact, not theory. Wackadoodle creationists stridently insist it is but theory, somehow always invalid, always unfounded, always a product of godlessness -- meh, all the usual stupidass chickenshit that Believers trot out.

    Evolution is proven beyond all doubt. It is no longer a "theory"; it is a concrete edifice of verified fact.

    It is 2017. Anyone who insists that evolution is unproven is, typically, some variety of religious fanatic nutcake. He or she deserves nothing but dismissive contempt.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. @Truth
    50 pages of words, mumbo-jumbo and citations.

    Please just show me a "scholarly" work that definitely and conclusively proves that we have a direct lineage with chimpanzees.

    You can't, it doesn't exist.
    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth
    You keep putting up 50 page articles that you did not read and don't understand: "Variation in the molecular clock of primates", what the fuck is that?

    Show me an article that PROVES CONCLUSIVELY that human beings are descended from chimpanzees. You cannot, because it is a THEORY.

    Taking a theory as a fact is called "religion."

    For instance, getting back to the myth I was debating with the other fine gentleman; here is a literal Space Shuttle and International Space Station Astro-naught, when asked why we don't go back to the moon.

    Believe me, his response is worth your time...


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxJbQpdYINg
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. helena says:
    @RAF
    I am glad to see others point out that there is NO proof of the poisonous lie that 'we are all Africans', and a great deal of evidence that refutes it.

    I began arguing against the 'OoA with replacement' nearly two decades ago, (with Age and Origin see: rafonda.com) and every year the evidence against it keeps adding up, but there is never any recognition of that in the media.

    Sadly, there has been little or no attention to this from the AltRight; hopefully, this article is an indication that others are beginning to realize how much damage this afrocentric propagand does to our college educated women.

    Are you associated with this article?
    A phylogenetic view of the Out of Asia/Eurasia and Out of Africa hypotheses in the light of recent molecular and palaeontological finds  Gene
    Volume 627, 5 September 2017, Pages 473–476
    The substantiality of the Out of Africa hypothesis was addressed in the light of recent genomic analysis of extant humans (Homo sapiens sapiens, Hss) and progress in Neanderthal palaeontology. The examination lent no support to the commonly assumed Out of Africa scenario but favoured instead a Eurasian divergence between Neanderthals and Hss (the Askur/Embla hypothesis) and an Out of Asia/Eurasia hypothesis according to which all other parts of the world were colonized by Hss migrations from Asia. The examination suggested furthermore that the ancestors of extant KhoeSan and Mbuti composed the first Hss dispersal(s) into Africa and that the ancestors of Yoruba made up a later wave into the same continent. The conclusions constitute a change in paradigm for the study of human evolution.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378111917305176

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @RaceRealist88
    Why is "theory" in quotes?

    Why is “theory” in quotes?

    Because evolution is fact, not theory. Wackadoodle creationists stridently insist it is but theory, somehow always invalid, always unfounded, always a product of godlessness — meh, all the usual stupidass chickenshit that Believers trot out.

    Evolution is proven beyond all doubt. It is no longer a “theory”; it is a concrete edifice of verified fact.

    It is 2017. Anyone who insists that evolution is unproven is, typically, some variety of religious fanatic nutcake. He or she deserves nothing but dismissive contempt.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anarchyst
    Anyone who states that any branch of science is "settled" is a fool. Just look at the field day "climate change" skeptics are having with the "believers", exposing their false "settled" science a a fraud upon humanity.
    The same situation exists with hardcore "evolutionists" who cannot prove with one shred of evidence that evolution takes place.
    If humans ascended from apes, why do apes still exist? It would seem that the superior species would have prospered while the lesser species would have become extinct.
    Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes while chimpanzees have 24. Evolutionary scientists believe that one of the human chromosomes has been formed through the fusion of two small chromosomes in the chimp instead of an intrinsic difference resulting from a separate creation.
    At the end of each chromosome is a string of repeating DNA sequences called a telomere. Chimpanzees and other apes have about 23 kilobases (a kilobase is 1,000 base pairs of DNA) of repeats. Humans are unique among primates with much shorter telomeres only 10 kilobases long.
    While 18 pairs of chromosomes are ‘virtually identical’, chromosomes 4, 9 and 12 show evidence of being ‘remodeled.’ In other words, the genes and markers on these chromosomes are not in the same order in the human and chimpanzee. Instead of ‘being remodeled’ as the evolutionists suggest, these could, logically, also be intrinsic differences because of a separate creation.
    The Y chromosome in particular is of a different size and has many markers that do not line up between the human and chimpanzee.
    Scientists have prepared a human-chimpanzee comparative clone map of chromosome 21 in particular. They observed ‘large, non-random regions of difference between the two genomes.’ They found a number of regions that ‘might correspond to insertions that are specific to the human lineage.’
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. Truth says:
    @RaceRealist88
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5035889/

    http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMTAzOC9uYXR1cmUwNDc4OQ==/10.1038%40nature04789.pdf

    Keep digging that hole.

    You keep putting up 50 page articles that you did not read and don’t understand: “Variation in the molecular clock of primates”, what the fuck is that?

    Show me an article that PROVES CONCLUSIVELY that human beings are descended from chimpanzees. You cannot, because it is a THEORY.

    Taking a theory as a fact is called “religion.”

    For instance, getting back to the myth I was debating with the other fine gentleman; here is a literal Space Shuttle and International Space Station Astro-naught, when asked why we don’t go back to the moon.

    Believe me, his response is worth your time…

    Read More
    • Agree: anarchyst
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "You keep putting up 50 page articles that you did not read"

    How do you know?

    "and don’t understand"

    Wrong.

    "“Variation in the molecular clock of primates”, what the fuck is that?"

    At least you clicked the link. Not many do that.

    The molecular clock is the average rate of mutations that a species' genome incurs. This is used to measure divergence times from a common ancestor.

    "Show me an article that PROVES CONCLUSIVELY that human beings are descended from chimpanzees. You cannot, because it is a THEORY."

    I just did. Mutations incurred in the genome slowed down considerably in our genomes after the split.

    Theory---a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

    You're not using the term correctly.

    https://richarddawkins.net/2015/11/is-it-a-theory-is-it-a-law-no-its-a-fact/

    A theory explains observed phenomena. The theory of gravity. Species change. This is a fact.

    "Taking a theory as a fact is called “religion.”"

    Believing this is an intelligent statement is called "ignorance".

    Just because you don't believe in evolution through natural selection doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It's a fact, evolution is the only game in town. No other theory has the explanatory power of evolution.

    , @Delinquent Snail
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrayaan-1

    India's lunar mission.


    http://www.businessinsider.com/new-photos-of-the-china-moon-landing-mission-2016-2

    China's lunar mission.

    We (americans) went there 6 times. We left little mirrors on several missions. Universitys all over the world can point a laser at these little mirrors and measure the distance to the moon. If you had a powerful enough laser and a precise enough rig for it, you could do it yourself.


    That video is.... Well idk. I dont know who he is, and his eyes look a bit off, like he was recently concussed.

    You keep linking videos of crazy people. The person that made that video had several spelling errors and grammer errors, and not basic ones that are common and excusable. Seems like you keep getting (((wrong))) info from people that are both uneducated, and dumb. Those are not mutually exclusive, fyi. Dont want to have to post again correcting you.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @LauraMR
    ... versus the author's obsession with white supremacy?

    Alternatives to the Africa origin hypothesis do not require for everyone else on the planet to be beneath us.

    Of course, a woman.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. anarchyst says:
    @Anonymous

    Where are the “interspecies”? Where are the intermediate species between changes? If humans ascended from apes, why are there still apes? It would seem that the superior species (human) would overtake and eliminate the lesser (ape) species.
     
    You creationist wackadoodles are a dreary lot.

    wackadoodle?? Not at all. The interspecies question is valid. Instead of name-calling you might ask how a scientist can explain “the big bang”. NO scientist can explain “something from nothing”. Ever hear of entropy?
    I think not.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    wackadoodle?? Not at all.
     
    Sorry. Absolute wackadoodleedoo.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @anarchyst
    wackadoodle?? Not at all. The interspecies question is valid. Instead of name-calling you might ask how a scientist can explain "the big bang". NO scientist can explain "something from nothing". Ever hear of entropy?
    I think not.

    wackadoodle?? Not at all.

    Sorry. Absolute wackadoodleedoo.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. @Priss Factor
    When dealing with races, it's not a simple case of one race is totally SUPERIOR to another. Rather, it is superior in some areas, inferior in others. It's like comparing nations. Which nation is superior? Italy or Saudi Arabia? When it comes to growing grapes, Italy is superior. When it comes to drilling for oil, Saudis are superior.
    Which nation is superior? China or Russia? In numbers and work ethic, Chinese are superior. In natural resources and industrial-tech tradition, Russia is superior. Anyway, just as a nation that is inferior in one area must compensate with superiority in another area, a race that is inferior in one area must compensate with superiority in another area. When Japan invaded China, Japan had superiority in technology and organization. So, Chinese could not compete in that area. But China was so much bigger and had so many more people, and this meant Japanese quality would become bogged down in Chinese quantity.

    So, if white race wants to survive, it must first ask, "where are we inferior vis-a-vis the Negro?" And it is in muscle. The Negro can beat up white boys. And by the rules of natural-savagery, women go for men with more funk and larger privates. For that reason, black men are a threat in those departments.
    So, how does the white man save his manhood and his own race? After assessing his weakness vis-a-vis the Negro in natural-savage competition, he realizes he has the advantage over the negro in brains and organizational skills and overall sanity(as Negros be junglopathic in many cases). So, white men use brains and superior organization to fight the Negro... like in Zulu. Those black warriors could beat any white guy in one-on-one fight. And they are tough and hollering and walloping with spears. But the Brits got organization, discipline, and superior weapons created by superior white intelligence. Now, imagine a white guy in the movie deciding to offer his white intelligence to aid the muscled Negroes against physically weaker whites. That would mean disaster... but that is the current state of the West. The best white minds, infected with PC, are going out of their way to cuck out and aid the Negro brawn to beat whitey and colonize white wombs.
    White intelligence, which is supposed to compensate for white inferiority in physique vis-a-vis blacks, is going out of its way to aid black fist against white folks.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQrE8vOM0ss

    Anyway, returning to Boas...

    Maybe he was a charlatan and etc, but the fact is there were too many crackpot radical racist thinkers in the past, and their ideas did do great harm, especially with rise of Nazism and WWII. Those ideas did shape the minds of men like Hitler, and their crimes were on a unprecedented scale. If WWII had never happened, maybe it'd be fair to just dump on Boas as a fraud, but in light of historical events, we have to admit that that anti-racists, even if wrong on many counts, were right to oppose some of ludicrous claims of the radical racists who were pseudo-scientific in their own ways.
    Now, there were decent scientific race-ists, and they existed on the left as well as on the right. Indeed, it's been said that the most educated and liberal elites in the 19th century all believed in races and racial differences. But at some point, this scientific inquiry became intertwined with radical politics or with imperialism in search for justification for white rule around the world. White superiority came in two forms: domineering and generous. Domineering types believed whites had a right to lord over non-whites who were inferior and should be treated like chattel. Generous types believed that, because whites are superior, it is the white man's burden to lift up the rest of the benighted races and bring them to light of reason and knowledge. In many cases, the domineering and generous strains of white superiority-ism were intertwined... like in the American South where blacks were used as slaves and sometimes treated badly... but also seen as making progress under white guidance cuz, otherwise, they'd be in Africa just beating bongo drums and hurling spears at rhinos that want to stomp Negroes to death.

    Anyway, all ideas must be seen in social and historical context. And given the political and cultural climate of the first half of the 20th century when radical racist ideas led to horrible things, I'd be a bit more understanding of Boas and the Frankfurt School.
    But things are different today, and the ongoing PC of Anthropology departments is just a lot of tiresome hokum that prefers dogma over science. That being the case, Anthropology should remove itself from academia and declare itself a New Age theology. True academia must be open to all inquiries, all ideas, all facts.

    Anyway, it's understandable why Jews fixated on blacks. For one thing, there was the history of slavery and mistreatment of blacks by whites. That was a historical certainty. So, the black issue morally undermined white prestige and power. For Jews who heard from Christians, 'You Jews killed Christ' for over 1000 yrs, it must have felt good to accuse whites with, 'You enslaved noble blacks'.

    But it was also because black brawn could be used as bodyguard to the Jew.
    In an 'Aryan' vs Semite struggle, the Semite has superior brains but inferior brawn, at least in relation to Germanics and certain Slavs. While Latins and Greeks are physically more or less like Jews, some Germanics and Slavs are bigger and brawnier than the Semites. And they also had advantage in numbers, like in pogroms. So, what was the Jew to do against the 'big dumb polack' or 'big brutish kraut'? Get a Negro as muscle. It's like how the kid in MY BODYGUARD gets himself protection.

    https://youtu.be/QexN6K0kq5I?t=31s

    In the US, Jews competed with snobby Wasps. In Germany, things got more heated with rise of National Socialism.
    Now, Wasps in the US, like Anglos in UK, were more subtle in their anti-Jewishness. They let Jews get rich but it was 'no Jews in country clubs and no Jews marrying my daughter'. Things got much more dire in Germany. It wasn't a matter of country club exclusions but concentration camp coercion.

    So, Jews needed some kind of symbolism to break white pride. And what is more symbolic of power and prowess and glory in modern era than sports and music?

    Jews couldn't beat the 'Aryans' in fighting and running. While Max Baer was a good boxer and beat some top Germans, he wasn't really Jewish-Jewish.
    But the Negro could outrun and outfight the whites.
    So, Joe Louis and Jesse Owens became the icons of anti-racism. But it was paradoxical because what they demonstrated was racial superiority. If Owens had tied with German runners and if Joe Louis had fought to a draw against Max Schmeling, the results would have suggested racial equality. But blacks beat whites badly. Schmeliing eked out a win against Louis in the first fight, but Louis totally flattened him in the first round of the second fight. And three negroes outran German runners by a mile in the 100 and 200 sprint. So, what was established was the racial superiority of blacks in sports. But the Narrative spun it as 'Louis and Owens demolished the myth of Aryan supremacy'. But what about how their feats established the fact of black racial superiority in running and fighting? It goes to show the power of the Narrative. The Narrative shapes reality to favor certain views over others.

    Because of the power of the Narrative, a fact of racial superiority has long been sold as a case of racial justice and equality. When Jack Johnson beat all those white guys and humped all those white women, it was a case of black superiority in the natural-savage competition. But CucKen Burns made the docu Unforgivable Blackness where the story is spun as 'black man fights for racial justice'. And even though the story of Ali is about black superiority in beating and humiliating white male pride, it's spun as 'black pride' in the age of Civil Rights Era. This is nothing new. It's like how the South spun a romantic narrative about Jesse James who was really a killer and psycho. But given the context of Southern defeat and hurt pride, James' criminality was romanticized in terms of revenge and robin-hoodery. And Bonnie and Clyde were similarly romanticized as proto-revolutionaries by 60s radicals.
    And according to a book TOUGH JEWS, Jewish gangsters were inspiring despite their thuggery and criminality because they were counter-stereotypes against the nebbish cowardly Jew.

    But the black problem can't be blamed only on Jews. Much of the blame must go to vain white male pride that failed to speak the truth about racial differences when there was NO PC to stop them. PC has a stifling effect on today's discourse, but one could say the most un-PC things 100 yrs ago and be part of the Power and respectable society. Back then, you fell out of respectable society if you said, "My daughter can marry a Negro, and my wife can go with one too."

    Just think. When Jack Johnson was beating whites, white males could have been honest and say, "Those Negroes are awful strong and beat us up and make white manhood impossible around them. If we live with blacks, they will beat up our sons, impregnate our daughters, and turn streets into jungles."

    This is why Honest Abe wanted to free the slaves and send them to Africa. He saw how slavery was unjust, but he understood that racial integration would also be unjust because the Negro would beat whites. As a young man chopping down trees, it's possible he met some Negroes. So, while he chopped down one tree, some big Negro was chopping down three. It's like Woody Allen is no match to a Negro when it comes to breaking rocks.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqWW2pSL2Bc

    Now, one may ask, why would Jews side with Negroes when Negroes can beat Jews too? Well, with higher IQ and teamwork, Jews can move to safe areas away from dangerous blacks. Very few Jews are low IQ. Most are smart enough to do well in school and get good jobs and live in safe areas. So, they don't have to worry about Negroes kicking their behind. Also, Jews own much of media and sports teams, and they rake in billions from Negro sports. So, it's very lucrative for Jews to manage black athletes and rappers.

    Anyway, only the truth shall set people free.
    And every side tells some truth but ignores others.

    White folks must address their inferiority vis-a-vis other races and then guard and use their superiority to compensate for their inferiority.

    For whites to use white superior intelligence against blacks, they must first address black superior brawn against whites.

    Only in that way is white intelligence morally justified as counter-weapon against thuggish black brawn.

    “And it is in muscle.”

    How so? You must mean that blacks have lower body fat and thus look more muscular but that doesn’t mean anything for strength.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/03/17/racial-differences-in-muscle-fiber-typing-cause-differences-in-elite-sporting-competition/

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/01/18/expounding-on-my-theory-for-racial-differences-in-sports/

    Somatype comes into play as well.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/03/25/racial-differences-in-somatype/

    Endomorphy is a more strength oriented somatype. The best example of an endomorph, despite being black, is Mark Henry.

    “larger privates”

    This isn’t true.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/12/01/are-there-racial-differences-in-penis-size/

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/12/03/are-there-race-differences-in-penis-size-part-ii/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. @Truth
    You keep putting up 50 page articles that you did not read and don't understand: "Variation in the molecular clock of primates", what the fuck is that?

    Show me an article that PROVES CONCLUSIVELY that human beings are descended from chimpanzees. You cannot, because it is a THEORY.

    Taking a theory as a fact is called "religion."

    For instance, getting back to the myth I was debating with the other fine gentleman; here is a literal Space Shuttle and International Space Station Astro-naught, when asked why we don't go back to the moon.

    Believe me, his response is worth your time...


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxJbQpdYINg

    “You keep putting up 50 page articles that you did not read”

    How do you know?

    “and don’t understand”

    Wrong.

    ““Variation in the molecular clock of primates”, what the fuck is that?”

    At least you clicked the link. Not many do that.

    The molecular clock is the average rate of mutations that a species’ genome incurs. This is used to measure divergence times from a common ancestor.

    “Show me an article that PROVES CONCLUSIVELY that human beings are descended from chimpanzees. You cannot, because it is a THEORY.”

    I just did. Mutations incurred in the genome slowed down considerably in our genomes after the split.

    Theory—a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

    You’re not using the term correctly.

    https://richarddawkins.net/2015/11/is-it-a-theory-is-it-a-law-no-its-a-fact/

    A theory explains observed phenomena. The theory of gravity. Species change. This is a fact.

    “Taking a theory as a fact is called “religion.””

    Believing this is an intelligent statement is called “ignorance”.

    Just because you don’t believe in evolution through natural selection doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. It’s a fact, evolution is the only game in town. No other theory has the explanatory power of evolution.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth
    You're not getting it, Sport, I'll try again:

    Evolution is a theory.

    Water flowing downhill is a scientific fact.

    I'm not sure how else I can explain this.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. @anarchyst
    Where are the "interspecies"? Where are the intermediate species between changes? If humans ascended from apes, why are there still apes? It would seem that the superior species (human) would overtake and eliminate the lesser (ape) species.

    “Where are the “interspecies”?”

    Care to rephrase this? You mean ‘half X and half Y’ species? Not how it works.

    “Where are the intermediate species between changes? If humans ascended from apes, why are there still apes? It would seem that the superior species (human) would overtake and eliminate the lesser (ape) species.”

    We descend from a common ancestor with chimpanzees. Around 6mya, 2 ancestral ape chromosomes fused to create chromosome 2.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/88/20/9051

    2p and 2q are the ancestral equivalents that formed chromosome 2.

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/01/bill-nye-creationism-evolution

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7034/full/nature03466.html

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/04/15/evolution-denial-part-ii/

    Other species in our genus have 24 chromosomes while we have 23. So that means that 2 ancestral ape chromosomes fused to create chromosome 2. This is what we see when comparing chromosomes.

    Even then, teaching genetics before evolution does increase understanding, but it doesn’t increase acceptance.

    http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.2002255

    For lower ability students, an improvement in evolution understanding was seen only if genetics was taught first. Teaching genetics first additionally had positive effects on genetics understanding, by increasing knowledge. These results suggest a simple, minimally disruptive, zero-cost intervention to improve evolution understanding: teach genetics first. This same alteration does not, however, result in a significantly increased acceptance of evolution, which reflects a weak correlation between knowledge and acceptance of evolution. Qualitative focus group data highlights the role of authority figures in determination of acceptance.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. Jm8 says:
    @Anonymous
    The author says boas was jewish and implied he was promoting jewish interests. If he was why would have favour the african behavioral modernity idea even after finds in israel of similar beads, tools etc Boas could have argued for an israeli origin of behavioral modernity, but he didnt.

    I don’t think Boas argued so much re: the origin of behavioral modernity (since the origin of homo sapiens in Africa was unknown then) because of that evidence, (which is more recent, thus unknown to him). It’s mostly much more recent evidence (discovered long after his death—not much excavation was done in Africa relative to Europe til fairly recently), that supports an African origin of behavioral modernity.

    It’s not just shell beads and crosshatchings (as this article claims) that show a beginning of modern behavior in Africa or that have distinguished early African sapiens behavior from that of neanderthals.
    Many middle stone age cultures of southern Africa ca 150-70,000 bc (and later—and a few earlier) also show other evidence of modern behaviors, including the use of bone tools, shell beads, the trade of minerals across substantial distances, the making of heated fat-based paints from ochre.

    Many other of the oldest modern behaviors/technologies: are seen at such sites (among others) as Blombos (heat treated paints from 100,000 bc), Pinnacle Point South Africa (heat treating to change the property of silicrete stone using it to make making microliths for compound weapons from 164,000-70,000 bc), Katanda/Semliki Central Africa (bone harpoons to hunt giant deep water cat fish by 90,ooo bc, requiring the use of water craft), Gademotta Ethiopia (the first projectiles, javelins/throwing spears by 279,000 bc), Sibudu South Africa (bone and stone arrows, adhesive, and a needle found), Ishango and Lebombo Swaziland (bone tally sticks showing the understanding of multiplication, division, and possibly prime numbers, from 20,000 bc and 40,000)

    Neanderthals did not use projectiles but rather the close-range thrusting spears.
    The use of projectiles—the designing of (including early ones such as javelins or atlatls) requires a greater ability to estimate trajectory and distance, and the ability to design weapons with these things in mind)—and allows hunting at a safer distance. And that (beginning likely with distance javelins) dates to the early period of 279,000 bc in Ethiopia.
    And bone tools (as found at Blombos) are never (0r almost never) associated with neanderthals, or other early hominids (other than sapiens)
    Also, the cases of neanderthal bead making come the period from when sapiens had already entered Europe, and some suggest they may reflect sapiens influence.

    What Boas claimed was, to quote the article: ” Boas claimed that African cultural inventions in agriculture and iron smelting were crucial to “the advancement of the human race.” Subsequent research has shown that neither agriculture nor iron smelting was an African invention”

    Actually, subsequent research does show that agriculture and (likely) iron smelting (as indicated by very early iron dates including those from South East and Central Nigeria) were likely invented in SS Africa. But they were also separately invented in other places (agriculture was invented several times in the world, and iron smelting at least one other time in the Near East in Turkey/Anatolia), so Africa was not the origin of iron smelting in Europe or in the Near East—that is, agriculture and iron in Europe and the Near East did not come form Africa (if Boas claimed it did, he would be wrong) but rather from the Near East/Anatolia and Mesopotamia, but SS Africa does seem to have invented those things independently (millet and sorghum domesticated in the West African Savannah and yams and oil palms in the West African forest region).

    “Earliest Stone-Tipped Projectiles from the Ethiopian Rift Date to >279,000 Years Ago”

    http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0078092

    Evidence of arrowheads and adhesives (and of bows and arrows using adhesives) were made at least by 60-70,000 in Sibudu South Africa (some evidence from Pinnacle Point S.A. suggests earlier date).

    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.466.2274&rep=rep1&type=pdf

    http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2010/08/26/Oldest-arrowheads-found-in-Africa/95431282863088/

    The preparation of stone for making microliths by precise heat treating to increase its flakeability was practiced at pinnacle point SA. from ca 164,000 bc-70,000 bc.
    “An early and enduring advanced technology originating 71,000 years ago in South Africa”

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v491/n7425/full/nature11660.html?foxtrotcallback=true

    “The origins of composite tools and advanced projectile weapons figure prominently in modern human evolution research, and the latter have been argued to have been in the exclusive possession of modern humans5, 6. Here we describe a previously unrecognized advanced stone tool technology from Pinnacle Point Site 5–6 on the south coast of South Africa, originating approximately 71,000 years ago. This technology is dominated by the production of small bladelets (microliths) primarily from heat-treated stone. There is agreement that microlithic technology was used to create composite tool components as part of advanced projectile weapons7, 8. Microliths were common worldwide by the mid-Holocene epoch, but have a patchy pattern of first appearance that is rarely earlier than 40,000 years ago9, 10, and were thought to appear briefly between 65,000 and 60,000 years ago in South Africa and then disappear. Our research extends this record to ~71,000 years, shows that microlithic technology originated early in South Africa, evolved over a vast time span (~11,000 years), and was typically coupled to complex heat treatment that persisted for nearly 100,000 years. Advanced technologies in Africa were early and enduring; a small sample of excavated sites in Africa is the best explanation for any perceived ‘flickering’ pattern.”

    (the practice of heat treating began earlier (ca. 164,000 BC)
    “Fire As an Engineering Tool of Early Modern Humans” | Science

    http://science.sciencemag.org/content/325/5942/859

    “…The analysis of tools at multiple sites shows that the source stone materials were systematically manipulated with fire to improve their flaking properties. Heat treatment predominates among silcrete tools at ~72 thousand years ago (ka) and appears as early as 164 ka at Pinnacle Point, on the south coast of South Africa. Heat treatment demands a sophisticated knowledge of fire and an elevated cognitive ability and appears at roughly the same time as widespread evidence for symbolic behavior.”

    Compound heated fat-based paints were made at Blombos by 100,000 BC: paints made not only by simply grinding minerals (as neanderthals also sometimes did), but by a more complex process more like the paint-making/formulas of later ancient cultures and civilizations (and like those of later stone age homo sapiens in Africa and Europe/Eurasia); of heating ground ocher mixed with animal fat and charcoal.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-15257259

    Bone harpoons appear in Central Africa as early as ca. 90,000 bc. (a modern tool type) that were used to hunt giant catfish, a type of fish that only lives at depths much too great for a human to stand, which indicates the use of watercraft (likely rafts or early canoes).

    http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-katanda-harpoons.html

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishango_bone

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebombo_bone

    The significance of the “Howiesons Poort tradition of engraving ostrich eggshell containers dated to 60,000 years ago at Diepkloof Rock Shelter, South Africa” is not simply that they have cross hatched designs (as this article seems to innacurately imply). It is that, but also that they were used as containers, and to store water possibly for periods of drought and/or to allow them to occupy drier areas (there is evidence that the 60,000 containers were buried), and the South African Bushmen still use ostrich shell containers in the same way (creating buried stores of water).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. Jm8 says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    I'm sure you can find it easily enough online. It seems Koestler was attracted to the idea of saying Ashkenazi Jews weren't Semites as some sort of protection from anti-Semitism and leapt atthe idea of extrapolating from the conversion of a tiny minority of important Kazars. Obvious rubbish to anyone who had studied the actual well recorded history of Ashkenazim or just noted that they wouldn't have acquired Yiddish, a German dialect, if they came from the East. Now of course the DNA evidence is in and, according to Greg Cochran the 50 or so per cent of non-Semitic ancestry is nearly all Celtic or Germanic.

    Most of the 50 or so per cent of non-Semitic ancestry in Ashkenazim is Roman/Italian rather than Celtic or Germanic (only a very small amount is Celtic and Germanic, or sometimes Slavic)—Cochran (as well was the dna studies) says as much too—(their ancestors entered Europe through Italy and intermixed with Europeans much less after they arrived in Germany from Italy), or possibly Greco/Italo-Roman. But otherwise, you are correct (the other 50 percent or so—perhaps slightly over 50—of course being Semitic/Levantine).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jm8
    Edit: "(only a very small amount is Celtic and Germanic, or sometimes in some of the Eastern Ashkenazim also a tiny bit Slavic)"
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. Truth says:
    @RaceRealist88
    "You keep putting up 50 page articles that you did not read"

    How do you know?

    "and don’t understand"

    Wrong.

    "“Variation in the molecular clock of primates”, what the fuck is that?"

    At least you clicked the link. Not many do that.

    The molecular clock is the average rate of mutations that a species' genome incurs. This is used to measure divergence times from a common ancestor.

    "Show me an article that PROVES CONCLUSIVELY that human beings are descended from chimpanzees. You cannot, because it is a THEORY."

    I just did. Mutations incurred in the genome slowed down considerably in our genomes after the split.

    Theory---a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

    You're not using the term correctly.

    https://richarddawkins.net/2015/11/is-it-a-theory-is-it-a-law-no-its-a-fact/

    A theory explains observed phenomena. The theory of gravity. Species change. This is a fact.

    "Taking a theory as a fact is called “religion.”"

    Believing this is an intelligent statement is called "ignorance".

    Just because you don't believe in evolution through natural selection doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It's a fact, evolution is the only game in town. No other theory has the explanatory power of evolution.

    You’re not getting it, Sport, I’ll try again:

    Evolution is a theory.

    Water flowing downhill is a scientific fact.

    I’m not sure how else I can explain this.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "Evolution is a theory"

    .... Reread my comment. You creationists don't know what the word "theory" means.
    , @Anonymous

    You’re not getting it, Sport, I’ll try again:

    Evolution is a theory.
     
    LOL. You're not getting it, Beavis. Evolution is a fact.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. Jm8 says:
    @Jm8
    Most of the 50 or so per cent of non-Semitic ancestry in Ashkenazim is Roman/Italian rather than Celtic or Germanic (only a very small amount is Celtic and Germanic, or sometimes Slavic)—Cochran (as well was the dna studies) says as much too—(their ancestors entered Europe through Italy and intermixed with Europeans much less after they arrived in Germany from Italy), or possibly Greco/Italo-Roman. But otherwise, you are correct (the other 50 percent or so—perhaps slightly over 50—of course being Semitic/Levantine).

    Edit: “(only a very small amount is Celtic and Germanic, or sometimes in some of the Eastern Ashkenazim also a tiny bit Slavic)”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I recall the Cochran references to Italy but I am nor aware of his denying the Celtic (or Germanic). Maybe you can help.

    My path to knowing about the European element came from the observation going back decaades that Jews often had blue eyes and even red hair and even my own Celtic colouring of brown head hair but red facial hair; then mentioning to a Rabbi/ historian that the Koestler story I had resd years before was hard to square with Yiddish being Germanic. His reply affirmed my disbelief and included the lively line that there were Jews in the Rhineland before there were Germans.

    My inference was that enterprising Celtic women had made sure successful but lonely young Jewish merchants didn't have to wait for a bride shipment from their homeland. (Cp. India for the East India Company's first 200 years).

    Then I noted Cochran's emphasis on (northern I think) Italy and I could still see the Celtic connection because I recalled that Cisalpine Gaul was in fact most of northern Italy and that Gauls had sacked Rome in 390BC (remember the geese which saved the Capitol?).

    Before the end of the Western Roman Empire Goths had been recruited in large numbers yo the army and so many settled in Italy that those Germanic people had no trouble finishing off the Empire in the 5th century AD.

    So... I accept the importance of "Roman" or "Italian"
    as a geographic description of many ancestors but not as an identifier of the gene pool.

    I shsll welcome further info to put me right. And i thank aanyway you for prompting a new thought, namely, that by the time western Europe became Germanic after the last tumultuous centuries of the Empire Jewish merchants maay well hsve retreated to Italy just ss the owners of beautiful Roman villas and the commanders of Romsn legions did from Britain.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. @Truth
    You keep putting up 50 page articles that you did not read and don't understand: "Variation in the molecular clock of primates", what the fuck is that?

    Show me an article that PROVES CONCLUSIVELY that human beings are descended from chimpanzees. You cannot, because it is a THEORY.

    Taking a theory as a fact is called "religion."

    For instance, getting back to the myth I was debating with the other fine gentleman; here is a literal Space Shuttle and International Space Station Astro-naught, when asked why we don't go back to the moon.

    Believe me, his response is worth your time...


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxJbQpdYINg

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrayaan-1

    India’s lunar mission.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/new-photos-of-the-china-moon-landing-mission-2016-2

    China’s lunar mission.

    We (americans) went there 6 times. We left little mirrors on several missions. Universitys all over the world can point a laser at these little mirrors and measure the distance to the moon. If you had a powerful enough laser and a precise enough rig for it, you could do it yourself.

    That video is…. Well idk. I dont know who he is, and his eyes look a bit off, like he was recently concussed.

    You keep linking videos of crazy people. The person that made that video had several spelling errors and grammer errors, and not basic ones that are common and excusable. Seems like you keep getting (((wrong))) info from people that are both uneducated, and dumb. Those are not mutually exclusive, fyi. Dont want to have to post again correcting you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth
    So you believe Don Petit, the longest running Astro-naught in the history of NASA's explanation that we cannot return to the moon because "we lost 1967 technology and cannot re-create it"?

    I did not make this up, I linked him saying it earlier. You actually believe this?

    All space programs around the world, are an excuse to funnel tax monies into black-ops programs. Nothing more nothing less.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Pettit

    I was an atheist for the first 25 years of my life, a zen Buddhist for the next 25, and believe me Sir, If I so desired, I could make your argument better than you, on stage behind a podium without notes. Just believe me on this, It came to my understanding that everything in our common life; evolution, outer space, etc. is simply a blaspheme of God and the bible, so I converted to Christianity.


    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+104%3A5-19&version=NIV

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. @Jm8
    Edit: "(only a very small amount is Celtic and Germanic, or sometimes in some of the Eastern Ashkenazim also a tiny bit Slavic)"

    I recall the Cochran references to Italy but I am nor aware of his denying the Celtic (or Germanic). Maybe you can help.

    My path to knowing about the European element came from the observation going back decaades that Jews often had blue eyes and even red hair and even my own Celtic colouring of brown head hair but red facial hair; then mentioning to a Rabbi/ historian that the Koestler story I had resd years before was hard to square with Yiddish being Germanic. His reply affirmed my disbelief and included the lively line that there were Jews in the Rhineland before there were Germans.

    My inference was that enterprising Celtic women had made sure successful but lonely young Jewish merchants didn’t have to wait for a bride shipment from their homeland. (Cp. India for the East India Company’s first 200 years).

    Then I noted Cochran’s emphasis on (northern I think) Italy and I could still see the Celtic connection because I recalled that Cisalpine Gaul was in fact most of northern Italy and that Gauls had sacked Rome in 390BC (remember the geese which saved the Capitol?).

    Before the end of the Western Roman Empire Goths had been recruited in large numbers yo the army and so many settled in Italy that those Germanic people had no trouble finishing off the Empire in the 5th century AD.

    So… I accept the importance of “Roman” or “Italian”
    as a geographic description of many ancestors but not as an identifier of the gene pool.

    I shsll welcome further info to put me right. And i thank aanyway you for prompting a new thought, namely, that by the time western Europe became Germanic after the last tumultuous centuries of the Empire Jewish merchants maay well hsve retreated to Italy just ss the owners of beautiful Roman villas and the commanders of Romsn legions did from Britain.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jm8
    "My path to knowing about the European element came from the observation going back decaades that Jews often had blue eyes and even red hair and even my own Celtic colouring of brown head hair but red facial hair;"

    By my observation (which is also extensive) Ashkenazim tend to be dark haired and light haired ones are a minority. They also(in coloring and features) tend to resemble the lighter skinned Middle Eastern types from the Levant/Eastern Med. area.; Lebanon, Syria, parts of Turkey Palestine, Armenia, to a lesser extent Greeks and S. Italians (all these peoples also have among themselves a non-trivial minority of lighter haired and light eyed types.)

    Brown head hair and read facial hair is not exclusive to Celts but can occur in other Europeans (and even a minority of pale Northern West Asians/North Middle Easterners)


    There is not a very significant amount if Germanic ancestry in Northern Italy. Genetic studies show that admixture after the early Roman era has mostly been minor (there is some pre-early Roman era Celtic admixture in parts of North Italy however, and the south has some Greek admixture).

    The more Northern Italians have always been a little lighter on average than those further south (though northerners also are mostly brunet rather than North European looking, if not mostly blackish-haired like many southerners or as dark on average as many southerners.

    "His reply affirmed my disbelief and included the lively line that there were Jews in the Rhineland before there were Germans."
    "...namely, that by the time western Europe became Germanic after the last tumultuous centuries of the Empire Jewish merchants maay well hsve retreated to Italy..."

    The Ashkenazim mostly descend from Jews that arrived in Germany (mostly—but perhaps not exclusively from Italy and perhaps to some extent from southern France/South Gaul) late antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (800s-1100s AD approximately)—as shown by, not only genetic, but also the cultural, historical, and linguistic evidence. The Jews that lived in southern Germany prior to that, likely mostly died out and/or were only a tiny element later absorbed (by non-Jews and/or by the later waves f Jews), and this would not have contributed very significantly to the Ashkenazim. The Jewish communities Ashkenazim descend from were likely around Central Italy (Rome, Tuscany), and to a lesser extent North and South Italy—though some fraction might have also been from southern Gaul (which was inhabited by the descendants of Romanized Celts). There is no evidence that they lived in Germany before South Europe, but rather they derived from Roman (often late antique) era Jewish migrants from the Near East who settled in Italy (and in some cases sometimes in Greece/Greek lands) and intermixed to a degree with southern European women.


    "So… I accept the importance of “Roman” or “Italian”
    as a geographic description of many ancestors but not as an identifier of the gene pool."

    The genetic studies show a predominance of southern European (especially Italian) in the European portion of Ashkenazic jewish ancestry (The Ashkenazim are most closely related genetically to the Italkic Jews—Ashkenazim come from a branch of medieval proto-Italkim that went into the Rhineland, descendants of the ancient and early medieval jewish community of Italy. Their second closest relatives are the Sephardim, whose ancestors are also a mix of Levantine and south European because they left the Levant and migrated West across Roman N. Africa—likely living in heavilyGreek Alexandria and mixing somewhat with Greeks—until they got to Spain.

    "The time and place of European admixture in Ashkenazi Jewish history"

    http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1006644

    "AJ appeared in Europe in the 10th century, and their ancestry is thought to comprise European (EU) and Middle-Eastern (ME) components"..."The major source of EU ancestry in AJ was found to be Southern Europe (≈60–80% of EU ancestry),"

    Ashkenazic ancestry is about half Levantine, and close to half southern European (60-80% of the European ancestry is southern), with the rest being other European.

    "I recall the Cochran references to Italy but I am nor aware of his denying the Celtic (or Germanic). Maybe you can help."

    Cochran talks about it below (Ashkenazic European admixture is mostly-largely Italian (there could be some Celtic element—likely at least a little—but it is small, and the Germanic element generally smaller). He (Cochran) is likely incorrect however, about the very common Ashkenazic K mtdna haplotype (maternal lineage) not being Middle Eastern, as its Middle Eastern origin has been supported, not only by Behar, but by the recent Fernandez study (though many other Ashhenazic mtdna/maternal lineages—perhaps slightly over about half of them, with the paternal lineages being mostly Levantine/Mid Eastern—are in fact South European).

    https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2013/10/08/jewish-moms/

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jews#Female_lineages:_Mitochondrial_DNA

    "A 2014 study by Fernández et al. has found that Ashkenazi Jews display a frequency of haplogroup K in their maternal DNA that suggests an ancient Near Eastern origin, similar to the results of Behar. He stated that this observation clearly contradicts the results of the study led by Richards that suggested a European source for 3 exclusively Ashkenazi K lineages."

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. @Marshall Lentini
    Author is painfully under-read, like every other white nationalist who trundles into science. For them, conveniently, all of anthropology boils down to Franz Boas.

    The findings in Blombos Cave, just to name one case, have been assigned a range of 100,000 to 700,000 BP. And what are the artefacts? Ochre artwork, shell beads, stone and bone tools.

    And then there are the pesky facts of Khoisan and, to a lesser extent, Pygmy DNA (oldest lineages), evidence of a return to Africa and comingling ~80,000BP, etc.

    Once again white nationalists, in trying to correct extremism from the other side, overcompensate and pretend they themselves do not make emotional or ideological arguments: the need not to share anything with Africa is most apparent in all the breathless ad hoc.

    I have often speculated that the very black Nilotics of NE an E Africa were descended in part from immigrants returning to Africa from Eurasia but it had never occurred to me that the Khoi San or pygmies were also descended from return flows of people. Actually pygmies outside Africa seem to have been neglected. How for example did NE Australia come to have a pygmy negrito population? Not much discussed. So…. sources and links please.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jm8
    "I have often speculated that the very black Nilotics of NE an E Africa were descended in part from immigrants returning to Africa from Eurasia but it had never occurred to me that the Khoi San or pygmies were also descended from return flows of people."

    There is no evidence that they do. Nilotic groups (with the exception of a few with minor Cushitic admixture like the Massai and similar tribes who have some Cushitic ancestry as mentioned in the link) generally have little to no Eurasian ancestry (the purer Nilotes/Nilo-Saharans are concentrated around South and Central Sudan—see Tishkoff, the indigenous East African "East Africa cluster", element predominates in them—and to lesser extent a few parts of Kenya/North Uganda). Pygmies and Khoisan do not really how evidence of such admixture (or Eurasian origins) either—they seem to have come mostly from very early diverging groups/branches of African homo sapiens that branched off within Africa even before the ancestors of most other subsaharan Africans did. One exception is minor admixture in several (especially pastoralist) Khoisan groups (introduced relatively recently, within the last few thousand years) coming from East African Cushites (who themselves had a minority or Eurasian ancestry) who brought pastoralism to the ancestors of some Khoisans like the Khoi Khoi.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nilotic_peoples#Genetics

    http://anthromadness.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-east-african-cluster.html

    Actually pygmies outside Africa seem to have been neglected. How for example did NE Australia come to have a pygmy negrito population? Not much discussed. So…. sources and links please.

    "Pygmies" from outside Africa (the various Negrito groups and the Andamanese) are not related to African Pygmies. their short stature evolved independently as they settled in various similar tropical forest environments (convergent evolution). There are several studies on them.

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/07/asian-negritos-are-not-one-population/#.WYMYw3eZOqk

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negrito

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negrito#Genetics

    Australia was likely settled by a few (at least two main) waves of people migrating along the coast of South Asia (whose out-of-Africa ancestors had remained in southern lands and retained their dark skin and other tropical traits), that later mixed in various proportions. The first may have been Negrito-like (related to the Negritos of South East Asia), with later waves more similar, and perhaps then more related to, the taller and less kinky-haired "proto Australoid" types of South India. Proto-Negrito derived tendencies (and cultures) my have survived in some parts of Australia more than others, and of course in Tasmania (where the natives had Negrito traits—probably descending mostly-entirely from the aforementioned first wave).

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. @Insignificant
    Lentini makes the most sense I have seen here so far. but I wont see much more however because this is as far as I go in here.
    most of this is white western rubbish to me, out of cultural marxism and post modern european claptrap... like religion created to misdirect the world. ..and all here seem seriously caught up in it.

    at university I walked away from the humanities and I warned my own children to steer clear..that if they were going to go major in humanities they would have to do so on their own
    happily they chose science and business

    on my own I studied Gerald Massey and found his body of work compelling. since then the black scholars have done yeoman work ..they are treasures e and well meant biology since
    then of course there is africa itself right there and all its works..like the Precession of the Equinoxes..the great year. then there is the second great year...Polar great year based on the precession of the pole stars

    how does one account for proven african history going back towards 100 thousand years with artifacts to prove? how to explain the forensic evidence of the rebuilt facial representation of skulls found in latin american, towards the southern tip that show black faces........

    then what about earthbound cyclic weather as far back as we can tell. they do not tell of human habitation anywhere other in africa as possible..in any time frame consistent with the humanity we have come to know as us, that we are a part of.

    europe has been telling lies about africa as soon as they were taught to speak and write, taught how to 'build a house with a window'.

    europe was/is sick mentally, crazy people with anti human conceptions of life...mostly homicidal maniacs involved in the massive extermination of humanity from as long as we have known them. if anything is hard to imagine is that the same human sources that gave rise to the magnificent people who built ancient Kemet are the same who gave rise to europeans..opposites that are really hard to reconcile for me. but that is what the evidence establishes

    the simple story seems to to be right there in front of us the rudiments of which cannot even be contemplated by the insanes I have been reading here. Gerald Massey dug deeply into africa through what the euros call egypt. but what else is there to dig into..where is the basis, evidence for alternate construction of human origins and history up to now...?

    I have found little here of substance, of use, to add to my impression of things. this has been almost a waste of time, the author a fool, a racially traumatized individual hell bent on the finding of, and assumption of some dreamed of white initial/initiating glory, evidence of which must be lying about somewhere awaiting our discovery. good luck to him

    As I said #11 I too found it hard to get much out of the article. However you leave me puzzled. As one with a scoentific bent and an interest in these matters I look in vain for your views on the rate of gene mutation in Malthusian human populations according to size and what bearing that might hsve had on observed, measured and supposed differences between what we conveniently call “races” (say intrabreeding extended family groups).

    Is there not evidence of specific genetic chsnges outdide Africa in the last 60,000 years which may have been selected for meeting cognitive challenges such as the Ice Ages must have presented?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. @insignificant
    corrections

    [on my own I studied Gerald Massey and found his body of work compelling. since then the black scholars have done yeoman work ..they are treasures e and well meant biology since]

    1. the black scholars are treasures: Chiekeh Anta Diop perhaps the best of them all, Theophille Obenga and many more.

    2. the Rebecca Cann and all the well meant scholarly biology she inspired

    3. the latin skulls have been dated 50 thousand plus years old and the the forensic work has revealed them to have been black

    As to the “forensic work” which has shown the skulls (sic) to be “black”, can you elaborate?
    Presumably you mean “covered with black skin”. N’est-ce pas? Then I infer that you are referring to the early kind of “forensic” evidence which relied – accurately enough in most circumstaances – on phrenology e.g the size and shape of the skull???

    What do DNA studies show? Links or references please.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. @Truth
    You're not getting it, Sport, I'll try again:

    Evolution is a theory.

    Water flowing downhill is a scientific fact.

    I'm not sure how else I can explain this.

    “Evolution is a theory”

    …. Reread my comment. You creationists don’t know what the word “theory” means.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. Jm8 says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    I recall the Cochran references to Italy but I am nor aware of his denying the Celtic (or Germanic). Maybe you can help.

    My path to knowing about the European element came from the observation going back decaades that Jews often had blue eyes and even red hair and even my own Celtic colouring of brown head hair but red facial hair; then mentioning to a Rabbi/ historian that the Koestler story I had resd years before was hard to square with Yiddish being Germanic. His reply affirmed my disbelief and included the lively line that there were Jews in the Rhineland before there were Germans.

    My inference was that enterprising Celtic women had made sure successful but lonely young Jewish merchants didn't have to wait for a bride shipment from their homeland. (Cp. India for the East India Company's first 200 years).

    Then I noted Cochran's emphasis on (northern I think) Italy and I could still see the Celtic connection because I recalled that Cisalpine Gaul was in fact most of northern Italy and that Gauls had sacked Rome in 390BC (remember the geese which saved the Capitol?).

    Before the end of the Western Roman Empire Goths had been recruited in large numbers yo the army and so many settled in Italy that those Germanic people had no trouble finishing off the Empire in the 5th century AD.

    So... I accept the importance of "Roman" or "Italian"
    as a geographic description of many ancestors but not as an identifier of the gene pool.

    I shsll welcome further info to put me right. And i thank aanyway you for prompting a new thought, namely, that by the time western Europe became Germanic after the last tumultuous centuries of the Empire Jewish merchants maay well hsve retreated to Italy just ss the owners of beautiful Roman villas and the commanders of Romsn legions did from Britain.

    “My path to knowing about the European element came from the observation going back decaades that Jews often had blue eyes and even red hair and even my own Celtic colouring of brown head hair but red facial hair;”

    By my observation (which is also extensive) Ashkenazim tend to be dark haired and light haired ones are a minority. They also(in coloring and features) tend to resemble the lighter skinned Middle Eastern types from the Levant/Eastern Med. area.; Lebanon, Syria, parts of Turkey Palestine, Armenia, to a lesser extent Greeks and S. Italians (all these peoples also have among themselves a non-trivial minority of lighter haired and light eyed types.)

    Brown head hair and read facial hair is not exclusive to Celts but can occur in other Europeans (and even a minority of pale Northern West Asians/North Middle Easterners)

    There is not a very significant amount if Germanic ancestry in Northern Italy. Genetic studies show that admixture after the early Roman era has mostly been minor (there is some pre-early Roman era Celtic admixture in parts of North Italy however, and the south has some Greek admixture).

    The more Northern Italians have always been a little lighter on average than those further south (though northerners also are mostly brunet rather than North European looking, if not mostly blackish-haired like many southerners or as dark on average as many southerners.

    “His reply affirmed my disbelief and included the lively line that there were Jews in the Rhineland before there were Germans.”
    “…namely, that by the time western Europe became Germanic after the last tumultuous centuries of the Empire Jewish merchants maay well hsve retreated to Italy…”

    The Ashkenazim mostly descend from Jews that arrived in Germany (mostly—but perhaps not exclusively from Italy and perhaps to some extent from southern France/South Gaul) late antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (800s-1100s AD approximately)—as shown by, not only genetic, but also the cultural, historical, and linguistic evidence. The Jews that lived in southern Germany prior to that, likely mostly died out and/or were only a tiny element later absorbed (by non-Jews and/or by the later waves f Jews), and this would not have contributed very significantly to the Ashkenazim. The Jewish communities Ashkenazim descend from were likely around Central Italy (Rome, Tuscany), and to a lesser extent North and South Italy—though some fraction might have also been from southern Gaul (which was inhabited by the descendants of Romanized Celts). There is no evidence that they lived in Germany before South Europe, but rather they derived from Roman (often late antique) era Jewish migrants from the Near East who settled in Italy (and in some cases sometimes in Greece/Greek lands) and intermixed to a degree with southern European women.

    “So… I accept the importance of “Roman” or “Italian”
    as a geographic description of many ancestors but not as an identifier of the gene pool.”

    The genetic studies show a predominance of southern European (especially Italian) in the European portion of Ashkenazic jewish ancestry (The Ashkenazim are most closely related genetically to the Italkic Jews—Ashkenazim come from a branch of medieval proto-Italkim that went into the Rhineland, descendants of the ancient and early medieval jewish community of Italy. Their second closest relatives are the Sephardim, whose ancestors are also a mix of Levantine and south European because they left the Levant and migrated West across Roman N. Africa—likely living in heavilyGreek Alexandria and mixing somewhat with Greeks—until they got to Spain.

    “The time and place of European admixture in Ashkenazi Jewish history”

    http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1006644

    “AJ appeared in Europe in the 10th century, and their ancestry is thought to comprise European (EU) and Middle-Eastern (ME) components”…”The major source of EU ancestry in AJ was found to be Southern Europe (≈60–80% of EU ancestry),”

    Ashkenazic ancestry is about half Levantine, and close to half southern European (60-80% of the European ancestry is southern), with the rest being other European.

    “I recall the Cochran references to Italy but I am nor aware of his denying the Celtic (or Germanic). Maybe you can help.”

    Cochran talks about it below (Ashkenazic European admixture is mostly-largely Italian (there could be some Celtic element—likely at least a little—but it is small, and the Germanic element generally smaller). He (Cochran) is likely incorrect however, about the very common Ashkenazic K mtdna haplotype (maternal lineage) not being Middle Eastern, as its Middle Eastern origin has been supported, not only by Behar, but by the recent Fernandez study (though many other Ashhenazic mtdna/maternal lineages—perhaps slightly over about half of them, with the paternal lineages being mostly Levantine/Mid Eastern—are in fact South European).

    https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2013/10/08/jewish-moms/

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jews#Female_lineages:_Mitochondrial_DNA

    “A 2014 study by Fernández et al. has found that Ashkenazi Jews display a frequency of haplogroup K in their maternal DNA that suggests an ancient Near Eastern origin, similar to the results of Behar. He stated that this observation clearly contradicts the results of the study led by Richards that suggested a European source for 3 exclusively Ashkenazi K lineages.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jm8
    Edit:
    "(though northerners also tend generally to be brunet rather than blond or particularly North European looking, if not mostly blackish-haired like many southerners..."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. Jm8 says:
    @Jm8
    "My path to knowing about the European element came from the observation going back decaades that Jews often had blue eyes and even red hair and even my own Celtic colouring of brown head hair but red facial hair;"

    By my observation (which is also extensive) Ashkenazim tend to be dark haired and light haired ones are a minority. They also(in coloring and features) tend to resemble the lighter skinned Middle Eastern types from the Levant/Eastern Med. area.; Lebanon, Syria, parts of Turkey Palestine, Armenia, to a lesser extent Greeks and S. Italians (all these peoples also have among themselves a non-trivial minority of lighter haired and light eyed types.)

    Brown head hair and read facial hair is not exclusive to Celts but can occur in other Europeans (and even a minority of pale Northern West Asians/North Middle Easterners)


    There is not a very significant amount if Germanic ancestry in Northern Italy. Genetic studies show that admixture after the early Roman era has mostly been minor (there is some pre-early Roman era Celtic admixture in parts of North Italy however, and the south has some Greek admixture).

    The more Northern Italians have always been a little lighter on average than those further south (though northerners also are mostly brunet rather than North European looking, if not mostly blackish-haired like many southerners or as dark on average as many southerners.

    "His reply affirmed my disbelief and included the lively line that there were Jews in the Rhineland before there were Germans."
    "...namely, that by the time western Europe became Germanic after the last tumultuous centuries of the Empire Jewish merchants maay well hsve retreated to Italy..."

    The Ashkenazim mostly descend from Jews that arrived in Germany (mostly—but perhaps not exclusively from Italy and perhaps to some extent from southern France/South Gaul) late antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (800s-1100s AD approximately)—as shown by, not only genetic, but also the cultural, historical, and linguistic evidence. The Jews that lived in southern Germany prior to that, likely mostly died out and/or were only a tiny element later absorbed (by non-Jews and/or by the later waves f Jews), and this would not have contributed very significantly to the Ashkenazim. The Jewish communities Ashkenazim descend from were likely around Central Italy (Rome, Tuscany), and to a lesser extent North and South Italy—though some fraction might have also been from southern Gaul (which was inhabited by the descendants of Romanized Celts). There is no evidence that they lived in Germany before South Europe, but rather they derived from Roman (often late antique) era Jewish migrants from the Near East who settled in Italy (and in some cases sometimes in Greece/Greek lands) and intermixed to a degree with southern European women.


    "So… I accept the importance of “Roman” or “Italian”
    as a geographic description of many ancestors but not as an identifier of the gene pool."

    The genetic studies show a predominance of southern European (especially Italian) in the European portion of Ashkenazic jewish ancestry (The Ashkenazim are most closely related genetically to the Italkic Jews—Ashkenazim come from a branch of medieval proto-Italkim that went into the Rhineland, descendants of the ancient and early medieval jewish community of Italy. Their second closest relatives are the Sephardim, whose ancestors are also a mix of Levantine and south European because they left the Levant and migrated West across Roman N. Africa—likely living in heavilyGreek Alexandria and mixing somewhat with Greeks—until they got to Spain.

    "The time and place of European admixture in Ashkenazi Jewish history"

    http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1006644

    "AJ appeared in Europe in the 10th century, and their ancestry is thought to comprise European (EU) and Middle-Eastern (ME) components"..."The major source of EU ancestry in AJ was found to be Southern Europe (≈60–80% of EU ancestry),"

    Ashkenazic ancestry is about half Levantine, and close to half southern European (60-80% of the European ancestry is southern), with the rest being other European.

    "I recall the Cochran references to Italy but I am nor aware of his denying the Celtic (or Germanic). Maybe you can help."

    Cochran talks about it below (Ashkenazic European admixture is mostly-largely Italian (there could be some Celtic element—likely at least a little—but it is small, and the Germanic element generally smaller). He (Cochran) is likely incorrect however, about the very common Ashkenazic K mtdna haplotype (maternal lineage) not being Middle Eastern, as its Middle Eastern origin has been supported, not only by Behar, but by the recent Fernandez study (though many other Ashhenazic mtdna/maternal lineages—perhaps slightly over about half of them, with the paternal lineages being mostly Levantine/Mid Eastern—are in fact South European).

    https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2013/10/08/jewish-moms/

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jews#Female_lineages:_Mitochondrial_DNA

    "A 2014 study by Fernández et al. has found that Ashkenazi Jews display a frequency of haplogroup K in their maternal DNA that suggests an ancient Near Eastern origin, similar to the results of Behar. He stated that this observation clearly contradicts the results of the study led by Richards that suggested a European source for 3 exclusively Ashkenazi K lineages."

    Edit:
    “(though northerners also tend generally to be brunet rather than blond or particularly North European looking, if not mostly blackish-haired like many southerners…”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Fascinating. Thank you for all that. I shall have to send it on to my Rabbi friend (and tell him I don't think I any longer have a strong claim to call him cousin (i don't thonk he has any red hair!)

    I trust Wally and some of the other Koestler fans will read and absorb that.

    A related matter that intereats me is bottle necks and the growth of large endogamous populations from.very small ones. It is not only Ashlenazi Jews whom I would count on being able to recognise in their six or so commoneat physiognomies, but Koreans for another example whom I guess descend from say 50,000 people of 1500 years ago.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. helena says:

    As a rule of thumb, Jewish people are part Jewish and part whatever country(ies) their folks came from. Ashkenazi Europeans descend from Jewish men who married Italian women, moved north as a group and adopted East European food habits.

    But this thread is about Out of Africa versus Out of Asia hypotheses.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  176. Jm8 says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    I have often speculated that the very black Nilotics of NE an E Africa were descended in part from immigrants returning to Africa from Eurasia but it had never occurred to me that the Khoi San or pygmies were also descended from return flows of people. Actually pygmies outside Africa seem to have been neglected. How for example did NE Australia come to have a pygmy negrito population? Not much discussed. So.... sources and links please.

    “I have often speculated that the very black Nilotics of NE an E Africa were descended in part from immigrants returning to Africa from Eurasia but it had never occurred to me that the Khoi San or pygmies were also descended from return flows of people.”

    There is no evidence that they do. Nilotic groups (with the exception of a few with minor Cushitic admixture like the Massai and similar tribes who have some Cushitic ancestry as mentioned in the link) generally have little to no Eurasian ancestry (the purer Nilotes/Nilo-Saharans are concentrated around South and Central Sudan—see Tishkoff, the indigenous East African “East Africa cluster”, element predominates in them—and to lesser extent a few parts of Kenya/North Uganda). Pygmies and Khoisan do not really how evidence of such admixture (or Eurasian origins) either—they seem to have come mostly from very early diverging groups/branches of African homo sapiens that branched off within Africa even before the ancestors of most other subsaharan Africans did. One exception is minor admixture in several (especially pastoralist) Khoisan groups (introduced relatively recently, within the last few thousand years) coming from East African Cushites (who themselves had a minority or Eurasian ancestry) who brought pastoralism to the ancestors of some Khoisans like the Khoi Khoi.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nilotic_peoples#Genetics

    http://anthromadness.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-east-african-cluster.html

    Actually pygmies outside Africa seem to have been neglected. How for example did NE Australia come to have a pygmy negrito population? Not much discussed. So…. sources and links please.

    “Pygmies” from outside Africa (the various Negrito groups and the Andamanese) are not related to African Pygmies. their short stature evolved independently as they settled in various similar tropical forest environments (convergent evolution). There are several studies on them.

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/07/asian-negritos-are-not-one-population/#.WYMYw3eZOqk

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negrito

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negrito#Genetics

    Australia was likely settled by a few (at least two main) waves of people migrating along the coast of South Asia (whose out-of-Africa ancestors had remained in southern lands and retained their dark skin and other tropical traits), that later mixed in various proportions. The first may have been Negrito-like (related to the Negritos of South East Asia), with later waves more similar, and perhaps then more related to, the taller and less kinky-haired “proto Australoid” types of South India. Proto-Negrito derived tendencies (and cultures) my have survived in some parts of Australia more than others, and of course in Tasmania (where the natives had Negrito traits—probably descending mostly-entirely from the aforementioned first wave).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jm8
    Edit:
    "...East African Cushites (who themselves had a minority or Eurasian ancestry)"
    Should be: "a minority of Eurasian ancestry"
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Again many thanks. I was completely unsware of the multiple separate evolutions of pygmy people though aware of the theory that the Hobbit's size is thought to be an adaptation to a limiting and limited environment. How come the pygmy negrito hair? Is it just that all out of Africa people started with that hair?

    I particular enjoy your support for the idea that the pygmy negritos or their maybe taller forebears belonged to the first wave of Australisns. I find all the pious words about First Australians to be ignorant humbug given our necessary ignorance of much of the history of Aborigines in the 60,000 or so years to 1788.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. Jm8 says:
    @Jm8
    "I have often speculated that the very black Nilotics of NE an E Africa were descended in part from immigrants returning to Africa from Eurasia but it had never occurred to me that the Khoi San or pygmies were also descended from return flows of people."

    There is no evidence that they do. Nilotic groups (with the exception of a few with minor Cushitic admixture like the Massai and similar tribes who have some Cushitic ancestry as mentioned in the link) generally have little to no Eurasian ancestry (the purer Nilotes/Nilo-Saharans are concentrated around South and Central Sudan—see Tishkoff, the indigenous East African "East Africa cluster", element predominates in them—and to lesser extent a few parts of Kenya/North Uganda). Pygmies and Khoisan do not really how evidence of such admixture (or Eurasian origins) either—they seem to have come mostly from very early diverging groups/branches of African homo sapiens that branched off within Africa even before the ancestors of most other subsaharan Africans did. One exception is minor admixture in several (especially pastoralist) Khoisan groups (introduced relatively recently, within the last few thousand years) coming from East African Cushites (who themselves had a minority or Eurasian ancestry) who brought pastoralism to the ancestors of some Khoisans like the Khoi Khoi.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nilotic_peoples#Genetics

    http://anthromadness.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-east-african-cluster.html

    Actually pygmies outside Africa seem to have been neglected. How for example did NE Australia come to have a pygmy negrito population? Not much discussed. So…. sources and links please.

    "Pygmies" from outside Africa (the various Negrito groups and the Andamanese) are not related to African Pygmies. their short stature evolved independently as they settled in various similar tropical forest environments (convergent evolution). There are several studies on them.

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/07/asian-negritos-are-not-one-population/#.WYMYw3eZOqk

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negrito

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negrito#Genetics

    Australia was likely settled by a few (at least two main) waves of people migrating along the coast of South Asia (whose out-of-Africa ancestors had remained in southern lands and retained their dark skin and other tropical traits), that later mixed in various proportions. The first may have been Negrito-like (related to the Negritos of South East Asia), with later waves more similar, and perhaps then more related to, the taller and less kinky-haired "proto Australoid" types of South India. Proto-Negrito derived tendencies (and cultures) my have survived in some parts of Australia more than others, and of course in Tasmania (where the natives had Negrito traits—probably descending mostly-entirely from the aforementioned first wave).

    Edit:
    “…East African Cushites (who themselves had a minority or Eurasian ancestry)”
    Should be: “a minority of Eurasian ancestry”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. anarchyst says:
    @Anonymous

    Why is “theory” in quotes?
     
    Because evolution is fact, not theory. Wackadoodle creationists stridently insist it is but theory, somehow always invalid, always unfounded, always a product of godlessness -- meh, all the usual stupidass chickenshit that Believers trot out.

    Evolution is proven beyond all doubt. It is no longer a "theory"; it is a concrete edifice of verified fact.

    It is 2017. Anyone who insists that evolution is unproven is, typically, some variety of religious fanatic nutcake. He or she deserves nothing but dismissive contempt.

    Anyone who states that any branch of science is “settled” is a fool. Just look at the field day “climate change” skeptics are having with the “believers”, exposing their false “settled” science a a fraud upon humanity.
    The same situation exists with hardcore “evolutionists” who cannot prove with one shred of evidence that evolution takes place.
    If humans ascended from apes, why do apes still exist? It would seem that the superior species would have prospered while the lesser species would have become extinct.
    Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes while chimpanzees have 24. Evolutionary scientists believe that one of the human chromosomes has been formed through the fusion of two small chromosomes in the chimp instead of an intrinsic difference resulting from a separate creation.
    At the end of each chromosome is a string of repeating DNA sequences called a telomere. Chimpanzees and other apes have about 23 kilobases (a kilobase is 1,000 base pairs of DNA) of repeats. Humans are unique among primates with much shorter telomeres only 10 kilobases long.
    While 18 pairs of chromosomes are ‘virtually identical’, chromosomes 4, 9 and 12 show evidence of being ‘remodeled.’ In other words, the genes and markers on these chromosomes are not in the same order in the human and chimpanzee. Instead of ‘being remodeled’ as the evolutionists suggest, these could, logically, also be intrinsic differences because of a separate creation.
    The Y chromosome in particular is of a different size and has many markers that do not line up between the human and chimpanzee.
    Scientists have prepared a human-chimpanzee comparative clone map of chromosome 21 in particular. They observed ‘large, non-random regions of difference between the two genomes.’ They found a number of regions that ‘might correspond to insertions that are specific to the human lineage.’

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "The same situation exists with hardcore “evolutionists” who cannot prove with one shred of evidence that evolution takes place."

    Species change this is not up for debate.

    "If humans ascended from apes, why do apes still exist? It would seem that the superior species would have prospered while the lesser species would have become extinct."

    Already answered.

    And I already explained the chromosomal fusion.

    Anything Creationists have thought up has been summarily rebutted. It
    , @Anonymous

    Anyone who states that any branch of science is “settled” is a fool.
     
    Science? Like phrenology?

    Evolution is a fact, proven repeatedly, demonstrated with so much confirming data that most has not even been catalogued and cross-referenced. True well beyond the most trifling doubt.

    Now, what's NOT settled is the wild-ass bullshit that creationists and other snake-handling mystics will trot out. But they do. Every day, in every way.

    If humans ascended from apes, why do apes still exist? It would seem that the superior species would have prospered while the lesser species would have become extinct.
     
    Why would they die off? All they have to do is eat, sleep, and reproduce. You have a fundamental, and pathetic, misunderstanding of both "science" and evolution.

    All of which just wastes my time. You are an ignorant and quite pathetic ranter and raver for Jesus. Go away. Go tell some Negroes they should have died off when white people appeared. Mother of God, but people like you are stupid.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. @anarchyst
    Anyone who states that any branch of science is "settled" is a fool. Just look at the field day "climate change" skeptics are having with the "believers", exposing their false "settled" science a a fraud upon humanity.
    The same situation exists with hardcore "evolutionists" who cannot prove with one shred of evidence that evolution takes place.
    If humans ascended from apes, why do apes still exist? It would seem that the superior species would have prospered while the lesser species would have become extinct.
    Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes while chimpanzees have 24. Evolutionary scientists believe that one of the human chromosomes has been formed through the fusion of two small chromosomes in the chimp instead of an intrinsic difference resulting from a separate creation.
    At the end of each chromosome is a string of repeating DNA sequences called a telomere. Chimpanzees and other apes have about 23 kilobases (a kilobase is 1,000 base pairs of DNA) of repeats. Humans are unique among primates with much shorter telomeres only 10 kilobases long.
    While 18 pairs of chromosomes are ‘virtually identical’, chromosomes 4, 9 and 12 show evidence of being ‘remodeled.’ In other words, the genes and markers on these chromosomes are not in the same order in the human and chimpanzee. Instead of ‘being remodeled’ as the evolutionists suggest, these could, logically, also be intrinsic differences because of a separate creation.
    The Y chromosome in particular is of a different size and has many markers that do not line up between the human and chimpanzee.
    Scientists have prepared a human-chimpanzee comparative clone map of chromosome 21 in particular. They observed ‘large, non-random regions of difference between the two genomes.’ They found a number of regions that ‘might correspond to insertions that are specific to the human lineage.’

    “The same situation exists with hardcore “evolutionists” who cannot prove with one shred of evidence that evolution takes place.”

    Species change this is not up for debate.

    “If humans ascended from apes, why do apes still exist? It would seem that the superior species would have prospered while the lesser species would have become extinct.”

    Already answered.

    And I already explained the chromosomal fusion.

    Anything Creationists have thought up has been summarily rebutted. It

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. @Jm8
    Edit:
    "(though northerners also tend generally to be brunet rather than blond or particularly North European looking, if not mostly blackish-haired like many southerners..."

    Fascinating. Thank you for all that. I shall have to send it on to my Rabbi friend (and tell him I don’t think I any longer have a strong claim to call him cousin (i don’t thonk he has any red hair!)

    I trust Wally and some of the other Koestler fans will read and absorb that.

    A related matter that intereats me is bottle necks and the growth of large endogamous populations from.very small ones. It is not only Ashlenazi Jews whom I would count on being able to recognise in their six or so commoneat physiognomies, but Koreans for another example whom I guess descend from say 50,000 people of 1500 years ago.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jm8
    "I shall have to send it on to my Rabbi friend (and tell him I don’t think I any longer have a strong claim to call him cousin..."

    Perhaps not a strong or close claim, But perhaps, interestingly, a more distant one, since the Italic peoples—that the Jews mixed with (like the Romans Latins and their Italic-speaking cousins in Italy; the Faliscans, Oscans, Samnites, Adriatic Veneti) may be (though it is disputed) closer to Celts (and vice versa) in language affinity/origin (in the Indo-European ethnolinguistic tree) than either are to other Indo-European groups (Celtic and Italic are may be "sister branches" in the IE language family—though not as close for instance as Baltic/Slavic or Indic/Iranian).

    One reconstructed phylogeny (others differ slightly and not all include Italo-Celtic):
    https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/3850/is-there-a-named-common-ancestor-of-germanic-and-latin-besides-indo-european

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italo-Celtic
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. @Jm8
    "I have often speculated that the very black Nilotics of NE an E Africa were descended in part from immigrants returning to Africa from Eurasia but it had never occurred to me that the Khoi San or pygmies were also descended from return flows of people."

    There is no evidence that they do. Nilotic groups (with the exception of a few with minor Cushitic admixture like the Massai and similar tribes who have some Cushitic ancestry as mentioned in the link) generally have little to no Eurasian ancestry (the purer Nilotes/Nilo-Saharans are concentrated around South and Central Sudan—see Tishkoff, the indigenous East African "East Africa cluster", element predominates in them—and to lesser extent a few parts of Kenya/North Uganda). Pygmies and Khoisan do not really how evidence of such admixture (or Eurasian origins) either—they seem to have come mostly from very early diverging groups/branches of African homo sapiens that branched off within Africa even before the ancestors of most other subsaharan Africans did. One exception is minor admixture in several (especially pastoralist) Khoisan groups (introduced relatively recently, within the last few thousand years) coming from East African Cushites (who themselves had a minority or Eurasian ancestry) who brought pastoralism to the ancestors of some Khoisans like the Khoi Khoi.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nilotic_peoples#Genetics

    http://anthromadness.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-east-african-cluster.html

    Actually pygmies outside Africa seem to have been neglected. How for example did NE Australia come to have a pygmy negrito population? Not much discussed. So…. sources and links please.

    "Pygmies" from outside Africa (the various Negrito groups and the Andamanese) are not related to African Pygmies. their short stature evolved independently as they settled in various similar tropical forest environments (convergent evolution). There are several studies on them.

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/07/asian-negritos-are-not-one-population/#.WYMYw3eZOqk

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negrito

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negrito#Genetics

    Australia was likely settled by a few (at least two main) waves of people migrating along the coast of South Asia (whose out-of-Africa ancestors had remained in southern lands and retained their dark skin and other tropical traits), that later mixed in various proportions. The first may have been Negrito-like (related to the Negritos of South East Asia), with later waves more similar, and perhaps then more related to, the taller and less kinky-haired "proto Australoid" types of South India. Proto-Negrito derived tendencies (and cultures) my have survived in some parts of Australia more than others, and of course in Tasmania (where the natives had Negrito traits—probably descending mostly-entirely from the aforementioned first wave).

    Again many thanks. I was completely unsware of the multiple separate evolutions of pygmy people though aware of the theory that the Hobbit’s size is thought to be an adaptation to a limiting and limited environment. How come the pygmy negrito hair? Is it just that all out of Africa people started with that hair?

    I particular enjoy your support for the idea that the pygmy negritos or their maybe taller forebears belonged to the first wave of Australisns. I find all the pious words about First Australians to be ignorant humbug given our necessary ignorance of much of the history of Aborigines in the 60,000 or so years to 1788.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jm8
    "How come the pygmy negrito hair? Is it just that all out of Africa people started with that hair?"

    They most likely did. All native unmixed subsaharan groups (hover distantly related/unrelated: West and Central Africans, Nilotes, Pygmies, Hadzas, Khoisans, etc) have kinky/kinkier hair textures, as do some tropical Eurasians (who's ancestors have always lives in low latitudes): such as (Negritos, Andamanese, Tasmanian Aborigines, Papua New Guineans, and many-most Melanesians).
    , @RaceRealist88
    "that the Hobbit’s size is thought to be an adaptation to a limiting and limited environment"

    Correct. This is proof that evolution isn't "progressive" and that energy availability dictates body and brain size and if not enough available, reductions in both will occur.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/04/22/the-evolutionary-puzzle-of-floresiensis/

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/10/25/the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-for-more-evolved-and-progressive-evolution-1/

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/07/01/marching-up-the-evolutionary-tree/

    The same holds for Pygmies.

    Several human “pygmy” populations (people whose height does not exceed 150 centimeters, or 4.9 feet) have evolved in energy limited places like rain forests or islands. Perhaps the small size of the Dmanisi hominins from Georgia also reflected selection to save energy among the first colonists of Eurasia. (Lieberman, 2013: 391)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. Che Guava says:
    @Delinquent Snail
    Miyazaki does like to have little girls as the central characters. Could be a lolita thing, or could be to further emphasise the contrast of innocence and the harshness of reality. Grave of the fireflies, i think, showcases it best.

    Im not sure if i have a favorite one. Mononoke was good, and my kids love spirited away and totorro (that cat bus makes them light up with joy). I loved the style and the detail in howl's moving castle(i think that was the name).

    I was reading that theres another studio thats following in ghibli's art style, know anything about it?

    No. It is likely just a strange rumour because the son taking over.

    How could there be a point to it?

    For an adult, I would recommending some from Studio 4°C, and many by Mamoru Oshii, Ghost in the Shell the most famous, but many more are great.

    For a child, I would recommend Soviet animations of classic European fairy tales, also old Astro-boy, anything by Osamu Tezuka, incidentally, Miyazaki of Ghibli, said that his ambition was to surpass that cel-based style, but now that it is reliant on CG, that it is not meaning much now.

    Also, art animations from here, also from Warsaw Pact places, from Russia, Estonian, Czech makers excelled in USSR times. The Estonian studio still does, but not for children. The pre-semi-indepemce ones (the place moved from USSR to EUSSR, so not independent), many very beautiful.

    Also to recommending, Nagai Go’s Cutie Honey, turned into live action and effects by Hideaki Anno, alright for children, I think, but perhaps not for pubescent and adolescent men, the star as Cutie Honey, Eriko Sato, too stunnimg

    Sorry that I do not have concrete links to posting now, too tired.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. Jm8 says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    Fascinating. Thank you for all that. I shall have to send it on to my Rabbi friend (and tell him I don't think I any longer have a strong claim to call him cousin (i don't thonk he has any red hair!)

    I trust Wally and some of the other Koestler fans will read and absorb that.

    A related matter that intereats me is bottle necks and the growth of large endogamous populations from.very small ones. It is not only Ashlenazi Jews whom I would count on being able to recognise in their six or so commoneat physiognomies, but Koreans for another example whom I guess descend from say 50,000 people of 1500 years ago.

    “I shall have to send it on to my Rabbi friend (and tell him I don’t think I any longer have a strong claim to call him cousin…”

    Perhaps not a strong or close claim, But perhaps, interestingly, a more distant one, since the Italic peoples—that the Jews mixed with (like the Romans Latins and their Italic-speaking cousins in Italy; the Faliscans, Oscans, Samnites, Adriatic Veneti) may be (though it is disputed) closer to Celts (and vice versa) in language affinity/origin (in the Indo-European ethnolinguistic tree) than either are to other Indo-European groups (Celtic and Italic are may be “sister branches” in the IE language family—though not as close for instance as Baltic/Slavic or Indic/Iranian).

    One reconstructed phylogeny (others differ slightly and not all include Italo-Celtic):

    https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/3850/is-there-a-named-common-ancestor-of-germanic-and-latin-besides-indo-european

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italo-Celtic

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Is it not a striking feature of Ashkenazim that their Mediterranean heritage shows up as the cause of their resistance to alcoholism and just plain drunkenness?

    You might agree with me that the Mediterraneans have been practising with alcohol, and breeding out the village drunk, for perhaps 10,000 years, the northern Europeans for maybe 4000 and the unfortunate indigenes of Australia and the Americas for hardly any time at all.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. Jm8 says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    Again many thanks. I was completely unsware of the multiple separate evolutions of pygmy people though aware of the theory that the Hobbit's size is thought to be an adaptation to a limiting and limited environment. How come the pygmy negrito hair? Is it just that all out of Africa people started with that hair?

    I particular enjoy your support for the idea that the pygmy negritos or their maybe taller forebears belonged to the first wave of Australisns. I find all the pious words about First Australians to be ignorant humbug given our necessary ignorance of much of the history of Aborigines in the 60,000 or so years to 1788.

    “How come the pygmy negrito hair? Is it just that all out of Africa people started with that hair?”

    They most likely did. All native unmixed subsaharan groups (hover distantly related/unrelated: West and Central Africans, Nilotes, Pygmies, Hadzas, Khoisans, etc) have kinky/kinkier hair textures, as do some tropical Eurasians (who’s ancestors have always lives in low latitudes): such as (Negritos, Andamanese, Tasmanian Aborigines, Papua New Guineans, and many-most Melanesians).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. @Wizard of Oz
    Again many thanks. I was completely unsware of the multiple separate evolutions of pygmy people though aware of the theory that the Hobbit's size is thought to be an adaptation to a limiting and limited environment. How come the pygmy negrito hair? Is it just that all out of Africa people started with that hair?

    I particular enjoy your support for the idea that the pygmy negritos or their maybe taller forebears belonged to the first wave of Australisns. I find all the pious words about First Australians to be ignorant humbug given our necessary ignorance of much of the history of Aborigines in the 60,000 or so years to 1788.

    “that the Hobbit’s size is thought to be an adaptation to a limiting and limited environment”

    Correct. This is proof that evolution isn’t “progressive” and that energy availability dictates body and brain size and if not enough available, reductions in both will occur.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/04/22/the-evolutionary-puzzle-of-floresiensis/

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/10/25/the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-for-more-evolved-and-progressive-evolution-1/

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/07/01/marching-up-the-evolutionary-tree/

    The same holds for Pygmies.

    Several human “pygmy” populations (people whose height does not exceed 150 centimeters, or 4.9 feet) have evolved in energy limited places like rain forests or islands. Perhaps the small size of the Dmanisi hominins from Georgia also reflected selection to save energy among the first colonists of Eurasia. (Lieberman, 2013: 391)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    It would be interesting to know of cases where competing selective forces pulled/pushed in exactly opposie directions. For example in size. The large male obviously had a better chance of defending his family or clan and also perhaps of impregnating women. Large strong females? Apart from the large all round who benefitted from insulation of the core against cold....

    Perhaps small size wasn't just ctonducive to conservation of the food supply. Maybe being smaller was more efficient in some way if you didn't need to be able to wield the hesviest of spears. If you only needed to be good at finding some place to hide and a poison tipped darts were your weapon.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. @RaceRealist88
    "that the Hobbit’s size is thought to be an adaptation to a limiting and limited environment"

    Correct. This is proof that evolution isn't "progressive" and that energy availability dictates body and brain size and if not enough available, reductions in both will occur.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/04/22/the-evolutionary-puzzle-of-floresiensis/

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/10/25/the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-for-more-evolved-and-progressive-evolution-1/

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/07/01/marching-up-the-evolutionary-tree/

    The same holds for Pygmies.

    Several human “pygmy” populations (people whose height does not exceed 150 centimeters, or 4.9 feet) have evolved in energy limited places like rain forests or islands. Perhaps the small size of the Dmanisi hominins from Georgia also reflected selection to save energy among the first colonists of Eurasia. (Lieberman, 2013: 391)

    It would be interesting to know of cases where competing selective forces pulled/pushed in exactly opposie directions. For example in size. The large male obviously had a better chance of defending his family or clan and also perhaps of impregnating women. Large strong females? Apart from the large all round who benefitted from insulation of the core against cold….

    Perhaps small size wasn’t just ctonducive to conservation of the food supply. Maybe being smaller was more efficient in some way if you didn’t need to be able to wield the hesviest of spears. If you only needed to be good at finding some place to hide and a poison tipped darts were your weapon.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. @Jm8
    "I shall have to send it on to my Rabbi friend (and tell him I don’t think I any longer have a strong claim to call him cousin..."

    Perhaps not a strong or close claim, But perhaps, interestingly, a more distant one, since the Italic peoples—that the Jews mixed with (like the Romans Latins and their Italic-speaking cousins in Italy; the Faliscans, Oscans, Samnites, Adriatic Veneti) may be (though it is disputed) closer to Celts (and vice versa) in language affinity/origin (in the Indo-European ethnolinguistic tree) than either are to other Indo-European groups (Celtic and Italic are may be "sister branches" in the IE language family—though not as close for instance as Baltic/Slavic or Indic/Iranian).

    One reconstructed phylogeny (others differ slightly and not all include Italo-Celtic):
    https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/3850/is-there-a-named-common-ancestor-of-germanic-and-latin-besides-indo-european

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italo-Celtic

    Is it not a striking feature of Ashkenazim that their Mediterranean heritage shows up as the cause of their resistance to alcoholism and just plain drunkenness?

    You might agree with me that the Mediterraneans have been practising with alcohol, and breeding out the village drunk, for perhaps 10,000 years, the northern Europeans for maybe 4000 and the unfortunate indigenes of Australia and the Americas for hardly any time at all.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jm8
    "Is it not a striking feature of Ashkenazim that their Mediterranean heritage shows up as the cause of their resistance to alcoholism and just plain drunkenness?"

    I have though that also. They still seem to have a (to have preserved much of a) Mediterranean wine culture (such as that has traditionally existed/exists in the Mediterranean parts of Europe—esp the East Mediterranean—including the pre-Islamic Middle East. They drink small amounts (of wine usually) with meals, not do not typically traditionally "binge"—so t0 speak—or drink large amounts recreationally, or at once, as Northern Europeans sometimes seem to do.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. Jm8 says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    Is it not a striking feature of Ashkenazim that their Mediterranean heritage shows up as the cause of their resistance to alcoholism and just plain drunkenness?

    You might agree with me that the Mediterraneans have been practising with alcohol, and breeding out the village drunk, for perhaps 10,000 years, the northern Europeans for maybe 4000 and the unfortunate indigenes of Australia and the Americas for hardly any time at all.

    “Is it not a striking feature of Ashkenazim that their Mediterranean heritage shows up as the cause of their resistance to alcoholism and just plain drunkenness?”

    I have though that also. They still seem to have a (to have preserved much of a) Mediterranean wine culture (such as that has traditionally existed/exists in the Mediterranean parts of Europe—esp the East Mediterranean—including the pre-Islamic Middle East. They drink small amounts (of wine usually) with meals, not do not typically traditionally “binge”—so t0 speak—or drink large amounts recreationally, or at once, as Northern Europeans sometimes seem to do.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erebus
    I enjoyed your discussion to date. Fascinating.
    A few years ago I tried to interest myself in this area, but events overtook me. My rather raw interest at the time was piqued by this man's writings: http://www.michaelbradley.info

    Are either of you familiar with him? Is he worth the candle, or has his thesis been gainsaid?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. Truth says:
    @Delinquent Snail
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrayaan-1

    India's lunar mission.


    http://www.businessinsider.com/new-photos-of-the-china-moon-landing-mission-2016-2

    China's lunar mission.

    We (americans) went there 6 times. We left little mirrors on several missions. Universitys all over the world can point a laser at these little mirrors and measure the distance to the moon. If you had a powerful enough laser and a precise enough rig for it, you could do it yourself.


    That video is.... Well idk. I dont know who he is, and his eyes look a bit off, like he was recently concussed.

    You keep linking videos of crazy people. The person that made that video had several spelling errors and grammer errors, and not basic ones that are common and excusable. Seems like you keep getting (((wrong))) info from people that are both uneducated, and dumb. Those are not mutually exclusive, fyi. Dont want to have to post again correcting you.

    So you believe Don Petit, the longest running Astro-naught in the history of NASA’s explanation that we cannot return to the moon because “we lost 1967 technology and cannot re-create it”?

    I did not make this up, I linked him saying it earlier. You actually believe this?

    All space programs around the world, are an excuse to funnel tax monies into black-ops programs. Nothing more nothing less.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Pettit

    I was an atheist for the first 25 years of my life, a zen Buddhist for the next 25, and believe me Sir, If I so desired, I could make your argument better than you, on stage behind a podium without notes. Just believe me on this, It came to my understanding that everything in our common life; evolution, outer space, etc. is simply a blaspheme of God and the bible, so I converted to Christianity.

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+104%3A5-19&version=NIV

    Read More
    • LOL: Delinquent Snail
    • Troll: RaceRealist88
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    What else do you believe about the moon and earth? I love how flat Earth, moon-landing denial and Creationism seem to go hand in hand a lot. It makes it easier to identify the anti-science people.

    And I meant to hit the "LOL" button.
    , @Delinquent Snail
    No, i dont believe him. Like i said, the dude looks senile. I believe we live in a different time and we no longer have the "want" to go there as a people.

    Also, our rockets and space program were only able to flourish because we stole nazi scientists. They got us to the moon. So yeah, i can believe we've lost some of the tools that allowed us to get there.

    Having been an athiest, then buddist, why downgrade to Christianity? Its as fake as any other religion since mankind first started making stories to control the masses.

    There are no gods or devils except for the ones we make.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. @Truth
    So you believe Don Petit, the longest running Astro-naught in the history of NASA's explanation that we cannot return to the moon because "we lost 1967 technology and cannot re-create it"?

    I did not make this up, I linked him saying it earlier. You actually believe this?

    All space programs around the world, are an excuse to funnel tax monies into black-ops programs. Nothing more nothing less.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Pettit

    I was an atheist for the first 25 years of my life, a zen Buddhist for the next 25, and believe me Sir, If I so desired, I could make your argument better than you, on stage behind a podium without notes. Just believe me on this, It came to my understanding that everything in our common life; evolution, outer space, etc. is simply a blaspheme of God and the bible, so I converted to Christianity.


    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+104%3A5-19&version=NIV

    What else do you believe about the moon and earth? I love how flat Earth, moon-landing denial and Creationism seem to go hand in hand a lot. It makes it easier to identify the anti-science people.

    And I meant to hit the “LOL” button.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth
    First question:

    Do you believe that we cannot re-create 1967 technology?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. Truth says:
    @RaceRealist88
    What else do you believe about the moon and earth? I love how flat Earth, moon-landing denial and Creationism seem to go hand in hand a lot. It makes it easier to identify the anti-science people.

    And I meant to hit the "LOL" button.

    First question:

    Do you believe that we cannot re-create 1967 technology?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Truth
    You're not getting it, Sport, I'll try again:

    Evolution is a theory.

    Water flowing downhill is a scientific fact.

    I'm not sure how else I can explain this.

    You’re not getting it, Sport, I’ll try again:

    Evolution is a theory.

    LOL. You’re not getting it, Beavis. Evolution is a fact.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @anarchyst
    Anyone who states that any branch of science is "settled" is a fool. Just look at the field day "climate change" skeptics are having with the "believers", exposing their false "settled" science a a fraud upon humanity.
    The same situation exists with hardcore "evolutionists" who cannot prove with one shred of evidence that evolution takes place.
    If humans ascended from apes, why do apes still exist? It would seem that the superior species would have prospered while the lesser species would have become extinct.
    Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes while chimpanzees have 24. Evolutionary scientists believe that one of the human chromosomes has been formed through the fusion of two small chromosomes in the chimp instead of an intrinsic difference resulting from a separate creation.
    At the end of each chromosome is a string of repeating DNA sequences called a telomere. Chimpanzees and other apes have about 23 kilobases (a kilobase is 1,000 base pairs of DNA) of repeats. Humans are unique among primates with much shorter telomeres only 10 kilobases long.
    While 18 pairs of chromosomes are ‘virtually identical’, chromosomes 4, 9 and 12 show evidence of being ‘remodeled.’ In other words, the genes and markers on these chromosomes are not in the same order in the human and chimpanzee. Instead of ‘being remodeled’ as the evolutionists suggest, these could, logically, also be intrinsic differences because of a separate creation.
    The Y chromosome in particular is of a different size and has many markers that do not line up between the human and chimpanzee.
    Scientists have prepared a human-chimpanzee comparative clone map of chromosome 21 in particular. They observed ‘large, non-random regions of difference between the two genomes.’ They found a number of regions that ‘might correspond to insertions that are specific to the human lineage.’

    Anyone who states that any branch of science is “settled” is a fool.

    Science? Like phrenology?

    Evolution is a fact, proven repeatedly, demonstrated with so much confirming data that most has not even been catalogued and cross-referenced. True well beyond the most trifling doubt.

    Now, what’s NOT settled is the wild-ass bullshit that creationists and other snake-handling mystics will trot out. But they do. Every day, in every way.

    If humans ascended from apes, why do apes still exist? It would seem that the superior species would have prospered while the lesser species would have become extinct.

    Why would they die off? All they have to do is eat, sleep, and reproduce. You have a fundamental, and pathetic, misunderstanding of both “science” and evolution.

    All of which just wastes my time. You are an ignorant and quite pathetic ranter and raver for Jesus. Go away. Go tell some Negroes they should have died off when white people appeared. Mother of God, but people like you are stupid.

    Read More
    • Troll: anarchyst
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. @Truth
    So you believe Don Petit, the longest running Astro-naught in the history of NASA's explanation that we cannot return to the moon because "we lost 1967 technology and cannot re-create it"?

    I did not make this up, I linked him saying it earlier. You actually believe this?

    All space programs around the world, are an excuse to funnel tax monies into black-ops programs. Nothing more nothing less.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Pettit

    I was an atheist for the first 25 years of my life, a zen Buddhist for the next 25, and believe me Sir, If I so desired, I could make your argument better than you, on stage behind a podium without notes. Just believe me on this, It came to my understanding that everything in our common life; evolution, outer space, etc. is simply a blaspheme of God and the bible, so I converted to Christianity.


    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+104%3A5-19&version=NIV

    No, i dont believe him. Like i said, the dude looks senile. I believe we live in a different time and we no longer have the “want” to go there as a people.

    Also, our rockets and space program were only able to flourish because we stole nazi scientists. They got us to the moon. So yeah, i can believe we’ve lost some of the tools that allowed us to get there.

    Having been an athiest, then buddist, why downgrade to Christianity? Its as fake as any other religion since mankind first started making stories to control the masses.

    There are no gods or devils except for the ones we make.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth
    First of all, this official representative of NASA has said, he would love to go back to the moon.

    So the guy that NASA officials HAVE CHOSEN TO BE THE SPOKESMAN, and has a PhD in Chemical Engineering, and has been an Astro-naught for 21 years, is "senile"?!?

    And in an age in which we have self driving cars and more computing power in our cell-phones than the moon mission folks had in a room, we have "lost the tools to get us there" and cannot re-create them?!?!

    And these supposedly brilliant Nazi Scientists never wrote anything down? They never kept a record of what they were doing? They did all of those calculations IN THEIR HEADS?!?!?!

    And it is too complicated to get to the moon, because we do not have the technology (any more) but we are now working on a plan TO GO TO MARS?!?!

    I mean, think about what you wrote here for a second. Am I actually understanding your position or did I miss something?

    You are, in my estimation making these arguments from a position of pure scientific logic, correct?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. Truth says:

    Why would they die off? All they have to do is eat, sleep, and reproduce. You have a fundamental, and pathetic, misunderstanding of both “science” and evolution.

    So let me see if I understand this; apes had a choice as to whether they evolved or not? It was kind of like; “OK Bobby, me, Mike and Jane are going to have descendants that are a little more “human” whatever that is, and you Dave and Regina are going to keep your non-opposed thumbs”. Is that how it worked?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    So let me see if I understand this; apes had a choice as to whether they evolved or not?
     
    You are nuts.

    Good-bye.
    , @RaceRealist88
    "So let me see if I understand this; apes had a choice as to whether they evolved or not? It was kind of like; “OK Bobby, me, Mike and Jane are going to have descendants that are a little more “human” whatever that is, and you Dave and Regina are going to keep your non-opposed thumbs”. Is that how it worked?"

    This is so funny.

    Yes organisms "have a choice" in whether they evolve or not by passing their genes to the next generation. But not a conscious "choice" (unless we're talking about humans today I'm the CRISPR/CAS9 age) like "I'm going to evolve into this because of this".

    Read some Richard Dawkins and then comment again if you're still finding it hard to grasp.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. Truth says:
    @Delinquent Snail
    No, i dont believe him. Like i said, the dude looks senile. I believe we live in a different time and we no longer have the "want" to go there as a people.

    Also, our rockets and space program were only able to flourish because we stole nazi scientists. They got us to the moon. So yeah, i can believe we've lost some of the tools that allowed us to get there.

    Having been an athiest, then buddist, why downgrade to Christianity? Its as fake as any other religion since mankind first started making stories to control the masses.

    There are no gods or devils except for the ones we make.

    First of all, this official representative of NASA has said, he would love to go back to the moon.

    So the guy that NASA officials HAVE CHOSEN TO BE THE SPOKESMAN, and has a PhD in Chemical Engineering, and has been an Astro-naught for 21 years, is “senile”?!?

    And in an age in which we have self driving cars and more computing power in our cell-phones than the moon mission folks had in a room, we have “lost the tools to get us there” and cannot re-create them?!?!

    And these supposedly brilliant Nazi Scientists never wrote anything down? They never kept a record of what they were doing? They did all of those calculations IN THEIR HEADS?!?!?!

    And it is too complicated to get to the moon, because we do not have the technology (any more) but we are now working on a plan TO GO TO MARS?!?!

    I mean, think about what you wrote here for a second. Am I actually understanding your position or did I miss something?

    You are, in my estimation making these arguments from a position of pure scientific logic, correct?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Delinquent Snail
    You are an idiot. Read the links in post 167. Other nations have been there.

    Nasa doesnt have the means anymore. They stopped using their big first stage booster rockets years ago. Thats why american astronauts use Russian rockets to get to space.

    Nasa can recreate them, but theres no point. There were too many accidents where people were incinerated and americas gov't doesn't want to spend money on space. Its all being funneled into banks/globalists/MIC.
    , @Delinquent Snail
    As a side comment, nasa recently pushed the revisionist history movie about a black lady that saved the day when the scientist and engineers that made the systems couldnt solve a few math problems.

    Their choice of representatives could clearly use some improvements.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  197. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Truth


    Why would they die off? All they have to do is eat, sleep, and reproduce. You have a fundamental, and pathetic, misunderstanding of both “science” and evolution.
     
    So let me see if I understand this; apes had a choice as to whether they evolved or not? It was kind of like; "OK Bobby, me, Mike and Jane are going to have descendants that are a little more "human" whatever that is, and you Dave and Regina are going to keep your non-opposed thumbs". Is that how it worked?

    So let me see if I understand this; apes had a choice as to whether they evolved or not?

    You are nuts.

    Good-bye.

    Read More
    • Agree: Delinquent Snail
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. @Truth


    Why would they die off? All they have to do is eat, sleep, and reproduce. You have a fundamental, and pathetic, misunderstanding of both “science” and evolution.
     
    So let me see if I understand this; apes had a choice as to whether they evolved or not? It was kind of like; "OK Bobby, me, Mike and Jane are going to have descendants that are a little more "human" whatever that is, and you Dave and Regina are going to keep your non-opposed thumbs". Is that how it worked?

    “So let me see if I understand this; apes had a choice as to whether they evolved or not? It was kind of like; “OK Bobby, me, Mike and Jane are going to have descendants that are a little more “human” whatever that is, and you Dave and Regina are going to keep your non-opposed thumbs”. Is that how it worked?”

    This is so funny.

    Yes organisms “have a choice” in whether they evolve or not by passing their genes to the next generation. But not a conscious “choice” (unless we’re talking about humans today I’m the CRISPR/CAS9 age) like “I’m going to evolve into this because of this”.

    Read some Richard Dawkins and then comment again if you’re still finding it hard to grasp.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth
    But the question remains; "If apes evolved into humans, why are there still apes"?

    Obviously at some point you had two apes, one's lineage went toward human, the other's stayed Simian, my simple questions are, how? and why?

    Did one eat different bananas, drink different spring water? Did the albino apes not want to associate anymore with the black ones in the tribe, what?

    (BTW; "I don't know" is a suitable response).

    , @Delinquent Snail
    Crisper is kind of scary. We can easily get into a scenerio where genetically super humans dominate within a 2 generation gap and easily wipe out the "normies". Or we could fuck something up real bad and permently damage something that doesnt become apparent for a generation or 2, like making people less susceptible to cancer but it causes serious defects in the offspring. Who knows?

    It could be used for all kinds of amazing things. Make a genetic variant of current humans that are suited to deep space or remove diseases and physical deformities.

    Knowing humans tho, we wont use it for good. Look at nuclear power for a fine example. We have the ability to power our planet safely for generations, yet we would rather use it to decimate huge areas and poison other groups.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  199. Truth says:
    @RaceRealist88
    "So let me see if I understand this; apes had a choice as to whether they evolved or not? It was kind of like; “OK Bobby, me, Mike and Jane are going to have descendants that are a little more “human” whatever that is, and you Dave and Regina are going to keep your non-opposed thumbs”. Is that how it worked?"

    This is so funny.

    Yes organisms "have a choice" in whether they evolve or not by passing their genes to the next generation. But not a conscious "choice" (unless we're talking about humans today I'm the CRISPR/CAS9 age) like "I'm going to evolve into this because of this".

    Read some Richard Dawkins and then comment again if you're still finding it hard to grasp.

    But the question remains; “If apes evolved into humans, why are there still apes”?

    Obviously at some point you had two apes, one’s lineage went toward human, the other’s stayed Simian, my simple questions are, how? and why?

    Did one eat different bananas, drink different spring water? Did the albino apes not want to associate anymore with the black ones in the tribe, what?

    (BTW; “I don’t know” is a suitable response).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Delinquent Snail
    It was a COMMON ANCESTOR to both humans and apes. That COMMON ANCESTOR became human, chimp and probably a few other species. Humans and chimps just adapted better.

    Just like how HUMANS and DOGS have a common ancestor. Its a lot further back in time, but we came from the same rodent.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  200. @Truth
    First of all, this official representative of NASA has said, he would love to go back to the moon.

    So the guy that NASA officials HAVE CHOSEN TO BE THE SPOKESMAN, and has a PhD in Chemical Engineering, and has been an Astro-naught for 21 years, is "senile"?!?

    And in an age in which we have self driving cars and more computing power in our cell-phones than the moon mission folks had in a room, we have "lost the tools to get us there" and cannot re-create them?!?!

    And these supposedly brilliant Nazi Scientists never wrote anything down? They never kept a record of what they were doing? They did all of those calculations IN THEIR HEADS?!?!?!

    And it is too complicated to get to the moon, because we do not have the technology (any more) but we are now working on a plan TO GO TO MARS?!?!

    I mean, think about what you wrote here for a second. Am I actually understanding your position or did I miss something?

    You are, in my estimation making these arguments from a position of pure scientific logic, correct?

    You are an idiot. Read the links in post 167. Other nations have been there.

    Nasa doesnt have the means anymore. They stopped using their big first stage booster rockets years ago. Thats why american astronauts use Russian rockets to get to space.

    Nasa can recreate them, but theres no point. There were too many accidents where people were incinerated and americas gov’t doesn’t want to spend money on space. Its all being funneled into banks/globalists/MIC.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  201. @Truth
    But the question remains; "If apes evolved into humans, why are there still apes"?

    Obviously at some point you had two apes, one's lineage went toward human, the other's stayed Simian, my simple questions are, how? and why?

    Did one eat different bananas, drink different spring water? Did the albino apes not want to associate anymore with the black ones in the tribe, what?

    (BTW; "I don't know" is a suitable response).

    It was a COMMON ANCESTOR to both humans and apes. That COMMON ANCESTOR became human, chimp and probably a few other species. Humans and chimps just adapted better.

    Just like how HUMANS and DOGS have a common ancestor. Its a lot further back in time, but we came from the same rodent.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth
    Well great; let me know when they find remains of the common ancestor" (aka: Missing link) because to the best of my knowledge, they have not and have been looking for two centuries.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  202. @Truth
    First of all, this official representative of NASA has said, he would love to go back to the moon.

    So the guy that NASA officials HAVE CHOSEN TO BE THE SPOKESMAN, and has a PhD in Chemical Engineering, and has been an Astro-naught for 21 years, is "senile"?!?

    And in an age in which we have self driving cars and more computing power in our cell-phones than the moon mission folks had in a room, we have "lost the tools to get us there" and cannot re-create them?!?!

    And these supposedly brilliant Nazi Scientists never wrote anything down? They never kept a record of what they were doing? They did all of those calculations IN THEIR HEADS?!?!?!

    And it is too complicated to get to the moon, because we do not have the technology (any more) but we are now working on a plan TO GO TO MARS?!?!

    I mean, think about what you wrote here for a second. Am I actually understanding your position or did I miss something?

    You are, in my estimation making these arguments from a position of pure scientific logic, correct?

    As a side comment, nasa recently pushed the revisionist history movie about a black lady that saved the day when the scientist and engineers that made the systems couldnt solve a few math problems.

    Their choice of representatives could clearly use some improvements.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth
    Glib response, but somewhat cliche and not particularly satisfying.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  203. @RaceRealist88
    "So let me see if I understand this; apes had a choice as to whether they evolved or not? It was kind of like; “OK Bobby, me, Mike and Jane are going to have descendants that are a little more “human” whatever that is, and you Dave and Regina are going to keep your non-opposed thumbs”. Is that how it worked?"

    This is so funny.

    Yes organisms "have a choice" in whether they evolve or not by passing their genes to the next generation. But not a conscious "choice" (unless we're talking about humans today I'm the CRISPR/CAS9 age) like "I'm going to evolve into this because of this".

    Read some Richard Dawkins and then comment again if you're still finding it hard to grasp.

    Crisper is kind of scary. We can easily get into a scenerio where genetically super humans dominate within a 2 generation gap and easily wipe out the “normies”. Or we could fuck something up real bad and permently damage something that doesnt become apparent for a generation or 2, like making people less susceptible to cancer but it causes serious defects in the offspring. Who knows?

    It could be used for all kinds of amazing things. Make a genetic variant of current humans that are suited to deep space or remove diseases and physical deformities.

    Knowing humans tho, we wont use it for good. Look at nuclear power for a fine example. We have the ability to power our planet safely for generations, yet we would rather use it to decimate huge areas and poison other groups.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    We can easily get into a scenerio where genetically super humans dominate within a 2 generation gap and easily wipe out the “normies”.
     
    Very unlikely. Adaptive mutations are vanishingly rare -- 0.001%. Take a separation evolutionarily very big, like Neandertals and Cro-Mags (or equivalent -- pick your homo variant). Very little actual conflict, and that was a major sub-species break. It was once suggested the Cro-Mag killed off the Neandertals, but more modern research suggests they were wiped out by disease to which Cro-Mag could acquire immunity.

    Furthermore, adaptive mutations have to breed true back to existing populations, because it's not like all of a sudden every female drops a homo superior infant. The mutation must be genetically dominant, or it dies out immediately.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  204. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Delinquent Snail
    Crisper is kind of scary. We can easily get into a scenerio where genetically super humans dominate within a 2 generation gap and easily wipe out the "normies". Or we could fuck something up real bad and permently damage something that doesnt become apparent for a generation or 2, like making people less susceptible to cancer but it causes serious defects in the offspring. Who knows?

    It could be used for all kinds of amazing things. Make a genetic variant of current humans that are suited to deep space or remove diseases and physical deformities.

    Knowing humans tho, we wont use it for good. Look at nuclear power for a fine example. We have the ability to power our planet safely for generations, yet we would rather use it to decimate huge areas and poison other groups.

    We can easily get into a scenerio where genetically super humans dominate within a 2 generation gap and easily wipe out the “normies”.

    Very unlikely. Adaptive mutations are vanishingly rare — 0.001%. Take a separation evolutionarily very big, like Neandertals and Cro-Mags (or equivalent — pick your homo variant). Very little actual conflict, and that was a major sub-species break. It was once suggested the Cro-Mag killed off the Neandertals, but more modern research suggests they were wiped out by disease to which Cro-Mag could acquire immunity.

    Furthermore, adaptive mutations have to breed true back to existing populations, because it’s not like all of a sudden every female drops a homo superior infant. The mutation must be genetically dominant, or it dies out immediately.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Delinquent Snail
    (ive left this comment close to a dozen times now, its lost some of eloquence in that many rewrites lol. I dont know why it wont post)

    What you describe is the natural process. Crispr can use an expanded library of genes to pick and choose what genes to add and remove from the target. If you are interested, check out this ted talk. Its about "designer babies" and how it can quickly spiral out of control.

    I dont think i can link the video

    Search ted talk and designer baby on youtube.

    Its well worth the search and the time to watch.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  205. Truth says:
    @Delinquent Snail
    It was a COMMON ANCESTOR to both humans and apes. That COMMON ANCESTOR became human, chimp and probably a few other species. Humans and chimps just adapted better.

    Just like how HUMANS and DOGS have a common ancestor. Its a lot further back in time, but we came from the same rodent.

    Well great; let me know when they find remains of the common ancestor” (aka: Missing link) because to the best of my knowledge, they have not and have been looking for two centuries.

    Read More
    • Replies: @helena
    What's the alternative - that every plant and animal and microorganism has an individual design plan? That's a lot of plans, where are they? Let me know when you've found one.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  206. Truth says:
    @Delinquent Snail
    As a side comment, nasa recently pushed the revisionist history movie about a black lady that saved the day when the scientist and engineers that made the systems couldnt solve a few math problems.

    Their choice of representatives could clearly use some improvements.

    Glib response, but somewhat cliche and not particularly satisfying.

    Read More
    • LOL: Delinquent Snail
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  207. Erebus says:
    @Jm8
    "Is it not a striking feature of Ashkenazim that their Mediterranean heritage shows up as the cause of their resistance to alcoholism and just plain drunkenness?"

    I have though that also. They still seem to have a (to have preserved much of a) Mediterranean wine culture (such as that has traditionally existed/exists in the Mediterranean parts of Europe—esp the East Mediterranean—including the pre-Islamic Middle East. They drink small amounts (of wine usually) with meals, not do not typically traditionally "binge"—so t0 speak—or drink large amounts recreationally, or at once, as Northern Europeans sometimes seem to do.

    I enjoyed your discussion to date. Fascinating.
    A few years ago I tried to interest myself in this area, but events overtook me. My rather raw interest at the time was piqued by this man’s writings: http://www.michaelbradley.info

    Are either of you familiar with him? Is he worth the candle, or has his thesis been gainsaid?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  208. helena says:
    @Truth
    Well great; let me know when they find remains of the common ancestor" (aka: Missing link) because to the best of my knowledge, they have not and have been looking for two centuries.

    What’s the alternative – that every plant and animal and microorganism has an individual design plan? That’s a lot of plans, where are they? Let me know when you’ve found one.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth
    I'm not sure this is really controversial:

    A. In the year 2017 there are humans

    B. In the year 2017 there are chimpanzees

    C. I have personally witnessed both

    D. According to some, humans are descended from chimpanzees

    E. There should be chimpumans or in the LEAST strange scenario, the remains of chimpumans

    F. There are no chimpumans, and no scientist has EVER found one

    G. This leads me to believe that humans do not share a common relative with chimpanzees

    A fairly straightforward logical syllogism.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  209. Truth says:
    @helena
    What's the alternative - that every plant and animal and microorganism has an individual design plan? That's a lot of plans, where are they? Let me know when you've found one.

    I’m not sure this is really controversial:

    A. In the year 2017 there are humans

    B. In the year 2017 there are chimpanzees

    C. I have personally witnessed both

    D. According to some, humans are descended from chimpanzees

    E. There should be chimpumans or in the LEAST strange scenario, the remains of chimpumans

    F. There are no chimpumans, and no scientist has EVER found one

    G. This leads me to believe that humans do not share a common relative with chimpanzees

    A fairly straightforward logical syllogism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @helena
    A. In the year 2017 there are humans
    B. In the year 2017 there are chimpanzees
    C. I have personally witnessed both
    D. According to some, humans are a unique design that came out of nowhere, and so are chimpanzees, and every other living thing
    E. There should be design plans or in the LEAST strange scenario, the remains of plans
    F. There are no plans, and no scientist has EVER found one
    G. This leads me to believe that no plans were made for living things

    A fairly straightforward logical syllogism.
    , @RaceRealist88
    "According to some, humans are descended from chimpanzees"

    We share a common ancestor, we are not descended from Chimpanzees.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  210. helena says:
    @Truth
    I'm not sure this is really controversial:

    A. In the year 2017 there are humans

    B. In the year 2017 there are chimpanzees

    C. I have personally witnessed both

    D. According to some, humans are descended from chimpanzees

    E. There should be chimpumans or in the LEAST strange scenario, the remains of chimpumans

    F. There are no chimpumans, and no scientist has EVER found one

    G. This leads me to believe that humans do not share a common relative with chimpanzees

    A fairly straightforward logical syllogism.

    A. In the year 2017 there are humans
    B. In the year 2017 there are chimpanzees
    C. I have personally witnessed both
    D. According to some, humans are a unique design that came out of nowhere, and so are chimpanzees, and every other living thing
    E. There should be design plans or in the LEAST strange scenario, the remains of plans
    F. There are no plans, and no scientist has EVER found one
    G. This leads me to believe that no plans were made for living things

    A fairly straightforward logical syllogism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth

    D. According to some, humans are a unique design that came out of nowhere, and so are chimpanzees, and every other living thing
    E. There should be design plans or in the LEAST strange scenario, the remains of plans
    F. There are no plans, and no scientist has EVER found one
     
    BEHOLD! TRUTHOLIO HAS DECIPHERED FOR YOU PUNY, AND UNWORTHY HUMANS THE GREAT, AND MYSTERIOUS PLAN!!!...*

    https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/


    *actually, I had a copy sitting in my briefcase and I found this one on Google, but if you want to look at me as your sovereign and grand commander, I will get used to it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  211. @Truth
    I'm not sure this is really controversial:

    A. In the year 2017 there are humans

    B. In the year 2017 there are chimpanzees

    C. I have personally witnessed both

    D. According to some, humans are descended from chimpanzees

    E. There should be chimpumans or in the LEAST strange scenario, the remains of chimpumans

    F. There are no chimpumans, and no scientist has EVER found one

    G. This leads me to believe that humans do not share a common relative with chimpanzees

    A fairly straightforward logical syllogism.

    “According to some, humans are descended from chimpanzees”

    We share a common ancestor, we are not descended from Chimpanzees.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth
    OK, if you insist, I'll play semantically stupid....

    "Then where (sigh) is the common (here we go again) ancestor, (man do I get tired of repeating this) because they ain't walkin' around today, nor have we (you can fill in the end here) found any remains.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  212. Truth says:
    @helena
    A. In the year 2017 there are humans
    B. In the year 2017 there are chimpanzees
    C. I have personally witnessed both
    D. According to some, humans are a unique design that came out of nowhere, and so are chimpanzees, and every other living thing
    E. There should be design plans or in the LEAST strange scenario, the remains of plans
    F. There are no plans, and no scientist has EVER found one
    G. This leads me to believe that no plans were made for living things

    A fairly straightforward logical syllogism.

    D. According to some, humans are a unique design that came out of nowhere, and so are chimpanzees, and every other living thing
    E. There should be design plans or in the LEAST strange scenario, the remains of plans
    F. There are no plans, and no scientist has EVER found one

    BEHOLD! TRUTHOLIO HAS DECIPHERED FOR YOU PUNY, AND UNWORTHY HUMANS THE GREAT, AND MYSTERIOUS PLAN!!!…*

    https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/

    *actually, I had a copy sitting in my briefcase and I found this one on Google, but if you want to look at me as your sovereign and grand commander, I will get used to it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @helena
    Ha ha. I love Anglican humour.

    Only this year I saw an original first edition, in the flesh. Lucky me.

    , @Delinquent Snail
    A book re written from previou books that were rewritten from previous versions of random personal testimonies just so a monarch could divorce his wife is a terrible "proof".

    Your line of argument is just pathetic.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  213. Truth says:
    @RaceRealist88
    "According to some, humans are descended from chimpanzees"

    We share a common ancestor, we are not descended from Chimpanzees.

    OK, if you insist, I’ll play semantically stupid….

    “Then where (sigh) is the common (here we go again) ancestor, (man do I get tired of repeating this) because they ain’t walkin’ around today, nor have we (you can fill in the end here) found any remains.

    Read More
    • Replies: @helena
    I had a look at this http://www.icr.org/article/6491/372/.

    He doesn't understand that the specific missing link doesn't need to be found. That's the beauty of what Darwin did - he ventured a theory about a process .

    It's not a prize crossword that you can't submit because there's one clue you can't get.

    We've all got the prize.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  214. helena says:
    @Truth

    D. According to some, humans are a unique design that came out of nowhere, and so are chimpanzees, and every other living thing
    E. There should be design plans or in the LEAST strange scenario, the remains of plans
    F. There are no plans, and no scientist has EVER found one
     
    BEHOLD! TRUTHOLIO HAS DECIPHERED FOR YOU PUNY, AND UNWORTHY HUMANS THE GREAT, AND MYSTERIOUS PLAN!!!...*

    https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/


    *actually, I had a copy sitting in my briefcase and I found this one on Google, but if you want to look at me as your sovereign and grand commander, I will get used to it.

    Ha ha. I love Anglican humour.

    Only this year I saw an original first edition, in the flesh. Lucky me.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  215. @Truth

    D. According to some, humans are a unique design that came out of nowhere, and so are chimpanzees, and every other living thing
    E. There should be design plans or in the LEAST strange scenario, the remains of plans
    F. There are no plans, and no scientist has EVER found one
     
    BEHOLD! TRUTHOLIO HAS DECIPHERED FOR YOU PUNY, AND UNWORTHY HUMANS THE GREAT, AND MYSTERIOUS PLAN!!!...*

    https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/


    *actually, I had a copy sitting in my briefcase and I found this one on Google, but if you want to look at me as your sovereign and grand commander, I will get used to it.

    A book re written from previou books that were rewritten from previous versions of random personal testimonies just so a monarch could divorce his wife is a terrible “proof”.

    Your line of argument is just pathetic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth
    Read Titus 1:14 and you will understand your problem.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  216. helena says:
    @Truth
    OK, if you insist, I'll play semantically stupid....

    "Then where (sigh) is the common (here we go again) ancestor, (man do I get tired of repeating this) because they ain't walkin' around today, nor have we (you can fill in the end here) found any remains.

    I had a look at this http://www.icr.org/article/6491/372/.

    He doesn’t understand that the specific missing link doesn’t need to be found. That’s the beauty of what Darwin did – he ventured a theory about a process .

    It’s not a prize crossword that you can’t submit because there’s one clue you can’t get.

    We’ve all got the prize.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth
    From your link:

    How could billions of DNA differences have evolved in just four million years? It's impossible.7 Humans and chimpanzees were distinctly and uniquely created after all.
    , @RaceRealist88
    "He doesn’t understand that the specific missing link doesn’t need to be found."

    He doesn't understand that the "missing link" is medieval garbage. Scientists aren't looking for a "mission link".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  217. @Anonymous

    We can easily get into a scenerio where genetically super humans dominate within a 2 generation gap and easily wipe out the “normies”.
     
    Very unlikely. Adaptive mutations are vanishingly rare -- 0.001%. Take a separation evolutionarily very big, like Neandertals and Cro-Mags (or equivalent -- pick your homo variant). Very little actual conflict, and that was a major sub-species break. It was once suggested the Cro-Mag killed off the Neandertals, but more modern research suggests they were wiped out by disease to which Cro-Mag could acquire immunity.

    Furthermore, adaptive mutations have to breed true back to existing populations, because it's not like all of a sudden every female drops a homo superior infant. The mutation must be genetically dominant, or it dies out immediately.

    (ive left this comment close to a dozen times now, its lost some of eloquence in that many rewrites lol. I dont know why it wont post)

    What you describe is the natural process. Crispr can use an expanded library of genes to pick and choose what genes to add and remove from the target. If you are interested, check out this ted talk. Its about “designer babies” and how it can quickly spiral out of control.

    I dont think i can link the video

    Search ted talk and designer baby on youtube.

    Its well worth the search and the time to watch.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Its well worth the search and the time to watch.
     
    No, it isn't.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  218. Truth says:
    @Delinquent Snail
    A book re written from previou books that were rewritten from previous versions of random personal testimonies just so a monarch could divorce his wife is a terrible "proof".

    Your line of argument is just pathetic.

    Read Titus 1:14 and you will understand your problem.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Delinquent Snail
    Better yet, why dont you put down the "good book" (lol) and read a few books from people that put logic and deductive reasoning above blind faith. You will quickly see that christianity, and most, if not all, religions, are bogus. They are a construct to keep unruly masses in line. And the best way to do that, is to threaten the people with eternal pain and suffering if they dont follow the societal norms of the time.

    Why do you think there are specific words to discredit anyone that asks critical questions about the stories? Why do you think people are prosecuted and tortured to "convert"?

    If the story or event cant handle simple questions being leveled against it, or immediately shuts down any critacal discussion, chances are high its BS.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  219. Truth says:
    @helena
    I had a look at this http://www.icr.org/article/6491/372/.

    He doesn't understand that the specific missing link doesn't need to be found. That's the beauty of what Darwin did - he ventured a theory about a process .

    It's not a prize crossword that you can't submit because there's one clue you can't get.

    We've all got the prize.

    From your link:

    How could billions of DNA differences have evolved in just four million years? It’s impossible.7 Humans and chimpanzees were distinctly and uniquely created after all.

    Read More
    • Replies: @helena
    "How could billions of DNA differences have evolved in just four million years?"

    God knows.
    Don't lose the faith, his works are truly wondrous to behold.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  220. @Truth
    Read Titus 1:14 and you will understand your problem.

    Better yet, why dont you put down the “good book” (lol) and read a few books from people that put logic and deductive reasoning above blind faith. You will quickly see that christianity, and most, if not all, religions, are bogus. They are a construct to keep unruly masses in line. And the best way to do that, is to threaten the people with eternal pain and suffering if they dont follow the societal norms of the time.

    Why do you think there are specific words to discredit anyone that asks critical questions about the stories? Why do you think people are prosecuted a