Game/PUA: Sure, Men Like ‘Em Young, but How Young?

Warning: Long, 18 pages.

This is a comment from Bumface, a regular commenter from the UK. He’s a bit of a volatile fellow, but I’ve kept him around anyway because he’s also nice sometimes, and he can be interesting. I might as well point out right now that it is more than obvious to me that Bumface is a hebephile, that is, he is preferentially attracted to girls in the pubescent 11-14 age range.

However, the American Psychiatric Association has stated flat out that Hebephilia is not a mental disorder. They also said that it’s not even abnormal! The APA said that hebephiles who act on their feelings and have sex with girls in that range would in most countries be called criminals. So if you just have these thoughts, it’s nothing, but if you act on them, in most places, you would be a criminal.

I’ve done some research and hebephilic attractions are very common in men. In fact, 19% of all men are like Bumface – they are preferentially attracted to 11-15 year old girls! In most cases, they probably have a strong attraction to mature females too, and in that case, you can always suppress or repress your antisocial hebephilic urges and focus on your prosocial attraction to adult women.

I suspect this is what most such men do, and actually, I would advocate this for anyone in this category. Nevertheless, there are hebephiles who have no attraction to girls over 15! I’ve been on their forums. People post photos of 16 year old girls and the hebephiles start yelling, “Ew gross!…No grandmas!,” etc. It’s actually pretty hilarious. That doesn’t strike me as real normal behavior, but I’ll defer to the APA on this one.

I was just reading the hebephile forum for research interests, and there’s nothing illegal on there anyway. At any rate, going to those forums is no big deal. All open pedophile/hebephile forums are about half pedophile/hebephile haters cursing them and saying they’re going to prison and half pedophiles/and hebephiles. In other words, those forums have as many pedophile and hebephile haters as pedophiles and hebephiles.

For self-disclosure purposes, I’m actually a teleiophile. Teleiophiles are maximally attracted to mature females aged 16+. The vast majority of straight men are teleiophiles.

78% of men are teleiophiles, 19% are hebephiles, and 3% are pedophiles. It’s stunning how tens of millions of men in the US are so strongly attracted to very young girls! But perhaps it makes sense, right?

Everyone screams about men having sex with 13-15 year old girls and of course about men having sex with children under 13. Just reading around, there sure seem to be a lot of men engaging in this behavior. Perhaps a good explanation for why this sort of thing is so ubiquitous is that so many of us men have strong attractions to younger girls. Why do we do this all the time? Because young girls turn us on so much, that’s why! Seems like the best explanation for me.

I’m a teleiophile, although I’m also very attracted to 15 girls. As we go down from there, I start getting less interested, and it looks more and more like a “little girl” to me, and I’m not into that.

In particular, 13 and 14 year old girls have what I call “little girl faces,” or baby fat in their cheeks. I don’t like that. Among 15-17 year old girls, the more she looks and acts like a grown woman, the more attracted I am to her. The more she looks and acts like a kid, the less I’m attracted to her. I suspect that my desires are typical for teleiophilic men.

Given that 22% of my fellow men have preferential attractions to pretty young girls, I’m not going to get on the “pedophile”-hating bandwagon. To me this is a men’s rights issue. God or evolution has saddled us men with some pretty weird desires in terms of age. We men so afflicted cannot help feeling this way.

If we truly are going to “kill all pedophiles” as everyone recommends, we will have to kill 24 million men. I’m sorry, I’m not willing to condemn 24 million of my fine brothers to death just because a bunch of feminist screechers and moral hysterics demand it. I’m willing to let all these guys slide as long as they only remain thought criminals. If they molest little girls, they need to be incarcerated, as in many cases, the girls get harmed. Even where the girls are not harmed, I don’t wish to live in a society where men can molest little girls.

Since there is no evidence that a majority of girls are harmed over the long term by being molested, I have mostly an ethical, not psychological objection to child molestation. However, many are still harmed anyway, so I do in part have a psychological objection because you might hurt the girl.

About men have sex with 13 year old girls, I mostly don’t like it, not for any particular reason except I think it’s gross and weird and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

About men having sex with 14-17 year old girls, I don’t see the harm if it’s consensual, and I have no problem at all with it if it is legal, but US society doesn’t agree with me and regards this behavior as morally objectionable to the extreme.

Societies have a right to have whatever reasonable morals they wish. They are free to encode these morals into laws as they see fit. We must live in society. If you break these laws, you might be incarcerated. I don’t like to see my brothers behind bars. I’ve always recommended to all my male readers that they don’t break the statutory rape laws wherever they live because you might end up behind bars.

I also strongly recommend all my readers not molest little girls (under 13) because to me it’s simply immoral behavior. You can also hurt the girl and end up “behind gay bars” yourself for a really long time.

Everything factual I stated above has been proven by science and is straight up scientific fact. Yet if you say it, it’s such a hate fact that you will have a lynch mob at your door screaming “Pedophile!” in ten minutes.

As you can see, my views on adult-teen and adult-child sex are more than reasonable. It’s beyond me why these views have made me into such a pariah. I’m not advocating anything bad.

On a final note, I don’t completely agree with much of Bumface’s hebephilia defense below. Nevertheless, I concur with him that hebephilia is not pathological or even abnormal for that matter.

Hello, I’ve been reading some evo-psych and sexology, and I’ve come across some things I think are very wrong. I just want to explain what I think is wrong about these ideas. Most of what I say will probably just be ignored by people in the field, but I’ll say it anyway.

I’ve often seen it claimed in the Evo-Psych literature that the best females for men to go for in ancestral times were those in their late teens at peak reproductive value. Many people just nod their heads in agreement with this claim without knowing that this is not really how it works in the real world. In primitive foraging societies the girls are actually married off quite a bit younger than that. Most girls are married off by the time they’re 16, so focusing on girls after that age would obviously not have been the best strategy.

In order to stand a chance at monopolizing the females’ reproductive lifespans, the best females to go for are those just prior the onset of their fertility, not after it, and this is what we see happening in primitive foraging societies. The girls are usually married off, and the men start having sex with them a few years before they become fertile.

By getting a female slightly before the onset of her fertility, you can guarantee she hasn’t been impregnated by any other males and still has all her reproductive years ahead of her. The price you pay for doing that is that you’re going to have to wait several years before she starts giving you offspring, but it’s not a big problem.

I’ve seen some Evo-Psychs claim that women about 20 would have been the best for long-term relationships in ancestral times. Now, this is completely out of touch with reality. Girls in foraging societies usually start reproducing before they’re 20, so what these Evo-Psychs are saying is that the best females to go for would have been those that are already married off and up the duff by some other man in the tribe. Complete nonsense.

The best females to go for would have been those that weren’t yet married or starting to reproduce. The typical age of a girl’s first pregnancy in foraging societies is about the mid to late  teens, so men would do best by aiming for girls under that age. If focusing on 20 yr olds is such a winning strategy, then how come we don’t see men in foraging societies using it?

Instead, we see girls get married off much younger than that, and it’s certainly not 20 yr olds that sell for the highest price in bride markets. It’s usually girls much younger than that. In a recent study into child marriage in Tanzania, they found that girls about 13 were selling for over double the price of 20 yr olds. If these Evo-Psychs are going to keep on ignoring real-world data like this, then they can’t call themselves proper scientists.

In his paper arguing that hebephilic preferences are maladaptive, Blanchard claimed that taking on pubescent wives would not be a workable strategy since you’d have to wait a few years before they’d start reproducing, but this argument is just more nonsense that ignores real-world data. We know the strategy works fine because we see it working.

It’s common practice in foraging societies for men to marry girls several years before they reach reproductive age. The most common age is about 14, but that’s only the age they’re officially married. The relationship often begins several years before that.

Sure, the men have to wait a few years before they start getting offspring from their wives, but it isn’t much of a problem and is easily outweighed by the advantages of getting a female who is guaranteed to have all her fertile years ahead of her. If it was as big a problem as Blanchard claimed, then it wouldn’t have become common practice to marry girls that young.

12 yo girls in HG societies on average live into their 50s, so claims that your 12 yo wife may die before she starts giving you offspring are more nonsense. Sure, she might die, but the chances are she’ll live all the way to menopause and be able to give you plenty of offspring along the way. Again, real-world data is being ignored. Two other ridiculous claims in his hebephilia paper are first about the fact that pubescent girls in foraging societies are often closely guarded to protect them from sexual harassment and rape, and second about the reproductive statistics from the Pume tribe.

Blanchard mentioned that pubescent girls are often guarded by their male relatives and claimed that this is somehow evidence that being attracted to pubescent girls is abnormal. Wait, what? If they didn’t have to be guarded that would be evidence that the men aren’t interested in them. The fact they have to be closely guarded just goes to show how much the men want them.

When a girl in a primitive foraging society comes into puberty and sprouts some perky eye-catching boobs, she has now entered her most attractive time of life, and all the men notice. She’s now a perky little Lolita, a young maiden, her body is tight and fresh, her boobs are pert, and her face is young and cute.

She is now at the age she where she will suffer the most sexual harassment and is most likely to be sexually assaulted or abducted by raiders who want to keep her for themselves. That’s why she has to be closely guarded at that age. By the time she gets to about 20 and has started reproducing, she’s past her peak, the men lose a lot of interest in her, and she no longer has to be closely guarded.

Her boobs have started getting saggy from breast-feeding, she has stretch-marks on her stomach, pregnancy has made her fatter, and her face has lost its youthful freshness and sparkle.

The risk of sexual assault follows the same pattern in our societies. Girls are most likely to be victims of sex crimes between the onset of puberty and the beginning of adulthood. The males in our species are focusing on the females just prior the beginning of their reproductive lifespan when their long-term reproductive potential is at its highest.

We can see that rape and other sex crimes against females peak in the teenage years.

Another graphic.

A bunch of idiot fool women who don’t understand the reality of human male sexuality and that being attracted to girls from 12-17 is 100% normal in every sense of the word.

At the end of his paper Blanchard shows some reproductive statistics from the Pume tribe and thinks he has proof that hebephilia would be maladaptive. Basically, the statistics show that girls who start reproducing under 14 are reproductively less successful overall than those who start at 16+.

He thinks this means that men who commit themselves to girls under 14 would also be reproductively less successful than those who commit themselves to girls 16+. This just does not mathematically follow because the girls don’t start reproducing at the age that men commit themselves to them.

A man may marry a 12 yo girl and start having sex with her at that age, but she won’t typically get pregnant until several years later. If a man married an 8 yo girl, she obviously won’t start reproducing at that age, apart from maybe one time in ten million. You can’t presume that a girl would start reproducing at the age a man commits himself to her because that just isn’t what we observe to happen in the real world.

Men in primitive societies marry young girls, but they don’t start reproducing until a few years later. That’s the whole point of the strategy. In order to stand a chance at monopolizing a girl’s reproductive lifespan, you need to claim and commit yourself to her sometime before she reaches reproductive age. What those statistics are really telling us is that it’s a bad idea for girls to start reproducing in their pubescent years. If a girl starts reproducing at 12, she’ll leave behind fewer descendants than if she starts at 17.

It’s a bad idea to start reproducing at 12, and that’s why it rarely happens. Evolution has selected out a lot of the genes that cause girls to start reproducing at 12, though not completely because it does still happen sometimes. Selection happens on a gradient, it’s not just on or off. What makes Blanchard’s theory even more laughable is that the Pume are actually a good example of how adaptive hebephilic preferences can be.

The typical age of a girl’s first pregnancy in the Pume is about 15, so in order to stand a chance at monopolizing a girl’s reproductive lifespan, Pume men need to claim her before she’s 15. Which is exactly what happens. It’s common practice in this tribe for men to marry and knob girls about 12. Whoops.

I think being gay makes it difficult for Blanchard to understand normal male sexuality. One thing he doesn’t seem to understand is that straight men find cuteness sexy.

For example, Belle Delphine.

Belle Delphine

He seems to think that men should only find adult features sexy, but this is just wrong. There’s no law of evolution that says males must prefer the fully developed adult form. The only thing that ultimately matters in evolution is reproductive success.

If the males in a species can achieve greater reproductive success by going after the immature females, then they will evolve to do exactly that. This has happened to a degree in our species. It makes sense for men to go for females who are a bit immature and haven’t quite yet reached reproductive age because they still have all their reproductive years ahead of them.

The female physical features that men find the most attractive are often those that indicate a certain level of immaturity. The facial proportions men find most attractive are those of girls about 13-14. Men find soft, smooth, hairless skin highly attractive. The skin of adult women is usually a bit coarser and a bit hairy. Disproportionately long legs are highly attractive to men.

During puberty when a girl has her growth spurt, her legs grow faster than her torso, making her legs out of proportion with the rest of her body. It’s not until adulthood that the rest of her body catches up. The general petiteness and slimness men find highly attractive is not typical of adult women but is instead the physical proportions we’d expect to see in teenage schoolgirls.

The BMI men find most attractive, for instance, is the typical BMI of girls about 13. The female genitals men find most attractive are those that look a bit immature, with small inner labia and overall petiteness – the kind of genitals we’d expect to see in girls about 12-14. Men find pert boobs the most attractive. In primitive foraging societies the boobs of adult women have gone saggy due to breast-feeding. It’s only the young adolescent girls who haven’t had a baby yet that still have nice pert boobs.

This state of breast pertness men find highly attractive is naturally an immature feature, not adult feature. In modern societies women retain this immature pert state longer into adulthood due to having babies at a later age and wearing bras that push up their boobs making them look perkier.

The male preference for blonde hair may be another example. People’s hair is often blonde when they’re kids and then goes darker when they’re adult. In cartoons and CGI the female characters are made more attractive by making them look immature, while for the males it generally goes the other way. And, of course, the image of the schoolgirl is popular in the porn industry all around the world.

Popular female figures in fairy tales tend to be rather young.

Fairy tale men below.

As you can see, fairly tale men seem to be older than fairy tale women.

So when sexologists like Blanchard and company claim that men prefer fully developed adults, we can see that this is not true. That is what they want to be true, the way they think men should be. They think men should have preferences for fully developed adults 18+, but that is just not what the data shows or what biology predicts.

The most popular age for girls in the porn industry is 18, but that’s because they’re not allowed to go any lower. Obviously, what the market really wants is girls under 18. It’s like in that Chernobyl drama when the Geiger counter measures 3.6 Roentgens because that was the highest it would go to. The evidence is that if there were no legal restrictions, the most popular age for girls in the porn industry would be about 14.

A few years ago, the most popular porn genre was the barely legal stuff in which they’d use petite 18 yo girls with cute faces who looked about 14. They’d often dress up in school uniforms or role play as a young girl. This practice has since stopped because porn like that is now classed as child porn in most countries, but that’s what the market wants.

According to “experts” like Blanchard and Seto, a preference for girls that age is an abnormal evolutionarily maladaptive sexual disorder. They are clowns. They don’t understand the very basics of how the human mating system works. I think it’s only a matter of time before social attitudes change and some studios are granted a special license to produce porn in which the actresses have been made to look under 18 with machine learning.

Some country, probably in Europe, will decide to legalize this pseudo-CP in an effort to cut down on demand for the real stuff. It will have its own category on porn sites, and each video or photo will be electronically licensed to distinguish it from real CP. I predict that when this happens, it will become the most popular category on porn sites, and the most popular age will be about 14.

The most popular AI girlfriend in China is Xiaoice. She’s officially 18 years old, but she’s clearly modeled on a girl about 14. She has a cute face, a petite little body, and wears a school uniform. We can see what the market really wants.

Popular hentai figurine.

In this video she explains how she hopes to mature in the future, meaning that she’s immature at the moment.

Samsung getting in on it too. They’ve just brought out an immature-looking virtual assistant Sam.

Sam, Samsung’s young-looking female assistant.

This preference for immature females can’t be unique to our species. I imagine that in species in which the males try to monopolize the females’ reproductive lifespans, the males have a preference for the slightly immature females just prior the onset of their fertility. One example we see this in is Hamadryas baboons. They live in communities of several hundred out on the savanna.

Within these communities males keep small harems of females with their young. When the males enter maturity and are able to start building their harems, they become interested in the young immature virgin females and want to take possession of them. They often kidnap them from neighbouring communities.

What we see in Hamadryas baboons may be something like the way our Australopithicine ancestors used to live and mate out on the savanna. Over the past few million years of evolution through Homo Erectus and archaic humans, the harem size has gotten smaller and smaller, approaching monogamy.

But…but…don’t the highly scientific willy tests show that most men prefer fully developed adults? I don’t think we should take these primitive dick-meters too seriously. There are a ton of problems with them, the biggest of which is that the way people behave in the lab is not always the same as how they behave in the real world.

According to these dick-meters men find 30 yo women more attractive than teen schoolgirls, in complete contradiction with both real-world data and what biology predicts. Teen schoolgirls have double the number of reproductive years ahead of them than 30 yo women, so biology predicts they would be much more sought after, and this is exactly what we see in the real world.

The schoolgirl image is much more popular than the MILFs in the porn industry, teen girls are targeted for sexual assaults much more often than 30 yo women, young teen girls sell for a much higher price in bride markets, and in fairy tales and mythologies around the world, young teen maidens are the most highly prized, etc.

If these tests say that men find 30 yo women more attractive than teen schoolgirls, then we just can’t take them seriously. I think the sexologists who like to rely on them so much are suffering a bad case of physics envy. They like the idea that they can take some scientific measurements of men’s attractions and put them in a graph or equation like they’re doing Real Science. One day we’ll have the technology to do that, but these primitive dick-meters just aren’t it, and if they’re in conflict with real-world data, then we should go with the real-world data.

Menarche and Mammories

In a lot of primitive societies there are taboos against having sex with girls before menarche. A man may marry a young girl, but he isn’t supposed to consummate the marriage until she has her first period. People often take this to mean that this is the way nature intended things to work, as if menarche represented nature’s age of consent. When a girl has her first period, she has now supposedly become fertile and ready to have sex. A little bit of thinking will show that this just isn’t true.

There are no dramatic changes in a girl’s appearance of behaviour when she starts having periods. If a girl sprouted boobs and became interested in sex all of a sudden when she had her first period, we would have good reason to think girls have evolved to start mating just after menarche, but we see no such thing. One month before and one month after menarche girls look and behave the same. Minus the symbolic significance many cultures put on it, menarche is actually pretty uneventful.

Also, menarche doesn’t really mark the beginning of fertility. Girls don’t usually become able to conceive until 2-3 years after their first period. These rules against having sex with girls before menarche are really just as much social inventions as the age of consent in our societies. We have a rule that says “Don’t have sex with girls before age X,” and these primitive societies may have a rule that says “Don’t have sex with girls before menarche.” But is that how people actually behave?

I grew up in a working-class town just outside London in the UK. The AOC was 16, but it was common for men to have sex with girls younger than that. I knew two girls who lost their virginity at age 11 to men in their 20’s. Girls about age 13 would often have older boyfriends in their late teens or early 20’s. That’s what happened with my mum and dad.

I was always jealous of those Bigger Boys taking our girls, but when I was 20, I had a 13 yo girlfriend for a while, so it all balanced out in the end. When she was 15 she hooked up with her 35 yo uncle-in-law, and they’ve now been together for about 20 years and had 3 kids.

I knew a girl who loved older men, and when she was 12, she confided in me that she was screwing a 50 yo man who lived in the flats. I never saw him but I had no reason to doubt her. She also had a 23 yo boyfriend for a while when she was 12, and that was no secret. He was a friend of the family and used to come around her house to visit a lot.

So this is a little taste of reality. We may have this rule against having sex with girls under 16, but it happens anyway. The attitude we basically had was that if a girl had reached puberty and got the boobers, then she was ready. I think this is the way nature intended things to work, and we see the same kind of thing happening in primitive societies.

When Chagnon lived with the Yanomamo, he saw that when a girl got to about 12 and had some boobs, all the men noticed and she had to be guarded to protect her from sexual harassment and rape. The men weren’t supposed to have sex with girls that young because they usually hadn’t started their periods yet, but in reality they did. Most girls would start having sex with their husbands before menarche. In the Ache tribe researchers found that every single girl lost her virginity before menarche, usually with an adult man.

Out there in the jungle they may have some rule that you should only have sex with a girl when she has had her first period, but in reality probably most girls get screwed before that. Boobs are nature’s signal a girl is physically ready to have sex, not menarche. A girl reaches puberty, sprouts the boobs that signals she’s ready, and all the males notice and want to have have sex with her. This is how nature intended mating to work. It’s kind of obvious when you think about it.

Girls develop boobs a few years before they become fertile and able to conceive, but this is nothing strange. Soon after the onset of puberty, chimp females start getting sexual swellings on their bums that signal they’re ready to have sex, but they don’t become fertile until a few years after that. So we’re just following the same pattern we see in other animals. The females develop sexual characteristics and start having sex a bit before the onset of their fertility.

Alt Left: Why Has a Genetic Tendency towards Pedophilia Been Wired into Men? Part 2

The problem is that we are in such a crazy moral panic and mass hysteria over this subject right now that anyone who simply recites the good, hard, solid science behind this matter, as discovered in many good laboratory studies, will get accused of being a pedophile. Because the science, according to the modern craziness, is “pro-pedophile.”

This is nonsense. Science isn’t pro anything or anti anything. If it is, it’s not science, it’s politics. Which is what a lot of what passes for science nowadays, especially in the pathetic social sciences (which aren’t even sciences) right now, especially when it’s driven by SJWism, Identity Politics, and Critical Race Theory, three viciously anti-science plagues menacing our society.

I’ve done a lot of research on this subject because it interests me. Now the morons, which is 95% of humans, think that makes you guilty right there. If you study it, you do it. If you talk or write about it, you do it. Your average idiot actually believes that. Of course it’s true in some cases, but pro-pedophile types are pretty easy to spot. I’ve seen quite a few of their webpages. They’re not very shy about it.

I’m also interested in a million things, including a lot of sick and fucked up things I would never think of doing. I do seem to have some sort of attraction to sick and fucked up stuff. I don’t do these things, but for some reason, I am fascinated by them. How about if I write next time about the coprophiles, or shiteaters? What do you all think? Good subject for a post? No? Too bad, I’ll write about them anyway!

Anyway the figures are absolutely shocking:

3% of men are pure pedophiles, having more attraction to girls age 2-10 than to mature females. That’s absolutely bizarre. That’s 3.3 million American men right there. Now, as long as these guys don’t touch any kids, I don’t care what their sexual orientation is. We are not into the era of thought crimes, but we are headed that way. This is why I appear to be defending these people sometimes.

If they are not offending, I have beef with them, and any man with an orientation like this can’t help it anyway. It appears to be a developmental disorder like homosexuality, transsexualism and so many other things.

The debate about this has gotten so heated. People want to execute every “pedophile” in the US or at least lock them up for life. I’m not willing to execute 3.3 million American men and I’m not willing to lock them all up for life either. I don’t have any solutions to this mess, but those are not the way to go.

Beyond that, 18% of men are more attracted to females under age 15 (some say under 13) than to mature females. Most everyone would call these men pedophiles, but in the literature they are calling them hebephiles (maximal attraction to 11-14 year old girls, though the attraction does go up to age 15 in the hebephiles I have seen). That figure is truly shocking to me!

Most of these men probably have strong drives towards mature women, so they can substitute a prosocial drive for an antisocial one. But the way most Americans see it, 21% of all US men are pedophiles! I’m not about to condemn 20% of my brothers. I love my fellow men too much. I’m not about to jump on board this Misandry Train and condemn tens of millions of men to the gallows or life imprisonment. It’s bizarre.

26% of all men are as attracted or more attracted to girls under 15 than they are to mature females. Of the 26%, 3% of them or 10% of the total, are literal pedophiles. The rest are hebephiles or at least most people would see them that way. The vast majority of these men probably have strong attraction to mature females too, hence they can put aside their urges for young girls and focus on mature teenagers (16-17) and women (18+), hence they are not particularly dangerous.

That is absolutely shocking! How could 1/4 of all men have such a strong orientation to girls under 15, even preferring them to mature females? It boggles the mind.

Now almost everyone you tell this to will raise a fit, start screaming and yelling, and will quickly accuse you of being a pedophile yourself.

Beyond that, how on Earth has such a strong attraction or even preference for girls under 15 compared to mature females even evolve in our species (because it must be evolved).

The commenter here attempts to answer that question in terms of evolutionary biology. He is responding to this post:

bluestar: Well, the truth is that a certain amount of pedophilic attraction is normal for men and makes biological sense. Because what matters is the amount of offspring a female can give a man over the long-term, men have evolved to prefer young, nulliparous females that have all their fertile years ahead of them.

In primitive societies it’s common for men to pursue little girls for marriage. It makes more biological sense for men to chase after 8 yo girls who have all their fertile years ahead of them than 30 yr olds who have used up half of their fertility.

We see a similar thing in Hamadryas baboons. When the males come up to maturity they become interested in the juvenile females and want to take them into their harems. They often kidnap them from neighbouring communities.

Men in hunter-gatherer societies do the same thing. This practice is often called “woman theft” which makes it sound like the men are kidnapping 25 yr olds, but they’re usually much younger than that. Chagnon saw men in the Yanomamo tribe in Venezuela often kidnap “unripe” girls from neighbouring villages. Native American tribes would often kidnap little girls from other tribes. A famous case of this is Cynthia Parker, who was kidnapped at about age 10 and lived with the Comanche tribe for over 20 years, having 3 kids with the chief.

Hamadryas baboons are very interesting as the modern human mating may have evolved something like the generalized polygyny system they use.

The whole topic of pedophilia is so taboo that evolutionary psychologists won’t touch it. It just has to be completely evolutionarily maladaptive and abnormal!

Bonus stuff: (0.21 – 0.28)

His comments actually make sense. He points out that Hamadryas baboons do much the same thing. It is thought that our polygynous system most closely resembles that of these baboons.

Repost: Update to Races of Man Post

Update to Races of Man Post


My earlier piece, The Major and Minor Races of Mankind, has been given a major update. The previous incarnation was:

3 Macro Races

Caucasian (Caucasoid)
Asian (Mongoloid)
African (Negroid)

I left the three macro races intact. I have debated whether or not to include new macro races but I haven’t been able to come up with anything. The main problem is that all of the potential splits – Kalash, Pacific Islander, Papuan, Amerindian and Aborigine are all part of the macro races. The Kalash are part of the Caucasian race and the rest are all indisputably Asians (yes, even Aborigines).

Previous version:

6 Major Races

Northeast Asian
Southeast Asian

Revised version:

9 Major Races

Northeast Asian
Southeast Asian
Pacific Islander

The result looks something like this:

African Macro Race

General African Major Race

15 minor African races

Caucasian Macro Race

General Caucasian Major Race
Kalash Major Race

19 minor Caucasian races

Asian Macro Race

Northeast Asian Major Race
Southeast Asian Major Race
Amerindian Major Race
Papuan Major Race
Aborigine Major Race
Oceanian Major Race

53 minor Asian races

The last three above, Kalash, Oceanian and Amerindian, were added, giving me a 9-race theory in addition to the standard 3-race theory. Genetically, the Kalash are extremely bizarre. On one chart, they form a separate major race with Caucasians proper, East Asians, Amerindians, Melanesians/Papuans and Africans (chart here).

They are probably some sort of ancient Caucasian race – in fact, they may be some of the most ancient Caucasians of them all.

As you can see, very European looking phenotypes are not rare at all in the Kalash. This 2 year old girl could well be German, except for the strange “elf-ears”, which supposedly are very common among these people. The elf ears are probably a consequence of genetic drift. Drift occurs when a population is isolated for a long time without many outside inputs.The Kalash, unlike all other peoples in the region, have little or no South Indian or Asian genes.

More than anything else, this indicates a West Eurasian origin for the Kalash. West Eurasia is a term that is hard to define, and some say that the region does not even exist. There are some hazy definitions of West Eurasia out there, but in the way it is most used by population geneticists, it appears to mean the Near East and the Caucasus.

As West Eurasia is in the area of the purported homeland of the Caucasian race (Caucasus), we once again deal with the question of the Kalash being an ancient Caucasian tribe, perhaps one of the most ancient Caucasian stocks on Earth.

I saw one genetic map that had all proto-Caucasians (and all proto-NE Asians for that matter) coming out of the Borogil Pass on the border of northern Pakistan and the Wakhan Corridor of Afghanistan 35,000 years ago. Originally the group was something like Pre-Caucasian–NE Asian. The group went north and one line went to proto-Caucasians and the other went northeast to Proto-NE Asians.

We don’t have the foggiest idea of what these people may have looked like, but skulls from India 24,000 years ago look more like Aborigines than anything else.

The Borogil Pass in the area of Pakistan, Afghanistan and China. As you can see, it is pretty tough going. This is the lowest pass leading out of South Asia and up into the steppes, so it is logical that early men may have migrated in this way.

Actually I think the genesis of NE Asians is more complex than that, but the article was interesting. The genesis of Caucasians is one of the least understood of all the major races. The homeland of the proto-Caucasians is either in the Caucasus or in Central Asia and the Middle East and North Africa seems to be a major staging ground. At this time, the most ancient Caucasians seem to be South Indians and Berbers.

South Indians go back about 15-20,000 years and have been evolving right there with few outside inputs for all that time. Before 20,000 years ago, the Proto-South Indians are thought to have come from the Middle East. They probably bred in with or displaced an Australoid people resembling Aborigines who were the original people of India.

The Berbers may go back even further than that and there are suggestions that they may have had an origin in northeastern Africa near Ethiopia, Sudan and Eritrea. That area was the jumping off point for the human race to leave Africa 60-70,000 years ago, pointing once again to very ancient Berber origins. European-like skulls only go back 10,000 years or so and white skin only goes back 9,000 years.

All humans originally were dark-skinned. The people with the darkest skin evolved in the areas where the UV rays were the brightest. It was thought at first that dark skin was an adaptation to prevent sunburn and melanoma, but a there are problems with this analysis.

Sunburn does not usually kill you, and melanoma tends to hit older in life, after one has already produced offspring. A better explanation may be that intense UV rays cause destruction of folic acid stores in the body. Then pregnant women, with their folic acid destroyed, have a high potential of giving birth to deformed babies.

White skin was actually a depigmentation process to enable people to get more Vitamin D, which is scarcer at northern altitudes in Northern Europe due to weak UV rays. Lighter skin is necessary to grab all the Vitamin D that one can. An argument against this is that Vitamin D deficiency does not occur in areas of low UV radiation.

But this is not true. Even today, darker skinned people, such as South Indians, who immigrate to the UK are coming down with various Vitamin D deficiency syndromes, including rickets. It is probably necessary for darker-skinned people who live at high latitudes to take Vitamin D supplementation.

The proto-Caucasians may have split off as early as 35,000 years ago. Some NE Asians are quite close to Caucasians and vice versa. The groups straddling the Caucasian-Asian border form a sort of a line from Turkey to Korea and then up to the Chukchi Peninsula. Along the way we have Turks, Iranians, Jews, West Asians, Central Asians, Northern Turkics, Mongolians, Northern Chinese, Koreans and Chukchi.

West Asians include Punjabis and Pashtuns and live in Pakistan, NW India and Afghanistan. Central Asians include Kazakhs, Turkmen and Uzbeks. Northern Turkics include the Altai, the Yakut and other groups. Many of them live around where China, Mongolia and Russia all come together. Interestingly, this seems to be exactly where most Amerindians came from – the Altai Mountains.

The Chukchi are an Eskimo-like people who live on the Chukchi Peninsula on the far eastern end of Siberia where the Bering Straight separates Russia from Alaska.

What’s curious about the Chukchi is that Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza’s Principal Coordinates chart in his 1994 book The History and Geography of Human Genes (chart here) puts the Chukchi in with Caucasians. Yet by appearance and apparently also genetics, the Chukchi cluster with Asians.

So there are some groups that are really on the border. I had a hard time knowing what to do with Turkics, Northern Turkics and Central and West Asians, as the genetics was so hazy. I usually just dropped them in either NE Asians or Caucasians based on appearance.

The Kalash are a group of about 3,000 people living in Chitral Province in Pakistan on the border of Afghanistan.

The valleys of the Kalash. The villages are at about 6,000 feet and as the soil is very rich, they grow many crops. They also do a lot of herding, mostly of goats it seems. They do observe a menstruation taboo, where the women have to go off to special hut during that time, but this is a very old taboo in many human tribal groups. The Kalash bury their dead above ground in caskets. Burial of the dead above ground is a very ancient human tradition.

The Negritos of both Papua and the Andaman Islands, one of the most ancient human groups, bury their dead above ground in little tree houses. The Zoroastrians, one of the most ancient human religions, bury the dead on rooftops and let the vultures eat them. This is getting to be a problem in parts of India where they live as the neighbors are starting to complain!

They still retain an ancient pagan religion. The are remarkably egalitarian for that part of the world, and women work in the fields side by side with men. They have somehow managed to resist Islamacization for centuries, possibly due to the remote and multiethnic nature of the Chitral region.

Four Kalash students. The fellow on the right is a dead ringer for a European. He could be a German or an Englishman. The fellow on the left could easily be an Italian, a Greek, an Armenian, an Iranian or a Turk. The other two are awfully hard to classify. They almost look a little Amerindian.

There are some similar phenotypes across the border in Afghanistan in Nuristan amongst people called Nuristanis. They were converted to Islam at the point of a sword by a genocidal Pashtun maniac named Amir Abdur-Rahman during Afghanistan’s nation-building process in the 1890’s. His genocide of the Hazara was similar proportionally to the Jewish Holocaust.

A Kalash woman with some children, apparently her own. She and her kids do not look quite so Caucasian; they look more Asian. Actually the woman is hard to classify as belonging to any known race that we are familiar with. In California, you might think she was an Amerindian from Latin America.

The legend is that the Kalash and the Nuristanis were the remnants of Alexander the Great’s army that invaded and conquered the region 2000 years ago. This was the reason for all the European phenotypes in the area. Recently, this was thought to be a legend with no basis in fact, but recent controversial genetic testing suggests that the Kalash may have up to 20% Greek DNA on the fathers’ side.

Macedonian and Kalash female costumes compared – note the similarity in costumes. Also the Kalash continue to worship a creator God cognate with the Greek Zeus. I cannot help but think that some of those Macedonian phenotypes are also present in Kalash females. And the terrain looks rather similar too.

Maybe some of Alexander’s men did stay here, thinking they were home away from home. This story is definitely widespread in that part of the world. I had an Afghan doctor from Nangarhar Province in Afghanistan who insisted it was true.

This has been challenged since although there is one Greek marker in the Kalash, the other major marker that ought to be there, since it is apparently present in all Greeks, is not there. One counter-suggestion is that the Kalash got the Greek marker by chance through genetic drift. This seems dubious. The question remains highly confused .

A Kalash man, possibly with his wife by his side. He could easily be an Italian, an Albanian, a Spaniard or a Portuguese. She’s harder to classify, but could be an Italian.

The Kalash worship a God called Dezau, which is from the Indo-European sky God *Dyaos (reconstructed form), from which the Greeks derived Zeus and the Romans Jupiter. So the Kalash are the last practitioners of ancient Indo-European mythology.

A Kalash woman with Caucasian features and somewhat Asian eyes. It’s hard to place her into a known ethnic group, but there are Kurds who look something like this. The Kalash probably originated in an area near Kurdistan, but no one really knows. The child looks more Asian. Love the costumes.

They have some odd customs.

One I particularly love is called the Festival of the Budalak. A strong teenage boy is sent up in the mountains for the summer with the goats. He practically lives on goat milk, which supposedly makes him even stronger.

When he comes back there is a festival, and at the festival he gets to have sex with any woman he wants, even his own mother, a young virgin or another man’s wife, but he only gets to rampage like this for 24 hours. Any child born of these encounters is considered to be blessed. They supposedly quit practicing this custom recently due to bad publicity, but many think that they still practice it in secret.

Definitely one of the world’s greatest customs!

A beautiful Kalash woman who eloped with a man recently to get married. Although many times the couple who do this are single, in quite a few cases a married woman can elope with another man. The new husband just has to pay double the bride price. The cuckold just takes it all in stride, or at least he doesn’t get homicidal. It’s amazing the kind of rights women have in this group. Too bad so many of them convert out to Pakistani Islam where women are pretty much chattel.

This woman obviously resembles some European phenotype, but I don’t know my European racial types a la Coon, etc, very well. I almost want to say Norwegian?

The Kalash are coming under pressure from radical Islamists recently and several villages have been converted by force (I thought Muslims never do this!) Also radical mullahs incite local Muslims to go into Kalash villages and smash their religious idols.

A Kalash shamaness or female shaman. It is amazing that in this misogynistic part of the world that women are granted such a high religious position. Druze women in Lebanon and Syria are also allowed to become high religious leaders. The costume is amazing. Shamans are one of the oldest aspects of human religions, characteristic of animist type religions.

As the world is full of spirits (or Gods in a polytheistic world) the shaman works via human psychology to manipulate the spirit world to the benefit of the patient. It is hard to say how much there is to it, but areas of the world where humans have been practicing this sort of thing for a long time can do some pretty amazing things.

There are reports out of the South Seas that whole villages would get together to cast evil spells on leaders of neighboring islands. In a number of cases, the leader died soon afterward. The cause of death was typically massive and multiple organ failure. It was as if he simply exploded inside. There are persistent reports that saying a prayer over water or a meal makes it taste better.

There are many reports of dying people communicating over long distances with loved ones just before they die.

And there are also many reports of people sensing nearby tragedies as they are occurring. All of this needs to be investigated by science but there are good reasons to think that this sort of thing is compatible with modern science, especially particle physics where we are all part of each other.

I am also convinced that clairvoyance and sharing of hallucinations are possible, having experienced both of these things. Of course, we were tripping on LSD-like woodrose seeds at the time, but still.

Pacific Islanders and Amerindians were also added, as there is good evidence that these two groups form valid major groupings. Cavalli-Sforza’s eight-race theory listed Amerindians and a group he called Pacific Islanders that apparently also included Papuans.

Rosenberg et al’s six-race grouping also included Amerindians and a group he called Melanesians, consisting of Papuans and Melanesians. Since other evidence indicates significant distance between Papuans and Melanesians and Papuans and Pacific Islanders in general, I decided to leave Papuans as a separate major group.

Yet a good case can be made to split off Polynesians, Micronesians and Melanesians in a compact grouping. The creation of the Polynesians is a result of the spread of the Lapita culture, one of the world’s greatest sea journeys undertaken by Austronesian mariners, Taiwanese aborigines (Chinese people) who left Taiwan 1000’s of years ago to settle Island SE Asia. First they went to the Philippines, then to Indonesia.

From Central Indonesia, they left and settled coastal New Guinea, bringing an advanced culture to New Guinea. They also may have settled as far east as the Solomons.

The Trobriand and Solomon Islands are said to be one of the centers for Proto-Papuan culture in the region, and may have been settled as long ago as 35,000 years ago.

Later, a new wave of Austronesians came out of Central Indonesia (near the Wallace Line) and moved through Melanesia, picking up only a few Melanesian genes along the way. These mariners then went off to populate the entirety of Polynesia in the past 2000 years.

So, according to this theory, Polynesians are mostly Chinese (Taiwanese aborigines) with some Melanesian in them.

One interesting question is why the Polynesians got so huge. First of all, they are not all huge. I have taught a lot of these people in the LA schools and there are a variety of phenotypes, including one that is short and thin.

One theory is that the journey to populate Polynesia was so harsh that only the strongest survived and the weakest died. It may have been necessary to eat the dead for the survivors to go on. Perhaps they fought to the death for scarce resources. Anyway, on many Polynesian islands an extremely brutal culture of continuous, potentially genocidal warfare was the norm and this was probably the world center for cannibalism.

Finally, the last wave to move out was the Micronesians. This group consisted of Polynesians who moved out of Polynesia to populate Micronesia. According to the theory above, they are mostly Chinese (Taiwanese) with only a small amount of Melanesian in them.

The suggestion above was that both the Polynesians and the Melanesians are mostly-Chinese (Taiwanese) people. That conclusion is based on a recent paper that has not yet been widely distributed.

However, another paper suggests that the major Haplogroups in Polynesians – C and F – are indigenous to the region, meaning they are related to the original Melanesian and Papuan settlers.

That paper, and many others, suggests that Micronesians and Polynesians are about 50% Chinese and 50% Melanesian, with different percentages from each parent. This still seems the most reasonable solution to me.

Interestingly, the vast majority of the Chinese genes in Melanesians and Polynesians seem to have come from one group of Taiwanese aborigines – the Ami.

A group called the Alor in far eastern Indonesia clusters with Melanesians and a group called the Toba Batak of northern Sumatra in Indonesia clusters with Micronesians.

Alor of far Eastern Indonesia after a major disaster. They are Melanesians who speak Papuan languages. The languages are endangered and very poorly documented. There is a major undertaking underway right now to at least document these languages.

Some very interesting looking Alor women. Although they are Melanesians, they look a bit different from many other Melanesians. The woman on the left has some pretty Asian looking eyes. This may be because they speak an Austronesian language. Melanesians who speak an Austronesian language have some Chinese (Taiwanese) genes, but never more than 20%. The Alor have about 12% Taiwanese genes from the Ami, a group of Taiwanese aborigines, seen in Haplogroup L.

Both White Nationalist and Afrocentrist varieties of ethnic nationalist idiots keep trying to insist that these folks are either Black or closely related to Blacks.

These people are some of the furthest away from Africans on the planet. You can’t go by phenotype or appearance or even behavior. None of that means much. You have to go by genes. As these people were some of the first to split off from Africans, they have been evolving away from them for the longest. Whites are much closer to Blacks than these Melanesians.

An Alor man who is working with a linguistic team that is documenting Alor languages. Alor is a major diving site for commercial recreational diving crews. The water is still nice and clear here and the coral reefs are still intact. The fish population is good too as there are not a lot of people living in this part of Indonesia. The famous Komodo Dragon lives near here on Komodo Island in far eastern Indonesia.

The reason these people, who are much less related to Black people than I am, are always called Black, is due to the color of their skin! But that has nothing to do with anything. A bobcat and coyote are similarly colored too. Truth is that if you evolved in the areas of the Earth with the highest UV radiation, you often ended up with very dark skin, which does resemble that of Africans.

But this is just convergent evolution and has nothing to do with relatedness. This guy is a lot more closely related to Chinese than to Black people. The Alor do seem to have about 25% Papuan genes via Haplogroup E.

The Toba Batak of Northern Sumatra. The guys in this photo actually do look Micronesian – I have seen photos of Micronesians. How these Micronesians ended up on the north coast of Sumatra is news to me. The Toba Batak live west of Medan in the area around Lake Toba, especially on Samosir Island. Their elaborately carved wooden houses are a popular tourist attraction.

A photo of a Toba Batak family. I had a hard time finding quality pics of the Toba Batak. You can see that they are extremely dark – much darker than most people living in this area. Also I think that some Micronesians may have wavy hair like that. The Toba Batak are Micronesians who somehow ended up in northern Sumatra.

This shows that Indonesians are not any particular race, although most are more general SE Asian types fairly close to Filipinos.

Classification of races is a tricky business. In my post, I went by genetic distance alone and not phenotype, culture, behavior, etc. I also treated very gingerly all contributions by ethnic nationalists, who are known to be profoundly dishonest about this stuff. Despite PC nonsense, there clearly are races of mankind. In fact, my classification scheme posits 87 minor races, and it is still undergoing revision.


Capelli, C.; Wilson, J. F.; Richards, M.; Stumpf, M. P. H.; Gratrix, F.; Oppenheimer, S.; Underhill, P.; Pascali, V.L.; Ko, T. M.; and Goldstein, D. B. (2001). “A Predominantly Indigenous Paternal Heritage for the Austronesian-Speaking Peoples of Insular Southeast Asia and Oceania”. American Journal of Human Genetics 68:432-443.

Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., P. Menozzi, A. Piazza. 1994. The History and Geography of Human Genes. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Jablonski, N. and Chaplin, G. (2000) “The Evolution of Human Skin Coloration”. Journal of Human Evolution.

Repost: Alt Left: The Birth of the Caucasian Race

The Birth of the Caucasian Race

An early European, possibly of the M173 line. He may somewhat resemble a Khoisan or Bushman.An early European, possibly of the M173 line. He may somewhat resemble a Khoisan or Bushman.

A reconstruction of a very early European, based on fragments found in caves in the Carpathian Mountains of Romania from 2002 on, offers a tantalizing glimpse at what early Europeans must have looked like.

He actually looks a bit like Richard Steele, boxing referee and possible throwback.

Previously, the oldest European skull was 30,000 years ago and was said to look like a modern European, with closest affinities to Finns.

As you can see, the White nationalists are furious about this. White nationalism has always opposed the Out of Africa theory, now accepted as the Gold Standard by nearly all of anthropology. It’s just too offensive to imagine that Grandpa may have been a nigger*.

Yet obviously he was.

The “White European” phenotype as we know it today did not come into existence until after 12,000 years ago, or maybe sooner.

Before that, European Caucasians resemble Arabs. For instance, A 24,000 year old Cro-Magnon European shows DNA similarities to Near East (Arabs or the Caucasus). A 23,000 year old Italian Cro-Magnon sample genetically resembles modern Middle Easterners from Palestine, Syria, Yemen and Iran.

It’s time for WN’s to quit claiming Cro-Magnon as The Original White Man. Forget it! He was a Middle Easterner – an Arab – Iranian type. As almost all WN’s say that Arabs are not White, and many, even more bizarrely, state that Iranians are not White (genetically, Iranians look like British, Danes and Norwegians), WN’s need to quit claiming Cro-Magnon as some Super White Cave Man.

The original Proto-Asians came out of Africa 65,000 years ago, probably descendants of the M168 line, although NE Asians are probably partly M89.

The original Caucasians did indeed come out of Africa about 40-45,000 years ago, probably descendants of the M89 line. Whites and Caucasians in general are probably a legacy of M89 and not M168.

M89 birthed M45, which are the Proto-Amerindians of 35,000 years ago on the steppes and in the Mongolia-Siberia region. A child of M45, M173, were the first Europeans, and may be represented by this fellow. Later, M343, the real Cro-Magnon, appeared. It is a bit confusing whether Cro-Magnon is M173 or M343 or both.

The early genesis of the Caucasoid race involved a large injection of Asian genes from Mongolia, Siberia and East Turkestan. This occurred about 40-45,000 years and represents about 2/3 of the Proto-Caucasian genetic line (Bowcock 1991). These Proto-East Asians probably looked something like Aborigines or possibly Ainu. Modern NE Asians do not appear until about 9,000 years ago.

Before that, all Asians looked like Aborigines, Melanesians, or Ainus. As noted above, the modern European phenotype also only appears 10,000 years ago. So both modern Whites and modern East Asians only go back 10,000 years, to the Last Glacial Maximum. All humans had dark skin until 10,000 years ago. What birthed light skin? The glaciers.

For an analysis of this early process, which injected a lot of Proto-Asian genes into the Northern European Cro-Magnon line, see this early discussion on my now-banned blog:

Based on y-chromosome lineages, Atlantic and north European men (Cro-Magnon descendants) are related to N.E Asian men.

They all descend from haplogroup Q which arose in the north Himalayas and south Siberia 45,000 years ago, with one group branching off west eventually ending up in the Pyrenees, the Caspian sea and northern Scandinavia. The other group would go across east Asia and even to the Americas.

Indeed, there were movements in the other direction too – from Northern Europe back to Siberia. An ancient line of Europeans called Orcadians (named after barren islands in the north of Scotland) went back to Siberia at some point and contributed significantly to the genetic line of the Yakut, a Siberian grouping that is now only 6% Caucasian. The Yakut as ancient Scotlanders? Incredible.

The other 1/3 of the line was an early African  (Bowcock 1991), possibly a Khoisan or Bushman type, but maybe a Proto-Caucasian African out of South Africa (see below). Out of the Proto-African and Proto-Asian mixture was birthed the Proto-Caucasian.

The African phenotype was Bushman or Hottentot or S African Proto-Caucasoid, not Bantuoid, because modern Blacks do not appear in Africa until about 12,000 years ago. Before that, all African look like Pygmies or Bushmen.

I have always wondered what these folks looked like, and this is an interesting part of our heritage.

In the Amren article linked above, commenter JPT is not correct that Whites are on our way to being a different species. Caucasians are closer to Blacks than any other group since we were the last to split from them. Ouch! That’s painful, huh WN’s? Caucasians and NE Asians are also quite close, but not nearly as close as Caucasians and Africans.

The furthest apart are Blacks and Aborigines. If anyone is evolutionarily on their way to becoming a separate species or subspecies, it is the Aborigines and the Papuans of New Guinea. The distance between them and Africans is greater than the distance between any two human groups.

It might be interesting to see what happens if they mate. I am pretty sure that they can mate successfully, but it might be interesting to see if their couples are less fertile than others. As genetic distance increases, infertility does too, because you are moving closer and closer to separate species. I know that Europeans and Aborigines can mate successfully, as there has been a ton of this going on since the first White invaders attacked (I mean landed on) Australia several hundred years ago.

Speaking of Aborigines, yes, they are very different, but they are not Homo Erectus as many say. They are fully human. Homo Erectus lives to this day in large numbers in San Fransisco. Whoa! Sorry, that was a joke!

What follows is reconstruction of the genesis of the early Caucasians.

First of all, a line descended from the original M1 line out of Africa arose in Southwest Asia, frankly in the Levant (Israel, Palestine, Lebanon and Syria). This line had come out of Africa via Somalia to Yemen and Arabia 40-45,000 years ago.

It’s known that they went back to Africa, but it was always thought that they went back the same way that they came, via the Red Sea. Instead, they moved out through the Sinai and into North Africa to become the Proto-Berbers. This same line moved into Europe via the same Mediterranean route, this time along the Northern Mediterranean. These folks indeed may have been related to the fellow pictured above.

The most succinct summary of the Proto-Caucasians is found here. The actual birthplace of the Proto-Caucasians was in the Caucasus, as one may expect. A figurine has been found in the Don River area of southern Russia dating from 45,000 years ago. It is thought that this is a remnant of this earliest Proto-Caucasian culture.

Proto-Caucasian Man came out of the Caucasus 39-52,000 years ago. One went west to Europe (possibly resulting in the fellow above) and N Africa (this is the line out of the Levant described above) and other east to NE Asia (probably the M89 line described above, and this in part explains Caucasian affinities of Koreans, North Chinese, Mongolians, etc.

There were also further returns to North Africa from Caucasus and India 30,000 years ago. It appears that the birthing grounds of the Caucasian Race were in the Caucasus, the Middle East, India and North Africa. The highly modern East Indian and North African Berbers – both diverse groups of Caucasians – may be the remains of the earliest Proto-Caucasians.

It is interesting to postulate on what the Proto-Caucasians who moved out of Africa via the Red Sea 42,000 years ago looked like. No one knows. However, curiously, 36,000 years ago a new line arose in South Africa that did not look like the Khoisan types prevalent at the time. Instead, it looks like a Caucasian, specifically like Cro-Magnon and other Late Pleistocene cave man types in Europe.

No one knows what happened to this line, but this Proto-Caucasian in South Africa 36,000 years ago could have moved up to the Rift Valley area and then to Arabia to give rise to the Caucasians. Keep in mind that by the time that Africans moved out of Africa, only 2 lines left.

At 65,000 YBP (years before present) an incredible 40 different lines had already evolved separately in Africa, and they were all quite different. Only two of these 40 diverse lines left Africa. The rest stayed and birthed the tremendously diverse African race of today.

It’s often said that the Khoisan-Bushmen of Southwest Africa are the most ancient living people. However, recent research shows that this is wrong. The most ancient humans are from East Africa, specifically from around Kenya and Tanzania.

This includes the Masai (thought to be originally from the Sudan), the Sandawe (a Khoisan type in northern Kenya), the Datog (similar to the Masai, and probably also originally from the Sudan), and the Burunge and Gorowaa, both of whom came from Ethiopia recently.

The African Eve, the first human, was probably a Northeast African or East African. Man probably originated in Ethiopia or Sudan, close to the Rift Valley that transformed the first men from apes and watered the fields of the long line of Homo that ended in ourselves.

From a dead link discussing Tishkoff’s findings:

Sarah Tishkoff of the University of Maryland and a team of coworkers reported genetic analyses of more than 600 living Tanzanians from 14 different tribes and four linguistic groups. They analyzed mitochondrial DNA (MtDNA) the tool of choice for tracing ancestry because it is inherited only through the mother as part of the ovum.

The number of mutations that have accumulated in mtDNA is a rough measure of the time that has passed since that lineage first appeared.

The owner of the first modern human MtDNA (by definition, a woman) is often referred to as “Eve,” although many women of that time are likely to have shared similar mtDNA.

Genetic diversity

Tishkoff and her colleagues chose to investigate East African peoples for specific reasons. The number of linguistic and cultural differences is unusually high in the region, as is the variation in physical appearance – East Africans are tall or short, darker-skinned or lighter-skinned, round-faced or narrow-faced, and so on.

This observation suggested that the genetic composition of the population is highly diverse, and as expected, the team found substantial variation in the mtDNA.

In fact, members of five of the lineages showed an exceptionally high number of mutations compared with other populations, indicating that these East African lineages are of great antiquity.

Identified by tribal affiliation, these are: the Sandawe, who speak a “click” language related to that of the Bushmen of the Kalahari desert; the Burunge and Gorowaa, who migrated to Tanzania from Ethiopia within the last five thousand years; and the Maasai and the Datog, who probably originated in the Sudan.

The efforts of the University of Maryland group reflect a substantially larger database and more certain geographic origins for its subjects than earlier mtDNA studies.

Further, the work by Tishkoff’s team reveals that these five East African populations have even older origins than the !Kung San of southern Africa, who previously had the oldest known mtDNA.

“These samples showed really deep, old lineages with lots of genetic diversity,” Tishkoff says. “They are the oldest lineages identified to date. And that fact makes it highly likely that ‘Eve’ was an East or Northeast African. My guess is that the region of Ethiopia or the Sudan is where modern humans originated.”

For more links between the Tutsi – Masai types and the original Europeans, see the following early discussions (here, here, here) from my previous (now shut down) blog. It’s a bit hard to get your head around, but if you think hard, you can start to understand it.

I spent months trying to figure out exactly what this guy was saying, and I think I have it now. His intriguing comments strongly suggest that the earliest Cro-Magnon ancestors were derived from populations that are now the East African Masai, Tutsi, etc:

Masai and Tutsi are doliocephalic and orthaganus. Tutsi and Masai Central African types are quite low-skulled, like the original Cro-Magnons were. Also MtDNA retrieved from a Cro-Magnon in Europe was found to belong to haplogroup *N, which directly and immediately descends from L3, which originated in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Some of its clades went south and then east onto Australasia, while the northern clade went to the Middle East and gave birth to *N, and other clades went to West Africa and south.

It’s the northern subclades of L3 that gave birth to *N (like l3a1) that are the most closely related L3 members, and Sub Saharan Africans are closest to *N bearing Cro-Magnons, as they are their most immediate and closest ancestors.

It would be interesting to see if the Tutsi and Masai have any of these northern subclades of L3, as they are more closely related to Cro-Magnon *N than any other MtDNA lineage in the world.

What I cant get my head around is the overlap in identical SNP clusters (Caucasoid) between populations of predominantly different patrilineal and matrilineal ancestry. e.g. e3b Ethiopians (also predominantly indigenous African on mtDNA) and r1a/I1a Norwegians.

R1a and Ia descend from K, which arose in the Middle East, and e3b descends from YAP, which arose in Uganda. The nearest ancestor of R* and I* and J* Europeans/Middle Easterners with E3b Ethiopians is the M168 male, which is the ancestor of all other modern humans, so they share as little as possible recent ancestry.

On mtDNA East Africans are predominantly L3, which is the direct ancestor of mtDNA N*, which is the original Middle Eastern Caucasoid mtDNA marker, which has been retrieved from 2 European Cro-Magnon specimens too. I wonder if East Africans have northern subclades of L3, as they would be the most closely related L3 subclades to N*.

See below. They do look like White people, don’t they?

An example of a Dinka, an example of what I call a West Sudan Elongated Desert-Adapated African. This man is a negotiator for the SPLA, the Sudanese People's Liberation Army.An example of a Dinka, an example of what I call a West Sudan Elongated Desert Adapted African. This man is a negotiator for the SPLA, the Sudanese People’s Liberation Army.

A Masai man. The more I look at this guy, the more I think he looks like our 36,000 year old Caucasian guy reconstructed at the start of the post. Or am I hallucinating? A Masai man. The more I look at this guy, the more I think he looks like our 36,000 year old Caucasian guy reconstructed at the start of the post. Or am I hallucinating?

More Dinka West Sudan Elongated Desert African phenotypes.

Another West Sudanic type, from an old anthropological textbook, back in the days when race still existed and we could still discuss phenotypes and whatnot. You know, before the Cultural Marxist dickwads took over?Another West Sudanic type, from an old anthropological textbook, back in the days when race still existed and we could still discuss phenotypes and whatnot. You know, before the Cultural Marxist lunatics took over?

A Tutsi, possible ancestors of the original Proto-Caucasians. Note the Caucasoid appearance.

Another Tutsi. I must say they are handsome folks. Hey WN's, say hello to Grandpa!
Another Tutsi. I must say they are handsome folks. Hey WN’s, say hello to Grandpa!

Yet another Tutsi. I can't get over how much these Africans look like Caucasians or Whites in facial structure.
Yet another Tutsi. I can’t get over how much these Africans look like Caucasians or Whites in facial structure.

Eastern Desert Elongated Africans, possible progenitors of the Caucasoids, look like Caucasians. One argument is that this is due to inbreeding with Caucasoids. In fact, they are pure Africans. See the chart.
Eastern Desert Elongated Africans, possible progenitors of the Caucasoids, look like Caucasians. One argument is that this is due to inbreeding with Caucasoids. In fact, they are pure Africans. See the chart.

Another chart showing the African purity of the possible proto-Caucasoids of Africa. Take home point: Caucasian appearance is not due to Caucasoid interbreeding; it's de novo.
Another chart showing the African purity of the possible Proto-Caucasoids of Africa. Take home point: Caucasian appearance is not due to Caucasoid interbreeding; it’s de novo.

*Used sardonically.


Bowcock, A. M.; Kidd, J. R.; Mountain, J. L.; Hebert, J. M.; Carotenuto, L; Cavalli-Sforza, L. L. and Kid, K. K. 1991. “Drift, Admixture, and Selection in Human Evolution: A Study With DNA Polymorphisms.” Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1991 February 1; 88(3): 839–843.

Cabrera, Vicente M, Maca-Meyer, Nicole, González, Ana M, Larruga, José M, Flores, Carlos. 2001. “Major Genomic Mitochondrial Lineages Delineate Early Human Expansions”. BMC Genetics 2:13

Hellenthal G, Auton A, Falush D. 2008. “Inferring Human Colonization History Using a Copying Model”. PLoS Genetics 4(5).

Wade, Nicholas. 2006. Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors. East Rutherford, New Jersey, USA: Penguin Group.

Utility and Beauty May Work in Opposite Directions

A previous post about a nonfunctional stage of the female body which nevertheless seems to be peak beauty in one sense. This got me thinking. Perhaps the world is not supposed to be beautiful. Suppose most beautiful things are either accidents or with the females in the previous post, nonfunctional.

Which also got me thinking.  Maybe pure, natural, functional beauty loses some of its awesomeness because of the necessity of developing utility.

Usually when an object of any kind  starts to acquire utility, utility goes to the front of the line and beauty and appearance go to the back. Perhaps a bit of beauty is always sacrificed when making anything  functional, useful, or utilitarian. Probably things in this world are not supposed to be shockingly beautiful.

Sure, there are beautiful things in the world, but not that much of nature is pure beauty. The parts of nature that are pure beauty are rightly set aside as natural wonders in national parks and whatnot.

The world has to figure out how to function. Rocks, water, trees, grass, lichen, clouds, insects, birds, reptiles, and mammals are primarily concerned with functionality.

Yes, even clouds, rocks and water have to figure out how to work and do what they need to do.

Living things are mostly just concerned with survival, and what in the Hell does beauty have to do with survival? Nothing.

A plant’s objective is to live long enough to scatter its seed and create offspring.

An animal’s objective is to survive, not get killed by predators, find and acquire food, mate, rest, hide, raise offspring, etc. That’s the evolutionary trajectory. Where does beauty fit in? At the end of the line.

Although sometimes we get natural beauty like male peacocks who have evolved beauty in order to compete with other male  peacocks to attract mates where the most beautiful male wins. But this is one of the more unusual cases in our world where beauty actually serves some sort of a utilitarian and even evolutionary purpose.

Mostly beauty just happens by some coincidence of nature and natural beauty just sits there undergoing its natural processes, not trying to either get pretty or lose its looks. Instead it just sits there waiting for you to marvel at or take a picture of it. But it’s accidental. Nature didn’t evolve that waterfall to be so gorgeous that tourists would take pictures of it all day. Nature evolved the waterfall by accident when a stream or river ran right off a damned cliff. Redwoods are accidental. Wildflowers are beautiful accidents. And on and on.

Why 16-19 Year Old Girls Have Some of the Most Awesome Yet Nonfunctional Bodies of all Women

I’m not much into younger teenage girls because although they look hot, at my age it’s just too much of a kid or a girl. They almost seem like children to me now. Sometimes I stop and talk to them but I think, “My God, she’s soooooo young!”

I’ve started noticing that I really like teenage girls when they get to ~17-18. Of course I l ike all women after that too. I’m turned on by maturity and “woman-ness”,  not immaturity and “child-ness.” Right there I can’t possibly be a pedophile or even a hebephile or ephebophile for that matter (although the last two are completely normal orientations) because all of those chronological preferences have a preference for youth and immaturity and a lack of “woman-ness.” “Woman-ness is a turnoff for these men, and “child-ness” is a turn-on.

Now that is finally starting to look like a woman and a 17 year old girl is shockingly sensible and many act like adult women. Also their bodies change a bit from a 16 year old. From ~17-19, females have these incredible bodies, but they are immature and non-adaptive.

What happens is that they get the curves of a woman, which we love of course, but their hips have not widened yet because the hip widening does not occur until 19-20. That’s why it’s better to wait until 19-20 to have that first kid when your hips finally widen enough to allow an easy birth.

But from  17-19, you see these girls who are very thin but they have these awesome, insane curves! It’s almost the hottest woman of all but it’s not an adaptive human – it’s an immature body because you just don’t see “thin with awesome curves” much in mature women.

If females stayed like that their whole lives they would have all sorts of problems delivering babies like a lot of teenage girls. Pregnancy below 19-20 in the teen years is associated with all sorts of negative outcomes because the body is not ready to birth a child. After 19-20,  the hips widen and the skinny with awesome curves thing  goes away. Mature women are either thin, in which case they don’t have a lot of curves, or curvaceous, in which case they need to put on some weight and become more full-bodied and run the risk of getting fat. You either get a thin woman or a curvy woman, one or the other. You don’t get both.

It is interesting that women’s hips, even after the widening, are still not really wide enough to deliver a baby easily. If you compare human female hips with our nearest ancestor apes’ female hips, the ape gals have much wider hips than our lasses do.

Why didn’t we evolved wider hips? It’s a damned good question.

It’s also said that a human baby’s head is almost too wide to be birthed out a vagina. If you have ever seen a human birth you are amazed at how that huge object comes out of that tiny little hole. I think the human head evolved to be larger to accommodate a rapidly growing brain that massively enlarged out head size. At the same time, women’s hips did not evolve enough to easily accommodate the huge head, but enough women survived that the thin hips did not go out.

You would think we would start evolving smaller heads to get through those thin hips easier, but that never happened. It is thought that the massively enlarging head that occurred in human evolution was such a beneficial thing for the species that it stuck around and was not selected out despite the fact that it caused all sorts of problems. In other words, the benefits outweighed the drawbacks.

This also implies that the hottest, sexiest, most beautiful things on Earth might be completely nonfunctional.

What Did Africans Look like 40-45,000 YBP?

Polar Bear: What’s your best guess on the 1/3 African? Khoisan maybe?

The commenter is referring to the genesis of the Caucasoid race in the Caucasus 40-45,000 YBP which was formed by an input of 2/3 Ancient “Chinese” and 1/3 Ancient Africans as per Stanford anthropologist Cavalli-Sforza’s groundbreaking research.

Incidentally, this great man is now being attacked by antiracist morons because he had the temerity to suggest that such things as human races either exist or used to exist. This scientific fact is now banned by anti-science Cultural Left obscurantist “fundamentalists” who resemble the religious fundamentalists they hate more than they care to note.

The commenter is asking what the Ancient African component looked like, and then asks whether they looked like a Khoisanid type.

No one really knows the answer to this question because the Khoisan as a race are new. The Khoisan people go back 53,000 YBP, but before 10-15,000 YBP, they looked a lot different. But yes, those people were the ancestors of the Khoisanids.

Have you ever seen the reconstruction of the earliest Caucasian 35,000 YBP? He’s insanely ugly and he looks nothing like any type of modern Caucasoid. He doesn’t look like any modern race, but if anything, he looks somewhat Khoisanid. However, modern Khoisanids are rather attractive people, and this ancient Caucasian looks awful. I think when God was handing out looks, this guy thought God said books, and  he said “I prefer horror.”

I haven’t seen any reconstructions of these ancient Africans, so no one quite knows what they might have looked like.

But only the Khoisan and the Pygmies remain of those ancient Africans. However, the ancestors of the Khoisan probably didn’t look Khoisan, and we don’t know what the ancestors of the Pygmies looked like because the jungle consumes and reduces everything to raw soil, including human bones.

And keep in mind that at the time we went out of Africa 70,000 YBP, there were 40 different groups in Africa, and they were all extremely different from one another. We don’t know what any of those people looked like. An ancient skull from South Africa 35,000 YBP looks “Caucasoid.”

But this is just yet another case of the parallel development that I discussed in this post in which “Caucasoid” is a frequent property of human skulls whether of the Caucasoid race or not simply because the phenotypes available to man are only a small subset of all possible phenotypes.

Hence, “Mongoloid,” “Caucasoid,” and “African” phenotypes pop up regularly outside of those groups. To give an example, many Australoids appear “African.” This includes Negritos, and other Melanesians. Some Africans such as the Khoisan appear “Asian.” And on and on. Therefore we can’t tell just by looking at a human which of the 3-4 large human races that they belong to.

Only two of those 40 groups present in Africa when we left are among those that left Africa, and at one point, those two groups out of Africa groups suffered a mass extinction event to where they were reduced to 1,500-2,000 people, possibly due to the Toba Volcano eruption in India 73,000 YBP.

What’s interesting is that there were already modern humans in India a the time of this eruption, and this is earlier than the usual 60,000 YBP date for humans leaving Africa. That there were people already in India before the Out of Africa date shows that some humans left Africa even before the given date.

This reduction of a large population to a very small number via mass death is known as a bottleneck, and it is known that we non-African humans definitely went through an evolutionary bottleneck. Other species can also go through bottlenecks in their evolutionary history.

These bottlenecks, while devastating in terms of mass death, are often good on an evolutionary basis in terms of fitness. Often only the fittest survive these events in other words, leaving a more robust and adaptive population after the bottleneck.

Alt Left: Feminism Is Shoveling Sand against 100,000 Years of Tide

The fact that Players are typically treated as heroes in most societies by both genders and across age groups is another reason why feminism goes against human nature.

That is why this new feminist reaction that somehow Players are evil, scumbags , pedophiles (!), creeps (!), losers (!), criminals (!), and deserving of contempt and increasingly arrest and imprisonment for the crime of being a male mammal is bizarre. Feminists are part of the Cultural Left. As usual, the feminists, as part of the SJW Left, are trying to destroy human nature.

They are acting like 100,000 years of human history of continuous biological behavioral trends either never happened or are irrelevant. You hear feminists say over and over, “But we are modern now. We have decided you can’t be that way anymore,” about this or that. Feminists, like all SJW’s, are trying like the Communists to create a New Man, in the Communists’ case free of capitalism and selfishness and in the SJW’s case liberated from 100,000 years of evolution.

We are supposed to shrug off a hundred millennia of biological habit as if it never occurred. We are supposed to create a New SJW Man torn free from the roots of his past.

Feminists are also trying to create some New SJW Woman or at least they are lying about the basic nature of women, which is extremely consistent across thousands of cultures and over millennia of written record.

According to feminists, and the Cultural Left in general:

  • Everything your grandfather taught you is wrong.
  • Every human society that ever existed was wrong.

The New Feminist Woman is not working out. Women are simply being women just like they always have in spite of the feminists. Feminists are reacting to the intractable nature of female behavior by both denying it is happening now and denying that it ever existed in the first place.

In other words, feminists are lying like all SJW’s  and IP types. Since all SJW’s and IP types are about denying everything negative about whatever identity they are about, all SJW and IP movements are characterized by constant lying of nearly tidal wave proportions.

The new hatred and even criminalization of Players goes against 100,000 years of human evolution and ultimately shows that Female Rule fails, probably because Female Rule ends up being utopian and based on universal justice when unfortunately, there is no such thing.

Game/PUA: Everyone Loves the Player

At least in any normal society, that is. As in, every single non-feminist-fucked society on Earth.

A Hero among Men

If the Player is very humble or even acts embarrassed of his success, other men will respond very well. In Man World, Players are often treated as sort of heroes for some reason.

This goes for men of all ages and even boys, teenage boys, and even prepubertal boys. And it goes for all ages of men – young men of course, but also middle aged men think Players are hilarious and heroic figures. Oddly, even elderly men fall into convulsive laughter over the Player’s exploits, pat him on the back, and treat him like a hero.

In fact, humor is a typical reaction to the player. Males of all ages will roll on the floor laughing at the antics of the Player. For some reason, he’s absolutely hilarious.

And a Hero among Women, Too

Many adult women also treat Players this way. A lot of women think Players are funny. They burst into laughter when they meet one or hear of his exploits.

Girls, even prepubertal girls, act rather amazed, amused, and giggly about the Player. This applies especially when they are 10-12, when they are starting to get a bit curious about boys. Younger girls don’t understand male-female dynamics very well.

Married women chuckle and think he is funny. Oddly enough, most old women also find him absolutely hilarious. Once again, as we see with men, the Player is an object of comedy and hilarity. Why?

A Hero in Most Traditional Cultures, Too

I figure that this is the normal way that any society treats the Player. Traditional societies apparently are a bit in awe of him, and the men quite possibly treat him as some male hero figure. The women are stunned by him, some want to date him, and most think he is humorous or hilarious. This seems to be the natural, normal way that most human societies treat the enigma known as the Player.

Keep in mind that Players are basically Alphas by default. On one Manosphere site, one man said if you have had sex with 100 females, you are an Alpha period – no ifs, ands, or buts about it. If you have a high enough lay count, you cannot not be an Alpha. That’s probably correct. Only 6% of men have three-figure laycounts. I would wager that most if not all of them are Alphas.

Furthermore, I doubt if there are many Beta Players out there. The nature of the Beta seems to imply that he’s usually not a Player. An Omega Player is literally not even possible due to the nature of the Omega. Alphas are 15-20% of male society, and that’s probably the maximum number of males who are Players in any age group.

You can’t have a society where every man, or even a majority of men, are Players. Well, you could. That would be gay male culture. But I do not think that straight society will ever resemble gay male culture. If anything, it’s the opposite, as the growth of hypergamy and the damage left in its wake such as incels show us.

It’s Human Evolution Talking – the Voice of Hundreds of Thousands of Years

The normal society reaction to the Player is probably rooted in evolution. See the elephant seal, buck, or stallion with his harem. Get it? It’s evolution in action. The Player is a male two-legged ape with a harem. We are mammals after all.

If you really want to understand human males and females, study those female deer, elephant seals, and sheep. Study those male elk, seals, and horses.

I have learned more about human males and females by studying the so-called lower mammals than from studying humans. Everything starts to add up and finally make sense. We are doomed to be mammals no matter how hard to we try to escape the bestial trap. We cannot not be mammals. As with everything else, when it comes to mammalian behavior in humans, Nature bats last.

A Geneology of Amorality

From here.
I will quote from a few snippets below:

Research on hypocrisy shows that people are mostly motivated to appear moral rather than to actually abide by their moral judgments.

Once you understand this hard truth about humans, so many other deliciously cynical hard as nails truths shine through the light, and you can finally find your somewhat disgusted way in life.

Research on ‘motivated reasoning’ shows that people deviously craft moral justifications to push their own agendas.

Yep. Sad but true once again. Plug this truth into your brain and watch the whole world light up before your very eyes. In other words, when people are good, they are good. When people are bad, they are also good. People are always good, no matter how good or bad their behavior is. No one wants to be bad. Except me. The bad boy.

In fact, humans are more eager to judge other people than to follow their own moral advice.

You know, you really can’t understand life at all until you plug into ugly little truths like this. Plug this in and watch everything converge together, an endless epiphany.
We proclaim our moral values, and then we don’t even follow our own rules. But that’s ok, because we all just lie and say we do anyway. Evidence to the contrary? Not an issue. Deny it. Things hitting a little too close to home? Not a problem. Project away the blame onto someone else so you go scot free. Defenses are a handy little bag of tricks.

They Walk Among Us

Neandertals, that is.

New data indicates that all of the Out of Africa (OOA) people (that is, everyone but Blacks) are related to Neandertals, in part anyway. About 1-4% of our genome is Neandertal. This % is much mistaken. White nationalist sites are saying that this means the difference between Blacks and Whites is 4%, while the difference between humans and chimpanzees is only 2%. Whoa! Another blow to the multiculturalist scum! Turns out “niggers” really are apes anyway, or worse, apes are more human than niggers!

Forget it. They didn’t do the math right. The Neanderthal difference between Whites and Blacks accounts for a whopping .04% of the total. It’s not much of anything. And those high percentages of genetic convergence with non-humans can be misleading.

Multiculturalists like to shriek about how much genes humans share with each other, but so what? Humans share 98% of their genes with chimps. So? So are humans chimps or what? Nope, at least not most of us. We share something like 75% of our genes with flatworms. So are we flatworms? No, not most of us anyway.

Sequencing of the human genome to look for human-Neandertal interbreeding has been going on for some time. For a long time, there was no evidence of any human-Neandertal breeding, but that was because they had not finished sequencing the entire genome. Now that they have finished, it’s clear that there was breeding between humans and Neandertals.

The breeding occurred when we first moved out of Africa 70,000 YBP, when the breeding occurred in the Middle East, and later on, there was more breeding in Eurasia. That breeding occurred soon after we moved out Africa in the ME means that all Out of Africa humans are related to Neadertals. Blacks are the only humans with no Neandertal in them.

Range of the Neadertals in Europe, Eurasia and the Middle East. They lived from about 400,000 to 30,000 YBP.

Much nonsense is being parroted about about this interbreeding. It was interbreeding because Neadertals and humans are so far apart genetically that Neandertals are a completely separate subspecies from modern humans. Subspecies of living organisms can always interbreed, but are usually prevented from doing so since they do not inhabit overlapping territories.

The fervor on the White nationalist boards is high, and predictably idiotic. WN’s all around the globe are swooning over these hideous, primitive Neandertal creatures.

A Neandertal kid. Good Lord, even the kids are hideous. I think they might still be alive, actually. I've seen kids like this around some trailer parks.

We bred with Neadertals! Niggers didn’t! Dontcha realize that this makes Whites superior to niggers, and it makes niggers inferior? Many theories are tossed about. Whites bred with Neandertals, and that’s what makes us superior to inferior niggers (those cool Neandertal genes), bla bla. Many posts are glorying in the wondrous beauty, brains and achievements of the great Neandertals.

Yeah, like I want to be related to this guy. Get real.

I had to LOL the whole time I was reading this stuff. This is one of those times I feel like playing Lou Reed’s song, “I Wanna Be Black.” Seriously, Blacks are superior for not having any fucking non-human Neandertal blood in them, not inferior! That Neandertal, non-human blood in us doesn’t make us better than Blacks, in fact, it’s an embarassment! At least Blacks are fully human! We Whites are part non-human. FFS, how humiliating is that?

I realize that there's porn for every fetish out there, but it's hard to believe there would have been much of a market for Neandertal porn. I hear Black guys never fucked these chicks. Good for them!

Neandertal women were incredibly ugly. Yes, our people mated with them. To me, this means that either guys will fuck anything, or human females love to fuck stupid hulking brutes who can barely even speak (Neandertals were apparently not able to speak human language, but they probably had advanced sign language).

There are many posts suggesting that breeding with Neandertals is what gave Whites and Asians their brains, since, you know, Neadertals were so damn smart and all. It’s true that Neandertal did have a large brain. But so what. So does a fucking elephant. But some suggest that most of the brain had gone over to memory. One theorist suggested that a Neandertal could remember every single day of his life, nice if he ever got questioned by the cops for an unsolved Paleolithic murder, but not much good otherwise.

In addition, all OOA folks have Neandertal in them, including Papuans (IQ 64) and Aborigines (IQ 62). Yeah, lot of good those super Neandertal rocket scientist brains did them, huh?

It’s clear that the Out of Africa folks (Yeah, the “niggers”) thoroughly outcompeted the Neadertals. Much is made of the Neandertal toolset, but the OOA folks had a better one. And the OOA folks had speech, which may have trumped them all. No one knows if we exterminated the Neadertals or if they just could not compete in a changing environment (I figure we took them out) but at any rate, the OOA folks handed the Neandertals’ asses to them quickly.

That WN’s are falling all over themselves for these hideous Neandertal non-humans shows how stupid racial nationalism is. At the end of the day, its sin is the sin of pride. As pride makes  a man act foolish (consult any good Greek tragedy) so does racial nationalism, nothing more than egotism writ across the entire race, with the volk subbing for the ego.

It's possible that either some Neandertals still live among us, or some Whites have a lot of Neandertal genes. Some researchers say that Nickolai Valuev, a Russian boxer, may be up over 90% Neandertal. Looking at him, it's clearly possible, but his genome has not yet been sequenced. He eats multiple pounds of red meat every day, another clue to his possible Neandertal roots.

One last theory.

Jews are Neandertals.

That’s the Jews are so evil, you know. Because they aren’t human. LOL.

Safeguard Your Own Women, Steal the Enemy’s Women

In the comments section, Cyrus points out that some ethnic groups do place priority on breeding within the group, particularly the Jews and the Armenians:

Robert, in addition to Jews having a fixation on non-intermarriage, I might also add that I have noticed this pattern with Armenians as well. Just an observation. Though, I believe there exists a social rational behind Jews and Armenians holding such views. A similar history of persecution, perhaps? A Near Eastern cultural element?

Yes, the Armenians and the Jews do want you to marry inside the group. And many immigrants to the West do too. I have noticed that with East Asians, there is strong pressure for Chinese to marry another Chinese, Koreans another Korean, Japanese another Japanese, etc. Even among SE Asians, there is pressure to marry your own. Khmer are pressured to marry other Khmer and not those horrible Lao or Viets, etc.

What’s funny is that marrying your own tribe can’t really be natural, since in order to keep it going, you have pound it into your people’s heads how evil the other tribes are. Most of these accusations against the other groups are simply lies. So the only way to prevent mass miscegenation is with mass lying propaganda. Doesn’t sound like an inborn trait to me.

If you study tribes, it’s clear that most totally don’t give a fuck about genetic purity. I studied Amerindian tribes, and it was quite common to take a wife not just from another village, but even from another tribe. She left her tribe and came to yours, abandoned her language and culture and adopted yours, and she was automatically one of your people. It also makes sense from a genetic POV, as you are avoiding becoming inbred. It seems that primitives had some understanding of genetics after all.

Further, tribes have always conquered other tribes and raided them to steal their women. One thing you can do is raid the other tribe and rape all their women to force them to bear your genetic line. Or bring the women back to your tribe and breed them in with your tribe, and extinct their tribe in the process.

Primitives did not understand genetics very well, but clearly there was a prerogative to keep the tribe going and in many cases to wipe out the competing tribes. By kidnapping their women, bringing them back to your village, and making them bear your kids, you extinct their tribe while incorporating their genes into your own line.

Any group doing this cares not one whit about genetic purity. They just mass-miscegenated with the enemy! Come on!

However, they did keep their tribe going and extinct a competing tribe. These tendencies may well be genetically driven.

Kevin MacDonald says that humans have evolved traits to do two opposite things:

1. Guard the women of your own tribe from breeding with enemy or competing groups.

2. Conversely, the men have a drive to breed with the women of the competing group (in addition to breeding with their own)!

Maybe this is not so contrary as it seems. Women are the seed stock of your tribe. When they are gone, you are gone. You need to preserve them from the enemy taking them out and extincting your group. On the other hand, by stealing the enemy’s women, you weaken them, force them to carry your line, and possibly wipe them out altogether.

The result is the imperative in the title: Safeguard Your Own Women, Steal the Enemy’s Women.

All makes sense from a group competition POV.

On Female Emotionality/Illogicality

Alpha Unit comments in the I’m So Sick and Tired of This Shit thread:

Men don’t really know women at all.

Instead of actual knowledge and understanding of women, what they have are assumptions and myths.

“Women have no souls.” “Women are illogical.” “Women see you as friends after you’ve unsuccessfully dated them.”

How did these soulless, illogical beings gain the upper hand over you men? You, with all the soul and all the logic?

Could someone answer that?

Answer: They don’t have the upper hand. We guys rule, even still, probably. It’s a Man’s World, even 2010 USA. As far as the rest of the world, sure, of course we’re in charge.

Look, sure women are more emotionally directed, and men less so. Everyone knows this.

You’re out hunting a bunch of woolly mammoths. You can’t be getting all emotional. It’s dangerous. You have to stay calm and quiet so you can kill the beast. One of you might die in the assault on the mammoth. Man World is an intensely violent place. If guys were as emotional as females, we’d be beating and murdering each other all over the place.

You’re a caveman. You see some guys from another tribe. A dispute occurs, a potentially fatal one. Instead of flipping out and turning to all out war like women do, and then regretting it the next day, you negotiate your way out of it. What if we went to all out war, some of our guys got killed, then we sat down and cried about it the next day and went back to say we’re sorry to the other guys. They’d probably kill even more of us!

We can’t afford to be emotional. It’s deadly. Women can afford to be emotional, hate each other’s guts, start fights and wars with each other all the time, because females are not dangerous. Female aggression is nothing. What happens when women are having a catfight? Nothing. Someone cries, and everyone gets their feelings hurt. Oh, boo hoo. If a men had the same type of catfights that females do on a regular basis, someone’s going to get killed.

Female emotionality is best because her emotions probably pick the best provider for her and tell her when to stay with him and when to leave him. They probably also help keep him around.

Also, female emotionality is great for raising kids and building bonds with other females. Women create the network of civilization around the village. They string it all together through their friendships. Men are also lousy at friendships, so we don’t sow a connecting network together to make the village thing work.

I think men suck at raising kids. Women’s emotionality helps to tune them in to the baby or kid’s emotions and attend to his needs. If it were up to guys, a lot of kids would just die because we don’t care.

The sexes are different. Female emotionality can be hard to deal with at times, even for other women, but it was obviously evolutionarily necessary and probably still is. I don’t feel that either sex is maladaptive. Both sexes are for the most part probably very adaptive in most ways.

The sexes complement each other, yin and yang, and make a whole. Alone, each is incomplete. Together, the circle is complete.

Sure, men complain about women. Hell, women complain about women. But they can’t help it, and neither can we.

And female emotionality is easier to take and less destructive than male violence. Women are nutty and hard to take sometimes, but there’s always another one across the way to trade her in for, and anyway, males have tried to kill me. Not once, but repeatedly. I’m lucky I survived. No female has ever tried to kill me. Compared to male dangerousness, the breezy emotions of the female are a walk in the park.

Getting down to brass tacks, do you really want a world where the women all act like men? Forget it. It’s bad enough that 50% of the population are asshole males, can you imagine if the whole world was like that? Thank God that only half the world is male. Thank God females act like females and not males.

Alt Left: Female Rule Violates the Laws of Nature

In the provocatively titled The Cunts Versus the Men post, perceptive commenter Tyciol writes:

Maybe a better word as opposed to feminism would be equalism or something?

Like it’s relative to position.

Women were certainly downtrodden in the past and lacking rights, so equalism would be feminist in that case.

But in the reverse scenario, if men could not vote, etc., then any resulting equalist movement would have to have a masculinist agenda.

Suffrage to me has never been about focusing on women’s rights but simply more about simple equality, since women are also people and have opinions which should be counted. Similarly, the right to choice (abortion) to me is not about favoring women but rather that people should not be forced to carry parasitic feti for months if they don’t wish to.

I’m pro-choice, and I’m all for equality for women in all of the sane ways. But I wonder if equality ever works. We offered women equality, and instead they took their equality and ran past the 50 yard line heading for our goalposts to try to dominate us and rule us. I guess it’s natural. Neither sex is going to be happy with mere equality. If you give women equality, they’re always going to use that step stool to try to install Female Rule. And I guess we asshole guys will always try to install Male Rule.


Nevertheless, equality is surely something to support. Better than equality: how about this? Rights. Not necessarily equality, but rights. No matter what we think of them, females have basic rights, and in most ways, they have the same basic rights as we do. So do gays, Blacks, lots of folks. It’s not a matter of liking. You don’t have like Black people; a lot of White people don’t. And a lot of straights are not too fond of gays. But how can we deny that gays and surely Blacks have the same set of basic rights that any human does?

I have nothing against Female Rule in principle, assuming they were capable. But I don’t think they are. And I don’t want to live under Female Rule. The chicks will dig it (I guess! Or maybe they won’t?!), but it will suck for the guys. We already have a Matriarchy with the Politically Correct crowd, and honestly, it sucks.

Male Rule sort of sucks for women, but they seem to be happy, and the men surely are happy. Female Rule violates Nature* and seems to make both sexes increasingly miserable.

I don’t think that females ought to be allowed to install their Female Paradigm in society. Think about it. Is there any society that ever let the women rule? I can’t think of one. Why is that? Surely it must have been tried in the past. Not all human males are patriarchal shits, and a lot of us are lazy. Surely there were times in the past when the lazy guys said, “We give up. You do it. You rule. Go for it.” I assume it was tried in many cases in the past, and the result was the same as it is now: chaos. In which case, the sane people realized that either you have Male Rule or you have Chaos.

Allowing the Male Paradigm to rule society works, and most societies work that way, but it also often violates women’s rights at least somewhat most of the time and keeps them down. But in a lot of these societies, like Hispanic ones and many other traditional societies, women seem to like living under Male Rule. You go to these places, and as long as Male Rule isn’t too evil, everyone seems happy. It’s like they know they are Living In Nature.

I don’t hear a lot of complaints from the Hispanic females around here about the Male Rule they live under. Women get to be feminine, men get to be masculine, and everyone is happy. I don’t think Hispanic women want to rule. They want some relative equality, at least in terms of earning power, and around here they are granted that. Hispanic women can make quite a bit of money, and some do here. But they’re still quite feminine.

On the other hand, White women seem to have so much greater freedom than Hispanic women, but they seem to be so much more miserable! It’s like the more freedom you give women, the less happy they are, and the more they complain about Male Rule.

Even when the women are in charge, increasingly the case nowadays, the women keep complaining about the Patriarchy. As Female Rule deepens, the women get angrier and angrier (paradoxically as they get more and more rights and power!) and become more and more masculine. This upsets Nature, and Nature doesn’t tolerate defiance. She demands balance, just like in the forests and jungles.

As the women get increasingly masculine, the males will have to become increasingly feminine to compensate and create the balance that Nature demands. As women become increasingly masculine, they get more and more unhappy, because it violates women’s own nature. On some level, the female organism knows that acting masculine is fucked up, and this throws the organism into disarray.

Of course, as males become increasingly feminine, they get more and more miserable too, because femininity violates man’s own nature. So you end up with Northern California White People, where even the straight people act like queers and dykes.

It follows from this scenario that you would see increasing situational and opportunistic homosexuality in both sexes. As males feminize, they tend to engage in increasing amounts of homosexuality. As females masculinize, they also tend to engage in increasing amounts of homosexuality.

As Female Rule deepens, women will increasingly reject continuous marriage and raise fatherless men. Once again, a violation of Nature. Nature demands that both males and females have fathers. Nature punishes those who defy her. She punishes fatherless males by turning them into criminals who lash out at the world as a surrogate for missing father. She punishes fatherless females by turning them into sluts, trying to screw their way to Daddy’s missing love.

Both criminals and sluts are often unhappy, probably because most men are not supposed to be criminals and most women are not supposed to be sluts. Both criminals and sluts frequently lead at least difficult and often tragic lives.

Women can have power, but only if they either don’t upset Male Rule or at least only try to be equal.

*I am applying Nature in the sense of Natural Law, especially the Catholic or philosophical sense. When I say something violates Nature, I mean it violates Natural Law – that is, it’s unnatural in terms of mankind’s evolution.

Of course violations of Natural Law occur, but as they violate our evolutionary imperative encoded in our genes, there will be ill effects, since humans are not meant to violate Natural Law. Violations of Natural Law will have consequences.

Feminine men and masculine women are miserable. Female Rule (matriarchy) violates Natural Law and results in chaos and even unhappiness for females, since even females dislike Matriarchy deep down inside because it’s unnatural. Fatherless families violate Natural Law and result in criminal boys and slut daughters, both of whom are miserable.

When I say something violates Natural Law, I mean it violates our evolutionary imperatives coded in our genes. The result will be unhappiness and pathology, as our natural and genetic imperatives are violated, thwarted, and twisted.

Body Odor and Race

This is a followup to the older piece, Do the Races Smell Different?

According to this interesting but very un-PC paper, Human Body Odor, which I was afraid to even write about, yes, they do.

Blacks seem to sweat more than other races. That they sweat more enables them to cool off better in a hot climate, as perspiration is a way of cooling yourself off. So Blacks are ideally adapted to staying cool in a very hot place, Africa, which is where they came from.

Whites sweat quite a bit too, but not as much as Africans.

Asians seem to sweat least of all, and the paper says that Asians are well-known for having little body odor. Asians actually have more active eccrine glands than Caucasians do, but due to the low number of osmidrotic apocrine glands in axilla (armpit), they have less axillary odor than other races. Asian apocrine glands are either poorly developed or nonexistent.

It’s not so much how much you sweat, but it has to do with the apocrine glands in the axilla, since it is from the axilla that the odor comes from. So there are glands for sweating and glands for producing odor, and they are different. Blacks have about 20% more apocrine glands as Whites, but the glands are larger, wider and more active in Blacks. Blacks also have more active eccrine glands. All other things being equal, Blacks will produce greater body odor when they sweat than Whites do.

Many people have noticed body odor differences in the races, but I never have, and I have a great nose. Then again I never played football with Black guys. This probably is not a problem with Blacks most of the time, as long as they are not sweating like pigs. On hot days, there’s always deodorant. I carry a stick around with me at all times and periodically whip it out and apply it during the summer.

I’m going to make this article available for download on the site since it’s a bit hard to find.


Hart, Robert. 1980. Human Body Odor. Nexus 1:1. Available for download on this site here.

If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.

Muslims Are Dumbfucks Too


In addition to all the other problems with Islam, and I believe that they are considerable, it turns out that Muslims are complete dumbfucks when it comes to science. As you can see in the article, Islam is opposed to the Theory of Evolution. It’s often said that this is yet another problem with Islamic fundamentalism, but actually the rejection of evolution is across the board with Muslims, with a majority, and possibly a vast majority, of Muslims rejecting Darwinism, including most moderate and liberal Muslims.

Like everything else between the West and Islam, Evolution is coded in the Muslim World as a tool of Western imperial hegemony. Battles are being fought all over the Muslim World, mostly in the moderate states, to remove evolution from the public school curriculum. These battles have been most prominent in moderate states like Turkey, Indonesia, Egypt and Lebanon. I assume that in the rest of Dumbfuck Land (excuse me, I mean the Muslim World) evolution is simply not taught in schools so there is no curriculum to remove.

Now that the battle against Idiot Christian Creationists has been all but won in the West (despite a 60% majority of Americans rejecting evolutionary theory), the next battle will move to the Muslim World. What is even more disturbing is that Islamic Creationism is being taken up by Muslim progressives, liberals and more secular types as some sort of a way to bridge Islam and science, religion and the secular world.

Belief in Evolution
Nation             % Believing in evolution
Iceland*           80
Denmark*           80
Sweden*            80
France*            80
United States**    40
Turkey**           25
Indonesia**        16
Pakistan**         14
Egypt**             8

*Smart countries
**Dumbshit countries

So, in addition to making people violent, (Yes, Islam makes people violent indeed.) Islam also makes people stupid. A stupid person is just an idiot, but a violent stupid person is a dangerous idiot, and that is another matter altogether.

Mountain Yellow-Legged Frogs in the Sierra Nevada

Repost from the old site.

I don’t write much about amphibians on here, but I am amphibian nut, in addition to being a mammal, reptile and bird nut. I would be a plant and insect nut too if I could only figure out how to identify them. I’m interested in fish, but they are a little harder to observe in the wild unless they are at the end of your hook.

Anyway, I have long taken an interest in amphibians here in California and to a much lesser extent, throughout the entire West. I am particularly interested in threatened and endangered amphibians here in the state.

The mountain yellow-legged frog has declined disastrously here in the state, starting with heavy fish stocking in the Sierras by pack mules, and then declining wildly with arial stocking of high country lakes via airplane that began after World War 2. This arial stocking has since proven to be one of the stupidest things that the California Department of Fish and Game has ever done.

Every year, countless fingerlings were dropped into lakes all up and down the Sierras, even though after a while almost all of these lakes had completely self-sustaining populations and many lakes saw few if any fishermen in a given year. Furthermore, the populations grew so high that the fish became stunted and malnourished.

In addition, they caused serious problems to the entire ecosystem of the Sierra. This is because in general, fish were absent from much of the high country in the Sierra. The exception was in the Southern Sierra, where the golden trout was native. In the North, Paiute Cutthroats and Lahontan Cutthroats were native to some streams.

Rainbow trout were present, but mostly at the lower elevations. Apparently the streams were so steep that trout were not able to climb up the rivers and creeks to even get into the high country. When men first came in numbers to the High Sierras in the late 1800’s, they found most waterways devoid of fish.

However, there were vast populations of amphibians, in particular mountain yellow-legged frogs. They were so numerous at many high country lakes that you could almost hardly walk around without almost stepping on them.

Before World War 2, limited fish stocking began in the Sierras. Stocking was done in the high country via mule trains and was not particularly effective. However, the stocking was already starting to cause declines in the mountain yellow-legged frog population.

After WW2, arial stocking began and soon turned into a comedy routine and a massive waste of taxpayer money. The CDFG was addicted to fish stocking in the Sierras and refused to stop it or even study it even when environmental groups demanded that they do so.

CDFG claimed that the fish stocking program was somehow exempt from CEQA, California’s landmark environmental law and probably the one law that California’s business class hates more than anything else. Business interests have been trying to get rid of CEQA for decades now, but it’s not going anywhere.

The reason environmental groups wanted the stocking stopped was because studies began to show that fish were having a devastating effect on the mountain yellow-legged frog (MYLF) populations. This is because the MYLF did not evolve in the presence of fish and hence had adopted no defenses against them. Wherever fish were present, MYLF was either not present or there in only reduced numbers.

The fact that CDFG dragged their heels on protecting the MYLF for ages shows that CDFG hardly has an environmentalist agenda at all. They almost never propose any species for threatened or endangered (T & E) status anymore, and usually reject almost all petitions by environmental groups to list anything. They hardly protect anything once it does get listed anyway, so one wonders what good the listing even does.

The CDFG screams that budget cuts means they can’t do anything at all, and another problem is that much of their budget is funded out of fishing and hunting licenses. I have met quite a few individual biologists who work for the agency and by and large they are good folks. I think that there are political appointees at the top that thwart just about anything reasonable getting done though.

It’s not well understood that California is not really a very liberal state in many ways. The voters are still mostly White and older and they are much more conservative than the population as a whole.

Despite blatherings by White Nationalists that Euro Whites are the only race that bother to protect any nonhuman life that lacks utilitarian use for man, since 1980 and US Whites voting rightwing, there has been no greater enemy of the environment and nonhuman life in the US than Whites.

These Whites have solidly supported a pro-business and pro-corporate agenda that has declared war on the environment and every living thing in it. If we let capitalists have their way, they will exterminate all nonutilitarian nonhuman life on this planet, all because those living things get in the way of making a buck.

Hence we have a state run by Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger that is almost totally beholden to corporate and business interests. This has been the case for every California governor since Jerry Brown.

Anyway, various hypotheses have been proposed for the decline of the MYLF. The non-native fish hypothesis has born out well. Pesticides from the Central Valley drifting up the mountains have also been suspected in the decline, along with the ozone hole.

There is some evidence that pesticides are related to MYLF declines, but testing the ozone hole hypothesis has shown that a thinning ozone layer is not frying frog eggs, even at high elevations. However, the thinning ozone layer has been having a bad effect on other frog and toad species. It seems that different species are variably effected by the thinning ozone layer.

Another hypothesis has been that a fungus called chytrid has been killing MYLF’s. This seems to be the case, and the killings are accelerating. Chytrid has been devastating frog and toad populations in various distant parts of the world, especially North, Central and South America and Australia.

An article was recently published in the journal Nature claiming that global warming was causing chytrid to spread. However, a subsequent article was published in another journal that seemed to indicate that global warming had not been proven to be behind chytrid’s spread. A cautious analysis seems to indicate that neither side has proven its case yet.

This particular type of chytrid seems to have escaped from a lab in Australia and has since been devastating frog and toad populations. First it pounded populations in Australia, then it moved to the Americas. Frogs and toads may not have evolved with this fungus, so it’s been hammering them hard. If any frogs and toads can survive the fungus, they may be able to pass on an immunity to it and enable the species to survive.

There have been widespread chytrid outbreaks in the Sierras in recent years. Just when some recent efforts to eliminate fish from some national park waters in the Sierra seemed to be bearing fruit, the fungus has been nailing the MYLF but hard. There have been 25-30% reductions of all types of frog populations in the Sierra over the past five years due to the fungus.

One theory is that the fungus has always been there but that recent environmental changes such as industrial and agricultural contaminants in the air, the frogs’ immune systems have been compromised, making them susceptible to the fungus.

However, some populations get hit very hard by the fungus for a while and then bounce back. The theory is that they have some sort of genetic resistance to the fungus. If this is true, then maybe the MYLF can survive in the Sierra after all.

As usual, the Bush Administration, the most anti-environmental President in recent history, refused to list the MYLF although it has been petitioned repeatedly. The most recent designation is “warranted but precluded “.

This is a sickening game that the Fish and Wildlife Service has been playing for some time now, dating back the “liberal” Clinton Era. The game says that the species qualifies for listing, but there are no funds to list it. It’s just a despicable bureaucratic game. How much does it cost to publish a listing notice in the Federal Register? Very little.

At the same time that the Administration pricks whine that there is no money to list any new species, they cynically and dishonestly cut the budget for listing new species! “Liberal” Bill Clinton started this bullshit, but Bush took it to overdrive. Sometimes, there is no lower life form than a politician.

Anyway, there are all sorts of species sitting on this idiotic warranted but precluded crap list for ages now. As the MYLF has declined by 93.3% in the last 100 years, that’s an endangered listing right there, and I’m not even a biologist. I know the listing criteria.

The Southern California population, which may be a separate species, is virtually extinct. It has declined by 99%. The Bush Administration did list this frog, but it’s almost gone anyway, as there are only 79 frogs left.

Probably no man has done more to save the MYLF than Roland Knapp, a Research Biologist at the University of California Sierra Nevada Aquatic Research Laboratory.

These guys associated with universities are usually pretty honest and non-corrupted, while the fisheries and wildlife biologists and botanists I met working for the local National Forest were some of the most awful, corrupted and dishonest people I have ever met. If you don’t care about species and whether they go extinct or not, don’t take a job with the feds dedicated to protecting them.

The local national forest, the Sierra National Forest, is doing absolutely nothing to my knowledge to protect MYLF and MYLF is almost gone from Sierra National Forests anyway. Truth is that even USFS wildlife and fisheries biologists are ecstatic if a rare species of extirpated or nearly extirpated from their forest. Now we don’t have to save it! Less paperwork! I’m not kidding.

It was Knapp’s research a while back that conclusively proved that it was nonnative fish that were driving the MYLF extinct.

Knapp’s MYLF blog. Knapp’s MYLF page.

Fishermen are understandably upset about fish removal projects in the Sierras. To date, these projects have been very limited. It is probable that the main reason that the Feds are not listing the frog is that a listing would mandate fish removal from many or most Sierra waters. Those fish were not even there to begin with, and the MYLF is only present at high elevations anyway. There are plenty of low elevations to fish in.

I’ve done fishing in the High Sierras myself, but if you are so shallow that you can’t hike into the High Sierras and just dig it for what it is without wetting a line, I don’t even think you should even be back there.

Even better, fish removal would probably reduce the number of humans in the backcountry. It’s mostly wilderness anyway, so why do we need tons of people back there? They can remove the fish from most of those waters for all I care. If there are no fish in the lakes, just bring a book or lie on your back or explore around all day.

Recent research indicates that there are three separate genetic units of the MYLF in the Sierras, a Northern, Central and Southern genetic unit. At present, these have been split off into a new species, the Sierra Yellow-Legged Frog , or Rana Sierrae.

The Southern California population and some southern Sierra populations have been split into a whole new species, the Southern Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog. Distribution maps for Rana Sierrae and Rana Muscosa. Rationale for the split. The two species are estimated to have split 2.4 million (!) years ago. Hence, the Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog, the subject of this post, no longer exists in its former form.

This split was done on the basis of an article last year (Vredenburg et al 2007). Whether the three separate genetic clades of the Sierra Yellow-Legged Frog warrant splits into subspecies has not yet been determined. In order to split into subspecies, usually a certain X genetic distance must be shown.

In February of this year, the Center for Biological Diversity petitioned again to list Rana Sierrae as endangered. Surely it qualifies.

Lots of cool frog, tadpole and terrain photos at the links.


Lips, Karen R., Diffendorfer, Jay, Mendelson III, Joseph R., Sears, Michael W. 2008. Riding the Wave: Reconciling the Roles of Disease and Climate Change in Amphibian Declines. PLoS Biology Vol. 6, No. 3.Pounds JA, Bustamante MR, Coloma LA, Consuegra JA, Fogden MPL, et al. 2006. Widespread Amphibian Extinctions From Epidemic Disease Driven by Global Warming. Nature 39: 161–167.

Vredenburg, V. T., R. Bingham, R. Knapp, J. A. T. Morgan, C. Moritz, and D. Wake. 2007. Concordant Molecular And Phenotypic Data Delineate New Taxonomy And Conservation Priorities For The Endangered Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog. Journal of Zoology 271:361-374.

Science Proves It: The Best Age For a Woman is 17

Studies all over the world have shown that men and boys find that the most beautiful women of all are aged 17. This makes sense because at that age a female is fertile, healthy and has a long, healthy breeding and mothering period ahead of her.

So, here in the US, what is normal is deemed sick, evil, perverted and pedophilic.

We have been discussing this theme here for a while now, and here is yet another take on it, this time from the UK.

Suffice to say that most of the outrage over grown men looking at young women and teenage girls comes from females. The fact that this perfectly normal behavior has become pathologized in feminized America shows you what happens when you let women take over your society: catastrophe.

This disaster will continue apace until enough non-mangina males and real women (not feminists) rise up and overthrow the Female Dictatorship that we labor under, restoring a more normative unbiased rule of law in which neither the male nor the female view of sex is prejudiced or given preference.

“There Was An Old Woman,” by Alpha Unit

Latest by Alpha Unit. Pretty interesting stuff! We have been discussing on here for awhile why human females live on past menopause (or past their age of “usefulness” to put it brutally). No one seems to exactly know why. The latest research, cited by AU below, is about as good an explanation as any that I’ve read.

One good evolutionary reason for menopause is that past a certain age in Paleolithic times, an older woman was quite likely to die during childbirth. Menopause had survival value for females in that it allowed them to survive by shutting off the reproductive organs around the age at which childbirth becomes quite deadly.

On the other hand, these women have already had kids when they were younger, so where’s the evolutionary value (since her genes are already passed on anyway, even though she’s dead)? It may be that in tribes where the women did have go through menopause, the older women simply died. The death of the grandmothers was so harmful to the group that these groups went out.

Some tribes that evolved menopause managed to keep the grandmas around, and thereby failed to go extinct, passing their genes on. Any tribe that goes extinct is evolutionarily useless. This suggests that grandmothers had survival value for the tribe as a whole. And what might that value have been? These questions are very difficult to answer, but it’s fun to play around with them.

It is one of the most bizarre (and annoying) commercials I’ve seen on TV.

The California-based HMO Kaiser Permanente advertises itself with images of post-menopausal females, including a cheerleader, and a singer intoning in the background: “When I grow up, I wanna be an old woman….”


I mean, I hope to be an old woman one day, since the alternative is to drop dead right now. But what is so wonderful about being an old woman? My mom would know, I suppose. But I have the feeling she wouldn’t want me to ask her. If I did, she would probably smile at me and say, “You’ll see.”

What good is an old woman, anyway?

Researchers have been trying to figure this out for decades now. Apparently there shouldn’t be any old women. The Grandmother Hypothesis, mentioned here , is an attempt to explain why human females survive past menopause. Supposedly the older females help nurture their grandchildren, who benefit from their accumulated wisdom and expertise.

But there are skeptics. They point out that these older females use up resources that could be going to the younger generations, offsetting any benefit the younger ones get from having them around.

Maybe what matters isn’t what Grandmother can do for anybody but why she went through menopause in the first place.

Researchers at the Universities of Cambridge and Exeter published an explanation last March. In summary, they say that females go through menopause in order to prevent sexual competition between themselves and the younger females in the family. According to the press release:

In natural fertility populations, women on average have their first baby at 19 years and their last baby at 38 years; in other words, women stop breeding when the next generation starts to breed.

One of the researchers explained that women everywhere experience a rapid decline in fertility after the age of 40, and, on average, stop having children about ten years before the onset of menopause.

It also helps to explain why in some societies (particularly in Africa and Asia), women are required by social law to stop having children when their first grandchild is born.

And why should older females bow out of the competition?

Reproduction is more taxing on the female body, obviously, than on the male body. It’s probably better for babies to be carried by and delivered from younger, fitter female bodies. So my guess is that at the time daughters are in their prime childbearing years, menopause switches on for mothers, knocking them out of the game.

This is probably the way grandmothers really help their grandchildren. Any accumulated wisdom and expertise they bring are just secondary benefits.

Older women manage to bow out of reproduction and yet live on. And nobody seems able to figure out exactly why.

Maybe those old women in the commercial know but aren’t telling.

Could be that they know there’s no reason to be jealous of those younger women being pursued by older men. They know those younger women have something to look forward to: menopause.

As for the older men…what are they going to get that’s nearly as liberating?

"There Was An Old Woman," by Alpha Unit

Latest by Alpha Unit. Pretty interesting stuff! We have been discussing on here for awhile why human females live on past menopause (or past their age of “usefulness” to put it brutally). No one seems to exactly know why. The latest research, cited by AU below, is about as good an explanation as any that I’ve read.
One good evolutionary reason for menopause is that past a certain age in Paleolithic times, an older woman was quite likely to die during childbirth. Menopause had survival value for females in that it allowed them to survive by shutting off the reproductive organs around the age at which childbirth becomes quite deadly.
On the other hand, these women have already had kids when they were younger, so where’s the evolutionary value (since her genes are already passed on anyway, even though she’s dead)? It may be that in tribes where the women did have go through menopause, the older women simply died. The death of the grandmothers was so harmful to the group that these groups went out.
Some tribes that evolved menopause managed to keep the grandmas around, and thereby failed to go extinct, passing their genes on. Any tribe that goes extinct is evolutionarily useless. This suggests that grandmothers had survival value for the tribe as a whole. And what might that value have been? These questions are very difficult to answer, but it’s fun to play around with them.
It is one of the most bizarre (and annoying) commercials I’ve seen on TV.
The California-based HMO Kaiser Permanente advertises itself with images of post-menopausal females, including a cheerleader, and a singer intoning in the background: “When I grow up, I wanna be an old woman….”
I mean, I hope to be an old woman one day, since the alternative is to drop dead right now. But what is so wonderful about being an old woman? My mom would know, I suppose. But I have the feeling she wouldn’t want me to ask her. If I did, she would probably smile at me and say, “You’ll see.”
What good is an old woman, anyway?
Researchers have been trying to figure this out for decades now. Apparently there shouldn’t be any old women. The Grandmother Hypothesis, mentioned here , is an attempt to explain why human females survive past menopause. Supposedly the older females help nurture their grandchildren, who benefit from their accumulated wisdom and expertise.
But there are skeptics. They point out that these older females use up resources that could be going to the younger generations, offsetting any benefit the younger ones get from having them around.
Maybe what matters isn’t what Grandmother can do for anybody but why she went through menopause in the first place.
Researchers at the Universities of Cambridge and Exeter published an explanation last March. In summary, they say that females go through menopause in order to prevent sexual competition between themselves and the younger females in the family. According to the press release:

In natural fertility populations, women on average have their first baby at 19 years and their last baby at 38 years; in other words, women stop breeding when the next generation starts to breed.

One of the researchers explained that women everywhere experience a rapid decline in fertility after the age of 40, and, on average, stop having children about ten years before the onset of menopause.

It also helps to explain why in some societies (particularly in Africa and Asia), women are required by social law to stop having children when their first grandchild is born.

And why should older females bow out of the competition?
Reproduction is more taxing on the female body, obviously, than on the male body. It’s probably better for babies to be carried by and delivered from younger, fitter female bodies. So my guess is that at the time daughters are in their prime childbearing years, menopause switches on for mothers, knocking them out of the game.
This is probably the way grandmothers really help their grandchildren. Any accumulated wisdom and expertise they bring are just secondary benefits.
Older women manage to bow out of reproduction and yet live on. And nobody seems able to figure out exactly why.
Maybe those old women in the commercial know but aren’t telling.
Could be that they know there’s no reason to be jealous of those younger women being pursued by older men. They know those younger women have something to look forward to: menopause.
As for the older men…what are they going to get that’s nearly as liberating?

New Erectus Skull in Georgia

Homo Erectus is not the name for guys with short hair and mustaches running around San Francisco as you might have guessed (Joke!), but actually it was an early member of the human line, Homo. We are Homo Sapiens sapiens, just the latest in a long line. Homo Erectus was an earlier model. He was a man, but not a modern man. Sort of like an earlier model. Going back further, you run into the Australopithecines in Africa, like the famous Lucy specimen. This is not yet a man, but it is not an ape either. It’s sort of an ape-man, or an ape turning into a human. That’s the best way to describe them.
Anti-evolutionist idiots like to yell that we have never found the missing link, but Lucy is pretty darn close. Further, going back even further to about 6 million YBP*, they have found what looks like the closest thing to a missing link so far, an ape that is starting to turn into a man-ape. Proconsul is a famous fellow. He is the first of the apes, living in Africa about 16 million YBP, apparently a split from the monkeys. Yes, monkeys and apes are completely different folks, and this is important to keep in mind. Don’t mix them up!
Erectus was always thought to have evolved in Africa out of a similar line of early Homo types, most of which just went extinct. Probably about 2 million YBP or so. He then is said to have to moved out into Eurasia, and Asia, particularly China and Indonesia. The famous Java Man and Peking Man are Homo Erectuses from Indonesia and China respectively. Java Man was around as early as 1.8 million YBP. And Erectus is living in the Caucasus around the same time.
What’s curious about this skull in Georgia in the Caucasus is that it is said to predate Erectus skulls in Africa. Further, his brain is 40% smaller than African Erectus’ brain. The smaller size implies that he was an earlier model that gave rise to the more advanced model in Africa. The fact that he is earlier also implies that Erectus arose in Eurasia and moved to Africa later on and then did a lot of evolution there, eventually giving rise to Homo Sapiens (Yes, we came directly from Erectus).
The White racists love this, because they really hate the Out of the Africa (OOA) model. Scratch a White person dissing the OOA model nowadays, and you often find a racist motivation. A while back, multiregionalism was a valid perspective, but now it’s been shot all to Hell with excellent models showing that all humans have come from an African Eve that lived in SW Africa (around Namibia and Angola) about 180,000 YBP.
The racists just can’t get over it. “Grandpa was a nigger”* is just too much for their silly weak egos to handle. In contrast, the Asians that I have told about this seem mostly to handle it well. One Chinese guy shrugged his shoulders and said, “Yeah? So what? So we came from Blacks? Big deal. If you go back far enough, we were frogs. Why should I get upset about this.” I told my Mom about this and she laughed and said, “See? Asians don’t get upset about it because they are smarter than us Whites.” I think she’s right.
It’s important to note that this latest find does not shoot OOA at all. All it suggests is that Erectus sprang up in Eurasia. Out of what? Obviously out of prior Homo types. Where did these prior Homo types in Eurasia come from? Africa, where they all came from. See what I mean? Does this find shoot the African Eve Theory? Nope. Even if Erectus rose in Eurasia, he moved back to Africa, evolved a great deal down there, and eventually gave rise to Sapiens in Africa, who gave rise to us. We still all came from one African woman 180,000 YBP. The Georgian find doesn’t change that one bit.
Homo Sapiens idaltu was an early Homo Sapiens that lived about 160,000 YBP in Ethiopia. Although he appears to have gone extinct, nevertheless, he seems to have given rise to Homo Sapiens sapiens. The date of H.S.s is not well known, but he dates back at least to the Khoisan genetic line, which dates to 110,000 YBP. Khoisan are Bushmen.
Nevertheless, the 110,000 YBP date is challenged by a recent find called the Omo Remains, which were also found in Ethiopia. Apparently Homo Sapiens sapiens (modern man), Omo dates all the way back to 195,000 YBP. Much remains to be sorted out.
Idaltu was quite robust, but he looked much more like a modern human than Neandertalis in Europe.
Despite a lot of yelling on the part of fans of the theory, there seems to be zero evidence of Neandertal genes in modern humans. This is also a fave theory of White racists – that White people came directly from Neandertalis, thereby avoiding the sticky OOA theory which claims White folks had some Negro ancestors. Even Paleothilically, that’s a hard sell to White racists.
Some of the hardcores take it a lot further and imply that the races of man actually go back 1-2 million YBP. Whites to some proto-White Erectus, Asians to some proto-Asian Erectus dude, Blacks to African Erectus. This theory seems to me to be quite silly.

Homo Sapiens Idaltu, an African ancestor of modern man who appears to have given rise to Homo Sapiens sapiens, who is that funny looking slightly Ape Man critter you see when you look in the mirror.
Homo Sapiens Idaltu, an African ancestor of modern man who appears to have given rise to Homo Sapiens sapiens, who is that funny looking slightly Ape Man critter you see when you look in the mirror.

Homo Rhodesiensis is a very interesting fellow. He lived from 125,000-300,000 YBP in Africa. The best skull was found in Rhodesia in 1921 and it’s an excellent specimen. The best theory seems to be that Rhodesia Man had branched off from Erectus proper into a more advanced line. It also looks like Rhodesia Man gave rise to Idaltu, and Idaltu gave rise to you and me.
Rhodesian Man from a 1932 newspaper. He's actually much more progressive than Neandertal Man in Europe.
Rhodesian Man from a 1932 newspaper. He's actually much more progressive than Neandertal Man in Europe.

The line looks something like this:
Erectus -> Rhodesia Man -> Homo Sapiens Idaltu -> Homo Sapiens sapiens (you, me, Mom and the kids).
Rhodesia Man is quite a robust fellow and has features that have led some to call him “The African Neandertal.” However, this analysis is not proper. Instead he seems to be about halfway in between a Neanderthal and a modern man = he is much more gracile and progressive than Neandertal, who’s a bit of a brute. Idaltu is yet more gracile and progressive than Rhodesia Man, and H.S.s. is yet more gracile and progressive than Idaltu. The evolution of man is a move from archaic robustness towards progressive gracility.
A model of Rhodesian Man, who gave rise to Homo Sapiens idaltu, who gave rise to you and me. As you can see, he is a robust fellow.
A model of Rhodesian Man, who gave rise to Homo Sapiens idaltu, who gave rise to you and me. As you can see, he is a robust fellow.

Homo Sapiens heidelbergensis (found in Heidelberg, Germany) just seems to be a European Rhodesia Man. Looks like Rhodesia Man rose in Africa, then moved out of Africa to Europe. H.s.h. is quite a confusing fellow, and I’m not going to go into him here because I don’t understand him well.
The comments after the article are somewhat interesting.
*Years before present.
**Used sardonically. Please don’t take offense.

Why Do Women Orgasm?

Along with lots of other questions. Evolutionary biologists are looking into these matters, which all evolved in Africa, so we get to blame or praise Blacks for all the stuff below. For big tits on women, I say thank YOU Blacks! For female orgasms, women the world over, even Aryan women I suppose, stand up and throw a deafening shout out to Black folks. Who says Blacks never gave us anything?
For prolonged periods, many women will find one more thing to curse those darn Negroes about
Such as, why are females’ boobs so huge? No other mammal has such huge and basically useless boobs. There’s no reason for them to be so massive, and most of the tissue is just fat that serves no purpose. Many explanations are offered for huge tits, but none of them seem to make much sense.
Why do women bleed so much when they menstruate? Only a few other mammals bleed much. A few bleed a bit midcycle, but none do like human women. What’s the purpose of sloughing off the entire uterine lining every month? To me, the best explanation offered was that females that sloughed off the entire lining and grew a fresh new one every month had the best chances of implanting an egg. Many would-be pregnancies fail due to failure of the sperm to implant in the embryo. Nothing is noticeable, it just looks like another period at the end of the month. But conceivably an older lining is more likely to fail.
In our nearest relatives, the Great Apes, it is quite clear when the female is ovulating and available for pregnancy – her backside swells up like a balloon basically saying, “Come fuck me guys! All the fucks you want, no charge until the sale ends!” In contrast, it is either impossible or nearly impossible for others to know when a woman is ovulating. I assume it’s totally impossible for a male to figure this out.
Even more bizarre is that the time of fertility is hidden even to the woman. Women have no idea when they can get knocked or not, really, despite what the Catholics say. It’s a mystery hidden even to the woman herself. Why? Many explanations are offered for concealed ovulation, but none of them seemed to make much sense to me.
Same thing with female orgasm. Guys need to come. If we don’t, no babies get made. But female orgasm does not seem to serve any purpose. Orgasm serves no fitness purpose in females and other a few other female mammals do it too. There is another issue, and that is that female orgasm has unfortunate tendency in quite a few women to be notoriously unreliable – a 44 year old girlfriend of mine, who loved sex, by the way, despite the fact that she never got off – told me that she had had one orgasm in her life, at age 15. She ain’t the only one.
Then we come to menopause. Women can no longer have kids past age 50, but most other female mammals can bear kids far into old age. No other mammals have menopause except for the short-finned pilot whale. I did not find any of the explanations for menopause very satisfactory either.

More On Hinduism, Race, Caste and the "Aryan Invasion"

The comment below is from an Indian poster on this popular post. I agree with most of what he says. First of all, I don’t think that the Aryans pushed the Dravidians to the South. There are Dravidian types and mixed types all over North India.
Points 2 and 3 are self-evident.
I have always felt that Hinduism was nothing more than the ancient religion of India, and there is good evidence for this. Clearly it predates the Aryans. It’s not necessarily as old as India, since India is as old as dirt, but clearly it goes back so far that we can hardly even say when it begins.
Ancient Iran also had a caste system, and so did their ancient religion. Yazidism, one of the oldest major religions known to man, possibly dating back 10,000 years, has caste and origins in Iran. The suggestion is that caste is a regional phenomenon across India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Iran and Northern Iraq. Afghanistan lacks caste, but until the Communist revolution was a semi-feudal society.
The fact remains that Aryan languages displaced Dravidian languages to the South, and all of North India is Aryan-speaking in general, and the people of the North are lighter than the people of the South, and this needs to be explained somehow. Obviously, prior to the Aryan Invasion, Dravidian languages were spoken all over North India. Either their speakers dropped Dravidian in favor of Indo-Iranian or they moved south. Possibly both of these occurred.

1) Vedas are not everything in Hinduism, though they form some of the core. There are many books written in ancient mathematics and science in the post-Vedic period which are as relevant to the history of Hindus, if not more than the Vedas. Look at the books written by Bhaskara (there were two Bhaskaras recorded in history), Aryabhatta, Apastamba, Baudhayana, Varahmihira and several other authors.
Some of them have had their base south of the Vindhyas, which indicates the migration of the culture of the Vedic people southward. I am guessing the actual migration of Vedic people might also have taken place either before or after the completion of the writing of the Vedas (500-1000 BCE). Read about the myth of Agastya and his followers and the Vindhyas.
2) Skin color depends on the climate and gradually over generations (maynot be 3 but lets say about 30 generations) it is sure to change.
3) People speaking different languages derived from a root language (or speaking the root language itself) need not share genetic origins or race. For example, I am an Indian, and if I speak or write in English, a European-originated language, that does not make me European. I bet the same applies to speakers of Indo-European languages.
4) Based on several references in the Vedas against dark-skinned tribes, one cannot assume that all the scriptures of the Hindus (the Sruti and Smriti) were written by the highly-advanced fair-skinned race-preserving cohort known as Aryans who came down from central Asia and pushed the locals down south.
One severe contradiction to this simplistic theory is how come there are references of lower-caste tribals getting upgraded to the higher caste of Brahmins (like Valmiki, Vishwamitra) in the epics written by these same racially-finicky people (the Aryans) that was allowed to be published without censorship. The racial references in the Vedas are at best ambiguous. If the Aryans were the vanguards of Hinduism and they were the creators of the scriptures, how did dark-skinned gods like Vishnu and Shiva find their ways into the texts.
More likely they should have been shown as demons given the benchmarks by which they would have decided. Given all these, there surely exists a possibility of a fair-skinned race coming down from Afghanistan or central Asia and contributing to the creation of Hindu scriptures and merging with the locals, in fact there could be several races of this type migrating in at different points of time. But to say that they did this at the expense of a dark-skinned race or an indigenous race is pure baloney, given the facts.
In fact the genesis of Hindu scriptures could have come from different parts (including the non-Indo-European parts which may include Sanskrit speakers of Dravidian origin) of the Indian subcontinent. Likewise, tribes that had originally entered from the northern borders of India (one of them being the Aryans) must have migrated all over the country giving an inseparable and indistinguishable genetic mixture that we know as the people of India today.
Also the caste system in ancient India up to a period must have been rather fluid and based more on occupation than ancestry as is the popular notion. Hinduism (at least the history and references from Hinduism) seems to have a much greater tolerance for skin color and caste than is touted to be.

One More Reason White Nationalists Are All Insane

They are wrong, wrong, wrong on this, “Race-mixing is evolutionarily abnormal and nonadaptive” crap. I have no idea whether it’s non-adaptive or not, as opposition to race mixing has hardly been tried by humans. The whole history of man is one of the endless Race Cuisinart. WN’s argue that this history of man is bad, and that we all should have been breeding ourselves as completely pure lines all this time. But why?
Looking at evolutionary biology, there is no benefit whatsoever to any species that propagates a pure line and refuses to race-mix.
Evolutionary biology and in particular conservation biology is adamant that it is necessary for species to race mix, at least within the species. Subspecies are valuable due to their contribution to the species.
Evolutionarily significant geographical units are once again good for the species due to their particular genetic adaptations. The more genetic diversity, the more healthy the species. The less, the more islandization, etc. as the genetic diversity gets low. A species with low genetic diversity is considered to be on its way out.
Now, WN’s argue that this hold true for every species but man, I guess because they are quoting the Bible now, or as eugenicists, they figure that evolution is over anyway. But if, as the eugenicists insist, evolution is really over, then why fret over race-mixing and differential breeding rates between rich and poor?
All animal and plant breeders operate on the principle of endless race mixing. They breed strains forever and ever to come up with very excellent strains, the most perfect, the best strains, through this evil mechanism known as race-mixing. If race-mixing doesn’t work, why does every plant and animal breeder on Earth swear by it? It works great in all animals, except for humans? Why would that be anyway?
Race mixing is the way of man. It’s basic tribal behavior, and it’s been quite adaptive for thousands of years. See here.

A tribe which celebrates its male conquests of alien women but closely and jealously protects its own women from alien men is going to spread its genes much more successfully than a neighboring tribe which is indifferent about who impregnates its women.

In fact the latter tribe will over the course of time carry more and more of the former tribe’s genes as its wombs are colonized and its resources and fitness are used to care for the former tribe’s offspring.

After a while there would be no tribes left that are indifferent and it becomes a race to see who has the stronger double standard.
We are all descendants of this process.

We are out of the jungle now and living in the urban jungle instead. You think we are all that different? Forget it. We are mammals, like cats and dogs. Does your house cat act all that different from an alley cat? Not so much.

Paper Adds Support to Aryan Invasion Theory

Note: Repost from the old blog.

The notion that an “Aryan Invasion” that occurred 3,500 years ago in India and subsequently shaped the physical and religious landscape of the country is a controversial one, but it is steeped in Indian sociocultural politics.

Though it is uncontroversial outside of India, a huge debate has heated up inside India.

On the one side are the Dalits and their allies. The Dalits claim that they were the original Indians and practiced some sort of a nice, utopian religion. I don’t know if it was Goddess worship, but I guess it was something like that. The Dalits really hate Hinduism because Hindus have decided that Dalits are doomed through life to be lower than whale shit, and that’s at the bottom of the ocean.

So the Dalits say that these Aryans (White folks) invaded down from the steppes to the north and west (possibly Tajikistan or around Iran) and conquered a large part of India. They brought with them Hinduism and caste. They made themselves the lighter Brahmin caste and made the darker folks lower castes, and the darkest of all Dalits. So the Aryan invasion started the whole mess.

Hindu nationalists (Hindutvas) love their Hindu religion and feel that it can do no wrong, so they dislike this Aryan Invasion Theory. Their whole line is that there was no Aryan invasion.

Hinduism was native to India and was not some wicked religion brought by evil lighter-skinned dudes.

White nationalists, some high caste-Indian racialists, and Afrocentrists all support the Aryan Invasion Theory. White nationalists feel that there are two races in India – light-skinned cool guy “Aryans” in the north who are smart and get everything done in India, to the extent that anything gets done there in the first place, and darker Dravidians, who are apparently inferior muds or something.

In reality, there are just Indians of varying shades. The ones towards the northwest to tend to be more European-looking and lighter, and the ones heading to the south and east tend to get darker and more Dravidian looking. However, there are plenty of dark-skinned North Indians with varying degrees of Dravidian features, and in the south, there are a lot of lighter folks with more European features.

The “Aryans” and “Dravidians” have gotten so mixed in over 3,500 years that these categories no longer make much sense, except to idiots. In which case, they are encouraged to continue using them.

High-caste Indian racialists go along with this and hang out in White nationalist forums trying to convince White nationalists that funny- looking light-skinned Indians are really just White people too, albeit with patchouli oil and a taste for curry. White nationalists are dubious about admitting wogs into their midst of their White purity.

Afrocentrists like this theory because they moronically think that Dravidians are Black folks. Except they’re not. Actually, all Indians are pretty closely related and are very distant from Africans – they are no closer to Africans than anyone else on Earth. Any resemblance to Africans is just convergence, genetic drift, or coincidence.

Well, India was populated by all these really cool Indian Black folks, and then evil White dudes came in, brought an evil White Supremacist religion called Hinduism, and cruelly imposed it on the darkies.

In the midst of all of this swarming intellectual idiocy, it falls to the scientists to add some sense to the discussion.

The interesting paper  listed in the references  section adds to the evidence for an Aryan invasion.

They did find that higher-caste folks tended to be lighter than lower-caste Indians, but that was just a trend. There are light-skinned low-caste Indians in the northwest, and many of the Brahmins of South India are quite dark.

They also found a trend for lighter skin and more European features and genes towards the northwest and darker skin, more indigenous features and more Asian genes as one moved to the south and east. The paper felt that they had evidence for a large introgression of European-looking peoples maybe 3000-4000 years ago, though things have gotten pretty mixed up since.

Other papers studying the genetics of India have concluded Indians have been evolving, more or less in situ without a lot of outside inputs, for 15-20,000 years (call it 17,000 years). The result has been this endlessly varying type we call the East Indian. And where did the Indian stock come from prior to 17,000 years ago?

The authors were not sure, but they felt that the seed for the stock that started to grow the modern Indian tree came from the Middle East 17,000 years ago.

India, along with North Africa, the Caucasus, and the Middle East, is also one of main staging grounds for the evolution of Caucasians and proto-Caucasians from 39,000-52,000 years ago. In particular, there was a movement out of India to North Africa 30,000 years ago which probably helped to create the Berbers.

There are also other, lesser known influences on the people of India and Pakistan. The Mohajirs in Uttar Pradesh are heavily Persian and Arab. Former Pakistani President Musharaff is a Mohajir, so his background was mostly Arab and Iranian.

Mohajirs are the Muslims that fled India to Pakistan during the bloody partition in 1947. They have since suffered a lot of persecution in Pakistan and are not all that well-liked there. They have set up their own patronage system along with patronage political parties that benefit them and only them.

We see an interesting thing in the far western states of Haryana and Rajasthan. Possibly 50% of the population of Haryana and probably all of Rajasthan is related to Scythians from 1,500-2,000 yrs ago. The Scythians were probably the same as the Ossetians of today. Long ago, the Ossetians were known as the Alans, horse-riding nomads of the Central Asian steppes.

There are some theories that try to connect to the Alans to Japan, especially to the Caucasian-appearing Samurai caste, in an invasion centuries years ago. This rests on similarities between Alan names and legends and those of the Samurai. At present, the Alan-Japanese theory remains little more than a controversial hypothesis.

The Caucasian appearance of the Samurai class is probably due more to their Ainu roots than to any Alan invasion.

Even today, the Japanese ruling class looks different (some say, more Caucasian) than the rest of the Japanese, who are closer to the Yayoi, rice-farmers from Korea who invaded 2,300 years ago and conquered the island, displacing the Ainu. The Ainu, despite superficial Caucasian appearances, are actually anthropologically Australoids close to Aborigines. Genetically, they are Asians.


Bamshad M, Kivisild T, Watkins WS, Dixon ME, Ricker CE, Rao BB, Naidu JM, Prasad BV, Reddy PG, Rasanayagam A, Papiha SS, Villems R, Redd AJ, Hammer MF, Nguyen SV, Carroll ML, Batzer MA, Jorde LB. 2001. “Genetic Evidence on the Origins of Indian Caste Populations.” Genome Res 11: 994–1004.

16-23 and 33-39

Repost from the old site.
Those are two figures for the ages at which something peaks in each of the sexes in human beings. Males peak at 16-23 and females peak at 33-39. After the male peak, there is a long slow decline down to some pretty low levels. For females, there is a decline, but not much of one, and the female level remains fairly high even into very old age, and I mean the 80’s.
We are talking sex, sex drive to be precise. Actually, they called it sexual responsiveness, and I am not sure what that means. It’s interesting that we think that elderly women are pretty much asexual beings, when their sex drive, or responsiveness, whatever that is, is only somewhat lower than it was at their peak.
People have whispered about this for some time, and if you have ever dated a ready and willing 35-40 year old woman, I think you know what I mean. They’re like the Eveready Bunny, once you wind them up and get them started, they want to go on all night, 7 AM rush hour be damned.
I am wondering what the evolutionary meaning of all of this is. Men are going to die young, so have the drive peak early, then if the guys dies, so what, maybe the woman can raise the kid on her own?
For the woman, in her prime child-bearing years, you don’t want the drive too high, or she will wander off with every guy who comes along. Later, as her looks decline into her 30’s, the male partner is tempted to wander in search of younger pastures.
Hence the female drive kicks into overdrive to dig the claws and squeeze him tight to home. She needs him around as a provider. Kids are grown and raised pretty much, but she still wants a man? What gives? And why does the female drive stay so high through life even into old age? What’s the advantage? Does an old cave woman have a hard time making it on her own, while an older cave guy can has more of a chance?
Higamous hogamous, women are monogamous. Higamous pigamous, men are polygamous. Neat little saying, but isn’t it more or less true across all cultures, all races and through all times? The woman must be coded to monogamy, for if she runs off with every Cave Man Dreamboat who strolls past the cave, the kids never get raised and they will die.
Males who sowed their oats far and wide impregnated more females than the “one woman man” types. The Lotharios couldn’t raise all those kids, and probably a lot of the kids died, but enough of them survived that his Casanova genes get passed on.
Or maybe many primitive societies like the typical village in New Guinea. One guy, the chief, has lots of wives. A lot of guys are losers in the New Guinea singles game and aren’t getting any at all. The Satyr-in-Chief is coded for promiscuity, and those are the randy genes he is handing down. After a while most of the guys are really horny all the time, even those who are striking out.
A lot of these Chief types are probably pretty sociopathic too, as are the guys who are just running around boffing every cavewoman in sight. Maybe after a while, the clan just gets together and kills the philandering bastard. But he’s already impregnated a number of females.
Hence, sociopathy, which doesn’t seem that adaptive, is passed on genetically and survives even today in the form of gansta rap, corporate executives and reptilian creatures called lawyers.
Much ink has been spilled about how humans are naturally monogamous, mostly by romantic types and women. But I doubt it, and I think this is an exercise in wishful thinking. Women tend towards serial monogamy at the very least. In a tribal situation, keeping the man around may not be so important if food is gathered and eaten communally.
Daddy goes out and hunts and kills animals with the guys, throws the meat in the pot and everyone eats. So he’s not with his baby-momma anymore, so what?
The kid is with Mom and there’s food for both, and that’s all that counts.
As an example of a swinging-style Paleolithics, let us look at the Ache, a tribe in Paraguay that was living in a pre-contact style until 1972 (Hill and Hurtado 1976). By age 30, your average Ache female had been married ten times, usually for about a year or so. A lot of the kids die.
The Ache were often not even really sure who the baby Daddy was. Whichever noble savage the Ache woman had been sleeping with the most in the month prior to her periods stopping was considered to be the Primary Father by the rule of probability.
Other randy tribesman she had slept with in the entire year prior to giving birth, including during pregnancy (!), are called Secondary Fathers. There might be a number of these guys. To the growing kid, all these guys are just known as dear old Dad. The Primary Father is likely to play a greater role in raising the child.
The reason for the two types of fathers is that the Ache, unfortunately, had not completely figured out the laws of impregnation. They were clear that the Primary Father played a necessary and sufficient role, known as “putting it (the baby) in her”. However, the other guys she had sex with, including during pregnancy, were thought to have somehow contributed some of their essence to the fetus. At least they didn’t believe in storks.
The tribe had also codified infanticide. Suppose Mommy had a 3 year old child. Then she has another kid. Well, maybe food is short, so she tells the 3 year old, “Hey look, we only have enough food for you and not enough for your baby brother you are so deathly jealous of. So I’m sure you will happy to know that I am going to take baby brother out tomorrow and kill him.”
Kid grows up knowing Mom killed his brother, but it doesn’t bother him much. It’s just life in the jungle, hey. There are worse threats. Nowadays, mental health professionals are convinced that having your Mom kill your baby brother when you were 3 years old would be a sufficient trauma to cause lasting psychological scars and would require extensive therapy. This is an empirical fact just how now?
Primitive people often have developed an excellent sense of memorizing distant visual objects. Bushmen, with otherwise very low IQ’s (57 IQ)1, are the world’s best at this. Then comes another very low IQ group (65 IQ)2, the Aborigines. Eskimos, with a much higher IQ of 94 – near the world average – have a similar advantage.
Looking at Ache life, we can see why. A major cause of mortality is the very thing Mom warned you about as a boy: not making it home before dark. For the Ache, if you are out in the jungle and you don’t make it back to the village by night, you may just die, as temperatures often plunge very low in the evenings.
Plus, sleeping out in the bush, you stand a good chance of being midnight snack for some jaguar. From which felinophobia may have developed?
The saga of the Ache inform us that the pathologies of the urban Underclass that so horrify middle-class Americans – feral males running around like dogs screwing and impregnating females far and wide and then not bothering to support any of them, women having several kids all by different fathers, and last and most incomprehensibly, mothers who murder their own children – may not be so alien and animalistic after all.
People who do these things are told to, “Quit acting like animals and start acting like humans!”. The terrifying thought being, “acting like humans” may be precisely what the Underclass is doing.
These behaviors may simply be genetically coded leftovers from our tribal past. Those of us who don’t stoop so low are just not giving in to our basest tribal urges. Those who do may be just “acting like normal Homo Sapiens”, discouraging as it seems.
On the streets of Detroit and in the jungles of Paraguay, life can be a short, nasty and brutish affair. In our folly, we look down at the Paleolithics. The cultured metrosexual Western man is merely the rudest tribesman in a mirror, and little less.


1. Over three separate studies.
2. Over 17 separate studies.


Hill, K. and M. Hurtado (1996) Ache Life History: The Ecology and Demography of a Foraging People . Aldine: Hawthorne, NY.

Why Are Filipinos So Dark?

Repost from the old blog. Explains why people in hot climates evolved melanin protection of their skin. Guess what? It’s not so they won’t get sunburned.

If they hardly have any Negrito genes, that is. If so, what explains their dark skin?

From a question in the comments on the old blog.
I’ve been over this on the blog before, but since hardly anyone knows about this stuff, we may as well go over it again. The commenter asks, if Filipinos only have .02-.11% Negrito genes (and only in certain tribes that have been tested), why are Filipinos so dark?
The suggestion here is the common popular anthropological notion that Filipinos are part Negrito. The truth is that Filipinos have few Negrito genes, but Negritos have lots of Filipino genes. That is because the Filipinos simply swamped the Negritos genetically.
Various Filipino tribes have been surveyed and the Negrito percentage is given at .02-.11%. I am not sure if that means that the average Filipino or tribal has that much Negrito genes, or if that many Filipinos have Negrito genes. It is often difficult to tell with these studies. Filipinos are no darker than Lao, Thai, Khmer, many Southern Chinese groups and types, and Indonesians.
All of the Austronesians are dark. The Austronesians are the Filipinos (mostly Austronesian), the Indonesians (20% Austronesian), the coastal New Guineans (25% Austronesian), the Polynesians (50% Austronesian) and the Micronesians (35% Austronesian). Also Malays appear to have some unknown Austronesian element. There is also some Austronesian in the Vietnamese and the Khmer. All of these are in whole or in part Austronesians.
One of the biggest lies around is that all of these SE Asian groups are part Australoid. In particular, Chinese are very fond of this notion. It is true that many Indonesians are partly Australoid of unknown origin, probably Papuan. The Indonesians closer to the Philippines and Malaysia are much more Austronesian. Getting towards New Guinea, we see a lot more Melanesian introgression.
In the case of the Filipinos, the big lie is that Filipinos are very heavily inbred with Negritos. This is not true, and there is no evidence of it. However, some Filipinos are part Negrito. You can recognize them because they are noticeably darker and they tend to have woolly or frizzy hair like Negritos. It was common knowledge 100 years ago that Filipinos had little Negrito in them, and most Filipinos know this to this day.
In between, somehow the notion among amateur anthropologists got started that Filipinos are heavily Negrito. The Filipino group is very closely related to the Ami aboriginals of Taiwan and the Guangdong Southern Chinese from around Hong Kong. In fact, this group is so taut that I lumped it into a race called the South China Sea Race, with those three groups included.
Filipinos are, for all intents and purposes, a Chinese (Taiwanese) people, even though they live outside of China. Some commenters have hollered about this, saying that Filipinos look nothing like Southern Chinese. Well, that may be so, but looks deceive. In genes, they are remarkably close, and nowadays we prove relation by genes.
The vast majority of Filipinos came from an outward ocean voyage by the Taiwanese Ami aborigines about 900-2,200 years ago that ended up in the Philippines. This was part of the Lapita culture. About 900 years ago, a large infusion of Southern Chinese came to the Philippines, but only 20% of Filipinos have significant Chinese genes.
Much fewer have significant amounts of Spanish genes. The Filipino mestizo is largely a myth, though Filipino politics and especially the entertainment industry is heavily populated by mestizos. Even in the Philippines, Whiter is apparently better.
Why are Filipinos so dark? The Philippines lies from 0 to 20 degrees in latitude. Let us look at the nations in at that latitude and who the indigenous people are.
In that latitude range, we find northern Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, southern Burma, South India, Sri Lanka, Oman, Yemen, far southern Arabia, Somalia, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Djibouti, Sudan, Chad, Central African Republic, Cameroon, Niger, Burkina Faso, Nigeria, Benin, Ghana, Cote d’ Ivoire, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Mali, Mauritania, Senegal, Gambia, the Guyanas, all of the Caribbean except Cuba, Venezuela, Colombia, all of Central America except Mexico, Hawaii and the Mariana Islands.
If you notice, almost all of these countries are populated by indigenous people with pretty dark skin. Dark skin is selected for in hot climates because otherwise UV rays will destroy folic acid stores in the woman’s body, which will cause a lot of birth defects. There may also be a protective effect for sunburn and melanoma, but this is uncertain.

UV radiation chart along with zones of skin color. Zone 1 has the darkest skin of all. Note that the Philippines is in Zone 1. Zone 2, which includes Italians and Spaniards, has skin that tans easily. Zone 3 contains light skin that enables residents to absorb as much Vitamin D as possible from the sun due to lack of sunlight at higher latitudes.
So it’s not just latitude, but it’s also intensity of UV radiation. UV radiation is extremely intense in Africa, so Africans have some of the darkest skin of all. Pale, light or white skin is nothing special or superior. It is simply an evolutionary adaptation to low levels of sunlight. Melanin went off the skin in order to pick up as much Vitamin D as possible. Otherwise, people had Vitamin D deficiencies.

Almost all native peoples at latitudes like that have pretty dark skin. The only exception is the Vietnamese, and they have only been there for 2,200 years or so, being products of a massive movement of Southern Chinese into the area around that time. Anyway, a lot of Vietnamese are relatively dark.
So the dark skin of Filipinos is to be expected, and there is no need to postulate Negrito genetic ingression. Filipinos aren’t really that dark anyway. A lot of native peoples at that latitude are a lot darker than Filipinos.
Some Australoid genes related to Papuans have been found in Malays, Southern Chinese and coastal Vietnamese, but the numbers are very small. So really Southern Chinese need to be quiet about SE Asians being heavily Australoid. It’s not true, and they have a few of those genes anyway.
Keep in mind that the question of Negrito genes in any SE Asians is somewhat academic. After all, all of SE Asia was populated mostly by Negrito or “Melanesian” Australoid types until about 5,000 years ago or so, at which point they fully transitioned into the types that we see today.
NE Asians were also Ainu aborigine Australoid types until 9,000 years ago, when they fully completed progression into the Mongoloid types that we know today.
Negrito or “Melanesian” types were generalized throughout Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia until 2,000-3,000 years ago, when they were rapidly displaced by movements from South China. They were also generalized throughout Thailand and Malaysia until about 5,000 years ago, when they were largely replaced by movements from Taiwan and South China.
They have only survived in large numbers in the Philippines, but that is merely accidental.
So, in the background of all SE Asians is a Negrito, and in the background of all NE Asians is an aborigine Ainu type.


Jablonski, N. and Chaplin, G. 2000. The Evolution of Human Skin Coloration. Journal of Human Evolution.

This research takes a lot of time, and I do not get paid anything for it. If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a a contribution to support more of this valuable research.

Get Small Or Die

Repost from the old site. Discusses why people in very hot climates evolve to be short and dark-skinned. It’s that or die, real simple.
Why are Pygmies (a tiny Negroid people living in Central Africa) so small?
Same reason folks living in tropical rainforests all over the world tend to be small. In that environment, it’s get small or die. Real simple. Understand, pilgrim?
A tropical rainforest is an unusual place. It’s not 115 in the shade like the deserts of the Middle East. It’s more like 80-90 all year round. While it’s not extremely hot, it does have very high humidity – close to 100%. That creates a serious problem with cooling off.
At lesser humidity, you sweat like a pig and the lesser humidity allows the sweat to evaporate. As it evaporates, the sweat cools. That’s how you cool off. A similar cooling by evaporation mechanism is used to cool off your refrigerator.
When the humidity gets near 100%, your sweat stops evaporating. You can sweat all day and nite and it doesn’t do much good. Our body temperature of 98.6 runs the risk of rising, even past the survival point of 107-108.
It’s true that Pygmies sweat a lot, but not enough to save their hides.
As the website explains better than I can:

First, the surface area of a small body is greater in relation to its volume.
It is a mathematical fact: if cube A in Fig. 1.4 is 1 centimeter along each side and cube B is 2 centimeters, then A’s surface area is one-quarter that of B, but its volume is eight times smaller.
Heat is produced in the mass of the body, particularly in the liver and muscles, and is lost through the surface; if the latter is larger relative to body mass because a person is small, heat loss is easier and cooling more efficient. In a warm and humid environment, it is best to be small.

Next, Pygmies extend less effort because they are smaller. If you need to use have lots of energy, it’s better to be smaller, because you need to utilize less energy to keep moving if you are smaller. Marathoners tend to be short. It takes less effort to move a smaller body around than it takes to move a big body around, which is why smaller cars get better mileage than bigger ones.
If you are transporting small loads, a pony is a better way to do it. You need a horse for a large load, just like you need an 18 wheeler for big hauls. The fact that a pony is better for the small stuff is why it was used in the Pony Express. They produce more energy per food unit consumed, the same way a Honda gets more energy miles per unit of food gas than a Hummer does.
Pygmies are excellent at dissipating heat and expertly adapted to living in the jungle where there is low carbohydrate and protein reserve. They’re sort of the human Priuses of the jungle.
No one knows how long Pygmies have been evolving. Some say that tropical rainforests have only been around for 5,000 years or less. I disagree. Some gene studies show that Pygmies and other Africans may have split as far back as 70,000 years before present (YBP).
The main problem here is a lack of fossils in the rainforest. Things decay so fast there that we hardly find the bones of anything there. However, there have been skulls found around Central African Republic and north into the Sahel. Here Negroids (modern Blacks) evolved over the past 6-12,000 years. Prior to that, Africans looked like either Khoisan types or Pygmy types.
Pygmies are very athletic and graceful. A Pygmy can shimmy up a tree 100 feet with striking agility.
Pygmies are not necessarily stupid, though some IQ researchers think that their IQ’s are quite low; there has been only one study, done in 1910. Richard Lynn, a racist but generally a good researcher, feels that the Pygmy IQ may be lower even than the African Black average of 67.
Although Pygmy heads are small, their heads are about as big as ours. Nevertheless, the relationship between head size and IQ is weak. Vietnamese have some of the smallest heads on Earth, and their IQ is 99.5.
Pygmies have the widest noses in the world. A small nose is only useful in cold weather. With a small nose, the air inhaled has time to heat up before it reaches the lungs. Air is already warm in the rainforest, so there is no need to heat it up with a nose filter, so a wider nose is better. The wide noses of other Africans may have a similar evolutionary explanation.
Racist idiots like to dog on people for being short. There are short people everywhere there are tropical forests. Examples are the peoples of southern India, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Central American and Amazonian Indians. But the Pygmies are the smallest of all.
This research takes a lot of time, and I do not get paid anything for it. If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a a contribution to support more of this valuable research.

Secular Rise in Black IQ and Head Size: Evidence For a Eugenic Effect

Repost from the old site, with additions.
It is common refrain among race realists, and in particular White racists, who make a fetish out of the number, that the US Black IQ is 85. Broadly speaking, that used to be the case, but IQ’s of Black children have always been higher.
Blacks having high IQ’s as young children that gradually decline towards adulthood unfortunately has been noted by researchers and observers for a long time. There are descriptions of this phenomenon going back to 1850. So there is no need for White nationalists to get all freaked out when someone says that Black elementary school kids are pretty smart.

More charming Black thugs, throwing gang signs and looking menacing. The young woman is a mulatto or very light-skinned Black girl. I used to see kids like her a lot when I taught school. Although the people above are acting like complete idiots, Blacks this age have average IQ's of 90. I've dealt with quite a few Black gangbanger kids like this as a teacher, and most of them aren't stupid at all. They're just assholes. No excuses.
More charming Black thugs, throwing gang signs and looking menacing. The young woman is a mulatto or very light-skinned Black girl. I used to see kids like her a lot when I taught school. Although the people above are acting like complete idiots, Blacks this age have average IQ’s of 90. I’ve dealt with quite a few Black gangbanger kids like this as a teacher, and most of them aren’t stupid at all. They’re just assholes. No excuses.

I believe that Black adult IQ has been bumped up to 89 now and Black child IQ to 92 due to changes in IQ norming in the US. IQ tests were formerly normed on a scale of US Whites = 100. A couple years ago, I think they changed it to US population = 100. That’s the only explanation I can come up with for the scores in the table below.
So now the US White adult IQ is 103 and White kids are the same (actually White adult IQ = 102.5; White Child IQ = 103.5), and the US Black adult IQ is 89, and child IQ is 92. So there is an 10.5 pt gap between B-W kids and a 13.5 pt gap between B-W adults.
But even Charles Murray and Philippe Rushton, two White racist scientists working in this field, concede that the B-W gap has shrunk about 3 points in the last 30 years.
I believe that the US Asian score has now been bumped up to 107. We would also estimate that the IQ’s of US Hispanics to be about 92-93 now and US Amerindian IQ’s should be about 91 or so, all with the renorming.
Things haven’t really changed much, just the whole scale has been bumped up. It’s important to understand that.

These scores are taken from this paper, and indicate varying scores for IQ tests and semi-IQ tests taken over about 30 years. As you move down in each individual row, you move into revised versions of the tests in more recent years.As you can see, White adult IQ (age 25+) in the US is now 102.6, or 103 rounded off. Black adult IQ (age 25+) has increased in recent years to 89.1 or 89 rounded off. There remains a 13.5 point gap between Blacks and Whites. It is no longer appropriate to say that Blacks have an IQ of 85. The B-W child gap is about 11 points. On the Stanford-Binet test, which can be given to both children and adults, there is a 10.8 point gap, but it would be nice to see who the S-B was given to, kids or adults.
These scores are taken from this paper, and indicate varying scores for IQ tests and semi-IQ tests taken over about 30 years. As you move down in each individual row, you move into revised versions of the tests in more recent years.As you can see, White adult IQ (age 25+) in the US is now 102.6, or 103 rounded off. Black adult IQ (age 25+) has increased in recent years to 89.1 or 89 rounded off.
There remains a 13.5 point gap between Blacks and Whites. It is no longer appropriate to say that Blacks have an IQ of 85. The B-W child gap is about 11 points. On the Stanford-Binet test, which can be given to both children and adults, there is a 10.8 point gap, but it would be nice to see who the S-B was given to, kids or adults.

It is correct that with a 10-14 pt B-W IQ gap at the moment, “leveling the playing field”, which really boils down to equality of outcome, is not possible without much magic, fakery and nonsense. It would be ideal if racial IQ differences, while changing, would at least enter into this debate, but that’s not possible right now.
Keep in mind that Black IQ declines as Blacks age. James Flynn, a world-recognized expert in the field, said a while back that Black 5-yr-olds may have IQ’s of 95. Traditionally, they suffered a 10 pt drop down to 85 at age 25.
With renorming, Black 5 year olds may have IQ’s as high as 98. That’s going to drop to 89 by age 25. There have been articles recently remarking on how Black school performance is worse in Black high schoolers than in Black elementary schoolers. Black high schoolers have lower IQ’s than Black elementary students, and this will reflect in scores.

He may have been a thug, but Mychal Bell, famous stereotypical Black thug of Jena Six fame, was also said to be a pretty smart kid. There were reports that he was an A student, but in my discussions with prominent Jena, Louisiana citizens who knew some of his teachers, they said that he was intelligent, but he did not get good grades. I used to see this all the time as a teacher. US Blacks can no longer be said to be stupid. I think that high school failure rates are due to either culture, socioeconomics, or else genetic Black personality, or some combination of one or more of those. Even White highly extroverted persons don't like to be chained to a seat all day, and most of them hate school and studying. They want excitement, good times and adventure. Ditto with Black thrill-seekers like Mr. Bell.
He may have been a thug, but Mychal Bell, famous stereotypical Black thug of Jena Six fame, was also said to be a pretty smart kid. There were reports that he was an A student, but in my discussions with prominent Jena, Louisiana citizens who knew some of his teachers, they said that he was intelligent, but he did not get good grades. I used to see this all the time as a teacher.
US Blacks can no longer be said to be stupid. I think that high school failure rates are due to either culture, socioeconomics, or else genetic Black personality, or some combination of one or more of those. Even White highly extroverted persons don’t like to be chained to a seat all day, and most of them hate school and studying. They want excitement, good times and adventure. Ditto with Black thrill-seekers like Mr. Bell.

White racists like to rant about “no progress” in the Black IQ of 85 over 100 years. That “no progress” claim does not include Flynn Effect Black IQ rise of 22 pts since 1930, much of which have been washed out because White IQ has been rising concomitantly with the Black rise.
These same racists usually say that the Flynn Effect is not a real intelligence rise, but Black skulls have gotten dramatically larger since 1900 to the point where they are dramatically different from African skulls. It would stand to reason that a dramatic increase in Black skull size combined with a dramatic increase in Black IQ would represent a real intelligence increase – the Flynn Effect.
US White and US Black skulls now look more alike than either skull does to its ancestors 150 yrs ago.

We are creating a new race here in the US - the Negro. A study looking at head sizes from the colonial era to today found that Whites and Black skulls now resemble each other more than either one resembles their grandparents. Both Black and White skulls have gotten larger, taller and narrower, the lower half of the face and jaw have receded, and the chin has become more prominent. Both changes are in favor of more progressive features and against more archaic features.That means that modern Whites have skulls that look more like modern Blacks than our White ancestors of 250 years ago. And modern Blacks have skulls that look more like modern Whites than their African slave ancestors of 250 years. I do not feel that it is appropriate to constantly compare US Negroes with Black Africans. Not only are they completely different groups of people living on different continents for centuries, but at the moment, they're not even equivalent racially in many ways. US Negro skulls do not look much like Black African skulls anymore. The change in general is that US Black skulls have moved to an intermediate position between Africans and Europeans, in part due to interbreeding with Whites, but also due to improvements in environment, especially nutrition. Researchers also suggest genetic changes in skull size for both US Blacks and Whites.
We are creating a new race here in the US – the Negro. A study looking at head sizes from the colonial era to today found that Whites and Black skulls now resemble each other more than either one resembles their grandparents. Both Black and White skulls have gotten larger, taller and narrower, the lower half of the face and jaw have receded, and the chin has become more prominent.
Both changes are in favor of more progressive features and against more archaic features.That means that modern Whites have skulls that look more like modern Blacks than our White ancestors of 250 years ago. And modern Blacks have skulls that look more like modern Whites than their African slave ancestors of 250 years.
I do not feel that it is appropriate to constantly compare US Negroes with Black Africans. Not only are they completely different groups of people living on different continents for centuries, but at the moment, they’re not even equivalent racially in many ways. US Negro skulls do not look much like Black African skulls anymore.
The change in general is that US Black skulls have moved to an intermediate position between Africans and Europeans, in part due to interbreeding with Whites, but also due to improvements in environment, especially nutrition. Researchers also suggest genetic changes in skull size for both US Blacks and Whites.

We really are smarter than our grandparents.
The implications of this are interesting. Truesdell notes that the changes in favor of more progressive features and against more archaic features in both Black and White skulls were “in part genetic.” What this means is that both Blacks and Whites have been preferentially (eugenically) selecting for more progressive facial features and against more archaic features.
As progressive facial features tend to have higher IQ’s and archaic features tend to have lower IQ’s, the result was eugenic selection towards more attractive features and higher intelligence. In Blacks, these changes have occurred since 1900, while in Whites, they have been going on since colonial times.
In slave society, there probably was not a lot of progressive selection going on. With liberation, Blacks were freer to choose partners who could make more money. Since 1900, Blacks have been practicing eugenic selection towards Blacks who look “Whiter” and are more intelligent. In earlier times, Whiter Blacks could probably negotiate better in White society and could possibly make more money. But Black positive selection for Whiter features continues to this day.
All of the race realist ranting about dysgenics grows very tiresome. Humans are intelligent creatures. It’s only logical that the evolution that drove us to this point is ongoing. Selection for better looking and more intelligent partners is a wise choice for any intelligent mammal, and we are the smartest of them all.
Another White racist lie is that the Black-White achievement gap has not moved in the past 40 years, since we noticed it and declared war on it. In fact, the B-W achievement gap has shrunk by 1/3 over the past 30 yrs and there is evidence the decline was related to spending on education. Obviously, given IQ realities, there is going to be a point of diminishing returns here.


Dickens, William T. & Flynn, James R. October 2006. Black Americans Reduce the Racial IQ Gap: Evidence from Standardization Samples. Psychological Science.
Jantz, RL. July 2001. Cranial change in Americans: 1850-1975. J Forensic Sci. 46(4):784-7.
Truesdell, Nicole D. May 2005. Secular Change In The Skull Between American Blacks And Whites. MA Thesis. Baton Rogue, LA: Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, Department of Geography and Anthropology.

This research takes a lot of time, and I do not get paid anything for it. If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a a contribution to support more of this valuable research.

Is Intelligence Important to Humans?

In the comments section, Patrick comments:

The notion that there is an evolutionary ladder is incorrect. There is no superior or inferior life-form. It is impossible for any particular race to be more evolved than any other race because there is no degree which to measure evolution and any measuring system someone could invent would be flawed.

And Lafayette Sennacherib responds:

I wonder if Patrick is making the point Noam Chomsky made in the opening pages of ‘ Hegemony or Survival’: that there is little evidence that ‘intelligence’ is an advantage by the evolutionary criteria of survival and increase of the species. Chomsky points out that, by these criteria, the cockroach is the most successful product of evolution.

Well, I would certainly agree with that, but that argument strikes me as senseless. Having dealt with smart humans and idiots and lots of humans in between, I am absolutely certain that intelligence is very important for humans.
I don’t even like to hang around with people who have fairly low IQ’s very much. I often do it and I’ve been doing it all my life, but I usually regret it and it has not been very satisfying over a lifetime. Not only are they boring, but the dumber someone is, typically the lower their morals are.
Dumb people cheat you, use you, rip you off, get you in trouble, start fights with you, vandalize your property, go through your stuff, damage your property, involve you in crimes, go to jail, beat their SO’s, drink and take dope to excess, eat worse than any wild mammal alive, refuse to exercise, and just generally act like retarded barn animals. When you challenge them on the damage or ripoffs they are doing to you and your stuff, they refuse to clean up their messes, pay you back, or even learn.
This last is so important. Dumb people just seem to be unable to learn too many things. I think it is probably because they do not want to, because they can definitely learn stuff they think is important. On the moral level, as far as I am concerned, way too many dumb people are just scumbags. Smarter people are generally way more morally evolved, at least in terms of having a personal relationship with them.
When you have whole neighborhoods full of dumbasses like this, there is a noticeable decline in many areas. Not only in the finer areas of life such as love of learning, art, culture, and whatnot, but in other areas.
Dumb people are ill-mannered and rude. They don’t keep promises. They borrow money and never pay it back. They have poor emotional control, scream and yell, fight, throw property around and get the cops called on them. They are always getting involved in retarded physical accidents due to their heedlessness.
Whole communities of dummies show a decline that is clear to anyone with open eyes to see. Prostitution, pimping, petty crime, gangs, graffiti, drugs, drug dealing, alcoholism and drug addiction, domestic violence, trash, trashed-out cars, homes and neighborhoods, wrecked schools, these are just some of the obvious evidences of decline.
If you could gauge the mean IQ of a city and watch its IQ decline, you would see all of these negative things increase. If you could raise the IQ of the city, you would see all of these things decrease and the more refined and civilized aspects of existence increase in tandem.
The notion that intelligence is irrelevant to the human species, either in micro or macro form, is seriously absurd.
In contrast to the racialists, I do not believe that IQ is fixed by our genes. Otherwise, our IQ’s would not have increased 22 points since 1930. Because IQ can be increased, I have hope that the ill effects on civilizational style of human low intelligence can be ameliorated. The fact that I am so convinced of the ill effects on our species of low IQ is one of the reasons that I am so serious about raising human IQ.


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)