Post: #26

The author's take on sexual selection sounds like it was written by someone on this forum.

From Chapter 5:

Quote:    After climate, sexual selection is the next strongest selector for humans. 9 Sexual selection means that the sexes do not mate indiscriminately, but preferentially select individuals who have certain traits. Because populations that have a more “K” orientated reproductive strategy (fewer children, more child care) pair bond more, they have more stringent requirements for their mates and therefore have more sexual selection than populations that have a more “r” orientated reproductive strategy (more children, less child care).
    Although both sexes do some selecting, especially in modern times, if the sexes are free to make a selection it will be the sex that has the most to lose by a poor choice that will select most cautiously, and that is usually females. 10 Because women need food not only for themselves, but also for their fetus and then their child, sex, at least until contraceptives came along, was very costly for them.
    Thus, the balance between male selection and female selection shifts according to how much of the food and other resources each sex provides. In Africa, the women, even today, farm and gather food, so they have more selection power, 11 but in the colder climates more of the food was meat, especially in the winter, and hunting was done by men, shifting some selection power to men. (Miller, 1994a). As a result of selection by men, Eurasian women have become more beautiful 12 and, as a result of selection by women, Eurasian men have become workaholics and slightly more intelligent than Eurasian women (more intelligence = a better provider in Eurasia). African women have become slightly more intelligent than African men, however, who have become the more physically attractive sex. 13
    The sex that has evolved a lot of superfluous traits, traits that are not useful in obtaining food, evading predators, and the like, but do appeal to the opposite sex, is certainly being sexually selected. For birds, it is almost always the male that has superfluous traits, as the male often has bright, colorful plumage and lovely songs that attract both females and predators; the superfluous traits tell females that the males must be of really high quality to be able to present such a display and not get eaten. Although the difference in beauty between men and woman is not as stark as between male birds and female birds, it is fair to say that, at least for Eurasians, the ladies have the edge in beauty, suggesting that men are doing some selecting of women, though women still do most of it. As (Coon 1962, p. 86) put it, “all females receive sexual attention. Among primates, [in order to reproduce] it is easier to be a female than to acquire one.” However, once meat became an important component of the human diet, the “meat for sex” trade 14 began to play a greater role and selection by men increased.

                          Selection by Women
    If a woman and her children don’t need a man to survive, she can choose a man who is handsome and charming, but likely to leave after copulation. In other words, she can choose a “cad” and, if she can do so without diminishing the survival chances of herself and her children, she is more likely to do so. The handsome, charming cads then have more offspring and pass their alleles for cad-like behavior on to their sons. 15
    On the other hand, if she is not capable of providing for herself and her children, she will have to be more practical and chose a man who is likely to stick around after sex and take care of her and her children, a “dad.” (Chu, 2007). Clark Gable for thrills, Joe Sixpack for bills. Of course, it would be nice if Joe Sixpack were also young, healthy, romantic, and had good genes, 16 but those qualities mean nothing if he does not provide for her and her children. Today, a woman can choose a man who can not, or will not, help her survive and the welfare state will force that man and other people (taxpayers) to provide for her and her children, but before the welfare state a woman who unwisely chose such a man would have a life of poverty and an early death.
    It has been suggested that women select men for intelligence (Ananthaswamy, 2002), 17 and that may have played a significant role in man’s evolution towards higher intelligence. Intelligence, as we shall see (Chap. 14), correlates well with wealth, so intelligence is a way to identify men who have, or are likely to acquire, the resources needed to care for a woman and her children. 18 High status men are also likely to have access to more resources, and so high status is a strong magnet for the ladies. (Pollet, 2007). But since women today have less need for the resources of men, many women define “high status” less as having money and power 19 and more as being “cool,” i.e., having currently-fashionable clothes, language, and behavior.

                           Selection by Men
    A man can impregnate many women and have far more children than can a woman, so a reproductively successful man can have a greater effect on the traits of future generations than can a reproductively successful woman. 20 Although a man can rape a woman, thereby eliminating any selection on her part, in most societies rape is not a good reproductive strategy as pregnancy is hit or miss and the penalties for rape may be severe. 21 But for a man with low status and few resources, rape can be worth the risk. 22 Other male strategies include paying for sex (prostitution) and sincere or deceitful courtship. (Shields, 1983, pp. 117-119; Wrangham, 1996, pp. 131-146).
    If sex is going to cost a man little beyond an ejaculation he won’t be very selective. But if it is going to cost him a lifetime of support for a wife and children and possibly deter him from having sex with other women, 23 he will select much more carefully. (Power, 2006).
    Since the better providers are desired by more women, but may not be able to support more than one, those men will select the woman they will provide for, and they will make that selection based on which woman they think will make a good wife and mother. 24 If they do not select on that basis, their children are less likely to survive and men who lack alleles for careful selection will be replaced by men who have them. A good future wife and mother must have a pleasant, caring personality, be young (i.e., many years of child-bearing), 25 healthy (i.e., capable of bearing and raising children), likely to be faithful (i.e., his children), and have “good genes.” Since good genes are required to make a face and body that are symmetrical and are not deformed or diseased, physical attractiveness is a good indication not only of health, but also of high quality genes. 26 Paradoxically, Eurasian women owe their beauty not to the choices made by their mothers, but to the choices made by their fathers, grandfathers, etc. 27

Post: #27

Yes the points the book makes on sexual selection and egalitarianism (which we just call things like liberalism, leftism SJWism, whatever) sound like they have come from here.

I read the Amazon reviews before reading the book and it has an overall 3 star rating. The rating has been dragged been down but many of the reviews were laughable 'that's racist!' type reviews and had no substance. The one that did seem like it had fair criticisms was written by a fake anthropologist. I gave the introduction a chance and then couldn't stop reading.

The other type of laughable reviews are when they find one fact that they think is wrong or disagree with, they then use this statement to trash the entire book. However one little mistake doesn't change the overwhelming amount of evidence he has presented here. I have never seen so many citations in anything before.

My reaction was stunned at first reading this book, however after thinking it over I still have some questions so I'm not completely convinced by the extremely negative opinion it comes to about African races.

I'm wondering why musical and sporting achievements by black people haven't been mentioned more. I don't think music is mentioned at all, however blues, jazz, soul, funk, rap all have a lot of black musicians. Is this not a sign of a different sort of intelligence?

I'm a jazz musician myself so I truly respect a lot of black musicians so maybe I'm biased and giving too much credit here. I don't believe the lie that it came completely from Africa though. The rhythm was inspired by marching bands and the harmony from western classical music.

Personally, I rate musical and athletic ability very highly, whereas the author doesn't and I'm not sure why that is left out or ignored. I'm wondering if he has a bias against musical and sporting ability or a bias against black people so he leaves it out. Or maybe he honestly feels it's too small a factor to be included much, most of his book seems to focus on IQ.

Also, being half Mexican, I wanted to read more about the evolution of native Americans as well. It mainly talks about European, Asian, Africans and Aborigines. So I'm still confused with to the evolution of races in the Americas, are we supposed to think of all of them as just descendants of Asians then? They're very different in many ways.
That's just a small point however, he says he spent well over 4 years writing this book and had to leave many things out if they could not be accurately cited, maybe there isn't very much study into this area.

Post: #28

Thank you for making this thread. Seems like an interesting book and I had been looking for such a book for a while now.

It is impossible to try and discuss this subject without people switching on the defensive and just insulting without even debating a single point.

When I was younger I had noticed that men with "neanderthal" traits were more likely to be succesfull in life (purely anecdotal evidence on my part) and always wondered if at soime point in history there had been a massive "cross-species" breeding, or at the very least that the theories I was thought in school were wrong.

I will look up what the other poster said about neanderthals earlier.


Ps: one thing that needs to be understood is that accepting that there are differences between races, absolutely doesn't imply that a race is superior or another is inferior, people really need to get this in their heads.

Post: #29

Reading Greg Cochran's West Hunter blog, a commenter made a comment that Tasmanian aboriginals were not able to interbreed with Europeans, implying they were not Homo Sapiens but a relic population.

Obviously Australian aboriginals were able to interbreed with Europeans.

Does anyone know any more about this?

https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2015/07/1...-crossers/

Quote:Tasmanian type aboriginals (Mungo type) existed outside Tasmania to modern times, largely in the colder and wetter parts of Australia. They remained a separate and distinct “race” from the “mainland” aboriginals, which suggests that crossbreeds were rare and subfertile. They became extinct on the mainland as in Tasmania, possibly as a result of sex with white males, which was effectively non reproductive sex, and because their lands were more attractive to whites.

Tasmanian aboriginals became extinct, and left no known mixed breed descendents. All tasmanian “descendents” with documented ancestry are descended from an aboriginal that was very clearly mainland type.

Post: #30

Seriously which one of you guys wrote this book?

From Chapter 16:

Quote:However, some primitive traits (e.g., large jaw, heavy bones and muscles) are also regarded as more masculine (Fink, 2007). The masculinity of primitive traits may, in part, account for why most black-white miscegenation is black man-white woman, and much less is white man-black woman, 7 and why women find Asian men, with their neotenic, baby-like features, less attractive. Conversely, the absence of primitive traits (e.g., gracile body, neotenic face) is regarded as more feminine and may explain, in part, why white men are attracted to Asian women.

I'll write a full review once I finish it. But throughout reading, my mind has wondered from "this is racist as shit" to a few "aha moments". Keep an open mind going into it.

Post: #31

Hatefacts: The existence of strong physical evidence that is hard to digest by those whose intellectual capacity is greatly connected to their emotions.

Funny how we can acknowledge the masculine appeal of black male-white female pairings, but any negative association(even cited) to behaviors and aptitude have caused shut down in debate with "omg race thread racism".

Post: #32

(09-07-2015 07:43 AM)Thomas the Rhymer Wrote:  I'll just plop this here for the heck of it. There are some interesting interviews in this documentary from scientists who are researching race, and they admit they sometimes have to tippy-toe around social expectations. The title is lame clickbait but it's worth a watch.

Watched this video today. Somewhat hilarious. Indian British lady trying to find out what would happen to her mixed daughter. Obviously, she was going in with a bias. And it does show through the video.

Amongst other things:
- she asked if Brazil was going to be a model for the world because of its massive amount of racing mixing, and then it was later pointed out Brazil has the 2nd highest amount of inequality.

- saying mixed race people might do better than non-mixed in poor areas - but doesn't compare white vs. black vs. mixed or things like IQ-race correlations.

- asking a mixed person if he thinks it's better to be a mixed person (what else than 'yes' would most people say)

- "diversity is always better" --- even though professors like Robert Putnam have show there's negative social effects to diversity.

I'm not hating on mixed people, but damn this lady (who is from my own ethnicity) was trying really hard to show "see, it's a good thing my daughter is a mixed kid"

And amusingly, the scientists did keep saying environment plays a much bigger role than genetics.

Post: #33

This book is garbage pseudo-science designed to provide an alleged "scientific" basis to refute the conclusions of a century of legitimate scientific work in anthropology.

If you want to learn about these matters, you have to read the work of established, recognized experts in the field. And don't just limit yourself to one book, read several.

.

Post: #34

Oh, please. Anthropology is the most politicized science in existence outside of "social science".

To claim otherwise is self-deception and directly counter to facts. And that's not even broaching the information itself, but merely looking at the politics surrounding it.

It's politically correct and it's thought policing to label the last century's carefully managed anthropology conclusions as "legitimate scientific work" and all conflicting evidence as "garbage pseudoscience", and that's all that it is.

Defend a position, but don't simply dismiss another with unsupported and invalid language.

Post: #35

Gender is a social construct that somehow persisted across nearly every human society for millennia which doesn't actually exist and was created as a mechanism for oppressing the imaginary gender of women unjustly.

Race is a social construct that somehow persisted across nearly every human society for millennia that doesn't actually exist and was created as a mechanism for oppressing certain imaginary races unjustly.

Groups of people lived in, and were forced to adapt to vastly different environments throughout history. Often they were geographically isolated for many thousands of years. Certain environments were particularly harsh, creating bottlenecks where only small portions of a population survived to reproduce. Human groups would expand to the limits of the food capacity of their environment, and begin to wage war with each other, pushing technological innovation.

Human history is the story of vastly diverse groups of people settling into vastly different climates, elevations, and geographies, battling all kinds of formidable predators and conquering their landscape.

From the earliest studies of biological evolution, Charles Darwin was able to observe within a single generation, that finches who possessed a certain beak were able to subsist on seeds during a time of food shortage, while a significant portion of the finch population died off. The next generation exhibited the beak shape of the successful portion of the population, showing that evolution through environmental adaption can take place within such a small time span as a single generation.

Given the dramatically different environments that humanity has expanded outward, it's not a stretch of the imagination to see that a similar might apply to us.

Human species have colonized the deepest valleys, the tallest mountains, the arctic tundra and the arid desserts. We've triumphed over the elements, over all predators. We've crossed oceans, we've set foot on our moon, and we've sent our technologies out into the cosmos.

What is the danger in admitting our differences?

Human groups have been forced to adapt to such drastically different climates, geographies, and social environments for thousands of years at a time. When taking the theory of environmental adaption to it's logical conclusion, it's clear that differences will develop.

The simple fact is, we're all successful. The fact that we're all here, alive, today, after billions of years of the trials of nature, suggests that we are the pinnacle of successful survival.

I am not threatened by the idea that I might be different than some of you. The problem arises when we begin to assign moral value to certain values like IQ, brain capacity, and so on.

As far as evolution goes, history seems to suggest that many adaptions are zero sum. As a society, we seem to elevate intelligence, but that may not be as beneficial a trait as we think it is. If intelligence were such an adaptive trait, we'd all have massive brains with IQ levels of 160, but that's simply not the case. Neanderthals, who had higher cranial capacity than biologically modern humans, are now extinct. High IQ individuals are directly inversely correlated with sexual partners (the more intelligent they are, the less they have sex) and are more likely to develop neurological disorders.

Ashkenazi Jews, despite being a population of very high IQ individuals, have failed to reach a population of over 20 million, while many countries of much lower IQ have reached much higher reproductive success.

I will never be able to sprint as fast as a Kenyan Olympian. I will never be able to swim as fast as a Swedish highlander. I will never win a polymath competition against a Singaporean. I will never outclimb a Nepalese Sherpa or out strength train a Bulgarian. I am different, with my own set of strengths and weakness, and I'm OK with that.

I think there are differences between different peoples and cultures, and that doesn't bother me. Rather, I see it as an opportunity to ponder what defines us as individuals, and appreciate the cultural nuances that make us who we are. Frankly, the concept that we are bland, interchangeable and indiscernible drones on a global scale seems much more boring to me.

Post: #36

I doubt my arguments will convince you, Hydrogonian. Arguing about race issues is a lot like trying to argue about religion. Things just go around and around with no resolution.

You and I would be better off having a few glasses of beer and talking about chick's asses.

Anyway, as I see it, the whole thesis of the book is that some ethnic groups are lower down on the evolutionary and genetic ladder than are others. This is just not what accepted anthropology tells us.

Nobody should take my word for it. They should go to a library and read a few books in the anthropology section, and then compare them with what you see in this book the OP is talking about. As far as I can understand, the current state of science is that there is only one human species in existence today: homo sapiens, and that it spread out over the world and replaced all other species of human many tens of thousands of years ago.

And of course, as this author sees it (or strongly implies it), Nordic Europeans occupy the highest spot on the evolutionary scale. I see this author's arguments as racialism dressed up as legitimate science, and has about as much credibility as those who believe in ancient aliens making the pyramids.

Similar arguments have been made in the past by people like Alfred Rosenberg, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, and Madison Grant. It's all there. They were very open about it. But their thick books are proof that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Going back even more, we can even take a look at the ideas of Joseph-Arthur de Gobineau. He was arguably the major intellectual figure in modern "race theory." In Gobineau's view:

"Everything great, noble, or fruitful in the works of man on this planet, in science, art, and civilization, derives from a single starting point, is the development of a single germ....it belongs to one family alone, the different branches of which have reigned in all the civilized countries of the universe...History shows that all civilization derives from the white race, that none can exist without its help, and that society is great and brilliant only insofar as it preserves the blood of the noble group that created it." ["Inequality of Human Races", XV, 210]

Science just doesn't support his theories. To explain why would involve a whole discussion of how evolution works. We have one human species. Of course there are different ethnic groups, nations, races, etc, and these all have different "personalities." But it's very different to say that some are "inferior" as a matter of evolution.

This is stuff is fascinating, actually. They are making new discoveries all the time. It's hard to imagine, but at one time there were actually different species of human existing simultaneously on Earth. It is amazing to think of that. And imagine what it must have been like to have Neanderthals and modern humans confronting each other in Europe. These were actually different species of humans.

Could they have interbred? I've been trying to find the answer to this lately, and it seems to be yes.

And how about the recent discovery of "homo floresiensis" (the so-called "hobbit man") in Indonesia a few years back? Incredible. There actually existed a diminutive human species that was only 3 or 4 feet tall.

But then homo sapiens spread over the earth, and either absorbed or wiped out all other competitive human species.

Anyway, I do find this subject very interesting.

Post: #37

In 1981, Stephen Jay Gould published The Mismeasure of Man, an attempt at refuting the antiquated science of anthropological racism through empirical proof.

His main argument was that historically, anthropological researchers, many of whom were Europeans, inserted their own Racist beliefs of Racial superiority in order to influence the results of their study in favor of a narrative that supported their beliefs.

His book received an ecstatic global reception:

"Gould has performed a valuable service in exposing the logical basis of one of the most important debates in the social sciences, and this book should be required reading for students and practitioners alike."[13] In The New York Times, journalist Christopher Lehmann-Haupt wrote that the critique of factor analysis "demonstrates persuasively how factor analysis led to the cardinal error in reasoning, of confusing correlation with cause, or, to put it another way, of attributing false concreteness to the abstract."[14] The British journal Saturday Review praised the book as a "fascinating historical study of scientific racism", and that its arguments "illustrate both the logical inconsistencies of the theories and the prejudicially motivated, albeit unintentional, misuse of data in each case."[15] In the American Monthly Review magazine, Richard York and the sociologist Brett Clark praised the book's thematic concentration, saying that "rather than attempt a grand critique of all 'scientific' efforts aimed at justifying social inequalities, Gould performs a well-reasoned assessment of the errors underlying a specific set of theories and empirical claims."

The first edition of The Mismeasure of Man won the non-fiction award from the National Book Critics Circle; the Outstanding Book Award for 1983 from the American Educational Research Association; the Italian translation was awarded the Iglesias prize in 1991; and in 1998, the Modern Library ranked it as the 24th-best English-language non-fiction book of the 20th century.[17] In December 2006, Discover magazine ranked The Mismeasure of Man as the 17th-greatest science book of all time.

Unfortunately, it was all bullshit.

Ironically, the entire basis of his world renowned hypothesis were completely unfounded. Subsequent empirical measurements of the data in question show that Morton's measurements were less biased than Gould's:

"In another study, published in 2011, Jason E. Lewis and colleagues re-measured the cranial volumes of the skulls in Morton's collection, and re-examined the respective statistical analyses by Morton and by Gould, concluding that, contrary to Gould's analysis, Morton did not falsify craniometric research results to support his racial and social prejudices, and that the "Caucasians" possessed the greatest average cranial volume in the sample. To the extent that Morton's craniometric measurements were erroneous, the error was away from his personal biases. Ultimately, Lewis and colleagues disagreed with most of Gould's criticisms of Morton, finding that Gould's work was "poorly supported", and that, in their opinion, the confirmation of the results of Morton's original work "weakens the argument of Gould, and others, that biased results are endemic in science." Despite this criticism, the authors acknowledged that they admired Gould's staunch opposition to racism."
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/art...io.1001071

Post: #38

@QC

My thoughts on this issue reside in the realm of the relative possibility of assessing for and claiming legitimate science in what is essentially a politically-controlled field of inquiry.

Until the field realizes a politically unencumbered presentation of ideas, I don't have to either assess for nor claim an opinion because the field is intellectually corrupted. Thus, no opinion can be had, either way, that is based in science.

Whatever ones opinion on the politics of the matter, no one should sign off on supposedly settled science because the field disallows for a legitimate assessment of ideas.

Doing so corrupts the integrity of science as a whole.

Either we will be a world that will move forward with its intellectual integrity or we won't be.

I will only add that moving forward under politically motivated assumptions will likely lead to more pain, in the long run, than it will head-off. Science will always likely lead to better things than will good intentions, for everyone, in the long run. Reality is to be dealt with how it is, not how we wish it to be.

All of this opinion is absent the context of the book in question. I haven't read it, and have no idea what it contains. I would also hold that it's ideas, whatever they are, would need to be fairly assessed with the ideas that it refutes before they would be able to be held to be valid.

In short, any emotional or political appeal to any "settled science" in this field only legitimizes scientific and other censorship. Countering such censorship should be the first priority for everyone, whatever any personal end-hope for research outcomes.

Personally, I'm absolutely neutral as to any fairly assessed research outcomes. I could simply care less. The same, different: the science is the science. Period.

Currently, the only buy in that I have in this matter is caring about not being made a fool-of nor otherwise being a part of a large charade, forwarded through censorship, that corrupts the integrity of science as a whole.

Even those who would make seemingly valid political points for censorship in anthropology should, in the end, reject censorship as history has a way of coming back around, in a long arc, to punish such political restrictions.

Post: #39

delete

Post: #40

@Hydrogonian:

Yes, I agree with you.

Science has made mistakes in the past, and will continue to make them. Scientists are just as susceptible to groupthink as any other profession. We shouldn't worship science just because they call it "science."

It's likely that most of what we think we know in this area will be overturned in 50 or 75 years, as new discoveries come to light. But all we can do until then is try to evaluate the data as best we can.

Guys like De Gobineau (I've read his book), Houston Stewart Chamberlain, and Madison Grant were actually intelligent and perceptive men. They were not fools. I've tried to learn about this point of view. It's important to know what's out there. Well-rounded people should be familiar with all sides of things.

They tried to evaluate the world as best they could with the information that they had at the time. It's just that I think knowledge has expanded since those days. Their conclusions don't "fit the data" any more, in my opinion.

Just like I think people 100 years from now may consider all of us to be very old-fashioned.

I actually am very interested in this stuff, Hydro.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/huma...ls/species

It just blows my mind that they discovered this diminutive species of man (homo floresiensis) a few years back. That means probably that as late as 25,000 year ago, there was a dwarf species of hominid walking around in remote islands on Indonesia.

Who knows what other weird discoveries are out there, that might upset the whole apple-cart? We just don't know.

That's what makes this stuff so exciting.

Post: #41

The ruling theory according to which homo sapiens emerged and conquered the world and voila, we are now all homo sapiens is dumbed down, simplified and profane, not to mention it draws a completely artificial line where all human development ceases.

It's also stunning how much of Indo-European studies, which were of key interest to European classical anthropologists , somehow vanished from focus of interest.

Not only that, but much of it was dismissed as "prejudice" when in fact it bears the strongest possible evidence, because it is so diverse - from archaeological, to written, religious, oral etc. Remember, the theory of origins of Brahman rulers of India was dismissed as racist garbage, even tho India's own cultural tradition testifies it ! And evidence is beyond overwhelming !

Because according to Ideology™ Indo-Europeanness has nothing to do with whiteness, even tho both Hindus and Iranians for example, in their most ancient traditions, testify that their ancestor came from north, which is where white population resides to this day. Iranians state it is an island on the north, the most immediate candidate being Crimea, which is just where proto-Indoeuropean homeland is located. Iran is named after Aryans, and they still proudly claim to be of Aryan descent.

The legend of an island from the north is present among Europeans too, in a legend of King Arthur (which predates middle ages)

The difference in skin color among Hinus on the north and south today is already mainstream.

Scientists have to even have debates about whether Egyptian Pharaohs were black ?!? Even though north Africans aren't black not even today ! Let alone 5000 years ago. Even though every mask of every Pharaoh portrays what is typical European physiognomy, with narrow noses and flat foreheads, narrow noses being the most unmistakable, inerrant sign of non-African origin.

The most immediate, intimate human testimony will easily be dismissed by these modern scientists, in favor of the most abstract scheme, that which is in accordance to Einstein's relativist viewpoint, where nothing is certain and nothing can be objectively confirmed, but everything is supposedly "subjective", that fatalistic, theistic viewpoint that was invented only in desire to subvert and defy millennia of positive science and scientific advancement of those who were not afraid to explore, rather than indulge into calculative fatalistic mathematical schemes.

edit: concerning this book, you can see by the writing style it was written by an intellectual lightweight. My thesis was more articulate than this.

Post: #42

Actually, some of the Pharoahs, particularly in the late kingdom do indeed look Black or at the very least have considerable facial features that most people would identify as Black.



Ancient Egypt has a rich history spanning thousands of years, and included many diverse groups, including Semites, Nubians, Hyksos, and Indo Europeans if we're to take the blonde/red haired mummies of certain Pharoahs as evidence. More recently, there was rule by the Seleucids and the Romans, later the Arabs. During this vast time span, the ruling class changed hands into different groups at varying time periods.

History is the story of the movement, competition, and development of different peoples, so pointing to a static point in time and using it to describe an entire cultural lineage seems to be oversimplifying things.

Post: #43

(07-16-2016 11:23 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  Science has made mistakes in the past, and will continue to make them. Scientists are just as susceptible to groupthink as any other profession. We shouldn't worship science just because they call it "science."

Fair enough, though I think that attributing the censorship to organic "groupthink" is whitewashing the censorship; to put it mildly.

Quote:It's likely that most of what we think we know in this area will be overturned in 50 or 75 years, as new discoveries come to light. But all we can do until then is try to evaluate the data as best we can.

The outlook toward "overturning what we think that we know" implies that there was a politically unencumbered process of mainstreaming "what we think that we (currently) know". Thus, that "what we think that we know" (what is presented as true) was a result of a fair and balanced assessment of ideas. I disagree.

In my mind, the conclusions would need to be re-categorized as uncertain as a matter of recognition of the censored scientific environment, until an unencumbered re-assessment of data could take place.

Quote:They tried to evaluate the world as best they could with the information that they had at the time. It's just that I think knowledge has expanded since those days. Their conclusions don't "fit the data" any more, in my opinion.

As you know, data is both about its validity and its interpretation. I, and many others, are dubious that it would be valid to come to your conclusion based on data that was not brought to the forefront under politically unencumbered conditions.

Quote:It just blows my mind that they discovered this diminutive species of man (homo floresiensis) a few years back. That means probably that as late as 25,000 year ago, there was a dwarf species of hominid walking around in remote islands on Indonesia.

Who knows what other weird discoveries are out there, that might upset the whole apple-cart? We just don't know.

Current specific topic aside, if you look close enough and in the correct places, there are enough acknowledged discoveries that would upset the apple cart, so to speak, should they be brought to light in the wider sphere. You can find them on Wikipedia and in archived articles.

Post: #44

(07-17-2016 06:22 AM)Orion Wrote:  It's also stunning how much of Indo-European studies, which were of key interest to European classical anthropologists , somehow vanished from focus of interest.

Because according to Ideology™ Indo-Europeanness has nothing to do with whiteness, even tho both Hindus and Iranians for example, in their most ancient traditions, testify that their ancestor came from north, which is where white population resides to this day. Iranians state it is an island on the north, the most immediate candidate being Crimea, which is just where proto-Indoeuropean homeland is located. Iran is named after Aryans, and they still proudly claim to be of Aryan descent.

Yes. stunning and incompetent. As Hydrogonian writes, antrophology of the last 60 years, which QC refers to, has been thourougly and completely debunked as wishful thinking at best.

For example, the idea of the Anatolian spread of the Indo-Europeans, meant to place the 'Aryans' as Iranians spreading West with neolithic farmers. Or even worse, placing Indo-European language in India spreading West. With DNA evidence and further archeology, we now know this is obviously ludicrisly wrong.

In fact, genetics continue to prove pre-WW2 antrophology correct. Thor Heyerdahl claimed that the original inhabitants of the Easter Islands were not Polynesians but Europoid from South America. He was ridiculed by establishment until DNA testing proved him right in that they were at least from South America. Now we're waiting for someone to prove the second part of his thesis, that the pyramids of Meso-America and their myths of white gods from the East, are in fact also true. Heyerdahl believed it to be Phoenicians or similar and he also believed the Olmec to be black African.

Anthropologists used to claim that middle eastern farmers completely replaced indigneous Europeans around 7000bc. This of course to push the narrative: We're all Middle Easterners, we're all Africans. Genetics proved this to be utterly false. Where the Southern Euro might have 40-60% or more (in the case of Sicilians and such) of this Neolithic Farmer DNA, the average Scandinavian only has 10% or so.

Antrophologists used to claim that blue eyes were a mere sexual selection mutation found not before 5000bc. Now we know the Villabruna man of Italy from 14.000bc had blue eyes. Soon blue eyes will be proven to be indigneous to Europe.

Antrophologists used to laugh at the idea of Scandinavians being the 'modern Aryans' as the Nazis and Americans believed. Not until genetic testing proved that Scandinavians has the most DNA in common with the so called Yamnaya population of bronze age Ukraine, which most people peg as the closest to the proto-Indo-European people.

Genetics do one thing these days and that is to prove 'racist' pre-WW2 research correct.

Post: #45

(07-17-2016 07:52 AM)thoughtgypsy Wrote:  

Olmec civilization





Oaxaca, pre-Aztec, pre-Inca



Red head Peruvian mummy



Thor Heyerdahls original paprer here: http://www.whiteindians.com/diffusionism...-gods.html

Post: #46

(07-17-2016 09:38 AM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

(07-17-2016 06:22 AM)Orion Wrote:  It's also stunning how much of Indo-European studies, which were of key interest to European classical anthropologists , somehow vanished from focus of interest.

Because according to Ideology™ Indo-Europeanness has nothing to do with whiteness, even tho both Hindus and Iranians for example, in their most ancient traditions, testify that their ancestor came from north, which is where white population resides to this day. Iranians state it is an island on the north, the most immediate candidate being Crimea, which is just where proto-Indoeuropean homeland is located. Iran is named after Aryans, and they still proudly claim to be of Aryan descent.

Yes. stunning and incompetent. As Hydrogonian writes, antrophology of the last 60 years, which QC refers to, has been thourougly and completely debunked as wishful thinking at best.

For example, the idea of the Anatolian spread of the Indo-Europeans, meant to place the 'Aryans' as Iranians spreading West with neolithic farmers. Or even worse, placing Indo-European language in India spreading West. With DNA evidence and further archeology, we now know this is obviously ludicrisly wrong.

In fact, genetics continue to prove pre-WW2 antrophology correct. Thor Heyerdahl claimed that the original inhabitants of the Easter Islands were not Polynesians but Europoid from South America. He was ridiculed by establishment until DNA testing proved him right in that they were at least from South America. Now we're waiting for someone to prove the second part of his thesis, that the pyramids of Meso-America and their myths of white gods from the East, are in fact also true. Heyerdahl believed it to be Phoenicians or similar and he also believed the Olmec to be black African.

Anthropologists used to claim that middle eastern farmers completely replaced indigneous Europeans around 7000bc. This of course to push the narrative: We're all Middle Easterners, we're all Africans. Genetics proved this to be utterly false. Where the Southern Euro might have 40-60% or more (in the case of Sicilians and such) of this Neolithic Farmer DNA, the average Scandinavian only has 10% or so.

Antrophologists used to claim that blue eyes were a mere sexual selection mutation found not before 5000bc. Now we know the Villabruna man of Italy from 14.000bc had blue eyes. Soon blue eyes will be proven to be indigneous to Europe.

Antrophologists used to laugh at the idea of Scandinavians being the 'modern Aryans' as the Nazis and Americans believed. Not until genetic testing proved that Scandinavians has the most DNA in common with the so called Yamnaya population of bronze age Ukraine, which most people peg as the closest to the proto-Indo-European people.

Genetics do one thing these days and that is to prove 'racist' pre-WW2 research correct.

Yes obviously, Iranian and Brahmanic Hindus are without doubt of Indo-European origin, which linguistics demonstrated. However, as was originally thought, Indo-European homeland is indeed in Eastern Europe/Central Asia, however, that only accounts for few cultures. There were many more, out of which probably many were in northern Europe.

After all, eyes don't lie

Kalashi People, Pakistan

https://www.google.me/search?q=kalashi+p...oQ_AUIBigB

But this isn't a superficial skin color debate.

The problem isn't about supremacy or skin color, but of Europeans being forbidden to affirm and assert their own identity, or god forbid, their own value and merit. And above all - our differentiation - what is what makes us special, not like others. That is a completely natural urge of every distinct population. Well, even thinking that we are special in any way is almost a crime nowadays. And all of our testimony is suddenly labelled a "myth". Modern narrative cunningly places entire oral and written ancient Greek testimony in domain of "myths" without ever giving it even a fraction of historical or scientific significance. Everything is "dubious". Olympian religion was just a "superstition".

Hence Indoeuropeanism is thrown today completely in the area of linguistic, but everyone with a hint of lucidity knows how much language is important to determine origins of biological bodies of peoples.

However, it must be then a real curiosity of how entire western world, once eastern religions writing became available and translated, suddenly got interested in it, and found much in it to praise and practice. Obviously, I'm not referring here to new-ageism and modern humanist interpretation of eastern religions such as Buddhism, but rather that exploration that occurred in 19th and early 20th century, when Buddhism was viewed as anything but a humanist religion.

It seems that that which is subconscious always remains latent and powerful. Europeans, in surviving Aryan religious systems in Asia, found their own origins, and as if they became biologically attracted to it. Unfortunately, many of Europeans proceeded to establish from these texts a continuation of their more recent tradition of humanism and pacifism, of effeminate sentimentality, which is only inevitable, since we are talking about almost two thousand years of continuous assaults on European (distinctly European) ethics, starting from sense of pride to the virile, warrior like traits.

Post: #47

(07-17-2016 10:09 AM)Orion Wrote:  

(07-17-2016 09:38 AM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

(07-17-2016 06:22 AM)Orion Wrote:  It's also stunning how much of Indo-European studies, which were of key interest to European classical anthropologists , somehow vanished from focus of interest.

Because according to Ideology™ Indo-Europeanness has nothing to do with whiteness, even tho both Hindus and Iranians for example, in their most ancient traditions, testify that their ancestor came from north, which is where white population resides to this day. Iranians state it is an island on the north, the most immediate candidate being Crimea, which is just where proto-Indoeuropean homeland is located. Iran is named after Aryans, and they still proudly claim to be of Aryan descent.

Yes. stunning and incompetent. As Hydrogonian writes, antrophology of the last 60 years, which QC refers to, has been thourougly and completely debunked as wishful thinking at best.

For example, the idea of the Anatolian spread of the Indo-Europeans, meant to place the 'Aryans' as Iranians spreading West with neolithic farmers. Or even worse, placing Indo-European language in India spreading West. With DNA evidence and further archeology, we now know this is obviously ludicrisly wrong.

In fact, genetics continue to prove pre-WW2 antrophology correct. Thor Heyerdahl claimed that the original inhabitants of the Easter Islands were not Polynesians but Europoid from South America. He was ridiculed by establishment until DNA testing proved him right in that they were at least from South America. Now we're waiting for someone to prove the second part of his thesis, that the pyramids of Meso-America and their myths of white gods from the East, are in fact also true. Heyerdahl believed it to be Phoenicians or similar and he also believed the Olmec to be black African.

Anthropologists used to claim that middle eastern farmers completely replaced indigneous Europeans around 7000bc. This of course to push the narrative: We're all Middle Easterners, we're all Africans. Genetics proved this to be utterly false. Where the Southern Euro might have 40-60% or more (in the case of Sicilians and such) of this Neolithic Farmer DNA, the average Scandinavian only has 10% or so.

Antrophologists used to claim that blue eyes were a mere sexual selection mutation found not before 5000bc. Now we know the Villabruna man of Italy from 14.000bc had blue eyes. Soon blue eyes will be proven to be indigneous to Europe.

Antrophologists used to laugh at the idea of Scandinavians being the 'modern Aryans' as the Nazis and Americans believed. Not until genetic testing proved that Scandinavians has the most DNA in common with the so called Yamnaya population of bronze age Ukraine, which most people peg as the closest to the proto-Indo-European people.

Genetics do one thing these days and that is to prove 'racist' pre-WW2 research correct.

Yes obviously, Iranian and Brahmanic Hindus are without doubt of Indo-European origin, which linguistics demonstrated. However, as was originally thought, Indo-European homeland is indeed in Eastern Europe/Central Asia, however, that only accounts for few cultures. There were many more, out of which probably many were in northern Europe.

After all, eyes don't lie

Kalashi People, Pakistan

https://www.google.me/search?q=kalashi+p...oQ_AUIBigB

But this isn't a superficial skin color debate.

The problem isn't about supremacy or skin color, but of Europeans being forbidden to affirm and assert their own identity, or god forbid, their own value and merit. And above all - our differentiation - what is what makes us special, not like others. That is a completely natural urge of every distinct population. Well, even thinking that we are special in any way is almost a crime nowadays. And all of our testimony is suddenly labelled a "myth". Modern narrative cunningly places entire oral and written ancient Greek testimony in domain of "myths" without ever giving it even a fraction of historical or scientific significance. Everything is "dubious". Olympian religion was just a "superstition".

Hence Indoeuropeanism is thrown today completely in the area of linguistic, but everyone with a hint of lucidity knows how much language is important to determine origins of biological bodies of peoples.

However, it must be then a real curiosity of how entire western world, once eastern religions writing became available and translated, suddenly got interested in it, and found much in it to praise and practice. Obviously, I'm not referring here to new-ageism and modern humanist interpretation of eastern religions such as Buddhism, but rather that exploration that occurred in 19th and early 20th century, when Buddhism was viewed as anything but a humanist religion.

It seems that that which is subconscious always remains latent and powerful. Europeans, in surviving Aryan religious systems in Asia, found their own origins, and as if they became biologically attracted to it. Unfortunately, many of Europeans proceeded to establish from these texts a continuation of their more recent tradition of humanism and pacifism, of effeminate sentimentality, which is only inevitable, since we are talking about almost two thousand years of continuous assaults on European (distinctly European) ethics, starting from sense of pride to the virile, warrior like traits.

Exactly, agree with everything here. I am not interested in supremacism or any sort of 'master race' theory, but simply in the history of our European peoples which ironically, if we're allowed to understand it, connects Europe with Asia and Anatolia/Iran/Middle East.

I also fully agree that the reason why Hinduism and spiritual retreats in India is so popular is because people feel a subconscious connection to Indo-European spirituality.

If we say Hinduism is an Indo-European religion (some parts at least) how great is it that the world's largest empire at the time, the Khmer of Angkor, were hindus? Again, if you allow for real history to be written, the world suddenly doesn't seem as fragmented.

About the Kalash, I believe they claim to be ancestors of Alexander's men, but no one knows, there are blonde, blue eyed people in weird places, most certainly leftovers from Indo-European migrations.

Post: #48

For some time I've studied geography, archaeology, linguistics, history, genetics, politics and have attempted to see if I can connect them together in order to piece together a probable narrative of ancient peoples and their movements.

If there is any conclusions I've come to, it's that it is extremely easy to misrepresent historical evidence of various areas to fit nearly any desired narrative.

Take the Sogdians, for instance. They were an Indo European speaking population, yet used a Semetic language, produced Babylonian architecture, ruled over an Asian territory, and practiced Zoroastrianism.

Were they Indo European? Semetic? Asian? Iranian? Babylonian? A mix?

Or were they a mostly Indo European society with a Semetic administrative and ruling class? Vice versa? Were they a Semetic society with an Indo European ruling class, who simply adopted a Semetic alphabet to better administer their empire? Were they a homogeneous society of Semetic peoples who adopted an Indo European language during an earlier period of foreign rule?

We can look to archaeology for answers, but then that isn't always so clear either. Are the depictions of the people in statues and wall paintings reflective of the majority of the population to instill nationalism, or are they reflective of the ruling class as a historical legacy? Are they meant to disguise the historical power of a priestly class who wished to remain anonymous, such as the Medean Magi who were the true power over the Iranians?

And then there is the case where extensive archaeological evidence has been destroyed. There was the destruction of Troy, largely thought to be a mythical account until it was uncovered within the past few hundred years. Also of Nineveh, whose thousands of clay tablets have recently been discovered. There's the library of Alexandria, and more recently the Islamic destruction of Buddhist statues and even within the last year, the attempted destruction of Palmyra.

And then, we must also ask, who gets to declare ownership of a historical culture? Is it the administrative class that created the political structure that allowed a civilization to emerge? The mercantile class that provided the capital and trade routes to finance and feed the entire operation? The labor class who did the actual construction of the empire? The warrior class who defended it from dissolution of neighbors? The priestly class who recorded their history for posterity and created a moral structure to rally the nation together? All of the above?

Those who are victorious get to write and interpret their history. The cultural heritage of ancient societies, cultures, and their scientific contributions is a highly charged and highly politicized subject which nations will take extreme measures to weave a narrative which fits their political interests. As such, it becomes extremely difficult to gain a clear picture and interpret history properly.

The Torah describes entire cultures who were wiped out to every man, woman, and child, whose history, cultural contributions, and origins we will perhaps never discover.

In Northeastern Canada exists a large proportion of people with the Y-haplogroup R1b, which originates in Northwestern Europe. Archeological evidence suggests that these people came over at a similar time to the Amerindians who crossed the Bering land bridge. This undermines the narrative that today's Amerindians were the first and the sole claimants to the entire American continent, so it will be politically controversial within their community and perhaps hushed up.

Israelis will claim that they are nearly identical genetically to Palestinains when wishing to provide political legitimacy for their occupation of the state of Palestine. They will also claim that they are a genetically distinct group when hoping to shore up nationalism during times of war, or to create greater cohesion on political movements. They will also claim that they are genetically most similar to White Europeans when attempting to legitimize the Diaspora narrative, or insist that they are merely a religion and not an ethnic group.

We're talking about a highly politicized topic where many groups have their histories, national interests, their very identities at stake. They will go to great lengths to defend those interests in a way which best serves them. Thus, it will be extremely hard to draw conclusions, as I hope I've demonstrated.

Post: #49

Lot of good "big picture" points here that you guys are bringing up.

One of the things that's really impressed me over the past few years is that I now see "science" not as some infallible oracle, but as just another way of looking at the world.

In our modern world, science has become a religion. These guys think that they have the answer to everything, but it seems like it's just another paradigm. I have a lot more respect for men of different viewpoints, like people coming from religious perspectives or other perspectives.

I remember growing up in school the textbooks would make fun of a lot of these old geographers and scientists for holding views that we don't hold today. They would make fun of guys like Pliny the Elder or Herodotus or Strabo or Ptolemy.

But then you actually go and read these authors, and the experience is eye-opening. You find out that these guys were not fools; they were not idiots. They were actually brilliant guys. It's just that they were operating in a frame of reference that was different. They did the best they could with the information they had at the time. And they made reasonable conclusions based on the data available.

Same thing with religion. People today make fun of religion, but I've gotten more and more respect for its social value as I've gotten older.

You look at past ages of man--like ancient world or the Middle Ages--and you see societies that were not enslaved by science or seduced by its false promises. Medieval and ancient man were not stupid. It's just that they valued art, religion, and beauty more than we do. They had a different value system.

And sometimes I think they may have been wiser than we are. Life was more structured, and it had more value and cosmic significance. What value is "truth" if it only increases our misery?

Has science really "liberated" man? Or has it just enslaved him with better chains?

There are just as many absurdities in the books of the scientists as there are in the books of the theologians. It requires "faith" just as much as religion does. And how can we base our "faith" on something whose "truth" changes every 100 years or so?

Take Galileo, for example. When you actually read about his alleged persecution, you realize that the Church was actually more lenient with him than is generally portrayed. And you know what? The views that he was punished for are not the views that astronomers hold today. Galileo did not appreciate or understand the significance of Kepler's work. He missed a lot.

And at the end of the day, what does scientific atheism have to offer man to console him or comfort him? Very little, it seems. What are you going to tell someone? That this life is just a meaningless pantomime that ends in annihilation into atoms, and that the world is just one of many infinite flecks of matter spinning through a cold, empty universe? How is that going to help anyone, I wonder?

Isn't it better to promote the positive, healthy values of religion and nationalism? Don't those have more social utility? I think so. People feel connected to something, feel they are a part of something great, and that roots them with the tangible bonds of blood, soil, and myth.

These are complicated questions, and I sure don't pretend to have all the answers. I'm not quite ready to give up my DVD player or jet air travel, but I can tell you one thing: I have a lot of respect for religion and ethnic nationalism.

Maybe it's better to believe in things that may be "wrong" if they add real value to your life.

.

Post: #50

Quote:Can you summarize the findings?

I haven't read it, but it sounds like the book is basically summarized in this "alt-right" troll-job of a music video: