The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
The Last Wild Australian Aboriginals
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks


There were small bands of uncontacted Aboriginals wandering the wastelands of Australia into the 1980s. Here’s the interesting story of the Pintupi 9 from the BBC:

The day the Pintupi Nine entered the modern world
By Alana Mahony
23 December 2014

In 1984 a group of Australian Aboriginal people living a traditional nomadic life were encountered in the heart of the Gibson desert in Western Australia. They had been unaware of the arrival of Europeans on the continent, let alone cars – or even clothes.

If you want to know how Australian Aboriginal peoples lived for 40,000 years, just ask Yukultji. She stepped into the 20th Century just 30 years ago. She is the youngest member of the Pintupi Nine, the last family of nomads to roam the territory around Lake Mackay, a vast glistening salt lake spanning 3,500 sq km (1,350 sq miles) between the Gibson and Great Sandy deserts of Western Australia.

“When I was young I would play on the sand dune and when we saw the old people returning to camp we would go back and see what food they had brought with them. After we ate we’d go to sleep. No blanket, we would sleep on the ground,” says Yukultji.

“Then we would go to another waterhole and make another camp.”

Before 1984, the Pintupi Nine lived just as their ancestors had done. Waterholes in this area are often 40km (25 miles) apart or more, and every day was spent walking in the relentless heat from one to another. “Sometimes there was no water, so we would hunt for goanna,” says Yukultji. The blood of these monitor lizards provided vital moisture when a water soak was dry.

Presumably, Aborigines who lived around, say, modern Melbourne had it a little easier in terms of how many miles they had to walk each day to survive. But much of Australia is pretty useless terrain with little rain and ancient, worn-out soil, and it’s not surprising that some of the last independent bands were in the regions of least use to sheep-ranchers and the like.

The discovery of the group caused a media sensation, but headlines referring to the “lost tribe” annoyed them – they weren’t lost, they insist, just separated from their relatives, and other members of the Pintupi clan.

The Nine consisted of two sisters and their seven teenage children – four brothers and three sisters, who shared one father. So how had they become so isolated?

In the 1950s the British began conducting Blue Streak Missile tests over the Western Desert region, and the Australian government decided to “round up” the desert nomads and move them into settlements. All of the Pintupi were taken away apart from this one family, which was overlooked. From then on, suddenly alone in the desert, they saw very few signs of anyone else’s existence.

Yukultji remembers seeing aircraft when she was very young. “The plane would fly over and we would hide in the tree. We would see the wings of the plane and we would get frightened. We thought it was the devil and so we kept hiding under the tree. When the plane had passed we would climb down from the tree.”

Her older sister, Takariya, remembers coming across a plane that had crashed. “We found some rope in it and we tied it around our waist. We didn’t know it was rope. We would tie it around our waist so that we could hang our goannas from it,” she says.

Eventually, they stumbled upon some distant relatives in modern clothes camping in the bush. After a few tense moments of spearwaving, they recognized each other and got along well.

McMahon [the first white man they ever met, now a famous one-armed didgeridoo player] did not want to put the group under any pressure to join the community, but he witnessed the moment they were persuaded. “It was unthinkable that they would stay out there because the modern world was so seductive. One of the fellows suggested, ‘Give them a taste of the sugar and they’ll be in for sure.'”

Indeed, the taste of sugar had a big impact on the Pintupi Nine and it is this aspect of their story which now animates them most. “I tasted the sugar, we didn’t know what it was, but it was so sweet. I tasted the sugar and it tasted so sweet – like the Kulun Kulun flower. My mother tasted it and it was so sweet. It was good,” says Warlimpirrnga.

Sugar is a big problem for most aboriginals:

Community life is, in some ways, easier than their previous nomadic existence, but it also exposed them to nastier aspects of the modern world. When they came out of the desert they were examined by a doctor and found to be incredibly fit and healthy, without an “ounce of fat”,


but in the Aboriginal communities of Western Australia diabetes and obesity are rife. McMahon remembers how quickly they succumbed to “whitefella” diseases like the common cold. Alcoholism is a problem in the Western Desert and paint- and petrol-sniffing were too, for a number of years.

In general, humans evolved to want to ingest as many calories as possible. In the Australian outback, due to the lack of rain and the poverty of the soil (genuine tragic dirt) the amount of walking between sources of food and even water is huge. So Aboriginals tend to have even less ancestral adaptation to the modern world’s scourge of too-muchness than do the rest of us.

One brother didn’t like living in a semi-modern community. He disliked all the squabbling. so after a couple of months, he went back to the bush by himself.

Pure-blooded Australian Aborigines don’t actually look much like the media personalities who play Aborigines on Australian TV:

Hide 144 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Do not assume that one isolated modern band represents ancient Aboriginal culture. Do not commit Holmberg’s Mistake. Which is to assume that modern tribes living poor and simple lives represent the apex of their civilization. No, as it turns out, the Beni had a massively sophisticated civilization. Only they mostly got wiped out by European diseases. And so the survivors just eke out a paltry living amongst the ruins. They are not primitive, in other words. They are modern. Read 1491 and learn.

  2. PSR says:

    That’s a pretty fascinating story. Was there any indication of what happened to the brother who went back into the bush?

  3. @obwandiyag

    Presumably, Aboriginals living in a nice place like Melbourne had more stuff than the last survivors in a totally bleak place like these folks.

  4. They don’t writee these stories like they should. Pre 00’s movies do sometimes.

  5. Making my point about your virality Steve:

    You’re about as obscure as Biden’s mole at this point.

    • Agree: houston 1992
    • Replies: @Thomm
    , @AKAHorace
  6. Thomm says:

    80% of Steve Sailer audience is because of Heartiste (over the nearly 10 years that Heartiste was linking to Sailer).

    There are tons of obscure columnists and lefty nuts that none of us would ever have heard of if not for Steve Sailer making them more visible.

    Hence, those obscure leftists would never have been heard of if not for Heartiste.

  7. AKAHorace says:

    What is interesting is how hard the mainstream media works to give Richard Spencer a voice and ignores Steve Sailer who is probably much more influential.

  8. In general, humans evolved to want to ingest as many calories as possible. In the Australian outback, due to the lack of rain and the poverty of the soil (genuine tragic dirt) the amount of walking between sources of food and even water is huge. So Aboriginals tend to have even less ancestral adaptation to the modern world’s scourge of too-muchness than do the rest of us.

    For a long time, I’d always considered the whole schtick obese people would give that they’re “fat because of genetics, it doesn’t matter what I eat!” to be ridiculous—my belief in the laws of thermodynamics is absolute. Calories in, calories out, that’s the only important part of losing or gaining weight. It still is, but there might be some nuance.

    Only recently did it occur to me that perhaps there may be a real genetic component to some people always being fat (or being able to gain weight very, very quickly). They’ve adapted to extracting and using calories extremely efficiently, so much so that it’s plausible a reasonable diet in the current day may lead them to be overweight. Ironically enough, the morbidly obese people we see today might have been the cream of the genetic crop hundreds or thousands of years ago.

  9. @al-Gharaniq

    Right, these Aborigines looked like Olympic distance runners when they came in from the Bush in 1984. Now they look like American Walmart shoppers. Dealing with the abundance of things like refined sugar is not easy for humans, perhaps least so for recent hunter-gatherers.

    • LOL: Tusk
    • Replies: @Kratoklastes
    , @anon
  10. Danindc says:

    Timeline doesn’t add up. Steve has been popular and prolific since 2000 (I was on the original List Serv)- Derb referenced him as the “smartest dink I know”. Heartiste only got good in the last few years when he started to gain maturity (likely had some children hopefully)

  11. Polynikes says:

    Interested in your thoughts on this candidate for the Wisconsin seventh district. Supposedly she’s ho-chunk Indian.

    Looks like another random Becky to me.

  12. How do I know Steve isn’t an Abo himself?

    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
  13. Are standards of (female facial) beauty pretty much the same all over the world, or are they race-specific? Given a set of about 10 female faces of various races, would one get the same rank order, prettiest to ugliest, among (male) beauty judges who are Amazonians, Eskimos, Europeans, Africans, Aborigines, Mongolians, Indians, etc.? Surely such research has been carried out since soon after the invention of photography. Where can the results be found (and under what search terms)?

  14. anonymous[309] • Disclaimer says:

    Does anyone have a means to reach Nick Fuentes or his main guys? His guys lost tonight and he needs help, but can still win this thing.

    So many better debating points are in Ron’s articles here about immigration. He can win using Ron’s analysis alone.

    **This poor young man is David against the billionaire donor class Goliath. Any way you can help, Ron and Steve?**

    I think he should focus on the moral aspect, and rebrand Con Inc. as ‘the baddies’:

    We don’t advocate violence. We don’t hate anyone. We don’t think we’re superior or more worthy under God. We simply want the same right to preserve our children’s heritage and culture, as everyone else does.

    White populations are uniquely required to be ‘diverse’ and ‘multicultural’, both in America and globally, despite being a tiny and shrinking minority. Why is this? Noone looks at Vietnam for example or any non-White majority country or population and says they need immigration or ‘diversity’. Self preservation, homogeneity, and protecting the interests of your children in a peaceful manner is accepted as healthy and normal for non-Whites. All we ask for is the same dignity.

    There are two good studies on how diversity is a disaster for social trust and cohesion, Putnam’s and the more recent one Steve and Eric Kaufman talked about. But, even that seems unnecessary, as no non-White group even has to debate the merits of diversity, they can simply reject it on ethical terms.

    And, rather than talking about Israel, he should just refer his followers to Ron’s American Pravda series. Nothing more needs to be said.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
  15. @Steve Sailer

    Right, these Aborigines looked like Olympic distance runners when they came in from the Bush in 1984.

    There’s plenty of old newsreel footage of proper blackfellas – like this one from the 1950s, which really does a good job of differentiating between ‘people’ and ‘clans’.

    One thing tough: it deals with people who were in relatively lush surroundings compared with the blackfellas I knew as a kid – in the very very very inhospitable heart of the Northern Territory.

    When we were in Tennant Creek in the early 1970s, my Mum ran a ‘chuck wagon’ (basically, a refitted “Mr Whippy” van) that she used to take perishables – vegetables etc – to the outlying settlements. (She’s half-Maori, so was doing this mostly to defy local racist whites).

    The blackfellas who lived there were half-way between the fully-traditional tribal people and the urbanised (HA! Tennant Creek had a population of about 1500, max).

    The lasting impression they had on me (as a 7-8 year old) and my Mum (then ~32) was that they were happy, honest to a fault, and could find a way to feed themselves in a desert where we would be dead in a couple of days. And they had miraculous memories; they would remember if they owed Mum 25c, even if they’d been ‘walkabout’ for half a year.

    And none of them had a spare ounce of flesh on them.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
  16. jon says:

    Aborigines really are the most unattractive people on the planet. I can’t think of any other racial or ethnic group where you can’t find at least a few good looking members.

  17. Do the Chinese (obviously no Western scientist would dare say this) classify them as a subspecies? More power to them but they look really, radically different from us. Literally “missing link” type stuff.

  18. @AKAHorace

    Because Richard Spencer is a caricature. Steve is a bit harder to tear down. Ten minutes spent reading his blog and you might “noticing” things.

    • Agree: houston 1992, Pat Kittle
  19. Looking over the shoulder of the woman in the photo at the end of iSteve‘s post, it looks far greener than anywhere south of Katherine.

    This little excerpt captures a local geography quite like the hinterland of Tennant Creek. Basically, the surface of Mars with some scrubby spinifex (which stock can’t eat).

    For me it’s reasonably evocative, even after almost 50 years. What an awesome time we (my brother and I) had.

    Shows just how resilient a 7 year old boy is: I look back on the time I spent there as among the most enjoyable years of my life – and I’ve had a very easy life, for the most part.

    • Replies: @sb
  20. @Kratoklastes

    It appears from the article that the two sets of Aborigine relatives who met up in 1984 after 25+ years of separation soon recognized each other.

  21. @al-Gharaniq

    Only recently did it occur to me that perhaps there may be a real genetic component to some people always being fat (or being able to gain weight very, very quickly)

    Not just ‘genetic’ (in the sense of human DNA). Differentials in the composition microbiome make a very big difference.

    I surmised in the 1990s that evolution should favour gut bacteria who found a way to excrete chemicals that made us want to eat starch. That’s now an understood thing. But it’s also now understood that microbiota directly affect mood and metabolism, independent to their effect on our cravings.

    Also, our metabolic rate changes depending on the composition of our diet: we have control over calories in, but we can only affect calories out (net) by about 20% unless we sit on an exercise bike for an hour. We (as individuals) have no solid idea how our basal metabolism changes as a result of the macronutrient profile of our diet (best guess is that a high-simple-carb diet reduces basal metabolism by as much as 20%).

    Lastly: if CICO is not GIGO, then to put on 20lb a decade, you need to run a caloric surplus of ~20Cal/day. That’s roughly a teaspoon of sugar. No way are we smart enough to be that close to balance.

    And that’s assuming that the metabolic rate is otherwise constant: it ignores any endocrine disruption (e.g., from fluoride out-competing iodide/iodate in the thyroid; from Vitamin D deficiency; from different quorum-signalling from micriobiota; from other environmental stressors).

    I’ve never been genuinely fat, but it’s a very ‘American’ thing to reach for the idiot’s simple “they must be lazy and gluttonous” explanation.

    That said: if you see a 300lb 20 year old, then it’s a retard. To have genuine impulse-control problems that scale that quickly, the person’s brain is not working properly.

  22. Thomm says:

    Steve has been popular and prolific since 2000 (I was on the original List Serv)- Derb referenced him as the “smartest dink I know”.

    Still pretty obscure before Heartiste.

    (likely had some children hopefully)

    er… wut? He never married, and told men to avoid marriage and children, due to unfair laws. Being a blue-pill schlub is not ‘maturity’.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
  23. When they came out of the desert they were examined by a doctor and found to be incredibly fit and healthy, without an “ounce of fat”, but in the Aboriginal communities of Western Australia diabetes and obesity are rife.

    In the 1930s, Canadian dentist Weston Price and his wife traveled the globe and photographed isolated communities that only ate their traditional diets. He even found a community in Switzerland that had not yet been introduced to modern foods.

    Australian Aborigines

    Source: Nutrition and Physical Degeneration by Weston A. Price

  24. You may be interested in this story The Epicentre of Our History about what is apparently a 100% Anglo-descended Ozzie by the name of Bruce Pascoe who not only claims Aboriginal ancestry but more questionably also claims:

    …that Australian Aborigines were not hunter-gatherers, as generations of anthropologists have labelled them: they were agriculturalists. Pascoe argues that, rather than being the most backward people on the planet, as ignorant Europeans have long thought, the Aborigines were among the most technologically and politically advanced societies of all time. He claims they were not nomads but lived in villages of stone houses and developed extensive and sustainable agriculture as well as sophisticated politics long before the rise of ancient Athens, Mesopotamia and Egypt. All this ended with the invasion by the British in 1788.

    Mr Pascoe “is set to become one of Australia’s most commercially successful writers, a successor to the Western Australian Aboriginal author, Sally Morgan, whose 1987 book, My Place, told an essentially fictitious story about how her grandmother became a member of the “stolen generations”.

    His book Dark Emu is now being adopted as a text in high school courses around Australia. On the back of this acceptance, Pascoe has written Young Dark Emu, a text for primary school students. The ABC, whose education department has already published a website celebrating Pascoe and his book, will produce a whole television series in 2020 with Pascoe as presenter.

    More here:

  25. anon[648] • Disclaimer says:

    Chinese are pretty ugly, if you take a close look.
    Abos? Some are, some aren’t.
    You wouldn’t judge White beauty from photos of 45 year old domestic violence victims.

    On the other hand, domestic violence rates among Whites don’t tend toward 98% either.

    • Replies: @jon
    , @Anon
    , @Thea
  26. anon[648] • Disclaimer says:

    Price visited Eastern Central Queensland around 1936.
    The country there is more hospitable for Hunter/Gatherers than Central Australia.

  27. @jon

    Their physiognomy is not what we consider attractive, for sure. And their physiognomy takes a dramatic turn for the worse if they carry a lot of excess weight.

    I despise “Noble Savage” ideas (I’m half-proudly part-savage, and there’s nothing ‘noble’ about savage culture), but blackfellas in their ‘natural environment’ are a very different kettle of fish. In the same way: I’ve met Berber and Bedouin in their natural environment: they radiate a sense that they have their shit together, which is powerful.

    The Abo’s heavy brow ridges and flat noses might remind the average Western viewer of chimps (they certainly reminded me of that as a kid), but that doesn’t kick in until relatively late adulthood. The Abo kids I played with as a kid were as black as the arse of a goat, but they weren’t ugly. Their kin over 40: very different story.

    As a kiddie, my theory was that the middle-aged abos looked like that because they were always screwing their faces up because of the intensity of the light. It’s a silly theory looking back… but ‘broad daylight’ in the centre of Australia is like staring into an arc-light… but far, far drier.

    Sadly, their culture is a hard one to maintain (especially if it’s competing with a Western industrial system that can produce massive caloric surpluses apparently at the drop of a hat). I’m moderately racist (against anyone who’s not Maori or Kiwi-pakeha lol) but I have a genuine affection for blackfellas.

    Oh – before I forget. The hill tribesmen in Papua New Guinea aren’t quite as ugly, but they’re about half a foot shorter than, Abos. I think we can call that a draw.

  28. anon[421] • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer

    Dealing with the abundance of things like refined sugar is not easy for humans, perhaps least so for recent hunter-gatherers.

    The Pima Indians of Arizona have the highest rate of Type II or adult onset diabetes in the world. They do not develop Type I. The nation has participated in Type II studies since the 1960’s. There are some possible genetic links. I suspect that the Indians of lower Arizona and Sonora are people who have some very efficient metabolic pathways, so sugar is just a disaster. Here is an old paper from 2004.

    If we somehow discovered cane sugar now, in the Current Year, it would probably be classified as a drug. Not quite on the same level as cocaine, but close.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  29. @anonymous

    Fuentes has the air of a deprived upbringing – deprived of getting his ass kicked.

    He’ll be back. But not yet.

    • Replies: @Danindc
  30. Sean says:

    I don’t think there is anything wrong with white looking part aboriginal–ancestry people being activists for the lesser part of their ancestry. The judge overstepped the mark, but Aboriginals rights campaigners are pretty harmless.

  31. @Thomm

    Lol, no he wasn’t.

    And Heartiste was never MGTOW either.

    You sure you don’t have an impeachment to run?

    • Replies: @Thomm
  32. Thomm says:

    And Heartiste was never MGTOW either.

    er… an MGTOW is not the same thing as a PUA who tells men to avoid marriage. Heartiste was a PUA who nonetheless pointed out at great length what a bad deal marriage was.

    No one said Heartiste was an MGTOW. Your reading comprehension is abysmal, as is your understanding of manosphere concepts.

    Lol, no he wasn’t.

    Yes he was. Steve’s audience pre-Heartiste was a tiny fraction of what it was after Heartiste brought him into visibility.

    • Troll: Hail
  33. Anon[230] • Disclaimer says:

    This sounds like one of those “uncontracted” Filipino or Brazilian tribe things, where it comes out later that some of them go back and forth to the city to work on construction sites and catch a movie.

    No children? How can this really be an independent isolated group?

    I think the “Last Wild Aborigine” headline and framing is just a politically correct excuse to print photos that they really want to caption, “Can you believe how butt-ugly these people are?!”

    • Agree: B36
  34. Anonymous[306] • Disclaimer says:

    Are Australian Aborigines as aggressive, self-centered, belligerent, demanding and prolific as west Africans living in western nations?

    • Replies: @anon
  35. @anon

    If we somehow discovered cane sugar now, in the Current Year, it would probably be classified as a drug. Not quite on the same level as cocaine, but close.

    David Reuben pretty much said exactly this in his 1979 book about nutrition.

    Hawaiians had sugar cane hundreds of years before the white man showed up. Were they fat then, or svelte?

    My family would drive into the interior of Oahu just to park near a field in which came was being burnt. Now, sugar is no longer grown in the state.

  36. Anon[230] • Disclaimer says:

    Body weight has a heritability in Western countries of 0.8. This has been known since twin and adoption studies, but has been confirmed in the recent 1.25 million genome GWAS studies. Vd. Plomin’s “Blueprint” from last year.

    You assume that if only fat people understood nutritional facts they would not eat and lose weight. Two thirds of Americans are overweight or obese, meaning BMI over 25. Do you think they are simply uninformed? Most people know why they’re fat, but the compulsion to eat, in the modern environment, is just as much a part of their brain’s individual physical construction as any other trait. There’s no ghost in the machine overriding bad brain impulses.

    • Replies: @Thea
  37. @Kratoklastes

    I weighed 300 pounds at 14. I wasn’t a retard by any means. But I did have severe psychological problems.

    Abnormal brain function? Perhaps.

  38. anon[267] • Disclaimer says:

    A James Thompson article a few months back put the rate of Psychopathy among Abos at 16%, compared to 6% for Maori, 3% for American Blacks, and 1% for Whites.
    Best bet?
    Don’t ever trust one, that’s how lots of well meaning women get hurt, or worse.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  39. Walkabout, in the pejorative sense of the term.

  40. @Thomm

    80% of Steve Sailer audience is because of Heartiste (over the nearly 10 years that Heartiste was linking to Sailer).

    That’s a laugh. Hilarious, in fact. Yeah, and the reason people buy Porsche is because first, they drove a LeCar. Desidelerious may be Roosh in disguise or that fat Fourney, I know they always hadda hard-on for the Heartiste/MGTOW/Incel crowd. If Sailorman hasn’t been around these parts quite as long, he’s been more prominent than that crowd ever was. And where are THEY now?

    • Replies: @Desiderius
  41. David says:
    @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)

    Capt Sir Richard Francis Burton said wherever he traveled, the women he found most attractive were locally regarded as the most attractive. From that he concluded that beauty was less conditional on the beholder than on the beheld.

    • Replies: @Charon
  42. Anonymous[306] • Disclaimer says:

    Victorian accounts were full of British sailors, explorers etc getting ‘speared’ – that’s the terminology the Victorians loved in this context – by Aborigines, New Guineans etc.

  43. @Steve Sailer

    Cook had an encounter with aboriginals in Botany Bay, and he remarked that they were clearly and noticeably less sophisticated than the New Zealand Maori, where he had just been. It’s a fairly well known story and you can still see a bark shield from the incident in the British Museum.

  44. Charon says:

    That is a truly fascinating fact, if fact it is.

  45. Old Prude says:

    “Smartest GINK I know”, quoting someone else. True dat.

  46. @Steve Sailer

    Yep, the last remnants of aboriginal Americans were typically impoverished (see: Ishi) but before the Europeans came, there was a mix of “rich” and poor, with most doing fairly well. The aborigines of thee Pacific Northwest managed to have a fixed abode with large buildings, the famous totem poles, and “potlatch” ceremonies where they actually destroyed wealth, and all of this without agriculture.

    • Replies: @Liza
  47. @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)

    Even better, look at artwork. If you were a Flathead Indian, well, you had that flattened “Greek” profile.

    In old Japan, women ideally had big longish melon-shaped heads, tiny features, and black teeth.

    In some areas, the ideal is to be fat even if it takes force-feeding. In others it’s most “beautiful” to be thin, and the West’s ideal of a thin, almost boyishly so, young woman goes back to medieval days.

    You can all all of this from old art, which will show the ideal.

    • Replies: @mobi
  48. @Reg Cæsar

    Those old cane fires were great!

    Also, lots of smaller, abandoned, fields and we kids would go back in there and cut a nice stalk, and chew the pulp (which you spit out). You still see sections of sugar cane in Hispanic etc markets. It’s a fair amount of work though, hiking to the field, hacking down a stalk, peeling it, sharing it with your friends, etc so no one got fat chewing sugar cane.

    Seems all our ideas of a good time involved walking for miles or other fairly strenuous activity.

    About 1980 or so, high fructose corn syrup became a thing in the American diet and got put in everything (it helps bread keep fresh a long time for instance) and another thing that changed was serving sizes – they got huge.

    • Replies: @Pericles
    , @obwandiyag
  49. Hail says: • Website

    Derb referenced [Sailer] as the “smartest dink I know”

    I assume Mr. Derbyshire didn’t mean Dual Income No Kids by “dink.”

    • Replies: @Danindc
  50. sb says:

    It’s extremely odd to hear the narrator refer to abos as abos without obviously intending to be rude .
    There was a time when the term abo was neither good nor bad but simply just another Australian diminutive ( like ‘arvo’ for afternoon or “mozzy” for mosquito )
    Indeed abos used the term themselves without a problem .
    But then ( sigh ) times changed

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  51. @Danindc

    I think I discovered Steve’s blog in the mid-to-late noughties, and Heartiste a couple of years later – he was called “Roissy In DC” then, I think on blogspot, and GBFM was just beginning his shooting-star idiot-savant commenting career.

    I remember being horrified at Roissy’s racism and sexism, but discovered that his Game posting (most of his output) explained (in hindsight) a lot of things, both good and bad, about my love life. I’d prefer him to be blogging rather than Gabbing again, although I don’t miss some of the idiotic slanging matches in the comments.

    OT, the Guardian is on fire this morning with iSteve material. Our new Britain’s gonna be great!

    “Witchcraft and black magic are increasingly factors in the abuse of children, councils have warned, with official data showing child protection cases based on faith or belief are up by a third in the last year in England to almost 2,000.

    Lancashire, Bradford and Leeds recorded the highest number of cases in 2018/19 but social workers across the country logged increasing numbers of incidents on the previous year including 71 in Nottingham, 35 in Bristol and 34 in Southwark.

    It means councils are now dealing with the equivalent of 38 such cases a week, said the Local Government Association, which is calling for more resources to tackle the problem. Cases based on faith or belief include abuse under the guise of witchcraft, treating spirit possession and through black magic. The data, published by the Office for National Statistics, was received by campaigners as evidence that social workers are getting better at identifying often hidden and culturally complex factors in abuse.”

    “The notion that having children may be a bad idea seems to be gaining mainstream popularity. But when we hear about it, it’s most often in the context of the climate crisis: activists are worried about bringing children into a world threatened by rising seas, mass displacement and other calamities. Anti-natalists, however, believe that procreation has always been and always will be wrong because of life’s inevitable suffering.”

    There’s also an obituary of the White Helmets founder James le Mesurier, a Singapore-born rootless adventurer who would probably have been a great District Officer on the NW Frontier, which reveals that his first job after leaving the army was running a prison in Israel. He then had his fingers in one shambles after another – Kosovo, Iraq, Syria. From 2006, he spent five years in the United Arab Emirates working for the security company Good Harbour, run by George W Bush’s former counterterrorism adviser, Richard Clarke.

  52. Danindc says:

    “Gink” my bad
    Means person or guy…may be a British thing from Derb

    • Agree: Old Prude
  53. @Triumph104

    I read about a small N study of middle-aged Aborigines who suffered from obesity, diabetes, and metabolic syndrome because of their shitty diets. They returned to the bush for seven weeks and came back much healthier after eating something like their traditional diets. The volunteers still knew how to get the food, which was mostly protein and very low calories.

  54. AndrewR says:

    I find it astounding how homely OzAbs are as a people. Every other group on Earth I’ve seen has plenty of good looking people. These people, not so much.

    • Agree: Old Prude
    • Replies: @Anonymous
  55. @Kratoklastes

    I’ve never been genuinely fat, but it’s a very ‘American’ thing to reach for the idiot’s simple “they must be lazy and gluttonous” explanation.

    That said: if you see a 300lb 20 year old, then it’s a retard. To have genuine impulse-control problems that scale that quickly, the person’s brain is not working properly.

    I dunno, about 20 years ago, I met a load of American high-school kids while staying in a youth hostel in Europe. They ran the range from normally robust to spherical in a way that I had never seen in my life. I mean there was one girl their (17 maybe) who only deviated from rotundity thanks to the addition of a back-hump of fat, but I am pretty sure that she wasn’t actually retarded.
    Given that food is cheap enough in all Western nations that anyone could stuff themselves all day if they wanted to, and that US stock is mostly European derived, the conclusion must be drawn that there is something specific about the US diet which can cause freakish porkiness on mentally normal 17 year old girls.
    I suspect high-fructose corn syrup, which is rarely seen outside the US, but seems ubiquitous within it.

    • Replies: @Thea
  56. jon says:

    Chinese are pretty ugly, if you take a close look.
    They may not be your top choice, but I think anyone can find a few attractive ones on that search page alone. Now find me one attractive full aborigine.

  57. anon[136] • Disclaimer says:

    Dunno if anybody else mentioned it , but supposedly once this lot made it to Alice Springs and their estranged family, violence broke out – possibly ritualistically – because the last lost wild ones were very upset to learn that they didn’t have to have spent the preceding twenty years eating bugs and drinking the morning dew out of holes in the ground or whatever.

    That is to say, their cousins found civilisation – water on tap, air-conditioning – and didn’t go back for the rest of the family, which caused some grief when they reunited.

    This is half-heard and half-remembered, and might not have had a whit of truth in the first place, but it’s too good a story not to run with anyway.

  58. Anon[126] • Disclaimer says:

    Chinese are pretty ugly, if you take a close look.

    Google “beautiful Chinese women” and “beautiful aborigine women.” Some of the latter are … ugly. Some are European whites. And some are reasonably attractive in a dusky, mixed race, “can’t quite place the source of the duskiness,” “would make a perfect catalog model or commercial actress to check off several diversity checkboxes at once” way. All seem way, way removed from pure aborigine.

    By the way, in my searches I brought up the long-forgotton Trever Noah dustup, where an old standup routine where he dissed aborigine women surfaced.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
  59. @Anon

    Here’s Aboriginal tennis great Evonne Goolagong in the 1970s pictured with the tough competition of Chris “America’s Sweetheart” Evert:

    I presume Goolagong was about half Abo. An Aborigine like Goolagong having a healthy lifestyle with lots of exercise and avoidance of huffing gasoline and the like does a lot of good for her looks.

  60. Escher says:

    Spencer is a joke. Perfect fall guy for discrediting people with heretical ideas.

    • Agree: bigdicknick
    • Replies: @bigdicknick
  61. JMcG says:

    My old climbing partner has maintained the same weight for roughly fifty years now. He’s around 170bs on a 6 foot frame. He once let slip how he managed it.
    The instant he hit his max desired weight, he’d stop eating. He’d only take occasional sips of Coca Cola when he’d sense his mental function starting to slip. Then he’d allow himself food again when he was back at the bottom of his range.

  62. unit472 says:

    I’ve always been curious as to how some primitive peoples end up in the wastelands of the earth. Was it some form of primordial ‘racism’ or discrimination? I used to joke that Appalachian hillbillies developed because the more robust English yeoman settlers appraised the new arrivals from Europe and told the dregs to ‘keep on walking’ but there might be some truth to that.

    Obviously no Bushman was going to ‘choose’ the Kalahari Desert over Capetown or among Amerindians the Mojave desert over Marin but some method of exclusion had to be enforced to push people into the most hostile regions and since, at the time, they were all pretty much of the same racial stock when the exclusion took place one wonders what it was.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
  63. Anonymous[352] • Disclaimer says:

    Sounds like what happened to ‘negro’ and ‘oriental’

  64. @jon

    The aborigines in the old pictures look a lot more attractive (in their own way) than the modern ones. Western diets and lifestyles obviously don’t do them much good, they’ve evolved in environments where food was scarce.

    As long as they’re attractive to each other, that’s the main thing from their perspective.

    Anyway, I imagine it would be an evolutionary plus for a group if your women were unattractive to other groups. You don’t get many white grooming gangs targeting Pakistani girls, and UK Pakistanis have a very high birth rate.

  65. @Thomm




  66. dearieme says:
    @Steve Sailer

    On the court Goolagong was the more attractive: all grace.

  67. Thea says:

    I found Roissy from Steve, not the other way.

    My goodness what a joy he was to read. Such a loss.

  68. @Danindc

    “Gink,” not “dink.” I was quoting Warren Harding on Herbert Hoover.

    What’s a gink? You’d have to ask Wurr’n.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    , @Old Prude
  69. @obwandiyag

    Holmberg didn’t actually commit Holmberg’s mistake. Mann is misrepresenting him to the point of outright fraud.

    (Gould *did* lie about Morton and Lewontin *did* commit Lewontin’s Fallacy.)

    • Replies: @obwandiyag
  70. @al-Gharaniq

    Supposedly the Samoans are huge for that reason. The long ocean voyages they took required them to use calories as efficiently as possible. And when they settled down they beefed up. What is curious though, is how come there are some other Polynesian groups that are not noticeably huge, like the French Polynesians.

  71. Svevlad says:

    Aboriginals are the proof that uglyness isn’t really genetic

    In perfect conditions – look like Indians with more robust skulls
    Modern “healthy” conditions? Suddenly LOTR orcs. man was right from the start, no bigger proof needed

  72. Medvedev says:

    Image two people with slightly different levels of metabolism.
    One needs 2500 calories per day, the other 2300 calories to perform the same activities. Over the year this translates into 73,000 calories difference. In the past this could have been a huge advantage that would boost your chances for survival during times when famines and malnutrition were common.

  73. Thea says:

    Aspects of US culture as well. Perhaps Europeans walk more.

  74. In the top photo, the woman who is second from the right sure looks to have had some, uh, “sugar issues.”

  75. Anonymous[170] • Disclaimer says:

    Apparently, the predominately Anglo-Celt, ahem, ‘Bushwhackers’, of the old time Outback, Billabongs, tea kettles, and all had no problem cohabiting with Aboriginal women, who by all accounts were rather free with their favors. This accounts for the ubiquity of white/Aborigine hybrids in modern Australia.

    Also puts a dampener on that widespread myth that, unlike the Spaniards, Britons eschewed mixing with the locals.

    • Replies: @Old Prude
    , @AndrewR
  76. @unit472

    Obviously no Bushman was going to ‘choose’ the Kalahari Desert over Capetown or among Amerindians the Mojave desert over Marin but some method of exclusion had to be enforced to push people into the most hostile regions and since, at the time, they were all pretty much of the same racial stock when the exclusion took place one wonders what it was.

    Their tribe lost–or avoided–the battle and the remnants moved on. Rinse and repeat.

    • Replies: @Kevin O'Keeffe
  77. Elli says:

    There’s an Australian book claiming that thesis, that before European contact, the aboriginals had peace, no hunger, continent wide contact and cooperation, agriculture, stone houses. Dark Emu, it’s called, soon to be a required school text.

    The author Bruce Pascoe claims to be of Aboriginal heritage and he could pass for part, but genealogy researchers have traced all his ancestors to England.

    Early European explorers did see some signs of agriculture. Some stone buildings, walls a meter high, arched roofs, small by modern standards. Stone ceremonial sites.

    The researcher Stephen Webb examined pre-contact skeletons, and found a high incidence of head injury, perhaps averaging 20% over all groups, with more women injured than men. Bones have been given to Aboriginals for burial, no longer available for study. Does not seem like a peaceful society.

    Early Europeans noted many women with tremendous head and facial injuries. Cut on cut, bash on bash.

  78. @Steve Sailer

    Who is this guy who supposedly channeled all the traffic to Steve? Just curious.

    I, personally, have followed VDare for almost 20 years, and I read Steve’s half blood prince book as a download from VDare. Not to mention Steve’s blog posts on VDare. I finally came to UNZ because I wanted to share my viewpoint. The hard core liberal who is also a borders patriot still exists, but we are being pushed away by the new corporate “progressives”.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    , @JMcG
    , @Not Raul
  79. Liza says:
    @alex in San Jose AKA Digital Detroit

    I guess agriculture wasn’t necessary during a time of low population density. Good soil with wild plants; rain; forests full of animals; no shortage of fish, etc. A verdant garden of eden, none of which the Australian abos had.

  80. @ thomm-
    not that it matters, i have never heard of ‘heartiste’, no idea which corner of the inertnet it is found, and not much desire to find out given your shrill shilling…
    ‘found’ senor sailer through takis mag and unz, maybe linked at lew rockwell on occasion…
    as far as that goes, NOT an unabashed sailer fan-boi, but the points he raises are sometimes interesting if not valid…
    you are not…

  81. @Desiderius


    That pretty much sums you up. I couldn’t have been more clear. Heartiste is in the backwater of Gab, barely below the waterline last I saw. I liked his stuff at WordPress but Ye Gawds, it was his commentator-base that got him killed. I wish him and his well.

  82. Mike1 says:

    Or you could do the slightest bit of research at all on the topic. The ancient Australian Aboriginals way of life is not exactly unknown.

  83. @obwandiyag

    I actually agree with you. Historical Progressivism is a crock. Australian and Tasmanian aboriginals are a great example of this because their entire history is basically regressive. What I have heard about the archaeological record in Australia is the farther back in time you go, the more advanced aboriginal tech is. They use to have clothing, boats, hatchets and other things.

    At one point, tens of thousands of years ago and tens of thousands of years before anyone else, they had boats and managed to find Australia, which would have made them some of the most advanced sailors in the entire world. So the sleeping naked on the ground aboriginals that have been around the last couple hundred of years do not represent the apex of aboriginal civilization at all.

    The big question then is what the hell happened to them. My hypothesis is climate change, the desertification of Australia, which they barely survived but with their civilization wrecked. Probably the low number of survivors and the isolation they found themselves surviving in caused a lot of successive inbreeding, which explains alot of other things. As per a commentator on the other thread Steve posted, aboriginal phenotypic genes are supposed to be very recessive, which would also support that theory. The pile up of deleterious recessive genes along with total isolation and the difficulty of subsistence in such a harsh environment eventually left them losing everything but the bare essentials.

    My alternative theory is that the continent is cursed and slowly turns everything that lives on it into marsupials. We’ll know this is the case if in another 10,000 years all the anglo settlers regress to a naked hunter-gatherer lifestyle and what’s left of the aboriginals develop pouches. It’s like Dagon and Deep Ones but with kangaroos.

    • Agree: Kevin O'Keeffe
  84. @Paleo Liberal

    Steve’s been mainstream for thirty years. It’s the corporate progtards who’ve pushed the Overton Window out of the mainstream for the past 10-15 years to cover up (principally from themselves) their maleducation.

    • Agree: Old Prude
  85. Thea says:

    I don’t think this is a widely held view among European derived people. There seems to be a great deal of mutual attraction particularly white male-> East Asian female in California.

    • Replies: @JMcG
    , @Neil Templeton
    , @anon
  86. @Kratoklastes

    I’ve never been genuinely fat, but it’s a very ‘American’ thing to reach for the idiot’s simple “they must be lazy and gluttonous” explanation.

    Except it’s correct.

    Look, all the genetic and metabolic differences are a given. It isn’t CICO. People’s metabolisms adjust. And people’s metabolisms and reactions to various foods are not identical. (We all know the guy who can eat like a horse and stay thin.) All granted.

    But bottom line: your weight and fitness is under your control.

    You can’t just make yourself grow taller. You can’t fix that bald spot. You can’t turn your brown eyes blue. But your weight is entirely up to you.

    Sure it’s way *easier* for some people to maintain a healthy weight than it is for other people. Being thin is not a sign of virtue. But being fat is a sign that that person does–for whatever reason–not want to make the effort to not be fat. (I’ve been carrying an extra 10 since my early 50s. Why? Because i haven’t made it priority to not be carrying an extra 10. I’ve chosen to live looking like this rather than working to be more fit and attractive.)

    I remember what people looked like in the 60s. Americans have become ridiculously fatter during the last 50 years. Their genetics didn’t radically change. They aren’t “supposed” to look like they do. What’s changed: Lots of cheap carbs, ubiquitously available, huge portions and more sedentary lifestyles, less work, more sitting on the ass in front of screens. (Like i’m doing now.) This is all “environment”. And all controllable by individual will. The food doesn’t leap into our mouths. We aren’t tied down in from of the screen.

    • Agree: Old Prude
  87. Thea says:

    A lot of it has to do with habit formation. There is a great book on this but I can’t remember the title.

    Basically, people can’t break habits but we can replace them with different habits. We engage in our habits unthinkingly based on cues called triggers( not SJWish.) if we can identify the trigger for overeating for example, we can learn to react with a different behavior( taking a walk, reading, talking to a friend.)

    Through culture and lifestyle Americans have adopted habits that combined with a genetic tendency to gain weight lead to obesity. Often they know what to do to change but they have a hard time changing bad habits.

  88. @AKAHorace

    Spencer is famous because he makes the right look retarded. Same reason Christopher Cantwell is famous.

  89. @Escher

    quiet you octoroon ! I’ll thlap you!

  90. Lurker says:

    I read Steve for years before I was aware of Heartiste. But that’s just me.

    • Agree: Jim Christian, AKAHorace
  91. @AKAHorace

    Are you suggesting that this is not a Good Thing ™?

    Even Jordan Peterson has attracted too much attention, turning the discussion towards him instead of his ideas.

    Security by Obscurity.

  92. Peter Frost says: • Website
    @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)

    Children as young as two to three months old look longer at female faces that adults have rated as attractive, be they white infants looking at faces of black women rated by black men or black infants looking at faces of white women rated by white men (Langlois et al. 2000; Langlois et al. 1991; Langlois et al. 1987; Langlois and Stephan 1977). Similar findings have been obtained with adults of various ethnic origins (Bernstein et al. 1982; Cunningham et al. 1995; Maret 1983; Miller 1969; Perrett et al. 1994). There are some minor differences. East Asian men tend to prefer immature and inexpressive faces whereas African American men tend to prefer women with large buttocks and heavy body build (Cunningham et al. 1995).


    Bernstein, Ira H., Tsai-Ding Lin, and Pamela McClellan. 1982. “Cross- vs. Within-Racial Judgments of Attractiveness.” Perception & Psychophysics 32 (6): 495-503. doi:10.3758/BF03204202.

    Cunningham, Michael R., Alan R. Roberts, Anita P. Barbee, Perri B. Druen, and Cheng-Huan Wu. 1995. “‘Their Ideas of Beauty Are, on the Whole, the Same as Ours’: Consistency and Variability in the Cross-Cultural Perception of Female Physical Attractiveness.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 68 (2): 261-79

    Langlois, Judith H., Lisa Kalakanis, Adam J. Rubenstein, Andrea Larson, Monica Hallam, and Monica Smoot. 2000. “Maxims or Myths of Beauty? A Meta-Analytic and Theoretical Review.” Psychological Bulletin 126 (3): 390-423. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.126.3.390.

    Langlois, Judith H., Jean M. Ritter, Lori A. Roggman, and Lesley S. Vaughn. 1991. “Facial Diversity and Infant Preferences for Attractive Faces.” Developmental Psychology 27 (1): 79-84. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.27.1.79.

    Langlois, Judith H., Lori A. Roggman, Rita J. Casey, and Jean M. Ritter. 1987. “Infant Preferences for Attractive Faces: Rudiments of a Stereotype?” Developmental Psychology 23 (3): 363-69. doi:10.1037//0012-1649.23.3.363.

    Langlois, Judith H. and Cookie Stephan. 1977. “The Effects of Physical Attractiveness and Ethnicity on Children’s Behavioral Attributions and Peer Preferences.” Child Development 48 (4): 1694-98. doi:10.2307/1128538.

    Maret, Stephen M. 1983. “Attractiveness Ratings of Photographs of Blacks by Cruzans and Americans.” The Journal of Psychology 115 (1): 113-16. doi:10.1080/00223980.1983.9923605

    Miller, Errol L. 1969. “Body Image, Physical Beauty and Colour among Jamaican Adolescents.” Social and Economic Studies 18 (1): 72-89.

    Perrett, D.I., K.A. May, and S. Yoshikawa. 1994. “Facial Shape and Judgements of Female Attractiveness.” Nature 368 (6468): 239-242. doi:10.1038/368239a0.

  93. Elli says:

    Did Price look into maternal alcohol use during pregnancy? It’s a bad problem in the communities.

    • Replies: @anon
  94. Old Prude says:
    @John Derbyshire

    Nice to know the source. It’s how I refer to my doctor, having heard you use the phrase for Sailer. “Smartest gink I know”. Hilton Cramer referred to you the same way, Derb, but not in those words

  95. Danindc says:

    Btw I wasnt on the original List Serv. I just like saying I was. I get a big kick out of saying that for some reason

  96. Danindc says:

    Not really. Nick is really like ale and has great instincts. His rant against Matt Walsh is an all time classic. Watch it if you can find it. Hilarious and spot on.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
  97. @al-Gharaniq

    my belief in the laws of thermodynamics is absolute. Calories in, calories out, that’s the only important part of losing or gaining weight.

    Everyone always talks about weight gain (i.e increase in mass) as if it is based solely on subtracting the calories burned in exercise (and general metabolism) from the calorie value of food consumed. But that can’t be right.

    Mass and energy are different variables. In terms of physics, your weight gain is the difference between the mass in, and the mass out. Energy technically has nothing to do with it.

    Of course your body extracts calories from food and can either burn those calories for energy or use them to make fat cells. But there is no reason at all that the amount of fat produced would be exactly equal to the difference between the calorie value of the food consumed and the calories burned, because it is literally impossible for your body to extract anywhere near 100% of the calorie value of the food you consume.

    For example, the most efficient car engines only convert about 30% of the calories in gasoline to kinetic energy. So the idea that you will gain one pound of fat by eating 3500 “calories” of food without any additional exercise just can’t be right.

    I’ve never seen any of the nutrition and diet experts address this missing variable of calorie conversion efficiency when talking about weight gain. Maybe I’m missing something. But the “calories consumed minus calories burned” formula makes no sense except as a very rough rule of thumb.

  98. anon[849] • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer

    Both her parents were Abos, there must have been some White admixture, but it looks like she came from good stock.
    Her old man was a shearer, he was killed in a hit and run, crossing the road at night in their home town in 1975.
    He was only 42.

  99. mobi says:
    @alex in San Jose AKA Digital Detroit

    You can [get] all of this from old art, which will show the ideal.

    This would only be reliable if we assume that the females being painted in any pre-modern context were so because they represented the standard of beauty.

    I’m not quite prepared to take the feminists’ word for that. (‘Look at all the fat, homely females in old art. Therefore, beauty is purely a social construct. Therefore, I’m not ugly!’)

    Pre-modern times were pretty tough. What women would have had the luxury of sitting around for hours being painted? And how, in a pre-grant agency world, did the artists manage to survive?

    Isn’t it at least as likely that the old art includes the vain, preening female relatives of the males who had enough wealth and status to be eligible patrons for the starving artists of the day?

    The artists wouldn’t care too much, would they, as it’s all art in the end, and wealthy patrons are not to be trifled with when they’re the only thing between feeding you and yours, and begging in the streets (or funding the project you really want to do.)

    And as the paintings themselves would be an act of conspicuous status-flaunting for well-connected females (‘look what I do with my days, peasants!’), isn’t it virtually a given that the competition and conniving to be the one in those paintings, or for one of your daughters to be, would be just as intense as the modern day equivalents (Hollywood, or the catwalk, or the prom queen, say).

    Being overweight, once secure in her attachment to said patron, would also signal high-status (and seems the default preference for many women who feel securely provided for).

    The patron himself would practically have to demand it, in the interests of maintaining a semblance of domestic peace.

    And so on.

    Fat and homely were never inherently ‘beautiful’ in women, just as it seems. Feminist shrieking to the contrary is actually just another manifestation of the same status-striving.

    • Agree: Old Prude
  100. McMahon [the first white man they ever met, now a famous one-armed didgeridoo player]

    The mind-numbingly tiresome academic papers practically write themselves:
    – How the Irish became White: Irishness and othering under the Aboriginal gaze.
    – Whitening Irish bodies: Neo-colonial conversations on race.

    Someone should paint a mural depicting this meeting in 1984. The moment the Irish became White to all of humanity should be commemorated. It’s like the completion of the Panama Canal or something.

  101. JMcG says:
    @Paleo Liberal

    I’ve known too many hard core liberals. You couldn’t fill a shot glass with their collective patriotism no matter the type.

  102. JMcG says:

    In fairness, he specified Chinese. In my experience southeast Asians can be extremely beautiful, while northeast Asians rarely are. I am, of course, speaking only of the distaff segment of those populations.

  103. anonymous[191] • Disclaimer says:

    There’s still a space colony on the far side of the moon built by Wakandans that the white devils haven’t been able to destroy due to the Wakandan’s superior laser weapons. I’ve heard about it, it’s a paradise where all black people live in equality and they wear clothes like the 60’s group the 5th dimension who actually were Wakandans from the space colony. They had the honkies thinking that they were from the Brooklyn projects and made lots of money from the honkies before they grew tired of the honkie world and went back to the space colony in 1971.

    • Replies: @Buck Ransom
  104. Not Raul says:

    In this case, it really is the whitefella’s fault: he shouldn’t have given them a taste of the sugar.

    When it comes to based populations, I’m quite conservative: leave them alone.

  105. gcochran says:

    Lab animals have also been getting fatter. “What’s more, the increased body weights and increased likelihood of obesity were found even in animals whose diets and physical activity levels were known to be the same throughout the study period.”

    • Replies: @JMcG
  106. @Thomm

    I would guess it goes the other way. A lot of us found Steve’s ideas thought provoking, and stumbled across Heartiste looking for other voices of reason. But Heartiste was never on Steve’s level. Although the “cheap Chalupas” moniker for Cowen remains a classic.

    • Replies: @mobi
  107. mobi says:
    @Peter Akuleyev

    I would guess it goes the other way. A lot of us found Steve’s ideas thought provoking, and stumbled across Heartiste looking for other voices of reason. But Heartiste was never on Steve’s level. Although the “cheap Chalupas” moniker for Cowen remains a classic.

    If Ron gave him a spot here, he would instantly become the second person I check when I come here.
    Too talented to be silenced so easily.

    Might be expecting sainthood of Ron, though, given certain (((favourite topics))).

  108. Pericles says:
    @alex in San Jose AKA Digital Detroit

    From what I recall of the old days (in Sweden!), the servings were smaller and the food less tasty. And there were no ubiquitous, cheap, high-calorie snacks like chips or sweets or soda. So it’s certainly a lot easier to get fat these days.

    Also changes of habit, like a sedentary working day (yet with enough stress to perhaps overindulge) not to mention people stopped smoking. The parisian breakfast of black coffee and a cigarette is no more.

  109. JMcG says:

    A very quick search looks like hormonal birth control might be a contender. A very quick search, mind you.

  110. @Chinese Spare Ribs

    You don’t. We don’t. I don’t. Let’s just ask him. You brought it up, so you can do the asking.

  111. @Steve Sailer

    Funny, that. The first time I saw her in a match I thought, “What a homely little ol’ thang”. But she sure could whack that ball.

  112. @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)

    Any modern work on it would be unreliable. The best would be to see a compendium of historically recorded reactions of various types of natives during contact with other, different races.

    I guess that whites are the gold standard, not just because of their power (they were highly appreciated as slaves in brown Islamic world; also, fair skinned Indians had always been considered to be the most desirable).

    But- there are exceptions, of course. Some may prefer this lady….

  113. @Peter Lund

    Yes he did. And Mann did not misrepresent him. You just make shit up.

    • LOL: Desiderius
  114. @Danindc

    That’s nice.

    He’s not going anywhere with that Strzok Smirk on his face. Give him a decade or so after life knocks it off then get back to us.

    • Replies: @Danindc
  115. @Danindc

    For me, the causality ran the other direction. IIRC, I was introduced to the Chateau via the link on Steve’s sidebar. It appeared to me that that the writings of the author of the Chateau changed remarkably at some point, can’t remember exactly when, maybe late oughts or 2010ish. Always figured the blog changed hands with consequent change in perspective.

  116. Danindc says:

    He’s out there rallying legit america first paleo con youth to the cause. He’s a force and a hell of a talk show host.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
  117. @AnotherDad

    I’ll meet your six-pack, and raise it a case.

  118. @Thea

    It would be interesting to see statistical analysis of Tinder posts.

  119. @AnotherDad

    Obviously no Bushman was going to ‘choose’ the Kalahari Desert over Capetown or among Amerindians the Mojave desert over Marin but some method of exclusion had to be enforced to push people into the most hostile regions and since, at the time, they were all pretty much of the same racial stock when the exclusion took place one wonders what it was.

    There is an ultra-esoteric practice known as “war”, which I think may be the operative factor in this scenario.

    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
  120. @AnotherDad

    Man, you on the wrong channel. Don’t you know that on here, it’s genetics uber alles?

    Oh, yeah. Except when they don’t want it to be. I forgot the hypocrisy aspect.

  121. @Triumph104

    Nonono. Don’t you know what website you’re on. Everything is genetics. Get it straight. Everything.

  122. @alex in San Jose AKA Digital Detroit

    Blame President Nixon and the ineffably vile Earl Butz.

    They all go on about Watergate, but the apotheosis of corn is Nixon’s true ticket to hell.

    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
  123. Stealth says:

    Do you really believe, despite all of the opposing evidence, that “carbs” are solely or mostly to blame for the obesity epidemic in America? At worst, starches and sugars are simply part of the overall problem of too many calories. I find vegans to be quite annoying, but they’re a hell of a lot closer to being right about what foods are good for you than the even more irritating paleo/Atkins/South Beach/keto/carnivore clowns.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    , @Lars Porsena
  124. @Danindc

    Please. We’re already rallied. A lifetime of brazen, arrogant, incompetent bigotry thrown in one’s face will do that to people.

    For now he’s just another grifter trying to get in front of the parade. You’d do better to recruit Second City Bureaucrat or someone with his experience. Just because our adversaries choose to be led by a spoiled autistic child, it doesn’t follow that we need to make the same mistake.

    • Replies: @Danindc
  125. The book “Wild Emus”, by Bruce Pascoe, which argued that Aborigines had developed a highly sophisticated civilization before white settlement, has been exposed as a fraud. Pascoe, who looks as white as Elizabeth Warren, claimed to be of Aboriginal descent, but some unkind genealogists have shown that he is of 100% white ancestry.

  126. @obwandiyag

    Tight lobby, loose credit, and a warm petri dish. That’s policy, folks!

  127. anon[398] • Disclaimer says:

    There seems to be a great deal of mutual attraction particularly white male-> East Asian female in California.

    The word you are looking for is ”Desperadoes”.
    Australia has plenty as well.
    Nose like a dog’s, sloping forehead, rough skin, I wouldn’t be surprised if they were a Subspecies of Humans, like SSAs.

  128. anon[398] • Disclaimer says:

    Communities in Queensland in the 1930s were run by the Churches, or the State Government as Model Farms, and Alcohol was forbidden.
    Many Aborogines at the time lived in rural towns and the coastal cities.
    It looks like Weston Price did his research in Central Queensland with Aborigines living on cattle and sheep properties, because the people eating the traditional diet had no cavities and regular features, whereas the people living on white bread and jam had multiple cavities and their children had pinched faces, crowded teeth, and were mouth breathers.

  129. Old Prude says:

    “Bushwhacker”. I wonder about the etymology of the term “willywhacks”.

    “Where were you?”

    “Out in the willywhacks.”

    “What where you doing out there?”


  130. AndrewR says:

    British settlers in North America didn’t really mix with the locals because there were plenty of British women to mate with.

    The Spanish and Portuguese settlers in the Americas were less likely to have their own women to mate with. Presumably this was the case in Australia too with Anglo/Irish settlers.

  131. @Stealth

    It’s fairly difficult to even survive on a plants only diet without modern agriculture including selectively bred produce, and global trade, and impossible to survive on a plants only diet in most locations without at least traditional agriculture. Human beings evolved as partial carnivores. A few places (like India) have been herbivorous for a long time, they also have had agriculture and are tropical, and eat dairy. But in most places of human habitation, with a wild environment, you eat meat or you die. Meat is the only diet that can keep human beings alive in any climate, any time of the year, as hunter-gatherers. Hence binocular vision, canine teeth, and mid-length intestines. Actual herbivores have very different digestive tracts than us, ruminants have multiple stomachs. Ours is more similar to carnivores and especially omnivores.

    Simply looking at calories explains a lot of this.

    1 lb of carrots = apx 160 calories.

    1 lb of beef = apx 800 calories.

    1 lb of whole grain wheat flour = apx 1500 calories.

    1 lb of ice cream = apx 3840 calories.

    1lb of Crisco shortening (which is vegan, or alternatively pig lard which isn’t) = apx 4150 calories. 3 cups of that put you at 5190 calories.

    I think this goes a long way to explaining dietary advice. I have little personal experience in losing weight (I’d have to gain too much first) but I believe Atkins and such works, but I don’t pay any attention to the keto metabolic stuff really because calories is enough to explain to me why it works for so many people. I find straight meat to be terrifically filling and delicious at surprisingly low calorie values. An italian beef sandwich at Portillo’s is a reasonably filling lunch at about 530 calories and 200 are from the french bread bun, with about 4 ounces of meat plus peppers and au jus. Conversely, a can of CocaCola is 140 calories and 4 cans of pop is not a reasonably filling lunch. Neither is 2 Snickers bars (2 oz each) filling for a meal, but about the same calories.

    Eating high carb refined foods (bread, pasta, sugar), grains and nuts, and less so but still true with dairy, will shoot you up in calories way faster than either meat or vegetables. Muscle meat is relatively quite low in calories compared to most processed high carb foods, even fatty meats so long as you aren’t eating straight lard with a spoon which no one does. Vegetables are even lower still. (Although refined products like vegetable shortening can be as high as straight lard – this is a modern development).

    But vegetables, without the refined products and grains, are too low to easily survive on. With Crisco, on a pure caloric basis it’s easy to be vegetarian (23 tablespoons or 0.6 lbs a day). To get to 2500 calories in a day you would have to eat 16 lbs of carrots a day. The average carrot is 61 grams and there are 454 grams per pound. 119 carrots per day, 7.4 carrots per hour awake, 1 carrot every 8 minutes for 16 hours a day just to maintain (a non-overweight) weight.

    As a side note, I think that many carrots would actually kill you. The beta carotene or something in them I think you can actually OD on. Lettuce and tomatoes are only half as many calories per pound so you would have to eat 32 lbs of lettuce or tomatoes per day. Potatoes will get you up to 350 calories per pound so 7 lbs of potatoes a day which is starting to get a little more realistic.

    Now the grain vegetables, and beans and nuts, are different. Rice, beans and wheat are all around 1600 calories per pound, so less than 2 lb a day. So is spaghetti. With red sauce (no meat) it goes up to 2000 per pound, 1.4lb a day. Cashew nuts are apx. 2560 calories per pound, 1lb a day.

    Beef would be 3.1 lbs a day (say, 12 1/4lb patties). Up the fat content, 2 lbs of bacon instead.

    Ice cream, 0.65 lbs a day. A gallon of ice cream is 4.5 lbs so about 1/7th of a tub (about 2 cups or 2 servings) of ice cream per day, or 1 gallon per week with no other food intake.

    What is the most easy to finish eating and least filling, 2 cups of ice cream, 12 1/4lb beef patties, or 32lbs of romaine lettuce? I would say #1 is doable in 1 sitting with room left over, probably get hungry again later. #2 is doable but probably not in 1 sitting, eating that in 1 day would leave me quite stuffed and fulfilled. #3, not close to physically possible to do in a day. (I don’t even want to imagine how many lbs of daily labor it would be for the undigested parts to come out the other end if someone did somehow manage to stuff it in somehow. I guess the good news is it would probably rupture your stomach or intestines anyway so you wouldn’t have to worry.)

    Long term you have to vary your diet or you get weird nutrient deficiencies. You can’t eat only lean beef or only potatoes or only beans. But no one who kept a “eat as much as you want, but only eat lettuce” diet for a week without cheating failed to lose weight that week. Because even with a force feeding tube humans cannot survive on lettuce. Ignoring the micronutrient issues (like scurvy or idiotism or something) the caloric math doesn’t add up, you’re not a literal cow, you have only 1 stomach. You’ll starve to death even if you chew literally all day.

    What about an all lean beef diet? Probably going to lose weight. It would be about 50% easier to gain weight with all beans. You’d really have to eat a lot to gain weight on lean beef, 3.5+ lbs a day. That’s more than a 16oz steak with a baked potato on the side, for breakfast, lunch and dinner. But if you add sour cream and cheese to the potato (don’t worry about the chives because you’re not a cow) and drink 6 sodas or glasses of milk a day too, you may start putting on. If the meat and potato 2-3 times a day basically covers your daily expenditure (which it roughly does for a man, maybe with the sour cream included, 1200 calories per pound, a tablespoon worth is only 30 calories, +800 for the 16 oz steak, + 175 for a large 8 oz potato = 1005 calories per meal), 6 glasses of milk on top would put you way over it (1200 calories) and 6 sodas less (840 calories). Now add a cup of ice cream for desert after dinner (another 1250).

    Lets leave the beverages and the desert out of it. Eating pasta or bean chili instead of beef, you would have to eat less than the 16 oz you get with beef. Substitute with around 10 oz of vegetarian chili or something.

    Hormel Hot Chili with Beans – 1.09 calories per gram
    Hormel Hot Chili No Beans (Atkins approved) – 0.94 calories per gram, 14% less.

    Like I said I don’t bother trying to understand ketosis or think carbs do anything special, it’s just calories. But the people blaming carbs are probably pretty right, because the stuff that’s high in carbs tends to be the most dense calories per pound behind the stuff like ice cream and candy and it’s the biggest part of the processed foods most people are eating. Dietary experts have been telling people for 50 years to stuff yourself with bread and pasta (as per the food pyramid). That wide bottom part of the food pyramid is the highest calorie part of the food pyramid, only dairy comes close (other than sugar at the top which beats it).

    1 portion of bread, cereal rice or pasta is generally calorically equivalent to about 2 portions of meat, poultry or fish, and equivalent to about 10 portions of vegetables or fruit, yet the pyramid says you are suppose to eat 3-5 servings of vegetables, 2-4 of fruit, 2-3 of meat, and 6-11 servings of bread.

    Then look at what people eat tons of, nachos, macaroni, cereal, bread, buns, pasta, pizza, bakery, cookies, etc. This is why people on Atkins diet are suddenly losing all this wait. People generally know that sugar and ice cream are bad for dieting. They eat granola and think it’s diet food, or rice cakes. Granola and plain rice cakes are in the 1600-2000 calories a pound range. Bacon and eggs are probably a better diet option. Who came up with this for diet advice? Do people who are eating plain cardboard tasting air-filled rice cakes and trying to fill up on them (does it even work?) realize that ounce for ounce they’d be eating less calories if they ate nothing but bacon?

    • Replies: @Old Prude
  132. Anon[126] • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer

    It’s not PC to say so, but being young and smiling a lot do wonders for a woman’s attractiveness.

    • Agree: Old Prude
  133. Old Prude says:
    @Lars Porsena

    Wow. A lot of effort for an end of thread post. Thank you.

    FWIW, I dropped twenty pounds (from 153 to 133, so it’s not like there was much to work with), and have kept it off, by smaller serving sizes, a balanced diet, fewer carbs, skipping meals when not hungry, walking by the free cupcakes in the office…

    Really, just mindfulness, and no fads or anything extreme. Moderate exercise with the goal to stay fit, not to lose weight, is also nice.

  134. Danindc says:

    You’re missing “the talented, presentable part”. Who is better to spread the word. Curious.

  135. frequenting racist boards like this, I once saw someone say that if aboriginals had all died out from some horrendous plague or something prior to contact with whites, we would regard them as a subspecies like neanderthals or even a separate species rather than as a race.

    this is a pretty offensive thing to say and i don’t know if it is true from a genetic basis, but looking at them and hearing about their behavior it certainly doesn’t seem implausible.

  136. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:

    Is it like this?

  137. Not Raul says:
    @Paleo Liberal

    I’ve followed Steve since around 2004.

    He was already getting a decent amount of comments back then.

    Your recollection fits with mine.

    I give Steve credit for his popularity. Nobody else did it for him.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments are moderated by iSteve, at whim.

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS