Magic in the Celtic World from Antiquity to the Middle Ages

New from Francis Miville.

Francis Miville: There was a reason why the Celtic cultural world crumbled and was ready to assimilate into the nearest conquering empire passing nearby. Gauls literally begged the Greeks to conquer them, and as they proved too self-interested as merchants, they turned to the Romans as to the second best choice long before Cesar came.
The Celtic world was more and more definitely with the centuries passing a culture based upon the preeminence of magic and of magic of a very malevolent kind. Druidic civilization was no fun at all. Celtic civilization was quite like the Brahmanical one in its worst aspects but without any encompassing universalistic cosmogony.
It was a universe without any power above that of the elite of all-powerful manipulators having been selected through proof of their psychopathic mind before being taught any bit of initiation knowledge. Above the stage of a mere brute, you spent your own life dodging evil spells and casting ones in return.
The only late exceptions which explain their further survival were Ireland, Scotland, and Brittany on both sides of the Channel. This is because it was rather the invention of something radically new by a certain kind of Christians together with a new kind of Celtic languages that bore very little relationship to the original.
But Celtic Christianity as it was called came to be later on considered as heretical from the point of view of more classical theology, as it was based on much magic too, though of a more seductive than warlike kind. In the case of Ireland and Brittany, the magicians proved to be oligarchically-minded to the worst degree as all magicians are. These magicians offered their services to the best payers, that is to say the Norman and French invaders. In exchange, the oligarchs were given as a natural resource the whole populace that the magicians controlled as a  passive herd.
In Scotland the whole people succeeded as magicians to enter the British Empire as mafia-minded dominants of a worse kind than Anglo-Saxons proper, while playing a key role in the setting up of Masonry.
Magical cultures are all social horrors.

The Fate of Psychopaths in Primitive Society

Robert Hare is one of the world’s leading experts on psychopathy.
At one point, he was up in Alaska for some reason, and he was talking to Inuit about psychopaths. They all nodded their heads after a bit, saying they were familiar with the concept, as these men existed in Inuit society. They lied, cheated, and stole, and when the rest of the men left to go hunting, these men would run around having sex with all the other men’s wives.
Hare asked what was done with these men, and the Inuit said they put up with their antics after a bit, and then all the men would grab them, tie them up, and walk them out to the sea, where they would put them tied up on an ice floe.

Alt Left: A Clue to Modern Black Behavior from Evolution

Negroids, the only African race with which most of us are familiar, developed only in the past 6-12,000 years in West Africa in the context of organized agriculture. They developed very strong bodies and high levels of aggression due to selection pressure in villages with a tribal chief-based system. The chief and his men often monopolized most of the women, leaving the rest of them with few women for themselves. In one tribe the other men were left with no women, and they engaged in homosexuality their whole lives.
The intense selection pressure resulted in the biggest and meanest men rising to the top and breeding with the most women. So they selected for sociopathy, narcissism, a womanizing mindset, cruelty and sadism, high levels of aggression, and very strong bodies.
If you look at Negroid men the world over, it’s pretty obvious that they have selected for these characteristics because they display them at higher levels than other races.
Black men are twice as likely to be psychopaths as Whites.
Personality tests have consistently shown higher levels of (healthy) narcissism in both Black man and women.
Both Black men and women have higher sex drives than Whites, and both Black men women have selected for extreme secondary sex characteristics such as large breasts and buttocks in the female and large penises in the male.

Alt Left: The Concept of a Third Gender: Gay or Transsexual?

There has been a long tradition in many societies around the world of two-spirit people, Third Genders, etc. Many of these people were accepted in their societies under these societal doctrines. In recent years, the Trans Lobby has taken over this discussion and has decided that the two-spirit and Third Gender traditions were examples of how transgenderism has been accepted around the world for a very long time. But that’s true because the notion of two-spirit people and Third Genders generally did not apply to transsexuals.
As a good general rule, my understanding of two-spirit people, 3rd genders, etc. from my studying was that these people were generally just homosexuals.
A two-spirit Amerindian man would do woman’s chores, dress in women’s clothes, and live his life with the women. My understanding is that it was acceptable for a heterosexual Amerindian man to “marry” a two-spirit man and take him as his “wife.” No one much cared about this.
There were indeed two-spirit women also who were just lesbians. They wore men’s clothes, hunted, fished, did men’s chores, and lived their lives with the men. And a two-spirit woman might well take up with another such woman as a “wife.” They could live together as a couple.
There were quite a small number of these people, ~1-2%, so they were not much of a burden for the average tribe who regarded them as the occasional oddity which was strange but could be tolerated in small doses.
There was little to no recreational or choice homosexuality among Amerindians to my knowledge. This type of homosexuality or bisexuality is also rare among many of the more primitive groups the world round. In these societies, sex was generally freely available to both sexes from puberty on (look what Puritans we are now in comparison!), and this teenage sex never harmed a soul for thousands of years. Now suddenly it’s horribly destructive. Right.
Anyway, with free sex from puberty on more or less and marriage inevitable before 40 at least, most folks were satisfying their sexual needs, so there was no need for the sort of opportunistic homosexual behavior that arises due to lack of access to the opposite sex.
I don’t read a lot of gay writing, but I’ve still probably read more than most straights. There has been a tradition in gay historical writing dating back to the mid-19th Century of discussions about a third gender. The interpretation was always that the 3rd Gender people were simply homosexuals or gay and lesbian people. All of a sudden now this is being rewritten as these folks and the two-spirits as having always been trans, but that’s not the way I read the literature and followed the discussion.

Setting the Record Straight About Pre-Contact Africa

John Engelman: Agriculture and civilization select a race for intelligence. Caucasians began agriculture about eleven thousand years ago. We began civilization about five thousand years ago. Negroes only adopted agriculture about four thousand years ago. They never developed their own civilizations. They have only recently been exposed to White civilization.

Agriculture was probably developed by Africans before it was developed by anyone else. There is evidence for agriculture or pre-agriculture in Africa (West African Guinea Highlands) as early as 12,000 YBP. You must realize that Africans originated many things that we as humans do. The next to develop agriculture were the Mayans (corn), the Chinese (rice) and the Papuans (yams), all at 9,000 YBP. The Egyptians and Mesopotamians were not far behind. Africans even had plantation agriculture as early as 900 CE in Tanzania.
I doubt if Caucasians developed agriculture 11,000 YBP. Are we referring to Mesopotamia, the Levant or Egypt here?
Animal husbandry was also developed very early on in Africa. It may have been developed in the Western Sahara before anywhere else on Earth. A figure of 9,000 YBP is suggested for animal husbandry in the Sahara. However, pigs may have been domesticated in Papua around this time also. Animal husbandry was widespread in Africa, particularly in the Sahara, the Sahel and Ethiopia, on contact. I don’t know much about animal husbandry further south, but I have heard there was a shortage of animals to domesticate.
At any rate, the invention of the hoe and subsequent hoe agriculture along with the spear played a major role in the history of Africa. Both derived from the early development of metallurgy in the form or iron. Indeed, the Iron Age came to Africa before it came to Europe. The development of iron metallurgy and the subsequent creation of those two iron tools allowed the Bantus to expand massively all over Central and South Africa in only the last 2-3,000 years.
Africans definitely had civilizations, that’s for sure. Mostly in West Africa but quite a few in the Sahel too. There was even a civilization in Rhodesia. Early European explorers drew drawings of large African cities. Looks like civilization to me. Civilizations were especially common in Nigeria. They had manufacture, trade, agriculture for export, all sorts of things.

Repost: The Classification of the Vietnamese Language

This ran first a long time ago, but I just sold an ad on this post, so I decided to repost it. Rereading it, it’s a great Historical Linguistics post.
One of the reasons that I am doing this post is that one of my commenters asked me a while back to do a post on the theories of long-range comparison like Joseph Greenberg’s and how well they hold up. That will have to wait for another day, but for now, I can  at least show you how some principles of Historical Linguistics, a subfield that I know a thing or two about. I will keep this post pretty non-technical, so most of you ought to be able to figure out what is going on.
Let us begin by looking at some proposals about the classification of Vietnamese.
The Vietnamese language has been subject to a great deal of speculation regarding its classification. At the moment, it is in the Mon-Khmer or Austroasiatic family with Khmer, Mon, Muong, Wa, Palaung, Nicobarese, Khmu, Munda, Santali, Pnar, Khasi, Temiar, and some others. The family ranges through Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Malaysia, Burma, China, and over into Northeastern India.
It is traditionally divided into Mon-Khmer and Munda branches. Here is Ethnologue’s split, and here are some other ways of dividing up the family.
The homeland of the Austroasiatics was probably in China, in Yunnan, Southwest China. They moved down from China probably around 5,000 years ago. Some of the most ancient Austroasiatics are probably the Senoi people, who came down from China into Malaysia about 4,000 years ago. Others put the time frame at about 4-8,000 YBP (years before present).
A major fraud has been perpetrated lately based on Senoi Dream Therapy. I discussed it on the old blog, and you can Google it if you are interested. In Anthropology classes we learned all about these fascinating Senoi people, who based their lives around their dreams. Turns out most of the fieldwork was poor to fraudulent like Margaret Mead’s unfortunate sojourn in the South Pacific.
The Senoi resemble Veddas of India, so it is probably true that they are ancient people.  Also, their skulls have Australoid features. In hair, they mostly have wavy hair (like Veddoids), a few have straight hair (like Mongoloids) and a scattering have woolly hair (like Negritos). Bottom line is that ancient Austroasiatics were probably Australoid types who resembled what the Senoi look like today.
There has long been a line arguing that the Vietnamese language is related to Sino-Tibetan (the family that Chinese is a part of). Even those who deny this acknowledge that there is a tremendous amount of borrowing from Chinese (especially Cantonese) to Vietnamese. This level of borrowing so long ago makes historical linguistics a difficult field.
Here is an excellent piece by a man who has done a tremendous amount of work detailing his case for Vietnamese as a Sino-Tibetan language. It’s not for the amateur, but if you want to dip into it, go ahead. I spent some time there, and after a while, I was convinced that Vietnamese was indeed a Sino-Tibetan language. One of the things that convinced me is that if borrowing was involved, seldom have I seen such a case for such a huge amount of borrowing, in particular of basic vocabulary. I figured the  case was sealed.
Not so fast now.
Looking again, and reading some of Joseph Greenberg’s work on the subject, I am now convinced otherwise. There is a serious problem with the cognates between Vietnamese and Chinese, of which there are a tremendous number.
This problem is somewhat complex, but I will try to simplify it. Briefly, if Vietnamese is indeed related to Sino-Tibetan, its cognates should be not only with Chinese, but with other members of Sino-Tibetan also. In other words, we should find cognates with Tibetan, Naga, Naxi, Tujia, Karen, Lolo, Kuki, Nung, Jingpho, Chin, Lepcha, etc. We should also find cognates with those languages, where we do not find them in Chinese. That’s a little complicated, so I will let you think about it a bit.
Further, the comparisons between Chinese and Vietnamese should be variable. Some should look quite close, while others should look much more distant.
So there’s a problem with the Vietnamese as ST theory.
The cognates look like Chinese.
Problem is, they look too much like Chinese. They look more like Chinese than they should in a genetic relationship. Further, they look like Chinese and only Chinese. Looking for relationships in S-T outside of Chinese, and we find few if any.
That’s a dead ringer for borrowing from Chinese to Vietnamese. If it’s not clear to you how that is, think about it a bit.
Looking at Mon-Khmer, the case is not so open and shut. There seem to be more cognates with Chinese than with Mon-Khmer. So many more that the case for Vietnamese as AA looks almost silly, and you wonder how anyone came up with it.
But let us look again. The cognates with AA and Vietnamese are not just with its immediate neighbors like Cambodian and Khmu but with languages far off in far Eastern India like Munda and Santali. There are words that are found only in the Munda branch in one or two obscure languages that somehow show up again as cognates in Vietnamese.
Now tell me how Vietnamese borrowed ancient basic vocabulary from some obscure Munda tongue way over in Northeast India? It did not. How did those words end up in some unheard of NE Indian tongue and also in Vietnamese? Simple. They both descended long ago from a common ancestor. This is Historical Linguistics.
The concepts I have dealt with here are not easy for the non-specialist to figure out, but most smart people can probably get a grasp on them.
A different subject is the deep relationships of AA. Is AA related to any other languages? I leave that as an open question now,  though there does appear to be a good case for AA being related to Austronesian.
One good piece of evidence is the obscure AA languages found in the Nicobar Islands off the coast of Thailand. Somehow, we see quite a few cognates in Nicobarese with Austronesian. We do not see them in any other branches of AA, only in Nicobarese. This seems odd,  and it’s hard to make a case for borrowing. On the other hand, why cognates in Nicobarese and only in Nicobarese?
Truth is there are some cognates outside of Nicobarese but not a whole lot. In historical linguistics, one thing we look at is morphology. Those are parts of words, like the -s plural ending in English.
In both AA and Austronesian, we have funny particles called infixes. Those are what in English we might call prefixes or suffixes, except they are stuck in the middle of the word instead of at the end or the beginning. So, in English, we have pre- as a prefix meaning “before” and -er meaning “object that does X verb”. So pre-destination means that our lives are figured out before we are even born.  Comput-er and print-er are two objects, one that computes and the other that prints.
If we had infixes instead, pre-destination would look something like destin-pre-ation and comput-er and print-er would look something like com-er-pute and prin-er-t.
Anyway, there are some fairly obscure infixes that show up not only in some isolated languages in AA but also in far-flung Austronesian languages in, say, the Philippines. Ever heard of the borrowing of an infix? Neither have I? So were those infixes borrowed,  and what are they doing in languages as far away as Thailand and the Philippines, and none in between? Because they  got borrowed? When? How? Forget it.
Bottom line is that said borrowing did not happen. So what are those infix cognates doing there? Probably ancient particles left over from a common language that derived both Austronesian and AA, probably spoken somewhere in SW China maybe 9,000 years ago or more.
Why is this sort of long-range comparison so hard? For one thing, because after 9,000 years or more, there are hardly any cognates left anymore, due to the fact of language change. Languages change and tend to change at a certain rate.
After 1000X years, so much change has taken place that even if two languages were once “sprung from a common source,” in the famous words of Sir William Jones in his epochal lecture to the Asiatic Society in Calcutta on February 2, 1786, there is almost nothing, or actually nothing, left to show of that relationship. Any common words have become so mangled by time that they don’t look much or anything alike anymore.
So are AA and Austronesian related? I think so, but I suppose it’s best to say that it has not been proven yet. This thesis is part of a larger long-range concept known as “Austric.” Paul Benedict, a great scholar, was one of the champions of this. Austric is normally made up of AA, Austronesian, Tai-Kadai (the Thai language and its relatives) and Hmong-Mien (the Hmong and Mien languages). Based on genetics, the depth of Austric may be as deep as 30,000 years, so proving it is going to be a tall order indeed.
What do I think?
I think Tai-Kadai and Austronesian are proven to be related (more on that later). AA and Austronesian seem to be related also, with a lesser depth of proof. Hmong-Mien seems to be related to Sino-Tibetan, not Austric.
The case for Vietnamese being related to S-T is still very interesting, and I still have an open mind about it.
All of these discussions are hotly controversial, and mentioning it in linguistics circles is likely to set tempers flaring.


Author and date unknown, What Makes Vietnamese So Chinese? An Introduction to Sinitic-Vietnamese Studies.

Why "Rape Culture" Is Simply Normal Human Culture As It Has Always Existed

Tulio writes:

Logical fallacy. “Normal” does not equal good or acceptable. I’m not just talking rape, I mean anything. Slavery was also once normal too. Just sayin’.

Tulio: Let’s look at their definition of Rape Culture. Once we look at it, this Rape Culture thing is simply the way that all or nearly all human societies have functioned all through time. In other words, it’s normal. It’s not even pathological. It’s just the way people are.
In rape culture:

  • Men act masculine and practice obligatory masculinity. Normal.
  • Women act feminine and practice obligatory femininity. Normal.
  • Women are sexually objectified by men. Normal.
  • Women experience high levels of “sexual harassment” by men in the workplace and elsewhere. Normal.
  • “Sexual harassment” is seen by women as “just men being men.” Normal but possibly not even true in the West anymore.
  • Society is dominated by men. Normal or at least typical and de facto among humans. Possibly not even true in the West anymore.
  • Rape is an ever-present fear for women. Normal.
  • Rape is seen as something which can never be eradicated. Normal.
  • Men are expected to prove their manliness via masculinity. Normal.
  • Men prove their competence via masculinity. Normal.
  • Men are expected to suppress their feminine sides. Normal.
  • Women are expected to suppress their masculine sides. Normal.
  • Rape has an evolutionary basis, and males have an inborn tendency towards rape. Normal.
  • The onus is on women to avoid being raped. Normal.
  • The onus is not on men to control themselves and stop raping. Sadly normal in much of the world, but not the case in the West anymore.
  • Women take all sorts of extra precautions to avoid being raped. Sadly normal.
  • Women must treat every man they meet as a potential rapist. Sadly normal.
  • Patriarchy dominates society. Normal but not the case in the West anymore.
  • Men are supposed to be the protectors of women. Normal.
  • Although men are supposed to be the protectors of women, they do a rather lousy job of it. Sadly normal.

Do you see what these nutcases are doing? This horrible thing that they call rape culture that we are all supposed to be freaked out and upset and wringing our hands about is simply the natural, normal, probably biologically driven way that the vast majority of human societies on Earth have functioned as far back as we can tell.
In fact, societies used to be far worse with regard to this normal human rape culture. Human society at least in the West has gotten far less rapey in the modern era than it used to be. In fact, there are suggestions that among Pleistocene humans, rape may have been nearly continuous and the violent abuse of women was so common as to be typical. Look at the skeletons of humans from 12,000 years ago that have been found in Mexico. The people appear rude, crude and robust in terms of features, were very strong in terms of bone size, and most of the women were found to have suffered many injuries. Even teenage girls had suffered quite a few injuries.
The thinking is that these early Amerindians were an exceptionally brutal people for whom violence was the norm, the females of the society experienced a lot of serious violence from the men, and rape was probably the norm. To say that life was short, nasty and brutish was an understatement.
Worse, the feminuts say that unless we unravel the way human societies have always been, we will always have this Rape Culture bullshit. Well, I guess we will always have Rape Culture then because it doesn’t look like any of this is going away anytime soon.
Nor should it, I would argue.
Look, the feminists have already told us what their idea of a Nonrape Culture is. And it’s not a culture you would even want to live in unless you were a Cultural Left nut.
A Nonrape Culture is one in which:

  • Men do not act particularly masculine and women do not act particularly feminine. Granted we are already getting there, but is that a good thing? You want this? What sort of freakazoid society is that?
  • Men do not attempt to prove their masuclinity. Maybe not a bad idea, but it will probably never happen, one reason being that women themselves will not tolerate this as it is often women who try to force men to prove their masuclinity.
  • Men do not attempt to prove their competence by acting masculine. Ok, that sounds like a very bad idea and a recipe for mass incompetence.
  • Women are not sexually objectified by men. Granted we are already headed that way, but is that a good thing? Do you want to live in a society where you where if you try to be sexual in any way with a woman in public, even by looking at her, it is nearly illegal? Sucks or what?
  • “Sexual harassment” is removed from work and other public spaces. To feminists, sexual harassment means men looking at women, men flirting with women, men making sexual remarks to women, men acting seductively towards women, men asking women out, men asking women for their phone numbers, etc. Feminists apparently think this is evil or something, and they want to remove the ability of men to act sexual towards women in most public spaces. I agree that they might grant us active heterosexual scum special “pickup zones” that might look like bars, nightclubs, or special cafes, but they would resign this activity to those areas only and proscribe it everywhere else. Granted we are already halfway there, and it’s just about a firing offense to ask out any woman at your work, but is that a good thing? You want this?
  • The onus on women to avoid being raped is removed. This would be nice, but logically that would just result in women doing a lot of stupid and heedless things and probably a lot more women getting raped.
  • Rape is seen as something that could be wiped out if we only tried hard enough. It would be nice if we could have a society where rape was seen as something that could be wiped out, but logically that is probably not even possible, and it would just result in the sort of thing we are already experiencing: endless, vitriolic, pointless, irrational and poisonous “wars on rape” which would boil down to “wars on men,” more women hating men, more women turning into lesbian idiots, more insipid laws and rules like consent agreements on college campuses, and more men responding via reactionary movements. Sort of like the society we have now.
  • Men no longer feel that they have to protect women. Fine! We won’t protect you ingrate bitches anymore! See how you like it! Tell you what, men resign from protecting women, and the rates of violence and rape against women are going to go way up. That’s because contrary to Mary Edwards Walker (probably a dyke no man would protect anyway), men protect women from violence, rape and other harm every single day, possibly hundreds of times a day or more, often with considerable risk to themselves. But they want us to stop risking our asses for women? No problem! See how they like being even more defenseless!

Repost: The Moriori and the Dangers of Pacifism

Repost from the old site. This is a popular post for some time on this site. I like this post a lot, as it shows the sheer folly and suicidal insanity of a philosophy of pure pacifism. At some point, you either wait for the enemy to come out and murder you, or you pick up a weapon so you can at least take some of them out in the process. It’s better than being murdered with your hands in the air. At least fighting back offers a dignified death.
The saga of Moriori is instructive.
The Maori have long been known as ferocious headhunters and cannibals who had one of the cruelest and evillest cultures on Earth. The Moriori seem to be a Maori split dating back to about 1500 or so when they left New Zealand and colonized the Chatham Islands. The Chatham Islands are small, very cold and isolated, and there is not a lot of food other than from the sea.
Moriori legend has it that initially, widespread tribal warfare, headhunting and cannibalism was practiced as the normative cruel Moriori culture. On such a small island, this savagery was disastrous, and soon the population plummeted to near-extinction. A leader arose among the Moriori, Nunuku-whenua, who preached a new doctrine of extreme pacifism, Nunuku’s Law. Nunuku’s Law was strictly adhered to 300 years.
Fighting was allowed between males, but it had to be conducted with each armed with a stick the width of a finger. At the first sign of blood, the duel was called off, and the dispute was considered settled. Homicide, rape and other crimes were reportedly rare to absent among the Moriori for centuries.
In 1835, the Chatham Islands were invaded by Maori warriors, who promptly proceeded to slaughter, cannibalize and enslave the Moriori. When the fighting began, the Moriori gathered for a meeting to decide whether or not to fight the invaders. Many young men argued for fighting back, but the elders decided that Nunuku’s Law could not be violated for any reason. The Moriori ran away and hid and were found and dealt with by the Maori.
From 1835-1862, the population declined from 1,600 to 100. Those not murdered and eaten were enslaved. Moriori slaves were forbidden to marry each other, and Moriori women were forced to marry Maori men. It was a true genocide.  Tommy Solomon, the last pure Moriori, died in 1933.

Tommy Solomon on his yearly visit to Christchurch. He was definitely a big fellow! He married a Maori woman, so his descendants are technically not pure Moriori.

Although popular myth says the Moriori were exterminated by the Maori, several thousand mixed-race Moriori still exist today. The Moriori language is extinct, but efforts are being made to raise it from the dead.
Rightwingers have used this episode to exemplify the folly of pacifism.
The saga of the Moriori gives the lie to the notion that race is destiny, at least among Polynesians.
It is commonly thought that Polynesians selected for extreme aggression on their long sea voyages to colonize distant islands. Food may have run low on these voyages, and the survivors may have killed others and cannibalized them to survive. Perhaps the biggest and strongest were the ones most likely to survive the voyages, and this explains the huge size of Polynesians, probably the largest race on Earth, and possibly their high levels aggression and outrageous cruelty.
In modern Westernized societies, Polynesians characteristically become an Underclass with high crime, violence, gang membership and general pathology. In traditional societies, they often do well.
Whatever Polynesian genes look like, the saga of the Moriori shows that they are not doomed to high crime rates or Underclass pathology.
Genetics is the clay, culture is the sculptor.

Gedalia Braun's Piece on Africans

Sam: A possible explanation for Black behavior.
“…common understanding among blacks of what morality is: not something internalized but something others enforce from the outside…”
Tulio: Interesting article. But I’d like to examine multiple perspectives on this topic before I draw any conclusions. I’ve never been to Africa to observe her findings first hand, and given that the author writes for Amren, this individual has an obvious predisposition.
For example she speaks of cruelty and torture in Africa, but that has existed among whites as well. I’ve seen some of the torture devices used during Europe’s middle period. Even looking at them was unbearable. Even in this country witches were burned at the stake. Blacks were hung from trees on false accusations while whites stood around and cheered.
I don’t like her conclusion that blacks have some inherent flaw that makes them incapable of being moral or having any abstract thoughts. Google a list of African proverbs and they contradict everything she just said.

First of all, Gedalia Braun is a man, not a woman. No idea what that first name is all about.
I actually think he is onto something, especially as he lived in various African countries for many years. That was always one of my favorite articles on Amren. The odd thing about that article is that while is not real flattering towards Africans, the author doesn’t seem to hate Africans at all. In fact, it seems that he is rather fond of them despite it all.
I don’t think just writing for Amren should disqualify you as biased. One of the truly disturbing things about Amren that I learned from hanging out there a very long time is that so much of what those articles say is flat out true. That is hard to swallow. However, the site is dishonest and biased as it only reports the downside to Blacks and never says anything good about them, while I know some of you will be amazed, but there are actually quite a few good things you can say about US Blacks if you are looking to write good things about them.
The Black love of cruelty and sadism does seem to be a part of the race. Yes any culture can become extremely cruel and sadistic, even the “highest” races of all which can become downright genocidal under the right conditions of Organized Violence.  Not long ago, two of the “highest” races of all, the Germans and Japanese, engaged in some spectacular cruelty, sadism, out and out evil and even horrific genocide. And yes, European White did use to be quite sadistic and cruel as the torture devices indicate. However, under normal peacetime conditions, most European Whites in Europe and the West demonstrate remarkably little sadism and cruelty, while with Blacks, even US Blacks, it just seems to go on unabated.
I should note that cruelty and sadism are not Black traits. They are human traits! Humans are naturally cruel, sadistic and downright evil, at least at times. Most human societies and most humans have it in them to be sadistic and cruel. I was a pretty vicious little boy, but all my friends were too, so I just figure that boys are just naturally rather evil. But you grow out of it. I still have cruelty and sadism in me of course, but I try to keep it locked up in a cage inside of me and hope it never comes out. My argument is going to be that Blacks are more susceptible to the normal human tendencies than say Whites or Northeast Asians are, not that Blacks are evil and sadistic and White people are real nice. Screw that.
Some of those things may not be race-dependent. For instance, even if Blacks are bad at abstract thinking as a race, if you push their IQ up, their capacity for abstract thinking ought to grow quite a bit. African Americans appear to be dramatically more intelligent that Africans for whatever reason. One standard deviation is nothing to shake your finger at. Hence, even if US Blacks are have some inherent issue with abstract thinking, pushing that IQ up to one SD is going to make US Blacks a Hell of a lot more abstract than Africans.
I should also note that a number of the other downsides to Africans that he writes about – childlikeness, love of cruelty and sadism, needing morality imposed from the outside rather than from within
A lot of that has been said before. Albert Schweitzer wrote much the same things after working for years as a do-gooder in Africa. The fact that he was such a do-gooder makes his remarks particularly potent, as I do not see how a man with that much of a kind heart would deliberately make up a bunch of evil things about Blacks. In fact, if you study so called racist literature down through the years, you will find many of these things that Braun talks about repeated many times. Much early anthropological writings on Blacks are now called racist because they were pretty blunt about the race, whereas now the field is very PC.
For instance, the thing about Blacks being “childlike.” Childlike is not the same thing as childish. Childlike is not a bad thing really. I would love to be childlike in some ways and I hope I am, actually.
Early American writings including I think Thomas Jefferson noted the same thing: they also said that Blacks were childlike.
The morality thing sort of makes sense. In situations where brute force enforces morality, Blacks do pretty well. I heard they do pretty well under Communism. Supposedly you could walk from one end to the other of Maputo in the middle of the night and no one would bother you. Maputo is the capital of Mozambique.
That was under the Communist like government of Samora Machel, who is actually one of my heroes. Havana is the safest large city in the Americas and it is very Black. Blacks also do well under Islam. Reporters have gone to the parts of West Africa that are under Islam and they say that things are a lot smoother, less chaotic and far less crime ridden than in the non-Muslim countries like Sierra Leone and Liberia to the south.
I hear there are also many Blacks in Yemen, maybe up to 40%. They are light-skinned, but there is a lot of discrimination against them. Racially they look like Ethiopians, which is maybe what they are. They commit almost zero crime, even property crime.
Under both Islam and Communism, morality is for sure imposed from the outside in a pretty heavy handed way. It was similar in the typical African village or villages that was ruled by a king. I have heard that pre-1960, Nigeria was mostly a country of small rural villages. There was almost no crime in these villages.
Not only was law enforcement pretty brutal, there was also a heavy shame factor involved similar to what we see with the Northeast Asians, who do not want to commit crimes or even do bad things in general because it will bring shame unto their families. Amazingly rural Africa was able to operate under the same shame-based morality as the Northeast Asians, yet the NE Asians are usually thought to be a “higher” race than Africans. So it looks like some of those things that make these “higher” races higher can actually be imported and be used by the “lower” races, which seems counterintuitive but is also hopeful.
The notion that Black genes make societies inherently unstable is belied by the fact that North Africa (13% Black by genes) and the Gulf (17-21% Black by genes) are remarkable stable places under normal peacetime conditions.
Also Ancient Egypt was 13% Black by genes and it was one of the greatest countries in the history of the world. So Caucasians having a certain amount of Black genes is not the end of the world.

The Basque-Caucasian Hypothesis

I have gotten a lot of crap from my enemies for being on the site in the first place, but really anyone can join.
The following was posted by one of the reviewers in an Academia session by one of the leading lights of the Basque-Caucasian theory. As you can see, the mythological and multiple lines of genetic evidence are starting to pile up pretty nicely too. This is neat stuff if you are interested in the Basque-Caucasian link in addition to work going on into the remains of the Neolithic Farmers who were subsumed in the Indo-European waves. It turns out there is quite a bit left in different parts of Europe, especially in terms of Neolithic Farmer mythology.
From a discussion among academics and independent scholars on a paper on the Basque-Caucasian Theory in Historical Linguistics during a session in on Academia:

I am not a linguist but interested in the topic as it proposes a linguistic correlation between Caucasic languages and Basque, as it parallels my own current research on reconstructing European Paleolithic mythologies using ethnographic analogies constrained by on archaeogenetics and language macrofamily correlations.
Tuite (2006, 2004, 1998, 1997) has pointed out the hunter-gatherer beliefs and myth motifs shared across a ‘macro-Caucasic’ area to the Hindu Kush and into Western Europe. Basque deities Mari, Sugaar, and Ama Lurra and their associated mythologems have striking similarities to the macro-Caucasic hunter mythologies (not found in Finno-Ugric or Middle Eastern ancient mythologies.)
I am currently writing a paper identifying many examples of Southern/Western Gravettian art in Italy, Spain, southern France that appear to depict imagery only explicable by analogy to Macro-Caucasic religious myth and ritual.
With respect to mtDNA fossil genetics, three skeleton samples are from Paglicci Cave, Italy, ~25 cal BP: one is macro-N-mtDNA (homeland Caucasus/Caspian/Iran; currently highest frequencies Caucasus, Arabia), and two skeletons, RO/HV-mtDNA (homeland northern Middle East; currently highest frequencies, Basque, Syria, Gilaki, Daghestan).
During the later Magdalenian another diffusion occurs apparently by a similar route: HV4-mtDNA emerges in Belarus-Ukraine (~14±2 ka) and under Late Glacial Maximum HV4a (~13.5 ka) moves south and splits in the three refugia: southern Italy, southern Russia (HV4a1, ~10 ka), the Middle East (HV4a2, ~9 ka), and Basque area (HV4a1a, ~5 ka, suggesting full emergence of distinct Basque culture and language), (Gómez-Carballa, Olivieri et al 2012).
These studies further support the existence of a Macro-Basque-Caucasic mythological stratum as well as shared language substrate.

The cutting-edge liberal theory is that Basque (and some other odd far-flung languages) is part of the Caucasian language family. In other words, at one time, the Basques and the peoples of the Caucasus like Chechens were all one people.
What this probably represents is the ancient Neolithic farmers who covered Europe before the Indo-European invasion replaced almost all of the languages of Europe. All that is left is Basque and the peoples of the Caucasus. Everything in between got taken by IE except for some late movements by Uralic and Turkic speakers. Up in the north, the Lapp Uralic speakers are, like Basques, the last remains of the Neolithic farmers. The Sardinians also an ancient remaining group of these people, but their language has been surmounted recently by a Latinate tongue.
As it turns out, the Basques and Caucasians also share a number of cultural similarities. There are also some similar placenames. And there is some good genetic evidence connecting the Basques with the Caucasian speakers.
It’s all there, but the conservatives are balking, to put it mildly, about linking Basque with the Caucasian languages.
I have long believed in this theory.
I read a book over 20 years ago comparing Basque to the Caucasian languages and a few other distant tongues and thought the case was proved even via overkill by the book. And recent work is so super that one wonders why the conservatives are still winning. I feel that the link between Basque and the Caucasus languages is now proven to an obvious and detailed degree.

Unconditional Positive Regard in Anthropology and Psychology

William writes:

I suspect it has to do with Robert’s Anthropologist-ish background, it seems like you guys have a deep respect for basically any people capable of civilization at all/ have a deeper appreciation for it.

Correct, I have worked as a Cultural Anthropologist. I sort of fake my way into most of my jobs – I get a bunch of books on how to do it read them or I call up people who work in the field and ask them how to do the job. Then just go be an impostor. I remember when I boned up for the job, the books I read said that if you were going to be an anthropologist and work with an ethnic group, one thing you had to do was to accept the ethnic group in toto, and that meant you had to accept every single one of their behaviors and cultural practices. That’s the only way to do ethnographic work.
If you dislike some of the group’s beliefs, behaviors or practices, it can show up in your work with your informants, and if you don’t have a good relationship with your informants, you can’t get any good anthropological work done at all. Your informants will lie, play tricks on you, make up jokes about what they believe and do and all sorts of nonsense. Or they will just become hostile and refuse to cooperate much at all.
It’s sort an unconditional positive regard thing, a Rogersian way of doing anthropology.
Speaking of which, I also work in mental health, and I believe in Rogers’ Unconditional Positive Regard model here too. Too many therapists don’t, and I believe as a result, they do lousy therapy. I accept all of my clients in toto and generally don’t have any negative attitudes about any of them. Of course it helps that most of my clients are very good people. I don’t have to work with lousy or bad people as clients. I guess it’s difficult.
Also I am still a liberal at heart. That never left me. If your heart is still on the Left, it’s hard to get all that racist no matter how awful X group or race acts. Though Gypsies would definitely try my patience!

The Development of Metallurgy in Africa

JM8 writes:

There were some in Africa that were equal to or more advanced than those in Eurasia — i.e. Nok and others like it. One might mention the Gajiganna Culture. Cultures on that general level were not rare at the time or in times fairly soon after in West Africa, but those were notably the oldest and most advanced (or among such) in their region at the time. There were also some that were less advanced and/or did not become so until much later. Of course these were not the most advanced cultures on earth…
…Tangentially speaking, not to belabor the point too much: there are especially important developments in Africa that are early and especially stand out by by global standards: for instance, the likely invention of iron metallurgy in West Africa the Igbo region ca. 2000 BC, 1,000 years before its only other independent discoveries in two other places — China and the Near East. Another is one of the few and oldest independent inventions of pottery other than that of Asia (both around the Mesolithic in either Southern Mali or Central Sudan and somewhere between N. E. Russia and China).

I was very interested in this subject at one time, and I did a lot of research into when metallurgy appeared in Africa and whether iron smelting was an independent development in Africa as so many insist.
I read ~90 pages out of a book on subject that was available for reading on the Internet. The author was a respected anthropologist. The claim was that metallurgy was independently developed in Africa in Nigeria before anyone else, and that Africans completely skipped the Copper and Bronze Age precursors and went straight to the Iron Age, a mighty feat if true. However, the conclusion that I reached after all that reading is that Africa did not independently develop metallurgy. In fact, metallurgy developed much earlier in Eurasia as the Copper and Bronze Ages, which appeared long before the Iron Age, the last stage of metallurgy.
So metallurgy itself was developed probably centuries if not millennia before its appearance in Africa with the smelting of copper and bronze, two earlier stages that never showed up in Africa until much later.
And the smelting of iron also does not appear to have developed independently in Africa. Instead it developed first in Anatolia. Anatolians were already familiar with the smelting of copper and bronze, and it appears that iron smelting was invented here some time in the 4th Century BCE.
It then slowly filtered over to Libya, a process that took centuries. The Libyans or pre-Carthaginians traded a lot down through the Sahel with Sub-Saharan Africans.
So iron smelting somehow made its way down the Sahel to Nok, Nigeria, where it appeared 2,900 BP or 900 BCE. It is this well-known Nok development of iron smelting that is the evidence used by misguided people (often Afrocentrists) to claim independent development of iron smelting in Sub-Saharan Africa before anyone else on Earth.
Other than the facts, there were some other suspicious things about this theory. First of all, the claim that Africans were so advanced that they skipped the Copper and Bronze Ages altogether and leaped right to the Iron Age seems suspicious. The normal trend in metallurgy was copper -> bronze -> iron. It went like this the world over. Why would Africans be so advanced that they leapfrogged over the rest of the planet and skipped the first two possibly necessary stages.
Also iron smelting did not appear with the Igbo as claimed above but instead was developed by the more North African/Sahel (and later Islamic) influenced Nok Culture in the far north of Nigeria in what is now the Hausa-speaking region part of Muslim Nigeria.
Nevertheless, I like the Nok Culture, and in my opinion it takes a fairly advanced culture to even borrow things from other cultures, and Nok was very advanced for its time 2,900 YBP.
I would also like to point out that most cultural innovations are actually borrowings. Few major cultural developments occurred independently.
The alphabet is a good example, and most of the world’s alphabets borrowed ultimately from the Phoenician alphabet, the first character set that went on to conquer the world. Even Indian scripts are borrowings from the Phoenician, as are the Arabic, Aramaic, and Persian scripts, etc. There is nothing wrong with borrowing a major cultural advance. Most cultures on Earth obtained most of their major cultural advances via borrowing as opposed to independent development.
Furthermore, it is important to note that after iron smelting occurred at Nok, it spread very quickly through Africa. It appeared in Tanzania not long afterwards, and it rapidly spread through much of the region. Furthermore, Africans made wide, almost stunning variety of innovations in iron smelting, and these innovations were indeed independent developments. Speed of cultural transmission and improvements/innovations in major cultural borrowings are also examples of advanced cultures.

What Race Is This Person (Singapore)?

An interesting phenotype from Singapore.

This is the aunt of a friend of mine. The family is from Singapore. They are part of an ethnic group called the Pernakans, a Southern Chinese group that moved to Malaysia ~600 years ago for some reason, possibly due to overcrowding in Fujian or worse, the terrible wars that periodically raged through the region.
Chinese groups have been leaving from this part of Southern China for a very long time now, especially in the last 200 years. In the past couple of centuries, this part of China has become very crowded. Possibly as a result, wild and vicious wars periodically raged through the area, sometimes killing 100,000’s of people. If you study Chinese history, you will hear about these wars a lot. It is not uncommon to read that invaders conquered several large cities and exterminated the whole populations of perhaps 300,000 people, men, women and children. This is how the Chinese have often fought wars. Chinese wars are unbelievably vicious and savage.
The Pernakans moved to Malaysia, and over time, bred in with Dutch and Portuguese and to a lesser extent British Europeans. All three were colonists in the region. I believe that they were Min speakers, but their Hokkien has gotten so changed, in particular from massive borrowings from Malay, that these languages in general are no longer intelligible with Amoy or Taiwanese Hokkien Proper.
Most Pernakans now are somewhat Eurasian, Chinese crossed with Dutch, Portuguese and sometimes British. The Pernakans had their own patriarchal culture and were known as very hard workers, often at manual labor type jobs like farming, timber harvest are working on rubber plantations. They committed little crime and had very orderly societies. The European colonists marveled at their high level of civilization. They did keep slaves, but they probably treated their slaves better than any slaves have ever been treated, and in many cases, slaves were freed.
Over time, most Pernakans also bred in with Malays. Pernakans are now a Chinese/Malay/European race, but the Asiatic tends to be prominent over the European in the stock. The mixing of cultures over 600 years in Malaysia resulted in some very interesting fine cuisine.
Many of these Chinese migrated to Singapore, where they, along with Teochew speakers (another Min group) and a large group of Cantonese Chinese, form what is known as the Singaporean Chinese, one of the wealthiest and most economically advanced ethnic groups on Earth. There is still a division of labor in Singapore, with Chinese on top, Malays on the bottom, and Southern Indian Dravidian speakers in between. Nevertheless all three groups are substantially mixed by this point. Most Chinese have Malay blood, and a lot of Malays have some Chinese in them. Malays and Indians are now intermarrying quite a bit. There is some ethnic conflict but not a lot possibly due to the wealth and everyone being so mixed.
Although this woman has a somewhat archaic phenotype (note prognathism), these archaic types are fairly common in Southern China. Many can be seen in the mountains of Yunnan Province. The archaism may be due to incomplete transition from Australoid -> Mongoloid, as the transition happened much later in Southern China than in Northern China, and prominent Australoid types were common in the far south of China only 3-4,000 YBP.
I also believe that this woman may be admixed with Caucasian. And I think the Malay admixture is quite clear. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I think I see some Vedda influence here. That would not be unusual, as Malays were Veddoids only until quite recently, and the Senoi are Veddoids to this day. The Mani Negritos are also still extant.
The transition in Malaysia went from Australoid Negritos (Mani) and Orang Asli -> Australoid Veddas (Senoi) -> Paleomongoloid Southeast Asians (modern Malays). The Malays appear to be aware of this transition, as they state that the Mani and Orang Asli are their ancestors. The bloodline of the Orang Asli goes back 72,000 YBP, so this group has been present in Malaysia since the very first Out of Africa groups, and their archaism is about on a par with the Andaman Islanders, another Australoid group which is also the remains of some of the earliest OOA groups.

A Look at the Burushaski Language

Burushaski is formally a language isolate spoken in the far northwest of Pakistan near the border with China in the Hunza Valley. It is still alive and may have 30,000 speakers.

Burushaski people are interesting in that they live a very long time. The Hunza has one of the largest populations of centenarians on Earth. No one knows why they live so long except that they live in mountainous terrain and walk up and down steep hills for most of their lives as another long-lived people, the Sardinians, also do. Their diet has also been studied, and it turns out that two staples are apricots and yogurt, for whatever that is worth. They live at a very high altitude also. Whether that factors into longevity is not known.

Method and Conclusion. See here.

Results. A ratings system was designed in terms of how difficult it would be for an English-language speaker to learn the language. In the case of English, English was judged according to how hard it would be for a non-English speaker to learn the language. Speaking, reading and writing were all considered.

Ratings: Languages are rated 1-6, easiest to hardest. 1 = easiest, 2 = moderately easy to average, 3 = average to moderately difficult, 4 = very difficult, 5 = extremely difficult, 6 = most difficult of all. Ratings are impressionistic.

Time needed. Time needed for an English language speaker to learn the language “reasonably well”: Level 1 languages = 3 months-1 year. Level 2 languages = 6 months-1 year. Level 3 languages = 1-2 years. Level 4 languages = 2 years. Level 5 languages = 3-4 years, but some may take longer. Level 6 languages = more than 4 years.


Burushaski is often thought to be a language isolate, related to no other languages, however, I think it is Dene-Caucasian. It is spoken in the Himalaya Mountains of far northern Pakistan in an area called the Hunza. It’s verb conjugation is complex, it has a lot of inflections, there are complicated ways of making sentences depending on many factors, and it is an ergative language, which is hard to learn for speakers of non-ergative languages. In addition, there are very few to no cognates for the vocabulary.

Burushaski is rated 6, hardest of all.

A Look at Precontact Igbo Society

This is from a good friend of mine, a young Black guy I am mentoring. We have all sorts of great discussions. As you can see, I am such a horrible racist that I mentor young Black guys! How many racists do that? This also looks like a pretty well structured society, which seems to belie the myth that these people were complete savages pre-contact. They actually had a fairly elaborate system of social and political organization.

My few Afrocentrist readers like Hucipher might be especially interested in this

The Social Order of Pre-contact Igbo Society

Negro Major – This could either refer to the King Priest or the Judge Priest depending on which Igbo system you are talking about. The King Priest would be the only real political figure in centralized Igbo society, possibly playing the role of “Loyal Patron” or “Grand Manipulator.” In the case of the Awka, the major Igbo tribe who sold slaves, he was probably the latter; with the Nri, a tribe where slaves ran to to be free, the former.

Judge Priest – The Judge Priest of decentralized Igbo society was closer to what we would call a judge or priest in our own societies. While he was seen as a man of power, he didn’t hold an executive role.

Negro Concilium – These would be the heads of village families who participated as a council. Not only did their political role make their organization democratic, but throughout the status system, this group was the focal point where things were kept “egalitarian yet complex,” possibly the best way to describe this system. In order to retain this status, one  must have had good communication skills and be what we might call “fluent speakers” and needed to maintain discipline in their administrative role.

Negro Plebeian – These would be the various tradesmen who were disciplined in their crafts and developed a hard work ethic.

Negro Minor – Younger members who were fodder for the other roles.

Negro Vulgus – Murderers, thieves, and possibly rapists who broke the laws of their societies. However, domestic abuse probably evoked little concern. These were actually looked down upon in Black societies that had an active system law enforcement, such as the Ashanti or the Igbo, and the  Malians under Ibn Battuta who developed a system of law and order due to a religious culture.

The Last of the Kawahiva, An Uncontacted Tribe in Brazil


Amazing video of an uncontacted tribe in the Amazon.

I must say that Brazil is an awful country. They have been cutting down the rainforest and killing the Indians in their way for a long time now. They did so even under the Left government. They have another Left government now, and they won’t do anything to stop it either. I have heard that the government is too afraid to go after these wealthy loggers and ranchers because they are so powerful, and they tend to kill anyone who gets in their way.

However, the mere fact that there are so many of these blatantly illegal loggers who run private armies and murder their opponents with complete impunity implies that the Brazilian state, like Colombia, is broken at its very core. Further, it implies that there is nothing progressive about the Brazilian state no matter how many PT former guerrilla presidents they elect.

Obviously the rich and the oligarchs run the place, apparently with the gun. Even the government is afraid to get in their way for fear that that armies of the rich (death squads) will kill them.

So at the end of day, Brazil is just another banana republic, and worse than that, it’s a failed state like so many Latin American nations. When the rich own and run the country by the gun no matter who is in power, you have a failed state de facto.

I suppose some Marxists would argue that it’s always this way under this bullshit joke called “capitalist democracy,” but that’s not really true. The Swedish rich don’t run death squads who murder the state for going after their privileges.

Even worse, a cancer called Brazilian nationalism has arisen. Yes, former colonies can breed ugly nationalisms. This nationalism, reactionary like all nationalisms, argues that attempts by the world to keep Brazil from chopping down its rainforest are a plot by internationalists from other nations to keep the Brazilian nation down. It’s all down to a foreign plot by those pesky outsiders. Incredibly, a lot of Brazilians have fallen for this.

That’s pitiful right there.

I have long supported Survival International. I used to subscribe to their magazine in the 1980’s. It’s a pretty cool organization; you might want to check them out.

Although SI is certainly not sympathetic to the White nationalist position of Whites as an endangered indigenous people, I would think that White nationalist types might want to support groups like SI merely out of solidarity with the concept that indigenous peoples of any type have a right to survive as they see fit.

The Races of China and Japan

Pretty cool old anthropology article on the Chinese and Japanese races. It’s wrong in some ways, but it still has a lot that should be of value. Obviously such an article could not appear in any anthropology journal today, which is pitiful. Blame PC for that.

The Races of China and Japan

by Harry Paxton Howard

The China Weekly Review, Vol. 60 (12 March 1932), pp. 48–50

The Chinese and Japanese are two separate and distinct peoples, as separate and distinct as is the southern Italian from the Norwegian taken in the mass. There is no scientific basis for the assertion that they are of the same race, and indeed anyone at all familiar with the two peoples is readily able to distinguish between the general type. There is the lesser height of the Japanese (due mainly to shorter legs), the more rugged features, the sharper, longer, and narrower eyes (usually black as compared with the typical Chinese brown), the more brownish skin-color, the much greater frequency of beard.

On the other hand, there are certain sub-types which both peoples possess and which make it possible for thousands of Japanese in this country to pass as Chinese, while there are many pure Chinese who may be mistaken for Japanese. The reason for this is that each people is a mixture of different elements. Some of the elements are common to both peoples. Some elements one people possesses but not the other.

Chinese Racial Origins

Many anthropologists have devoted themselves to analyzing and distinguishing the racial elements in the two countries. Buxton, Li Chi, Shirokogoroff and some others have given special study to the Chinese people, and all distinguish different types among the population, as do also Haddon, Morant and others.

The most complete study to date is that made by Dr. Stevenson of the P.U.M.C. at Peiping, in his ‘Collected Anthropometric Data on the Chinese,’ showing at least two distinct types, though Stevenson is too cautious a scientist to state any definite conclusions as yet. And as regards racial origins in the North, the data given in Black’s study of skulls from prehistoric sites in Kansu and Honan suggest answers to some long-debated problems when considered in connection with some physical types already distinguished by different anthropologists.

First of all there is a Chinese type which is also found among the Manchus and by students is regarded as the fundamental ‘Manchu’ type. It is of short or medium stature, with broad head, low orbits (apparently associate with a long and narrow eye-slit), narrow nose often aquiline, frequently fair and ruddy skin. This type exists in Manchuria and in North China today, and is found further south as well.

Secondly, there is a type which, if placed side by side with the foregoing, will show marked differences. It is taller, with longer skull, wider forehead, higher orbits (‘rounder’ and more open eye), broader nose. It is frequent in North China, but is found to be predominant and characteristic among the Kham Tibetans of the territory adjoining Kansu.

The Primitive Mixture

The study of prehistoric skulls referred to above indicates the existence of these very types in the China of four thousand years ago. The earliest skulls, from Neolithic cities in Kansu and Honan, present ‘several suggestive similarities to Kham Tibetans’ though differing from more recent North China skulls in being longer, ‘with somewhat wide foreheads and longer skull bases, and slightly broader palates and lower orbits.’

The aspects in which these Neolithic skulls differ from the Kham Tibetans, however, are very significant. In addition to the Tibetan type, they include a type with broader head, narrow nose, and lower orbits. Such features are characteristic of the Manchu type referred to above, which fact leaves little doubt that the Neolithic people were a mixture of these Kham Tibetan and ‘Manchu’ types.

Judging from their later distribution, it is probable that the ‘Manchu’ type was more characteristic of the Honan communities, the Kham Tibetan type of those in Kansu, but the study referred to above, unfortunately, does not distinguish between the two localities, grouping them all together as ‘Yang Shao’ (Neolithic).

The Turkish Element

Others of these prehistoric communities, evidently later in date and showing the use of bronze in addition to stone, show the addition of another type which, combined with the previous ones, makes up a mixture hardly distinguishable from the Northern Chinese of more recent times. As previously stated, the primitive mixture differed from the more recent by its narrower skull, broader foreheads, and lower orbits. The new type evidently possessed a broader skull, with relatively narrower forehead and higher orbits.

These features are characteristic of the Turki, with their broad skull, long oval face, and generally non-Mongolian eyes. From the study mentioned…it would appear that the lower orbits are generally an Oriental characteristic. They are apparently associated with the longer, narrower eye. No other race in this part of the world seems to possess just these characteristics, and we know that the early home of the Turkish peoples was somewhere in the interior of Asia. It is an interesting confirmation of the theory held by many historical students (e.g., Hirth), on different grounds, that the Turkish element is present and is of some significance in China.

[It should be understood that the word Turki here refers not to the tribe, but to the racial stock. This stock is predominant among the Turkish peoples, though now apparently mixed with other elements.]

This element, indeed, would explain the presence of the occasional ‘hairy’ type among the Chinese. Most Chinese, like Mongolian peoples as a whole, have little hair either on face on body. The Turki, however, possess a plentiful beard, and a fair supply of hair on the body as well, in distinct contrast to the Mongolian peoples. We find some Chinese possess beards and growth of hair on the body, and the Turkish element would account for this. Hairiness, indeed, is a distinguishing feature of Chinese Moslems, who quite clearly have a strong non-Mongolian element in them.

Four Types

This Turkish element seems to have come in together with bronze in the legendary period just preceding more definite history. The early Hsiung-nu (on the plains to the north of the Yellow River in ancient China) appear to have been Turkish, and Hirth believes that the Chou Dynasty was of Turkish origin. It was apparently in the second millennium B.C. that this element became mixed with the Kham Tibetans and Manchu types referred to above, producing a mixture similar to that of North China today.

There is, however, a fourth type, of the presence of which Chinese history leaves no doubt whatsoever – the Mongol. This type, distinguished from the mass of Chinese by the lowness of the Mongol head and breadth of the face and head, as well as the little flat nose and low stature, has apparently existed for long in the Chinese mixture. Its coming into China was during the historic period, with one invasion after another by Mongol peoples (as well as by others) during the past two thousand years.

There may be distinguished, therefore, four racial types of some importance in North China,— the Manchu, the Kham Tibetan, the Turki, and the Mongol. These four elements, with their combinations, seem to account for every type of any frequency in North China and are found further south as well.

It should be noted however, that three of the types, judging from their present-day representatives, possess certain essential characters of the Mongolian group – hair straight, black, and scanty on face and body; eyes usually relatively long and narrow, generally brown in color, and commonly with the characteristic Mongolian eye-fold; skin color varying from yellowish-white to yellow-brown, though there are fair and ruddy complexions also.

The Turki are closer to the Caucasian owing to their abundant hair on face and body, frequently if not typically wavy; eyes generally full and round (though often – apparently through admixture – with Mongolian fold); skin color from pinkish-white to brown.

The South

The above-named elements are characteristic of North China, but they extend into the South as well. Here, however, they come into contact with other types rarely found among natives of the North. First of all there is an element with wavy or even curly hair, open and round non-Mongolian eye, short stature but relatively long legs, long and narrow head, and broad nose. These characters, which set this type distinctly apart from the Mongolian races, belong to many southern aborigines as well as Chinese, distinguishing a race which Buxton and Haddon link up with the Indonesians or Nesiots.

There is still another element present in the South, a quite different race but now generally mixed with other types – the Negrito. This type is characterized by its woolly hair, very short stature, very dark skin and broad nose, and full or thick lips. Li Chi and other anthropologists have pointed out indications of such a type.

It appears indeed, that the occasionally curly-haired Chinese in the south is usually a cross between this woolly-haired type and either the wavy-haired Indonesian or straight-haired Mongolian element. And other Negroid characters such as prognathism, black skin, pigmentation of the eye, the full or even thick lips also occur. Negrito peoples still exist scattered over a considerable area in southeastern Asia and the adjoining islands, and probably at one time occupied a much greater part of southeastern Asia than at present.

Stevenson believes there is still another type present in the South which he terms Polynesian, rather similar to the Indonesian but with finer and more prominent features.

The Chinese Mixture

There are therefore several races or sub-races among the Chinese people. There is indeed little agreement among anthropologists as to what constitutes a race, some defining 19 or 20, others 40-60, among the peoples of the earth.

There is wide agreement among competent anthropologists, however, as to certain broad divisions of the human species, and Boas…recognizes two main divisions, the Caucasian-Mongolian and the Afro-Australian.

In the first division the Mongolians have straight black hair, flat or broad face, Mongolian eye-fold, frequently yellowish (though often fair, ruddy, or brown) skin color. The Caucasian hair is often wavy or curly and of lighter color, and the Mongolian eye-fold and yellowish skin color are ordinarily absent. The most fundamental distinction between the two however is the relative hairiness of the Caucasian and the hairlessness (on face and body) of the Mongolian.

The Blacks of the second division differ from both members of the first division by their woolly or frizzly hair, their black skin (with a degree of pigmentation which even affects the eye), their frequently thick and everted lips, and by actual bodily proportions, the Negro leg being differently formed from that of ‘White’ or ‘Yellow’ man. The most marked point of distinction between Negro and Australian is the relative hairiness of the latter and the fact that this hair is not woolly but curly or frizzly.

Of these four main physical divisions of mankind we find the Mongolian most common in China. The extent of the Caucasian element depends upon how the Indonesian and Turkish types are classified. Some group the Indonesians with Caucasians because of their wavy or curly hair and open, round, non-Mongolian eye. Elliott Smith groups them together with the Mediterranean peoples as the Brown Race. The Turki are also a people regarding whose classification there is a difference of opinion, their straight black hair making it possible to group them with the Mongolians, while its abundance and their lack of other specifically Mongolian characters marks them as Caucasian.

Besides the Mongolian and Caucasian elements in China, there is only the Negrito, which is slight. We find, therefore, six recognized types in China, three being Mongolian – the Mongol, Manchu, and Kham Tibetan (though Morant thinks the last-named type is not Mongolian at all – two being classifiable as ‘Caucasian – the Turki and the Indonesians – and one being Negrito. There are some other rather infrequent physical types not yet clearly defined and classified.

Japanese Racial Origins

The racial analysis of the Japanese is in some ways easier than that of the Chinese owing to their being concentrated in a very much smaller area and owing to their being a more recent mixture of which the various elements are still fairly distinct in many cases. Three thousand years ago the ‘North China’ type seems to have already been formed, with its Manchu, Tibetan, and Turkish elements, but nothing whatever is known of the Japanese at that period. In the next thousand years the Chinese penetrated into the south and mixed with the Indonesian and other non-Mongolian elements there, but still nothing is known of the Japanese.

There are indications however that while this continual push to the southward was taking place on the mainland, there were movements in a northerly direction off and along the coast. Just when this movement of a southern maritime people reached Kyushu, the big southern island of Japan, we do not know, but it was probably not much before the Christian era. The present distribution of physical types in Japan, however, and their outside associations permit us to outline roughly the development which took place there just as we have done for China.

The early natives of the Japanese islands were the short, fair-skinned, hairy, non-Mongolian people known as the Ainu, now found, in fairly pure form in their communities only in Hokkaido, the most northerly of the three big islands but probably occupying practically the whole of the main island (Hondo) two thousand years ago. This people, whose affinities are Caucasian and who indeed show much resemblance to certain Russian types, were steadily driven north by the invasion from the south, continuing for century after century.

Negritos and Malays

In Kyushu there may have been another element – Negrito – prior to the maritime invasion. The wide territory over which the Negritos are scattered and the probability that they formerly occupied a much greater area than at present has already been referred to. At the present time, as regards Japan, this type seems more common in Kyushu than elsewhere, though it is scattered through the islands, and clearly recognizable Negroid or specifically Negrito types can be noted, though generally mixed with other elements.

In speaking of the Japanese types, our task is simplified by the fact that most of the racial types have already been defined for China. When we speak of the Malays therefore we can state the general type by simply noting that anthropologists tend to regard this type as a mixture of the Indonesian peoples with a Mongolian element from the north. The Mongolian element is shown more specifically in the eyes; the Indonesian in the short stature and occasionally wavy hair. The Malays themselves therefore are an ancient mixture – how old we do not know, though perhaps more recent than the early North China mixture.

This brown Malay element is probably the most important type in Japan, but for fully two thousand years it has been mixed with the Negrito, and also with types from the Asiatic mainland via Korea. These mainland types are of interest here.

Manchus and Ainus

The earliest known center of civilization in Japan was at a point opposite Korea where certain types evidently came across from the mainland. Among these types there was the ‘Manchu’ type which has already been defined, and probably the ‘North China’ type which had already been formed from the mixture of different elements previously referred to. There are Malay and other elements in Korea also.

Of these elements, the Manchu-Korean appears to have left the widest traces in Japan. Though there was some Chinese migration both in prehistoric and historic times, this was not sufficient in quantity or contained too little of the tall Kham Tibetan type, to affect the short Malay physique to any extent. The ‘Chinese type’ however is distinctly present in Japan, though its proportion to the whole is apparently not great.

Far more important than the Chinese element was that of the White aborigines, the savage Ainu.

As the Japanese people (mainly Malay but mixed with Negrito, some Manchu-Korean, and a slighter Chinese element) advanced northward in their steady conquest of the islands, they exterminated, enslaved, or absorbed those of the natives who did not give war before them. They certainly absorbed a very large number of them, as is shown today by the frequency of individuals with Ainu characteristics among the Japanese.

Most recognizable is the Ainu hairiness. Some have estimated that the Japanese people of today are more than one-third Ainu, though this figure is probably too high.

The Japanese Mixture

When we consider the four main physical divisions of mankind already referred to we find the Japanese are a quite different mixture from the Chinese.

While the Malay element is apparently of most importance, this must itself be divided into Mongolian and Indonesian. Another Mongolian element is seen in the Manchu-Korean type and in the occasional ‘Chinese’ type (which includes however other elements). The Mongolian element is therefore the most important quantitatively speaking, though this includes much more of the Manchu type than is the case with the Chinese, as shown by the long, narrow eyes characteristic of the Japanese.

The extent of the Caucasian element depends partly on how the Indonesians are classified, but there is little doubt of the essentially Caucasian characters of the hairy Ainu. The importance of the Negrito element is considerable, much greater than in China.

We find, therefore, six recognizable types in Japan, three being Mongolian – the Manchu type, and the Mongolian elements in the Malays and Chinese – two being classifiable as ‘Caucasians’ – the Ainu and the Indonesians – and one being Negrito.

Through the different methods of combination in the Japanese and Chinese peoples, therefore, we can see some of the reasons for the physical differences between the two. There is little sign among the Japanese of the Kham Tibetan and Turkish types which add height to the Chinese (particularly the northern Chinese) as well as making for a rounder and more open eye. There is no sign among the Chinese of the Ainu type which gives the more frequent hairiness and more rugged features to the Japanese. And so we have two separate people, generally easily distinguishable but containing many individuals of similar types.

Other Differences

Probably more important than race, however, are other differences. For four thousand years and more, the Chinese people have been agricultural villagers, tillers of the soil, conquered by pastoral nomads from time to time but absorbing their conquerors.

But for most of this period, the Japanese were a maritime people, raiding their way north and in the islands of Japan conquering and absorbing a White native population even more savage than themselves. China’s age of military feudalism came to an end two thousand years ago, and though there have been relapses, the essential principles of private ownership and a peasantry free from feudal shackles have remained.

But at that time Japan had not yet emerged from the darkness of savagery, and when many centuries later the light of Chinese civilization shed its rays over the islands, it illuminated a primitive military feudalism which continued to exist down to two short generations ago. The inhabitants of the islands cultivate the soil, but the peasantry remained serfs under feudal masters until a little over half a century ago, and military feudalism remained the law of the land.

It is differences in psychology resulting from these things which are probably more vital and fundamental than the physical differences between the two peoples…

Sex in Pre-Contact Hawaii

To have sex at the request of another was seen more as being passion than compassion. To want sex with another was seen as being natural. As one respondent put it: Women didn’t say no because it would have been considered bad form, a rudeness. Also, they took the invitation as a compliment and often also wanted the sex themselves.

– Milton Diamond, Sexual Behavior in Pre-Contact Hawai’i: A Sexological Ethnography. University of Hawai’i at Manoa

That is too much.

If a man walks up to a woman and asks her to have sex with them, that’s considered a compliment. Women never said no to any man who asked them to have sex because to say to a man who asked to have sex with you would be terribly rude and bad form.


A human society like this actually existed in recent historical times.

What is funny about this is that there have been literally thousands of porn stories, pictorials, or fantasy blogs with plots very similar to this.

Written porn usually plots much better than movie porn anyway. Plotting in movie porn typically ranges across an entire vast spectrum from nonexistent to inane all the way to bathetic.

There were some 1970’s porn movies that had some decent plotting, but those were the exception rather than the rule.

Prior to the gonzo age in the last 10-20 years, most porn movies had some sort of insipid, chaotic, baffling or typically incoherent plotting. What was truly awful about these movies was that the porn actors actually attempted to do real acting in these movies with characters, lines, etc.

Most of them were such bad actors that this aspect of the movies was unusually unintentionally comical when it was not pathetic to ridiculous. Some of the actors attempted to compensate for their failed thesbianism with a lot of hamming, but what was actually embarrassing was that the acting was often so pitiful that it was hard to tell the difference between when the actors were hamming it up and when they were earnestly stumbling through their roles and lines. There were so many face palming moments that it was hard to keep your hand on your dick.

Quite a few of the porn movies in this era would rank up there with straight films such as Plan Nine from Outer Space with the worst movies ever made except everyone was too busy jerking off to bother to make up the lists. A lot of these movies were almost like the old “Bad Cinema” skits in the old Saturday Night Live.

There were actually some fine actors in the Golden Age of Porn. The beautiful Annette Haven actually had formal actress training. The gorgeous late Terri Hall was a former opera singer. The late Jamie Gillis was also a trained actor who once performed an excellent role as Hamlet in a play in New York. Hamlet is often considered one of the hardest roles to play because there are so many complicated lines to remember. Gillis was actually a fine actor.

From the 1990’s on, few if any porn “actors” had any acting skills at all. There has always been much talk of crossover stars moving from porn to mainstream filming, but acting in porn is still considered a killer for your mainstream career. It’s such a blemish on your resume that you are pretty much blacklisted from the mainstream industry. Not that it matters as most porn stars these days are simply “stars” and not actors in any sane sense of the word anyway, and they couldn’t break into mainstream with God’s help, so it’s no great loss.

I used to read a lot of written erotica online 10-15 years ago. Of course some of it was awful, but a lot of it was excellent. I even had favorite authors. Most of the best writers were men for some reason. I was amazed at how good some of the writing was. The best stories had nice lead-ins, actual plots, excellent characterization, fine setting, and good flow. There usually wasn’t much in the way of a conclusion to the story because how the Hell do you conclude a porn story anyway? And then everyone fucked happily ever after into the sunset?

The best stories involved some sort of oversexed society (usually based on an extreme male fantasy of how the world ought to operate) that would seem to be current but couldn’t really exist nowadays, so in effect they were fantasy or even science fiction. It was actually a rewarding intellectual experience to read a lot of these stories. There are a lot more good writers out there than you think.

Anyway, getting back to the quote above, the actual historical account above is funny because so much written porn involves future or fantasy societies that are like this in one way or another – it is a compliment to ask a woman to have sex with you, it is very rude for a woman to say no, etc.

In fact, it’s almost an old porn chestnut you might say, along with such classics as “finishing school.”

Finishing school is a great porn cliche involving the innocent teenage girl daughter, just turned 18, who is sent off to her parents to a high class “sexual finishing school” (ideally the same one her mother went to) where she learns how to be the best wife she can to her hopefully rich future husband via instructions in all sorts of wild, perverted sex. That’s one my all-time favorite porn plots.

This element of pre-contact society is a perfect example of the ultimate male porn fantasy world, and it actually existed in human time and space!

And life imitates art once again.

Who Is This Man and Why Is He Famous?

Beast Ganon writes:

Frazer, James George. 1922. The Belief in Immortality and the Worship of the Dead, Vol. 2 (of 3): The Belief Among the Polynesians, Chapter III: The Belief in Immortality among the Samoans, § 1. The Samoan Islands, Footnote 24. McMillan and Co.Robert, did the author of the above book ever mention why those females in the Pacific Islands had so many children? There must be a reason why they got themselves pregnant over and again. I guess the females placed all of the blame on the men somehow.

A few questions.

Who is this man: James George Frazer?
Why is he famous?
What is his most famous book, written around the same time as the above: 1922?
Did he personally witness the anthropological observations in the book?

Kill Your Children Well

According to Stewart, in those parts of Hawaii to which the influence of the missionaries had not penetrated, two-thirds of the infants born were murdered by their parents within the age of two years. In Tahiti, three women questioned by Mr. Williams acknowledged that they had killed twenty-one of their children between them. Another at the point of death confessed to him in an anguish of remorse that she had destroyed sixteen of her children.

Frazer, James George. 1922. The Belief in Immortality and the Worship of the Dead, Vol. 2 (of 3): The Belief Among the Polynesians, Chapter III: The Belief in Immortality among the Samoans, § 1. The Samoan Islands, Footnote 24. McMillan and Co.


This is the typical life among those noble savages some folks on this blog cheer on. Hunter-gatherers had no birth control, so children came all the time. There’s just not enough food around for every woman to have 12-27 kids. It’s not going to work. And honestly, it’s better to kill one child who has barely seen life than to let the whole group die of starvation. The greater good and the lesser of two evils and all that.

Among the Ache of Paraguay, 100% of Ache children witness their mothers murdering one or more of their brothers or sisters, often before age four. You wonder what sort of effect that would have on someone.

Essentialists or Determinists, which include some psychoanalytic types, would say that certain things that a human experiences in life have inevitable damaging effects on the psyche. So if a child witnesses his mother murdering his toddler sibling, this will have an inevitable scarring effect on the psyche no matter what. Similarly, if a child is molested by an adult before some set age (which feminist crazies keep pushing upwards), there will be serious and inevitable damaging effects on the psyche of that child no matter what. Some things are just inherently damaging psychologically 100% of the time.

Culturalists would take another approach and say that the psychological effects of certain experiences depend on the culture.

So while seeing one’s toddler sibling being murdered by your own mother is no doubt rather traumatizing, if you grow up in a culture where all children witness these scenes, it simply because one or the norms of growing up in that society, children simply accept it as normal behavior and there is little if any psychological damage.

Similarly, there are hunter-gatherer cultures where almost all of the children are molested by adults before age 12. Generally there is no physical damage. Culturalists would say that if you grow up in a culture where all the kids get molested by adults, you simply accept that as normal behavior and the acts cause little if any harm.

Where do you stand, with the Determinists or with the Culturalists? Are some experiences inherently damaging to the psyche or is it all culture-dependent based on what your culture defines as normal behavior?

Reasons to Oppose Polygamy

Found on the Internet.

Reasons not to allow polygamy:
1. Socially disruptive. Polygamy tends to allow high-status males to monopolize females. This limits the chances for lower ranking males to marry and reproduce. I’m not keen on having a society where Donald Sterling has twenty wives while a mathematics prof has none.*
2. Dysgenic effect: Polygamous societies favor men with capital; hence, older men (who have had more time to accrue wealth and power) tend to have the most wives/children. Older men have higher mutational loads in their sperm. Hence, polygamy diminishes human capital in the long term.
* Another thing to bear to bear in mind is the fact that polygamous societies tend to be both highly dysfunctional and highly authoritarian. Cf , for example the polygamous Mormon enclaves, polygamous societies in Black Africa, etc. I’m not keen on emulating them.

Not only that, but polygamous societies are also reactionary. Ever heard of a progressive polygamous society? No such thing.

Chimps Are Evil and Stupid, and So Are Men

Chimps are flat out nasty, ugly beasts with little to redeem them. They are also pretty shortsighted and often downright stupid. It is downright frightening that these are our closest relatives in the animal world. What does that say about us!?

Chimpanzees are nastier than many people like to think. They kill monkeys and are pretty unpleasant to each other, too. Their sex lives would shock Queen Victoria, and their ethical universe, if they have such a thing, is much darker than our own. They live in groups, but the groups break and reform as their members quarrel. Terror makes their world go round. If two chimps need to pull a rope to get a tray of food, they will, but only if they are out of reach of one another. Otherwise, the dominant animal attacks its subordinate and neither of them gets anything. Anger and greed destroy the hope of reward.

And we humans are barely better, to each other or to our nearest mammalian relatives:

As men and women filled the world they killed off many of their kin. The Neanderthals were the first to go. Human habits have not changed since then. Now just a few remnants of our once extensive clan linger on. In a century or so we will be the only large primate (and almost the only large mammal) found outside farms or zoos. Almost all the apes will be extinct in the wild, some before they have been properly studied by science, and much of our biological heritage will be lost forever.

We are also foolish, great at destroying our patrimony but not so skilled at creating it where we need it most (after we ruined it):

Man has flayed his native planet for ten thousand years. Soil is hard to make but easy to destroy. A modern plough turns over hundreds of tons a day, far beyond the capacity of the most vigorous invertebrate. It digs down no more than a couple of feet, making a solid and impermeable layer at the depth of the blades. When heavy tractors roll across the surface their wheels compact loose earth into something like concrete, in which nothing will grow. Continued ploughing also breaks up the topmost layer and allows vast quantities to wash away. The farmers’ raw material is on the move, from hill to plain, from plain to river, and from land to sea.
The evidence is everywhere. My parents’ house overlooked the Dee Estuary (the Welsh rather than Scottish version). What was, a few centuries ago, a broad waterway has become a green field with a ditch in it, and the local council is much exercised about the rising sand that blows onto its roads. The reason lies in the fertile fields of Cheshire and North Wales. They have been ploughed again and again, and their goodness has disappeared downstream.

That’s just dumb. There’s got to be a better way to grow stuff.
All passages from The Darwin Archipelago by Steve Jones (2011).

More Thoughts on Short Time Preference

One of my finest commenters, Tulio, comments:

Does anyone know if IQ correlates with deferred gratification? Do blacks with IQ’s of 100+ defer gratification at the same rate as whites?

Time preference correlates very well with IQ. My best friend for a year or two around here was a young 23 year old more or less gangbanger or gang associate. The guy may have had an IQ of 80, I have no idea honestly. He was Guatemalan, not an ounce of Black in him. This guy literally was incapable of thinking beyond the next 24 hours. I am serious. And any money he got was gone as soon as it hit his fingers. Then the next day he would be standing there looking lost saying, “Whoaaaa dude I am broke. What happened to my money? Dohhhhh.”
He was like those stories of Blacks with short time preferences squared.
A major White nationalist blogger, since left WN, whose name now eludes me, wrote on his site a while back that Hispanics have also been shown to have short time preferences. I am not sure what data he based that on, if any.
There was also a report of a Brazilian Indian tribe that had no time preference at all. They are called the Piraha. The guy who worked with them said they never saved up anything. Whatever food you gave them was immediately consumed on the spot. If there was too much to eat, they would just eat what they wanted and walk away. They literally did not save anything from one day to the next.
So you see, short time preference is not limited to Blacks and it is definitely found in other races, at the very least in Amerindians and possibly also in Hispanics.
I have no idea if Blacks with higher IQ’s can delay gratification better than those with lower IQ’s, but I would imagine that the lower IQ Blacks would be absolutely the worst at delaying gratification. I would also assume that Blacks with higher IQ’s would be the ones who tended to be better at delaying gratification.
If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.

Language Difficulty and Racial IQ

Neo asks:

As a linguist and race realist, is there a correlation between language hardness and racial IQ?

There is no relationship at all between language difficulty and racial IQ. Amerindian languages are the most monstrous on Earth, and their IQ’s are only ~87. Eskimo languages are horrific, and Eskimos have ~91 IQ’s. The language of the Bushmen is insanely hard, but their IQ is thought to be between 50-60. Aborigine and Papuan languages can also be incredibly difficult, and their IQ’s are very low.
The languages of the Caucasus are the hardest on Earth, but their IQ’s are only ~85-90.
Truth is that as languages become used by industrialized societies as forms of mass communication, they tend to simplify and a lot of their difficulty works out of them. This is because people in modern advanced societies often want to get their point across as quickly as possible, whereas a hunter-gatherer in the Kalahari has all the time in the world.
In contrast, primitive people often have the most insanely complex languages. Primitive or noninudustrialized agrarian, rural or mountain-dwelling people do not have much intellectual stimulation, so they often play with their incredibly difficult languages as a source of creativity, fun and intellectual stimulation because they are intellectually starved and bored.
The more advanced the ethnic group -> the simpler the language.
The less advanced the ethnic group -> the more complex the language.
Of course there are many exceptions, and linguists tear their hair out and start screaming and yelling if they read what I just wrote, but I do think there is some truth to it.

More on the Development of Agriculture in Africa

A bit of an explanation of the paper for a layperson here.
Lucas Shoen writes:

Anyway, in your opinion, do (any?) you believe that the agrarian communities in parts of central and western Africa could of been attributed to the higher testosterone levels in modern American blacks (and thus prominence in athletic fields, etc.) Particularly if slaves were descended from these agrarian communities? It’s just something I was thinking up while reading that paper and some of the links that it sent me.

Yes, that is what I am thinking. All modern Negroids or Bantuid types apparently have large size, robust bodies and high testosterone. The Khoisan and Pygmies are hunter gatherers and have small size, child like features, low strength and low testosterone. Hunter gatherers everywhere tend to have low testosterone or lower testosterone than agricultural peoples.
Primitive agriculturalists in New Guinea also evolved high testosterone.
The reason is that in hunter gatherers, there is little competition for males as every female needs a man to survive (to hunt for them). So everyone just grabs a husband or wife at age 18 or 19, and everyone tends to get married. You don’t end up with a chief and his pals who monopolize all the women.
In Africa and New Guinea, you ended up with a system where the chief and his buddies monopolized most to all of the women via harems and a lot of the rest of the guys had little access to women. The chief and his buddies were the biggest, baddest, strongest, most psycho, most sociopathic guys around (high testosterone, large size, and robust body) so they beat out all the weaker guys.
The females mated with these guys en masse as in these type of societies, a female does not really need a man to survive. So the females can be choosy. Choosy females is bad for society since when allowed to choose, females pick big bad psycho type guys (bad boys) probably with large size, robust bodies, high testosterone, high aggression and maybe sociopathic traits.
The reason is that in hunter gatherers, there is little competition for males as every female needs a man to survive (to hunt for them). So everyone just grabs a husband or wife at age 18 or 19, and everyone tends to get married. You don’t end up with a chief and his pals who monopolize all the women.
In Africa and New Guinea, you ended up with a system where the chief and his buddies monopolized most to all of the women via harems and a lot of the rest of the guys had little access to women. The chief and his buddies were the biggest, baddest, strongest, most psycho, most sociopathic guys around (high testosterone, large size, and robust body) so they beat out all the weaker guys.
The females mated with these guys en masse as in these type of societies, a female does not really need a man to survive. So the females can be choosy. Choosy females is bad for society since when allowed to choose, females pick big bad psycho type guys (bad boys) probably with large size, robust bodies, high testosterone, high aggression and maybe sociopathic traits.

New Paper – The Development of Agriculture in Africa

New paper uploaded to Takes apart a racist lie against Black people that says that pre-contact Africans were hunter gatherers with no agriculture. In fact, agriculture in Africa was developed very early, possibly one of the earliest instances of agriculture on Earth. Also discusses the evolution of modern Negroids (Blacks) in terms of primitive agriculturalism.

More Out of India Idiocy

This is the latest nonsense out of India purporting to undo the Aryan Migration Theory. It is written by high caste Hindu idiots for political reasons, namely to swipe back at South Indians and Dalits who claim that Aryans imposed caste Hinduism on them at the point of a sword. The fact is that South Indians misrepresent the case. The Aryans did not sweep into Northwest India, conquer the Dravidians, and push them south. The Aryans conquered in the north, and they bred in with and mixed with the locals. In time, caste Hinduism spread to the south of India.
Michael Witzel is probably the pre-eminent scholar of Sanskrit and the Aryan Migration question. Here is his response to this irresponsible study, which unfortunately was published in a peer reviewed journal. Briefly, the India Today piece completely misrepresents the study and the authors of the study also make many other misrepresentations of the data. I am afraid that this is the way Indians do science, just like they do everything else – with massive corruption and political overtones. As more and more Indians get into science, we can count on science becoming more and more corrupt and less and less scientific.
I asked Prof. M. Witzel about a popular news item in Indian English press.
Here is his reply.
Happy Holidays!
N. Ganesan
From Michael Witzel answering my question.
Well, Ganesan, I have answered that, based on my genetic etc. background info and info from my geneticist friends [who include Thangaraj, Pitchappan 🙂 ] — but this msg. has not appeared on IDDOLOGY@yahooo yet, where this “news” was broadcast a few days earlier…
Here a copy:
The INDIA TODAY article (below) bristles with misrepresentations and outright misinformation, in part by the authors of the genetic study mentioned here:
On Dec 11, 2011, at 7:19 PM, Sri Venkat wrote:
> Dinesh C. Sharma New Delhi, December 10, 2011 | UPDATED 10:22 IST
> Indians are not descendants of Aryans, says new study.
> <>
Briefly, it is well known that “The origin of genetic diversity found in South Asia is much older than 3,500 years when the Indo-Aryans were supposed to have migrated to India”. Geneticists point to the Out of Africa movement around 65-75,000 years ago. As a result, Reich et al. have shown that two ancient population segments evolved in South Asia around 40 kya, the ‘Ancestral North Indians’ (ANI), (genetically close to Middle Easterners, Central Asians, and Europeans) and the ‘Ancestral South Indians’. Add another, Neolithic migration from the Greater Near East some 10,000 y.a.
Then, it is usually said that “migration of Indo-European speakers from Central Asia … was responsible for the introduction of the Indo-European language family.” Indeed. Indo-Aryan language, religion, etc. have been imported from the Ural steppes/Central Asia. Note the many *early*, pre-Vedic loan-words into *early* Uralic language, and now also loans from the Bactria-Margiana culture (2400-1600 BCE) into Indo-Aryan. By people with one or another genetic set-up (see below on R1a).
The rest of the so-called “Aryan Invasion” is an outdated 19th century theory, just as the early 19th c. one that imagined Indo-Europeans migrated out of India (as some Hindutvavadins now reassert!). There was indeed a movement northward out of South Asia/Greater Near East during the warm period around c.40,000 y.a., but that is some 38,000 years BEFORE Indo-Aryans even came into existence. (Same mistake made in the 2005 CA schoolbook fiasco!)
> “Our study clearly shows that there was no genetic influx 3,500 years ago,” said Dr Kumarasamy Thangaraj.
Absolute genetic dates (just as in linguistic reconstructions) need to be supported by outside evidence, such as finds of skeletons. For the period around 1500 BCE, we still have error bars of 3000 years in genetic reconstructions, which makes pronouncements about a non-existent “Aryan” move into South Asia very moot indeed.
We will have to await the further, so far very uncertain resolution of the early Y chromosome R1a haplogroup (c. some 20-34,000 years old), to form an opinion. Ra1 has been attributed to speakers of Indo-European (as it is prominent in Eastern Europe), but it also occurs throughout South Asia, tribal populations included. We need to know which one of its unresolved sub-strains moved, when and where. We do not know that…yet.
When L. Singh says, “It is high time we re-write India’s prehistory based on scientific evidence,” we can only agree.
However, not when he says, “There is no genetic evidence that Indo-Aryans invaded or migrated to India or even something such as Aryans existed”.
Dr Singh does not understand that Indo-Aryan language (and religion) simply could not exist in thin air. You need a population. Obviously they had Ural area ancestors, whatever their genetic set-up upon entering from Afghanistan.
Even his assertion, “If any migration from Central Asia to South Asia took place, it should have introduced apparent signals of East Asian ancestry into India” is patently wrong as Eastern elements entered Central Asia only much later.
For further details see my recent message to the IER list.
Sequel to my last, general comment:
1. First of all, it is rather unfortunate that the authors of the paper have highlighted the “Aryan Invasion Theory” in their summary and later on as well. That is 19th century talk!
Since at least the 1950s (FBJ Kuiper 1955, Przyluski even in 1920s, etc.), Indologists have stressed the complex interactions between Indo-Aryan speakers and local speakers both in the Greater Panjab and beyond, from the oldest text (Rgveda, c. 1200-1000 BCE) onward, which has some clear non-IA poets and kings. The great, late Kuiper’s last paper (2000) has the title a “bilingual poet”.
Since 1995, I too have written about acculturation, and that maybe “not one gene” of the Ural steppes people had survived by the time the pastoral Indo-Aryan speakers arrived in the Greater Panjab (via the Central Asian river pastures/Tienshan/Pamir meadows, the BMAC, Hindukush, etc., with many chances for gene flow from all these areas).
That Indo-Aryan language, religion, ritual etc. have been imported from the Urals/Central Asia (note the *early* loan-words into Uralic, and now also BMAC loans words into Indo-Aryan!) is beyond any reasonable doubt. By people with one or another genetic set up, — which one that is the question.
I will await the further resolution of the Y chromosome haplogroup Ra1* –note the “western” affinities in the paper of Brahmins and Ksatriyas even in U.P. — as to see exactly which genetic strain may have entered South Asia around 1500 BCE, — if any.
2. Co-author Lalji Singh says as per the article in DNA :
“We have conclusively proved that there never existed any Aryans or Dravidians in the Indian sub continent. The Aryan-Dravidian classification was nothing but a misinformation campaign carried out by people with vested interests,” Prof Lalji Singh, vice-chancellor, Banaras Hindu University, told DNA.”
Again harking back to *supposed* British interests in the 19th century. But, the two language groups definitely are as separate as they are from Bantu, Chinese or Papua. Indo-Aryan is definitely not = Dravidian language or its original culture, just as little as Basque, Uralic are not Indo-European. Confusion of language, genes, ethnicity, etc.
Well, Lalji has stayed at Hyderabad for a long time. Did he ever try to speak Hindi/Urdu to native, mono-lingual Kannada speakers? He would had have as little luck as I would have with any Indo-European language in Estonia, Finland or Hungary.
Why does he have to comment about things (language, culture) that he does not understand?
““The study effectively puts to rest the argument that south Indians are Dravidians and were driven to the peninsula by Aryans who invaded North India,” said Prof Singh, a molecular biologist and former chief of Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Hyderabad.”
Same mistake. Of course, South Indians are Dravidian speaking. And they even are genetically (ASI) different from North Indians (ANI), which this co-author should know from his own (and D. Reich’s) paper. Same confusion of genetics, language, ethnicity (“race”)…
The idea of Aryans “driving Dravidians’ South”, too, is 19th century talk. See above. The reality is much more complex. For example, Frank Southworth has shown that Maharashtra was Dravidian speaking well into the Middle Ages, and Gujarat too has Drav. place names. There was a lot of give and take between the two language families, as is seen in the many Dravidian loans in Sanskrit, etc. and the many Indo-Aryan loans in Drav. languages.
3. Unfortunately, as some years earlier before, Gyaneshwer Chaubey chimes in: “According to Dr Gyaneshwer Chaubey, Estonian Biocentre, Tartu, Estonia, who was another Indian member of the team, the leaders of Dravidian political parties may have to find another answer for their raison d’être.”
A clear, political statement based on wrong science: see immediately below. By Dravidian parties he means those restricted to Tamil Nadu. Well, Karnataka, Kerala and Andhra too speak Dravidian, as do many tribes in Central India (Gonds, etc.)
“We have proved that people all over India have common genetic traits and origin. All Indians have the same DNA structure. No foreign genes or DNA has entered the Indian mainstream in the last 60,000 years,” Dr Chaubey said.”
Sorry, *all Indians* with the same DNA structure? Their own paper says differently. He could also say that all ex-Africa populations have the same genetic origin…
And no “foreign” genes? What about all these Persians, Greek/Macedonians, Saka, Kushana, Huns, Arabs 711 CE+, Muslim Turks (1000+, 1200 CE+), Mughals, Afghans 1700 CE, Portuguese, etc., British….? Sure, they all never had Indian wives…
“Dr Chaubey had proved in 2009 itself that the Aryan invasion theory is bunkum. “That was based on low resolution genetic markers. This time we have used autosomes, which means all major 23 chromosomes, for our studies. The decoding of human genome and other advances in this area help us in unraveling the ancestry in 60,000 years,” he explained.”
I hope he will learn to distinguish between the Out Of Africa migration, the Neolithic one from western Asia around 10,000 y.a. (detailed in this very paper!), and the trickling in of Indo-Aryan pastoral speakers c.1500 BCE??
4. Said geneticists *still* cannot distinguish between speakers of a particular language and their genes. Writing in English — are Lalji Singh and Gyaneshwer both Anglo-Saxons? Or me, for that matter?
It is one thing to explain genetic results to the gullible public, but to confuse them with wrong data from linguistics, archaeology etc. is despicable.
5. “According to Prof Singh, Dr Chaubey, and Dr Kumarasamy Thangaraj, another member of the team, the findings disprove the caste theory prevailing in India.”
“Interestingly, the team found that instead of Aryan invasion, it was Indians who moved from the subcontinent to Europe. “That’s the reason behind the findings of the same genetic traits in Eurasiain regions,” said Dr Thangaraj, senior scientist, CCMB.
Well, as detailed in my last note, the well-known northward movement into N. Eurasia from South Asia during the warm period around 40,000 years ago, has NOTHING to do with the 19th century’s “Aryan Invasion,” dated around 1500 BCE! I suppose they can count and calculate?
6. Finally, the unavoidable dot on the i, from the ubiquitous Dr K., — who has nothing to do with this genetic paper or topic. Bad choice by the DNA newspaper!
“Africans came to India through Central Asia during 80,000 to 60,000 BCE and they moved to Europe sometime around 30,000 BCE. The Indian Vedic literature and the epics are all silent about the Aryan-Dravidian conflict,” said Dr S Kalyanaraman, a proponent of the Saraswathi civilization which developed along the banks of the now defunct River Saraswathi.”
Through Central Asia?? There is no evidence at all for this, neither archaeologically or otherwise. Central Asia — deserts and all — was settled, pace Wells, only much later. Dr K. is not up to date: Rumania was reached
already by 42 kya…
As for “Vedic literature and the epics are all silent about the Aryan-Dravidian conflict”, he should re-read the Rgveda (in Sanskrit), not the outdated 100 year old English translation of Griffith. The non-Indo-Aryan speaking populations there (Dasyu, Daasa) clearly are in conflict with Indo-Aryan speakers…
Finally, having studied *administration* (PhD Manila), he is not up to date on archaeology either. The Harappan civilization developed in the Piedmont west of the subcontinent (see books by the late G. Possehl) and it spread eastward, also to the Ghagghar-Hakra river, which Dr K anachronistically calls, in Hindutva fashion, Sarasvati — well before the river got its Vedic name, c.1200 BCE.
In sum: for all discussants: as the old proverb has it, “shoemaker, stick to your own tools”!
‘nough said.
On Dec 11, 2011, at 11:50 AM, Michael Witzel wrote:
> This paper  has been out for a few days, and I got a copy from a co-author, one of my Estonian friends.
> I have immediately protested to them and have also critiqued the comments published by DNA. Note that the latter comments are attributed just to three (not all!) Indian co-authors, but do not come from the slew of other authors. The reason, as usual, seems to be politics and notoriety (to attract more finances?)
> To set the record straight, a few general remarks first:
> 1. There is nothing new in the result about an early Out of Africa movement (to South Asia) of *anatomically modern humans* (not Neanderthals, Denisovans, Homo Erectus) at c. 65-75 kya. There are some hints about earlier dates but they are based on debatable stone artifacts, not skeletons.
> 2. And we also knew well about the movements from there to northern Eurasian areas during the warm period around c. 40,000 BCE: archaeologically attested by skeletons, both in the Beijing area (Zhoukoudian c.40 kya, via S.E. Asia), and in Europa (Rumania, c. 42 kya).
> See my friend Peter Underhill (Stanford) et al. 2010 paper:
> 3. Obviously this early movement has nothing to do with the current Hindutvavadin theory of an “Out Of India” move of the Indo-Europeans, who would have settled Europe: that would be tens of thousands of years later. (The same mistake was made during the CA schoolbook affair … by a CA biologist! They never learn…)
> For a popular overview with maps see St. Oppenheimer’s website  or that of the National Geographic.
> Around 40,000 BCE there were neither “Aryans” nor Indo-Europeans around, not even speakers of the giant Nostratic language family, at best of the still earlier hypothetical Borean super-language family, proposed by my friend, the Africanist Harold Fleming (see WIKI). Likewise, no Dravidian language family yet, which may in fact be part of Nostratic anyhow.
> This northward move is a general phenomenon, as is the subsequent severe contraction southward during the last Ice age around 20 kya, when the four or five major human types (not “races”) developed in isolation: Europe, S.Asia, (Sunda Land: S.E. Asia), E. Asia, Sahul Land (New Guinea-Australia), — for example with two separate, independent mutations producing white skin color in Europe and in East Asia.
> 3. The paper by my Boston geneticist friend David Reich et al. has shown that South Asia has two ancient population segments evolving from the early Out of Africa people around 40 kya, the ‘Ancestral North Indians’ (ANI), (genetically close to Middle Easterners, Central Asians, and Europeans) and the ‘Ancestral South Indians’ (ASI), so named after I had cautioned him and Nick Patterson about the political danger involving the naming of these groups. As you can see, even this nomenclature did not help to dispel preconceived Hindutva bias about “Aryans” and Dravidians.
> At 40 kya there were no “Aryans” and no “Dravidians” around yet.
> 4. If we then want to speak about “Aryans” (more correctly: speakers of Indo-Aryan language) and speakers of the early Dravidian language at all, we first of all have to disconnect language from ethnicity or “race”. I am not an Anglo-Saxon, just because I speak and write in English here, nor are Chaubey, Singh and Thangaraj.
> Language can change within 2 generations, as all Americans know and as Indians *should* know: not just in large cities, but also in tribal areas where people take over the dominant regional language, for obvious social reasons.
> The 3 Indian geneticists quote by DNA confuse language use with genetic setup, ethnicity, culture, religion etc. All of them easily (and *mutually*) transgress genetic boundaries.
> 5. If when then speak about Indo-Aryans or Dravidians at c. 3500 years ago, and want to link them with genetic data, we must take into account that all these studies are based on modern DNA, and depend on *assumed* mutation rates (going back to the Chimpazee-Human split of 5-7 million years ago); the genetic results thus provide good *relative* dates, but not absolute dates.
> Absolute dates (just as in linguistic reconstructions) need to be supported by outside evidence, such as finds of skeletons of anatomically modern humans, as mentioned above. (By the way these are earlier at Lake Mungo in Australia at c. 50 kya and Europe/China than in South Asia, where they only appear in Sri Lanka at c.30 kya. Facetiously: an Out of Australia migration to Eurasia?)
> 6. Worse, there are huge error bars in all these models. It may not matter very much if we have error bars of some 10,000 years for the Out of Africa move, but for the period around 1500 BCE, we still have error bars of 3000 years, which makes all pronouncements about a non-existent “Aryan” move into South Asia, based on current genetic data, very moot indeed.
> The “Western Asian/Central Asian” strain in northern India/Pakistan (as per this paper by Metspalu et al.) may well be due to Persian, Greek/Makedonian, Saka, Kushana, Hun, Arab (711 CE+), Islamic Turks 1000 CE/1200 CE, Portuguese etc. (1500 CE+) or British gene influx.
> I will await the further, so far very uncertain resolution of the Y chromosome R1a haplogroup to form an opinion. Ra1a has been attributed to speakers of Indo-European (as it is prominent in Eastern Europe) but it also occurs throughout South Asia, tribal populations included. We need to know which sub-strain moved: when and where.
> 7. All of which leaves most of the comments by Singh, Thangaraj and Chaubey high and dry. More about them in my next message.
> An interesting weekend, apparently. Luckily, the semester is over…
> Cheers,
> Michael
If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site. Donations are the only thing that keep the site operating.

"Sexual Marxism" Has Always Been the Norm for Human Society

Bhabiji writes:

Bob, you are confusing feminism, which is a social construct, with nature. Sexual selection is natural. Arranged marriage system or sexual Marxism is a social construct that thwarts the natural developmental progress of humanity. Just look at all the cultures that practice arranged marriage today. Look at the type of children they are breeding and churning out, particularly the males.

Wrong. If you study primitive or tribal cultures and then you study more civilized societies of various types historically, which I have, at length, you realize that marriage was more or less mandated for all persons, often at an early age. The sexual selection was in favor of the more high status males, who women competed for probably.Or males competed with each other to get the best females.
Only a few women got the high status males. The rest had to settled for mid status to low status males, and they did. There were no winners or losers because everyone got married. This is really the only way to run things. So human society has always been run on some sort of a Sexual Marxist basis.
The alternative is some Hobbesian Sexual Nightmare state where you have all these millions of Incels running around. Doing what? I don’t know?
Shooting up theaters?

Blacks Beat Whites – Film at 11

Repost from the old site.
I see idiots.
I see White Supremacists.
I see White Supremacist idiots (there is no other kind).
It’s fun to stroll over to American Renaissance once in a while. While there is a good understanding of race there and folks are not afraid to broach the subject, there is also a staggering amount of stupidity, mostly in the comments. What is hilarious about all this Dumbness is that this Dumbness is being scribbled by folks who are dedicated to the premise that they are members of the most intelligent race on the planet.
Ho ho ho!
I see this problem with nationalists, especially ethnic nationalists, and ethnic supremacists (of all varieties) all the time, although I confess that Chinese Supremacists are the least stupid of all, and sometimes I think there is no one dumber than an Afrocentrist. Gosh, is there something to the IQ thing after all?
The problem is that once you become an ethnic supremacist, you have to construct a particularly insane and insipid worldview whereby your group did all the great things in the whole history of the world, is superior to all the other groups, and the competing groups all did nothing and are inferiors.
Even if your group was not running around secretly doing all the great stuff, you need to put down all the achievements of the other groups (“The Aztecs and Maya were too stupid to invent wheels!”), while elevating the often meager achievements of your own group. Talk to a Nordicist sometime about the Germanic tribes running around with bearskins and spears and he will convince you that they were far beyond the Egyptians.
This leads to some rather breathtaking displays of brain rot. Only in White Supremacist fora will you still find intelligent humans debating whether or not humans came out of Africa. It’s just so insulting! That the White Man came from niggers! How dare you say that?
But really now, if you recognize that before that we came from frogs, it’s not so insulting.
Only on these fora do you find folks insisting that Whites were the original settlers of the Americas (!) and that Amerindians are interlopers who need to be sent back home (!). Only here do you find serious discussion of whether or not Africans still retain an “ape gene” (!) that all the rest of us have lost, at least when we are not drunk.
Only here do “White Historians” regale rapt listeners with tales of how stealth-Whites (probably disguised as other races) roamed around the world for 1000’s of years, secreting building all of the great civilizations on Earth (!) for only a consultant’s fee, and then slipping silently back to Europe or wherever while the Egyptians, Indians, Khmer, Maya, Inca, Chinese and all the rest of the inferiors got all the credit (!).
Yes, White Nationalism is a fountain of stupidity that never dries up.
Let us look at my latest finding from American Renaissance. It is from an article about fossils. The post has now been deleted by the editors (see here), probably because it makes White people look too stupid.
About the article – I think it had something to with Neandertal. One of these WN guys’ favorite obsessions is with Neandertal. Every sensible human on Earth knows that Neadandertal lived and died in Europe, going extinct 29,000 years. Everyone except…White nationalists!
These slobbering morons still insist, against all scientific evidence, that Neandertal gave rise to Homo Europeanansis Superioris. Now why anyone would want to claim ancestry to this big-browed hulk is beyond me, but WN’s just love it. I suspect it is because they get to claim that they are not descended from niggers!
Anyway, the comments section took off and all the usual WN droolers strolled in from their group homes waving their arms in weird ways and making animal noises. Soon the conversation degenerated as usual.
These guys’ contempt for Blacks knows no bottom floor. In the comments, they insisted, against all evidence, that Blacks had never accomplished anything in Africa before Whites showed up and taught them how to eat with forks and walk standing up.
First of all, let us note that African Blacks discovered iron (went through the Iron Age) before European Whites did. This fact is common knowledge in any anthropology department, but not one massive-brained WN European Supermen has either heard of it or will have anything of it.
I certainly am not arguing that Africa was some cultural pacesetter.
But the facts on the Iron Age are clear. Africa skipped over the Bronze Age (and the Copper Age for that matter) altogether and went straight to the Iron Age. That’s right, straight from Neolithic to Iron, how ’bout that? I dare WN’s can put a “Black ignoramus” spin on that one!
It is true that two groups did beat the Africans to the punch. Iron was developed in Anatolia in the year 2000 BC. It was then independently developed by the Ganges civilization in India in the year 1800 BC. In third place, in the year 1500 BC, are the quite-Black Africans of Nigeria. And Cleotis done it all without Massa’s help!
Iron Age Timeline:
1. Anatolia (Turks, WN’s insist that Turks are not even White) 2000 BC
2. India, Ganges Valley (Indian Caucasians, WN’s say they are not White) 1800 BC
3. Africa, Tok, Nigeria, and Termit, Niger 1500 BC (Dumb niggers!)
4. China 1300 BC
5. Middle East 1100 BC
6. Greeks (WN’s concede these folks are White?) 1100 BC
7, etc. Everyone else (Northern European “superiors”)
The Iron Age in Black Africa, straight from Wikipedia. From the text:

Inhabitants at Termit, in eastern Niger became the first iron smelting people in West Africa and among the first in the world around 1500 BC.

Other sources put the onset of the Iron Age in central Nigeria at the same time, in Tok, Nigeria. The Africans at Tok and Termit could not possibly have learned iron smelting from Arabs, as Arabs did not get it until 1100. No way did Hittites or South Indians teach it to them either. They just figured it out on their own, those big Black dummies.
The painful truth is that Blacks crushed Euro Whites in terms of beating them to the Iron Age. Whites were left pitifully in the dust by Africans. Oh God, how embarrassing.
Along with all Black innovations, WN geniuses insist that this Iron Age thingie must have come by way of Arabs. Now, WN’s always insist that Arabs are non-Whites, but in a race between niggers and A-rabs, the Arabs automagically turn White for a day, if only to beat the Blacks and claim the gold for Whitey.
Another common folly on almost all WN sites is so dumb it’s embarrassing.
Did you know that African Blacks had no agriculture until Whites showed up and taught them how to grow stuff? Neither did I! Neither does anyone in any anthropology department on Earth! But this crap is Gospel on WN sites, where it is common dogma that niggers are so dumb, they can’t even figure out how to grow food!
The truth is that agriculture in Africa goes all the way back to 5000 BC in the Sahel. That’s 7000 years ago, and it’s way before ag came to Europe. Once again, Euro Whites were completely creamed by African Blacks who beat them to agriculture. Agriculture occurred independently in West Africa, Egypt and the Sahel at around the same time. INDEPENDENTLY.
Anthropologists do not agree that West African agriculture was a diffusion from North Africa. It is considered to be an independent development.
Contrary to popular rumor, African Black folks (or niggers, as WN’s refer to these humans) are not too stupid to grow food. They were growing lots of food just fine before White folks even showed up.
Growing food is called agriculture. That’s the word grownups use when they discuss growing food, WN kiddies. Agriculture. Say it slowly and repeat it until you can say it well.
Sahelians today are racially the same as they were 7000 years ago when they independently developed agriculture. They have hardly changed one bit.
The civilizational attributes of the Sahelians came from their own culture. There is no evidence at all that all of their achievements came from some mystery Arabs cruising on through.
North Africa was all Black until 15-18,000 years ago, when some non-European looking Caucasians (minus that lovely White skin) moved down from Europe and pushed the Blacks south. No one knows what these proto-Europeans looked like, but they may have resembled Berbers. The resulting mix of mostly White, part Black in North Africa is the leftovers of this invasion.


UNESCO. 2002. Iron in Africa: Revisiting the History.

Early Homo Sapiens Sapiens in Africa

From the study of skulls we can learn what early humans in Africa looked like. By early humans, I mean modern man, not earlier types.

Very early skulls from Africa resemble either Khoisans or no living type. Some Khoisan type skulls (broadly defined) can be found going back as far as 90,000 years. Boskopoid skulls from 35-50,000 YBP seem to look like Khoisan (Mirazón Lahr,p. 282). Early Kenyan skulls look also look Khoisan.

Negroes appear in the fossil record in Congo, Mali, Niger and Chad from 6,000-12,000 YBP. They develop in the course of agriculture as Khoisan and Pygmy types gathered into agricultural villages in the regions above. In hunter-gatherer societies, women need men and marry early, hence there is little competition for females and every man gets a woman. In African agricultural societies, there was plenty of food, and women no longer needed a man to provide for them.

Since women no longer needed men, women got picky. Extreme competition for women developed among men, and one man or a small group of men tended to monopolize the women. This is the “chief” syndrome also seen in primitive agricultural societies in New Guinea.

Extreme competition led to the largest, strongest and most aggressive males dominating the group and preferentially passing on their genes. Hence, Negroes developed into big, strong, good athletes with high testosterone which drove high aggression. This is one theory for high Black crime rates.

In contrast, Pygmies are not aggressive at all, and tend to be rather meek and shy. Khoisan have low testosterone and have low levels of overt aggression.

Nilotics appear in Kenya 8-12,000 YBP. Originally, when these Nilotic skulls were first found, they were mistaken for Europeans. These are the classic “Horner” types of the Horn of Africa. It is amazing that Nilotics would be mistaken for Europeans, but they do have a more Caucasian look to them.

Recent Sub Saharan Africans have skulls that are more gracile than Europeans (ibid. p. 283), so it is a lie to say that Blacks have primitive or robust skulls.

The only really robust or primitive skulls nowadays in the study were found in Australians (65% are robust), Pantagonians, the Ainu and 1 Polynesian. This largely lines up with the Australoid racial group, which developed in a robust fashion for some reason.

The most gracile skulls were 13 E Asians, 13 SS Africans, 11 SE Asians, 7 Europeans, 1 Inuit, 1 S Asian and 1 Australian. So we can see that the most modern and gracile skulls are found in Blacks and Asians. Europeans are also modern and gracile, but not so much as the others. We also see that while Australians generally have the most robust skulls on Earth, some Aborigines have very gracile skulls. Australians are best seen as an extreme mixture.

Why did man leave Africa, and which route did he take? The reason for leaving was apparently a terrible drought in East Africa. For instance, between 135,000 and 75,000 years ago, East African droughts shrunk the water volume of  Lake Malawi by at least 95%, causing migration out of Africa.

Which route did they take? Researchers say their study of the tribes of Andaman and Nicobar islands using complete mitochondrial DNA sequences and its comparison those of world populations has led to the theory of a “southern coastal route” of migration from East Africa through India. They took the Indian Ocean coastal route.


Mirazón Lahr, Marta. 1996. The Evolution of Modern Human Diversity: A Study of Cranial Variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press