Baffling 400,000-Year-Old Clue to Human Origins

Carl Zimmer, New York Times, December 5, 2013

Scientists have found the oldest DNA evidence yet of humans’ biological history. But instead of neatly clarifying human evolution, the finding is adding new mysteries.

In a paper in the journal Nature, scientists reported Wednesday that they had retrieved ancient human DNA from a fossil dating back about 400,000 years, shattering the previous record of 100,000 years.

The fossil, a thigh bone found in Spain, had previously seemed to many experts to belong to a forerunner of Neanderthals. But its DNA tells a very different story. It most closely resembles DNA from an enigmatic lineage of humans known as Denisovans. Until now, Denisovans were known only from DNA retrieved from 80,000-year-old remains in Siberia, 4,000 miles east of where the new DNA was found.

The mismatch between the anatomical and genetic evidence surprised the scientists, who are now rethinking human evolution over the past few hundred thousand years. It is possible, for example, that there are many extinct human populations that scientists have yet to discover. They might have interbred, swapping DNA. Scientists hope that further studies of extremely ancient human DNA will clarify the mystery.

{snip}

Hints at new hidden complexities in the human story came from a 400,000-year-old femur found in a cave in Spain called Sima de los Huesos (“the pit of bones” in Spanish). The scientific team used new methods to extract the ancient DNA from the fossil.

“This would not have been possible even a year ago,” said Juan Luis Arsuaga, a paleoanthropologist at Universidad Complutense de Madrid and a co-author of the paper.

{snip}

Based on the anatomy of the fossils, Dr. Arsuaga has argued that they belonged to ancestors of Neanderthals, which lived in western Asia and Europe from about 200,000 to 30,000 years ago.

When Dr. Meyer and his colleagues drilled into the femur, they found ancient human DNA inside, just as they had hoped.

{snip}

But the DNA did not match that of Neanderthals. Dr. Meyer then compared it to the DNA of the Denisovans, the ancient human lineage that he and his colleagues had discovered in Siberia in 2010. He was shocked to find that it was similar.

{snip}

The new finding is hard to reconcile with the picture of human evolution that has been emerging based on fossils and ancient DNA. Denisovans were believed to be limited to East Asia, and they were not thought to look so Neanderthal-like.

Based on previously discovered ancient DNA and fossil evidence, scientists generally agreed that humans’ direct ancestors shared a common ancestor with Neanderthals and Denisovans that lived about half a million years ago in Africa.

Their shared ancestors split off from humans’ lineage and left Africa, then split further into the Denisovans and Neanderthals about 300,000 years ago. The evidence suggested that Neanderthals headed west, toward Europe, and that the Denisovans moved east.

Humans’ ancestors, meanwhile, stayed in Africa, giving rise to Homo sapiens about 200,000 years ago. Humans then expanded from Africa into Asia and Europe about 60,000 years ago. They then interbred not only with Neanderthals, but with Denisovans, too. Later, both the Denisovans and Neanderthals became extinct.

“Now we have to rethink the whole story,” Dr. Arsuaga said.

Dr. Arsuaga doubts that Denisovans were spread out across so much of the Old World, from Spain to Siberia, masquerading as Neanderthals.

One alternative explanation is that the humans of Sima de los Huesos were not true Neanderthals, but belonged to the ancestors of both Denisovans and Neanderthals.

It is also possible that the newly discovered DNA was passed to both Neanderthals and Denisovans, but eventually disappeared from Neanderthals, replaced by other variants.

{snip}

Beth Shapiro, an expert on ancient DNA at the University of California, Santa Cruz, favors an even more radical possibility: that the humans of Sima de los Huesos belong to yet another branch of humans. They might have been a species called Homo erectus, which originated about 1.8 million years ago and became extinct within the last few hundred thousand years.

“The more we learn from the DNA extracted from these fossils, the more complicated the story becomes,” Dr. Shapiro said.

{snip}

In 2006, a team of French and Belgian researchers obtained a fragment of Neanderthal DNA dating back 100,000 years, which until now held the record for the oldest human DNA ever found.

Meanwhile, using improved methods, Dr. Paabo, Dr. Meyer and their colleagues assembled a rough draft of the entire Neanderthal genome in 2010.

That discovery shed light on how Neanderthals and humans’ ancestors split from a common ancestor hundreds of thousands of years ago. It also revealed that Neanderthals and humans interbred about 50,000 years ago.

{snip}

Topics: ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Manaphy

    “Scientists have found the oldest DNA evidence yet of humans’ biological history. But instead of neatly clarifying human evolution, the finding is adding new mysteries.”

    What I would have said is: Whites have found the oldest DNA evidence yet of humans’ biological history. Scientists is too vague of a term, especially when we all know that not a single non-white with a phony science degree because of their affirmative action could ever accomplish the intelligence and discoveries that whites, and only whites, have brought to this world.

    BTW, If Englemann replies about how Asians have higher IQ’s than whites and would have also made such discoveries, I would just like to point out that Asian intelligence is largely overstated, while white intelligence is largely understated. Also the reason for the prevalence of Asians in Ivy League universities (among others) is also due to affirmative action.

    • Chip Carver

      Ignore the trolls. They’re required to post here by their handlers. Their extreme number of posts is proof enough, never mind bogus stats and other items that are taken out of context or made up on the spot.

      Look up Ron Unz’s stats on college admissions and the tribe – and he’s Jewish, along with Dr. Kevin MacDonald’s work on the same. Thousands of Whites, most of the best White students, the highest scoring students, every year, now have literally zero chance of getting into most of the schools considered “the best” in the US. And yes, Asians do benefit from Affirmative Action. Some Asians go on about Affirmative Action hurting them, but they only compare Asians to Asians, and Asians to other non-Whites, not against (non-Jewish) Whites. Because when push comes to shove, a White with equal or better credentials than an Asian will be kicked aside 99 out of 100 times. It wasn’t Asians who set this up.

      Conspiracies? No such thing. Move along Johnny.

      • Andy

        When I did a (very rough) study of Ivy League admissions, I got a required 145 IQ for whites, 139 for Asians, 134 for Jews, 129 for Amerinds, 128 for Hispanics, and 127 for blacks. If the same standard was applied across the board, it would be 138 all around. So Asians may be hurt by Affirmative Action (though not much), but whites are hurt more. Notably Jews, in spite of having *higher* average intelligences than other groups, are given Affirmative Action along with the low-achieving groups.

        • Kris Roys

          Can you provide a link to your data? Google Docs? Also the sources for your data would be great. I can verify the math if you need another pair of eyes, but I would like to see how you came up with your numbers.

          • Andy

            http[colon]//westernwindows[dot]blogspot[dot]com/2013/04/whats-it-take-to-get-into-ivy-league.html

            I used the Forbes top colleges listing and Hillel’s website. My math may well be wrong. (I think I did spot an inconsistency a few months back, and I know very little about statistics.)

          • Kris Roys

            I get the same figures you do making simplifying assumptions like normal dist and sd =15 (or very close, not exactly due to rounding errors and some issues with underlying data) for the first two boxes. But there is one glaring error with your data in the 3rd box, which is your conclusion. The total population of students only adds up to 83.4%. I am too lazy to look up these figures for the entire Ivy League. If you could relist your sources and check your math for the 3rd chart, that would be great.

            Even if I make reasonable guesses to fill in the gaps in your data, the numbers in your conclusion are not that far off, although the difference between required Asian and White IQ shrinks a bit.

            However, there are issues with the assumptions (in any model, that is the most important part) you make which I will describe in a later post.

          • Andy

            Thanks. I will recheck.

          • Kris Roys

            Andy,
            Note: this post is a mess and I hope it doesn’t come across as overly harsh.

            It was late last night, so only glanced at your calculations. Looked over them today: Once again, the first two tables of data are fine. Your third table is a bit of mess. I think you know what I’m talking about. You make a lot of assumptions which are also unlisted but I can see what you did to come up with them. In any case one cannot take the specific IQ figures in the absolute sense with much confidence. What remains useful however is the difference between the required IQs among different races and it is noticeably higher for non-Jewish whites regardless of the assumptions.

            There are other issues which prevent one from taking your data at face value, such as no legacy or international student data which should be broken down. More importantly, your model does not take into account that the US population is large enough that for the most part, there are more than enough Jews and Asians with IQs and SAT scores over the hypothetical threshold to justify significant overrepresentation, although not necessarily to the degree that they do. The real-world data ‘contradicts’ your results in that at the most selective unis, Whites score 310 and 130 pts higher on the SAT respectively than do Blacks and Hispanics, but Asians score 130 pts higher than Whites. So what’s going on here, then? For one thing, once applicants (Whites, Jews and Asians) surpass a minimum IQ threshold, then it is clear that Ivy league schools base their decisions on other factors such as leadership, extracurriculars (especially sports), and extraordinary ability or achievements in some field. Since Asians tend to underperform in these other areas relative to their White and Jewish counterparts, it makes sense that they would have to make up ground with higher GPAs and board scores. Asian culture which places enormous emphasize on educational achievement and brand names probably boosts their scores up a little too. One fact is absolutely clear which is there are nowhere near enough Blacks or Hispanics with IQs over 135 or 138 to match their current representation at Ivy Leagues. I doubt the threshold is as high as 138, but if it is, then based on academic merits alone, the percentage of Blacks and Hispanics at Ivy League schools would be rounding errors. Yes, it is that pathetic. You can play around with the numbers to see how the percentages change based on the IQ cutoff.

            Your data however reveals two big surprises (for me, at least.)

            One is that Jews are indeed overrepresentated despite their high IQs. This assumes of course that IQ is by far the primary factor in the admission process. Jewish students as a whole may have other attributes which compensate for this, like exceptional skills in specific fields: science, writing, art, music. Let’s face it. Based on their disproportionate real world achievement, there is probably something to this. On a side note, the real world data regarding Asians is inconclusive and even contrary to what your table suggests. Asians are most likely at a disadvantage relative to upper-middle class whites (based on academics alone.)

            The second surprise is that low-to-middle class, non-Jewish whites are at a severe disadvantage relative to all races. Maybe this was obvious to some on an anecdotal level, but it’s a different thing to see it through the data. While I cannot take your third table IQ figures seriously, the REQUIRED IQ discrepancy among the races has more mathematical validity. This was a shock to me because I was always too lazy to crunch some of the numbers myself. The slots for middle-class and low-class Whites (predominately Midwestern and Southern) are squeezed by affirmative action cases on the one hand and wealthy whites on the other who may have the benefit of legacy admissions, elite feeder high schools, and of course, the ability to pay costly tuition. It’s an issue that demands immediate redress. Ironically, a stronger case can be made for increasing intellectual diversity via lower class White students from the Midwest or South than by admitting Black students from Phillips Exeter who are the children of investment bankers and surgeons.

            When you link your data in the future, I would avoid the absolute IQ scores and focus more on the discrepancy. I suggest you list all your assumptions, set up your spreasheet so that everything adjusts based on these numbers and play around with them to see how the data changes. This will give you a better sense of the strengths and weaknesses of your data.

          • Andy

            Thanks for the pointers.
            One thing I should mention is the foreign students. If I remember correctly, they are not counted in any of the Forbes data, and I assumed that relatively few of the foreign students were Jewish.

          • Chip Carver

            Just google Ron Unz and Kevin MacDonald regarding college admissions. Non-Jewish Whites are being screwed not only by the Ivy League but by almost every “top school” in the country. Mediocre Jewish students are in fact being admitted ahead of Asians and Whites at most institutions. Whites are hurt the most, and this is by design. While some remark about “gentile” Whites on average not doing as well as E. Asians in school, the fact is that Jews have been getting their tails kicked by the E. Asians for over a decade, they are getting more and more like other Whites, putting in less work overall. But their network is in place, so their admissions to top schools keeps increasing. This country is a mess.

          • Le Fox

            “Whites are hurt the most, and this is by design. While some remark about “gentile” Whites on average not doing as well as E. Asians in school, the fact is that Jews have been getting their tails kicked by the E. Asians for over a decade, they are getting more and more like other Whites, putting in less work overall. But their network is in place, so their admissions to top schools keeps increasing. This country is a mess.” – Wait, wait. That’s confusing. If this is all some Jewish design as you keep insinuating, how come there are middle-class Jews in the first place? I thought they had bags of money and all that stuff. I thought they all lived in high-rises while everyone else had a ghetto. I thought they made everything a ghetto; what sorcery is this?

            If Jews are getting their own butts kicked by E. Asians, doesn’t that imply that they’re /not/ the handlers after all? Or does that imply that E. Asians have their own agendas?

            Oh, you types. You always focus on the good ole’ Jews but never focus on any other group. Plus, this sole admission proves that you don’t actually believe what you write. I take it you’ve got all your info from Kevin MacDonald even though he’s been proven to be a hack and a liar.

            And did it ever occur to you that whites might be responsible, as well? Altruism? Anybody?

            What I find funny is that you even admit that Jews aren’t the problem. If this was all designed I’d expect it to be a little more aligned, but alas, this is not so. Plus, I’d sure like some hardcore evidence on this alleged design.

            Plus, the Ivy League isn’t even worth going because it’s heavily liberal in the first place. Whites want good schools, so this talk of “Oh, we’re all being screwed!” really is defeatism at its core. And that defeatism stems from YOU doing nothing. Whites are still leading most professions. We’re not stupid, so stop saying that we are. It’s only the defeatists that say we’re being outclassed. We’ve always been outnumbered, but never outgunned. We are still in good hands. As for young liberals – they’re college kids! Of course they’re idiots! They cosplay and whatnot. That’s kid behaviour. No Jewish involvement there. I know your type and your arguments, but at least you had the nerve to admit there’s such a thing as a middle class Jew. And I don’t think they run New York because even where they live it’s turning into a ghetto and they can’t do anything about it.

            And I don’t think it ever occurred to you that Jews mostly are first in the interracial marriage race, so their claim that they want to be “pure” is based on hearsay. And the fact that they aren’t in the lead may imply that they’re experiencing relaxed selection. Never ever occurred to you? Okay.

            But this be a conspiracy, yo. Because Kevin MacDonald said so. If you want a more balanced view, try JewAmongYou. He says it pretty well and I don’t think even he would support the view that Jews run everything because their average intelligence is decreasing. Their average birthrate is not impressive, so if they’re behind every conspiracy, then they’re their own guinea pigs.

            “Admissions to top schools keep increasing” – Whites just find other professions. They made up the record of med school students. I guess it also never occurred to you that it’s not just E. Asians or Jews who make up the Ivy League: it’s everyone under the sun. Relaxed standards mean everyone can come in.

            I wouldn’t say it’s a conspiracy because it’s a bad one. It’s white altruism in action. If your argument was about secular Jews, I’d agree, because they hate themselves more than anyone else. Judaism at its core is conservative, but its branches are not. Same with Christianity.

            So:

            > Jewish conspiracy to kick whites out
            > Kicks themselves out
            > Existence of poor/Middle class Jews
            > Existence of E. Asian ethnocentrism at its own expense
            > Still implies a Jewish handler
            > Thinks trolls are all Jews
            > Does not understand the Internet
            > ????
            > PROFIT.

            I would take you seriously, but you sound like a SF hack.
            Trolls trolling trolls, I’d say, with everything being taken too seriously. I should’ve avoided this, but I couldn’t resist.

          • Chip Carver

            Who said Middle Class Jews? Mediocre academic performers. Sounds like someone else is the hack. I go on vacation, come back, and see the tactics of rationalization and obfuscation haven’t changed. Jews run everything? No. They sure have say so in a lot, eh? Troll? Your circular reasoning is almost as bad as some of the silly stuff out of the Hasbara playbook.

        • Emperor Naked

          Different stats for Whites and Jews? Did they make sure to willow out
          all Jews from the White data? It would be great if we could see the
          stats on the IQ comparison of White Christians and secular Whites. I think your math is likely “well” wrong.

          One problem political arguers have in a big way is that they think that facts, science, history, etc., is all a political game that has always been a result of bias. This is what people who haven’t actually been educated in scientific methodology or critical thought and how it is used to arrive at establishing fact. They also don’t realize that there have always been people that are dedicated to the truth and been very professional about it since the time of Herodotus. They make mistakes, but they are/were honest ones that later research clarifies as more information is found (such as archeological remains, etc.). The big problem today is that so few people actually know history or understand what they are talking about, and don’t care. The creation of political myth in the place of truth and the damage that does to actual culture and even future survival in not being appreciated.

          • Le Fox

            Well said. Herodotus was a prophet and most of his stuff has been confirmed. Honest men often find their work confirmed, but liars find their work destroyed – rightfully so.

            Plus, I don’t think most realize that Ashkenazi Jews are – in the most case – over 90% white. As the histories tell us, they came from Ukraine, which has been confirmed.

            Whites and Jews are difficult to measure. The latter has many sects from various backgrounds and the former more or less the same. I think an accurate reading would surprise everyone here.

          • Emperor Naked

            Well, the way dna and genetic research works cannot tell us what is after all a religious definition. The only reason anyone can say “Jews were here, or Jews were there, is because of tribal or group markers that are the same in one earlier known group and successfully followed in whatever location the population is later tested for. There is no gene for “Jew” just as there is no gene for Christian or any other religion. If a Jew is black, there is no doubt that he is not white. If we know where a group was concentrated much earlier and we happen to know something about their culture, such as their religion (or even the sort of pottery they made, we can follow them as a group geographically and through time. This is not difficult to fathom if you have any training in science and especially in the basic sciences involved in medical training or anything that involves molecular biology.

            But Herodotus was not a prophet. He was an honest, literate man trying to write down the best reports he could find about the then known world because he understood the value of passing on the human story as factually as possible. He didn’t say, “This shall come to pass” or any such thing.

        • Bantu_Education

          What % of blacks have IQ’s of 127 or above? And I would bet they are not very black.

          • Andy

            Between 0.03% and 0.3%, depending on what you use for a standard deviation.

          • Bantu_Education

            So, if we take the optimistic 0.3% then less than 1 in 300 of these “ivy-leaguers” should be “black”? Ah, the penny drops, I now understand why they demand quotas. (/satire)

      • Emperor Naked

        Because of the definitions put in place by Nazis and others, it turned out that Jewish researchers have led the genetic research since the start. It’s a good example of how pressure on a group actually helps define it. Jews remained Jews exactly because they were isolated and often driven out of settled regions. This helped preserve them and actually led to the inbreeding that led to the particular rise in IQ of European (Ashkenazi) Jews. What to rid the world of Jews? Then love them. (In fact, Jewish leaders have often decried the reduction of their population due to intermarriage out of Judaism with Christians).

        • Chip Carver

          Jews tend to marry outside their group when they get married for the second time. They tend to marry a fellow Jew first time around to have Jewish children. Once their duty is done, then they move on.

          No one here has said to rid the world of Jews. We do need to put an end to their rule in the US, their stranglehold on our lawmakers. No matter how smart or stupid any group is, if they seek to destroy us, they need to be punched in their collective face and told to stop.

          Jews are obviously trying to eliminate or marginalize Whites with the immigration laws they bought and paid for in so many White countries. This can’t even be argued. The use of the term “Nazi” as a cudgel is losing its effectiveness. It’s becoming more and more plain that the accusers engage in, and did much of what they accuse the dreaded “Nazis” of doing.

      • Le Fox

        “Ignore the trolls. They’re required to post here by their handlers” – OH, NO SON, THERE BE A CONSPIRACY HERE.

        Since when do trolls need handlers? And by saying that contrarian opinions are troll-ish opinions, I’d have to say: You’re taking the Internet too seriously.

        Ho-damn, trolls having handlers…some diaspora that is, eh? Go back to stormfront.

        • Chip Carver

          Sure seems to bother you. Certain people do like to dredge up the word “conspiracy”. Not that there haven’t been conspiracies. Or have there been? Don’t go too far back. Start with the Lavon affair and move forward.

      • Emperor Naked

        Conservative Christians,

        If you’re anything like me, you are sick
        of the liberal media and politicians in America condemning Christian
        principles and values. There is, however, hope! I would like to tell
        you about a place where law defines marriage as strictly between a man
        and a woman, as God intended. A place where abortion will never be
        legal, and the government trusts its own citizens to make good choices
        regarding gun control. This is a place where prayer is still taught in
        school, and Creationism is accepted as the only reasonable explanation
        for the origin of man. The anti-Christian theory of evolution has been
        finally and decisively rejected. The taxes in this place (which
        probably by now sounds too good to be true) are incredibly low, and
        nearly all of the revenue is spent on national defense. In this land
        there is an incredibly low probability of a liberal party ever gaining
        control of the government, so strong family values are never attacked as
        they are by the liberals in this country. I feel that I have kept you
        in suspense for long enough: bring your family to Iran, and you may
        never hear another liberal idea again! True, you may have to switch
        from fundamentalist Christian to fundamentalist Islam, but you will be
        amazed how similar the two groups think. Come to Iran, and your
        religious views will never be offended by gays or pro-abortion
        terrorists again. Come to Iran, the water is fine!

    • Ella

      “I would just like to point out that Asian intelligence is largely overstated, while white intelligence is largely understated.” Look at education. They have around extra 1500 hours of science, language and math than the average US students have. As we rally around sports and dull liberal-required studies, there is your IQ gap!!!!!!

      • willbest

        They don’t seem to be doing more than making iterative improvements on US and EU inventions with all that extra studying. And that is unsurprising because they structure themselves to stomp out free thinking.

        • Max Krakah

          Look at what the Japanese spent their energies on during WWII. They built a class of large submarine aircraft carriers. They basically did nothing but reconfigured existing technologies. Meanwhile the Americans were developing the A bomb and the Germans were developing Rocket technology.

          • Brian

            British radar also.

          • The British were outstanding in some rather peculiar fields. Radar was one, but code-breaking was another. They also successfully “turned” every single one of the German sleeper agents. Nobody gets 100% success, but MI-something did. Anti-submarine weapons were another of their specialties. Their “Squid” weapon was automatically fed range and depth information from the ship’s sonar, and each launcher fired three full-sized depth charges out ahead of the destroyer. The launchers were twinned, and the idea was to sandwich the unfortunate U-boat between two layers of three depth charge explosions. It was lethal. The “Hedgehog” was developed from an unsuccessful anti-tank weapon, the “Blacker Bombard”. The advantage to this one was that the a salvo would blanket an area of water and the projectiles would only explode on contact, which allowed the destroyer to maintain sonar contact in the event of a complete miss, and continue attacking. They also had a one-ton depth charge that a destroyer could launch out of one of her torpedo tubes. Not subtle, but it worked. Of about 33,000 men who served in German’s U-boat arm, some 30,000 were KIA.

            The proximity-fuzed anti-aircraft shell was a joint British-US invention. A Royal Navy officer brought a prototype magnetron to a conference in the USA. It was small, but the part had been laboriously machined out of solid metal. This would obviously be too labor-intensive for something that would have to go into expendable ammunition. The RN officer talked with a USN counterpart who had studied engineering at Annapolis. He loaned the part and the drawings to the Yank, saying “If you lose these, I will probably be shot.” Our Yank had a copy made using sheet metal, the layers pinned in place like those of a padlock. This was instantly cheap enough to use in anti-aircraft shells. Magnetrons for microwave ovens are still produced this way.

          • Emperor Naked

            Good story.

            The U.S. had excellent code breaking capabilities, too. Naval Intelligence broke the Japanese codes, which they changed periodically. But they did it in 1942 in time to predict the Japanese attack on Midway and reverse the momentum of the Pacific War, no little thing. The story is a bit bad, however. it turns out that the individual who did the actual solving was robbed of credit for it by a superior.

            A big lie emerged recently around the British code breaking effort. On November 11th, (Armistice Day), our “Veterans Day,” a story was aired on CNN about how it was British women that broke the German code. The truth was that both men and women worked on that effort. Both British men and women were very keen on word puzzles, etc., as was the case among all the decoders I’ve ever heard of.

            A good film on the development of the Supermarine Spitfire is out there on youtube, I think. It’s called, “The First of the Few.” As a British vintage motorcycle collector/rider, I have long been aware of the development of mechanical genius in England during that time. There were more small motorcycle companies in Britain than were in the entire world in the 1920s-50s and much of that tendency for R&D came from there.

          • My only gripe about the Spitfire was the leading edge of the wing, which was a forged in a D-shape: expensive to produce and time-consuming to repair. That said, the late-war Rolls Royce Griffon engine would have been great in our P-38 Lightning (which also needed a cockpit heater).

          • Emperor Naked

            You only gripe? That’s sort of humorous. Better take a time machine back to 1940 and straighten them out.

          • Max Krakah

            The British also developed a jet engine fighter, the Gloster Meteor. It started operations in July of 44.

          • Emperor Naked

            The Japanese were working on the bomb, too. But the failure of Germany to deliver some needed equipment and the unexpected early turnaround in the Pacific War (Midway) prevented them from getting very far. I read this stuff some time back, but there is some data on this online, just search out “Japanese A-Bomb.” I also remember an interview in the 1980s during one of the August anniversaries of the event. A former Japanese general was asked about the A-Bomb. He said that they were working on it and that there was no question that they would have used it if they had finished it on time.

          • MikeofAges

            The Japanese had a functioning nuclear program located on the Korean peninsula at Hamhung. Some speculate that they tested a fission device but lacked a deliverable weapon and means of delivery.

            When the atomic bomb was used against Japan, the reason why some in the Japanese high command wanted to continue scientific study of the residue from the nuclear explosions before surrendering probably was because they understood the difference between the two types of devices, uranium and plutonium. They were aware of the fact that enough U-235 to build a couple of bombs could be accumulated by experimental means. If one of the bombs was plutonium bomb, that meant the jig was up. As it was, the emperor made the decision to surrender, and the government submitted to the emperor’s authority. That the Soviet Union had declared war against Japan had something to do with as well, I am sure. At the end of the, Japan faced alone the greatest agglomeration of force the world has ever seen, or may ever see.

            The facilities at Hamhug fell into Soviet hands following the surrender. What they they found there may have contributed to the rapid development of their nuclear program.

        • Ella

          It makes sense. Individualists may have a better competitive edge as they can take majority or full credit -self-esteem enhancement- unlike larger group collectives who share in the achievement. If you fail though, it becomes a major blow to esteem as the lone wolf.

      • EuroHero

        That’s a good point. Another part of the IQ story that is rarely told are the scores at the extreme right end of the bell curve. Whites have more people with IQs of 145< than do Asians. In addition, whites are more creative and have more testosterone, which when channeled through high IQ enables a more aggressive and enduring pursuit of overall progression. Look at the technological developmental history between Europe and Asia. European armor (full carbon steel plate), weapons (European Great Sword that can chop through ring-mail which the katana can barely scratch) fortifications, etc, were all far superior.

        • Bantu_Education

          If “Griffe du Lion” is correct and the Asian SD of their IQ is only about 10 (rather than the mantra-like blanket assumption that it is 15 for every race) then Whites will have more people >115 than Asians. Of course this means that whites will have more dunces (the left-side of the curve). Its impossible to get the proof on this because nobody dares do the research – and if the Chinese have done so then they would almost certainly bury any findings that showed whites as superior in intelligence. But I think the empirical facts of invention and innovation and imagination strongly support this thesis. Occam’s Razor anyone?

          • Bantu_Education

            cue the sneaky Hong Kong Chinaman (John Lau?) who tends to enter the conversation at this point, demanding “evidence”, then running away when it is produced.

          • The same “wider bell curve” phenomenon is also present in white men when compared with white women. White men number more geniuses and more idiots than white women.

          • EuroHero

            If the SD of Asian IQ is 10 then that would also mean they have less geniuses than whites which supports what I said. The relatively greater amount of dunces are practically irrelevant since it is the geniuses in society that are responsible for progress. But yeah, I agree that any fact that makes whites look good will be the most susceptible to concealment without a doubt.

    • DonReynolds

      It is not superior intelligence or genetics, physical strength, speed or agility that has enabled white men from Europe to conquer and hold for long periods of time, practically every place on this planet many times. It is (and always was) because of their social organization. Many societies have attempted to duplicate or imitate their social organization and to the extent that they succeed at times, they become temporary rivals. And the fall of Western Civilization, should it ever happen, will be due to CHANGES in their social organization that weakened their abilities.

      • Anon

        The word you are looking for here is morality. Every thing we use words like nobility, altruism, kindness, goodness, humanity, civilization etc. are all euphemisms for white people.

        Some other races can absorb these traits from us. Many more benefit when forced to adhere to these traits by us. However, no other race originates these traits.

        There will be no fall of western civilization because the term western civilization is an oxymoron. All civilizations are “western”….that is to say white.

        White civilization is, however, likely to change….perhaps drastically.

        Toynbee put it best in his law of challenge and response. Civilization declines when its leaders stop responding to problems creatively and instead become corrupt and despotic. This is largely due to soulessness and spiritual stagnation.

        Another way to look at this is the alpha vs beta male paradigm. The job of an alpha male (and understand, ONLY white men can be alpha males) is to tell all other normal men (beta males) what to do in order to win. Win means to successfully address a challenge….survive, build a civilization…a system etc. Alpha males are highly valued for this trait, as they should be.

        The problems start after many important things are won. Suddenly, it is OK to be fat, lazy and disobedient. Beta males feel free to disrespect the alphas, stop listening to them and stop holding them in esteem. After all, the system already created by past generations will take care of them and no one alive can remember a time when they did not. Or imagine a time when they will not. And no one seriously thinks that abusing these systems or engaging in degenerate, non survival behavior has any real consequences at all. The system falls apart and the alpha males desperate try to get others to listen to them to fix it.

        Then, that civilization falls. Bad things happen. People suffer. Alot of things taken for granted, vanish. People once again have needs and “winning” is now again a matter of survival. The old way is gone…..often despised as wicked and corrupt.

        The alpha makes survive. The people who think creatively and have the traits to make people work together again, are still around. And a new civilization arises (actually, just the same white people getting their heads out of their asses at long last).

        Toynbee wrote a 12 volume encyclopedia documenting this happening again and again and again.

      • Max Krakah

        Changes in their “social organization”, oh, you mean feminism, gay rights, gay marriage, affirmative action etc. etc.

        • DonReynolds

          Yes Max……and utilitarianism, and altruism, and egalitarianism, and atheism, and social promotion, and preferential treatment of minorities (of all kinds), and open borders, and the welfare state…. Yes Max….. all of the things that weaken our social organization.

          • Emperor Naked

            “…and utilitarianism, and altruism, and egalitarianism, and atheism,”

            If you think ANY social order can exist without the above three virtues and also allow the space for free thought that leads to the philosophical form (at least) of atheism (not the current, popular political form of atheism that is not really based on philosophical reasoning but political liberalism), then you are badly mistaken. All that is left is social barbarism fueled by a radical religious control and we’re back to theocracy based in fear, burnings of “hereics” persecution of groups of other racially similar people for political reasons, basically to the worst aspects of the Middle Ages.

            Whites like you fail to grasp that all of these virtues are required among whites but reserved for other whites, IF whites are to survive, let alone thrive.

          • DonReynolds

            Utilitarianism, altruism and egalitarianism are not virtues…..nor is atheism a virtue. About this, I am not mistaken in the least. Your Leftist ideology is showing.

          • Emperor Naked

            Nonsense. But people like you, who need labels so that you can cope with overwhelming thoughts identify with what they cannot grasp. But you need a dictionary, there Donny. You cannot fathom the world beyond your own self-generated definitions and political mythology. What you think is “white” is you projected into everything and every white alive. Your limitations of thought are what I think is showing. The West never would have advanced without the freedom of thought and conscience that motivated people like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin and Patrick Henry. Atheism is a philosophical realization that religion is an affliction and a method to human abuse.

            “All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher.” – Luretius 99-45 BCE

          • DonReynolds

            OK…..big deal…..you are an atheist.
            It is all mind over matter…..I do not mind and you do not matter.
            Who cares?

          • Garrett Brown

            When whites “thrived” their countries were majorly Catholic/Christian. Your argument fails.

          • Emperor Naked

            My argument hasn’t even begun to be made, so here you go;

            Just a co-incidence. If you actually knew your own history, you’d know that Christianity fought the technical rise in every way until it found it could benefit from it, but still fought and fights it (albiet in a much less consequential way). The Christians first fought literacy. Next, they fought even the idea that a lay Christian could own a Bible. Then they fought the printing press. They fought the idea of a round globe, they fought scientific methodology as a kind of heresy. The Renaissance occurred after the Church had weakened its own control through the Crusades, which ended up being against white Europeans (Albigensian Crusade), and which triggered the Reformation that triggered the religious wars that set whites to killing whites and again brought huge suffering and delay in European advance. The bitterness learned during these religious wars resulted in the eventual disasters of the World Wars (for Europe and the white race).

            Meanwhile, it was the underlying and older systems of inquiry that began with the Greek schools of philosophic inquiry that preserved (as much as they could) knowledge and the best of Western culture that is what the Renaissance (rebirth”) was actually all about. The Renaissance led to the advent of the so-called Age of Reason which influenced our Founding Fathers the most (as any even amateur historian will know).

            The best you can say for Christianity in Europe is that through its oppression of great minds, it actually served the rise of high thought because resistance/oppression seems to always help define the resistors to themselves. But of course, like the [email protected] Christianity is, it jumps in and lays claim to as much of as it can when it becomes inevitable among the populace.

            White “advocates” like you aren’t qualified to say a thing about it because you don’t know the least bit of your own culture and history beyond a fabricated mythic Christian/political position. People like you can’t see any sort of white culture that isn’t exactly what you yourself feel comfortable with and arrogant in projecting it onto everyone else. Because of this and the fact that Christianity is a fear mongering, childish fantasy full of spiritual blackmail and rational impossibilities, it works to keep people ignorant. As such, it is the worst enemy to the intellect and so the worst enemy of white people.

          • Garrett Brown

            Your argument has no base nor any proof. Have fun though.

          • Garrett Brown

            Your argument has no base nor any proof. Have fun though.

          • Emperor Naked

            If you read history it does. Let me refer you to “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,” by Edward Gibbon, the classic of all Western History in the English language. Read about the Abligensian crusades in ANY history book. You can only feel like a winner by turning your head into a dark corner.

          • Max Krakah

            blah blah blather blah blah

    • 48224

      I think Whites must have a “innovation gene” that Asians do not and that is why Whites make so many breakthrough and lead the way in so many areas.

      • Emperor Naked

        Probably because of the way Asians have developed their languages. They use symbols that must be memorized wherein European languages are not only symbols, but have systems. Therefore, Asians have great memory and recall, which allows them to do well on things like tests that require mere information regurgitation, while whites tend to have the ability to think more multidimensionally. However, superstition and belief in nonsensical religious systems that actually detract points from IQ and the ability to reason has long held whites back from an even better rate of achievement/progress. Historically, it has been those individuals who minimizes the religious and emotional quotients in their lives that provided the most contributions to Western advance.

        • Bantu_Education

          Asians of both genders are “more feminine”, their men think and act more like our women. Not many women have won Nobel Prizes (the useful categories of).

  • Alfred the Great

    They don’t mention the recent DNA study that revealed that there is no commonality of DNA between blacks and Neanderthals. However, we (Whites) have 1% to 4% commonality with Neanderthal DNA. That data point alone suggests that we did not come out of africa.

    • crockadoodle6

      Correct. Whites left Africa long before the commonly stated date of 60,000 ya. The politically correct model requires that we all have similar genetics when, in fact, a white stranger is genetically closer to us than a brother whose father is black….fact. Genetic differences are both suppressed and unfunded.

      Blacks are clearly superior in fast twitch muscle exercises and clearly inferior in cognitive skills.

      • JohnEngelman

        The ancestors of whites left Africa 60,000 years ago. They resembled the Bushmen of southern Africa. The Caucasian race evolved later.

        • abigail greeley

          “The ancestors of whites left Africa 60,000 years ago”- not precisely true. Fully anatomically modern humans may have left the Middle East 60,000 to 70,000 years ago for Europe and Asia- then some also ventured back into Africa to join their archaic or paleo brethren. Prior to that, hominids were “Out of Africa” minimally 1.6 million years to 2 million years ago. Caucasians and other non-Africans possess descendancy from those groups too, of course.

        • Make that 160,000 and you’re closer to the truth.

          • ixObserver

            It is what it is factually, whether 60k or 160k years or something else which hopefully time will tell, but the point of contention among WNs seems to be if Whites had their origins in Africa not when they left.

        • Max Krakah

          you were not there, so stop acting like you were. You are a typical academic, repeating the tired dogma.

          • JohnEngelman

            The consensus of the experts is more likely to be right than wrong. The consensus if the experts, based on both DNA and fossil evidence, is that whites are descended from a fairly small number of Africans who migrated to Asia 60,000 to 70,000 years ago.

            White nationalists do not want to believe that because they do not want to believe that their ancestors 60,000 years ago would not have been served in Woolworth lunch counters in the South 60 years ago. They would have resembled San Bushmen.

            The out of Africa theory of human origins, which is not disturbed by findings mentioned by the article that begins this thread, does not mean that “race is only a social construct.” What distinguishes human races has evolved since 60,000 years ago.

          • Emperor Naked

            Many people here could find some interest in reading, “The Ten Thousand Year Explosion.” The fact is that genetic mutations can be selected for and stabilized in just three generations.

          • Max Krakah

            wow, the general consensus almost always turns out to be wrong. For instance experts said flight was not possible.

          • Emperor Naked

            No, he’s not a typical academic. A typical academic liberal is what he is. You weren’t there either. A real academic provides you with all the information that both Engleman and you are all trying to interpret to your emotional/political advantages.

            You don’t understand science enough to understand that there is no such thing as dogma in the world of science because science expects to change it’s conclusions if new VALID information emerges. The reluctance to change models too quickly is not dogma, but academic conservatism, which is necessary if order is to be maintained in the academic world. Science requires much review and criticism before a new axiom is accepted, but neither academia or science is a stagnant thing. People that can’t stand criticism or critical review are phonies or religious zealots, regardless of the term utilized or usurped.

          • ” … there is no such thing as dogma in the world of science because science
            expects to change it’s conclusions if new VALID information emerges.”

            Starting around 1820 chemists believed in atoms for many, many decades before physicists did. Put differently, the rigorous scientific evidence that chemists found convincing did not convince physicists. Not even the development of statistical mechanics in the 1880s convinced physicists, who did not fully sign on to the atomic theory till Einstein’s early 1900s explanation of Brownian motion.

            Similarly, geologists for the most part ignored/rejected Wegener’s early 1900s writings about continental drift, the data as well as the conclusions. Not till the mid-60s, when it became possible to actually measure the rates of continental drift did geologists give in.

            The fact is that science is not like mathematics. Disagreements are the norm, not the exception, and dogma is what wins the grants.

          • Emperor Naked

            People are not perfect and many times personal conflict delays or influences things for a while, but in the end the best consensus prevails. Science is a method for inquiry into our world and universe, the only one. Because it is investigative and relies on many trials and arguments of the theory because that is what is required by scientific methodology. But the claim that dogma has a live in the science world is not true and so you are conceptually failing. Old, proven conventions are simply a better bet and hard to debunk, because it is exactly that which has to be thoroughly proven to require modification. Just because some people are impatient doesn’t make what they are trying to modify “dogma.” It makes them have to work harder to prove their case and that is a good thing. The rest is crying boo-hoo.

          • I’ll see your dogma-is-different-from-the-prevailing-consensus and raise you my master’s in theoretical physical chemistry, everything but the thesis.

          • Emperor Naked

            Funny, but such your degree doesn’t quality you are a historian or philosopher. I’ve got an advanced degree in science myself and I’ve studied history as a avocation all my life. Simple definitions say that dogma is an idea that NEVER changes. Science at its core is about changing its claims when new, valid information is confirmed. You sound more like you lost out on a scholarship or grant than a man who knows what he is talking about.

          • The Merriam-Webster online dictionary definition of dogma …

            “… a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted.”

          • Max Krakah

            You lost the debate, now you offer empty rhetoric to try to retake ground. Big fail on your part, it seems you have some personal emotional bias in favor of your concept of “science”.

          • Emperor Naked

            Since you have a “sacred” cow in said debate, you have no right to judge who won. There is NO place for dogma in science. There may be dogmatists in the arena of the scientific community, but a scientific endeavor that demands a short cut to acceptance is not science at all.

          • Max Krakah

            “You don’t understand science enough to understand that there is no such thing as dogma in the world of science because science expects to change it’s conclusions if new VALID information emerges”…. real nice in theory, in practice- not so much. Yes, science is supposed to change conclusions when new VALID information emerges, but id doesn’t. Truth be told as well, there is no VALID proof or evidence of evolution, none, never. There has been many hoaxes, such as piltdown man, but never once has there been a fossil of an intermediate species found.

          • Emperor Naked

            You are using personal hyperbole to claim that there is no proof of the Darwinian theory of natural selection and evolution shows that you have nothing but your own dogma and dogmatic view to offer. The proof is so huge and undeniable that only a flat denial by a “true believer” using only dogma for support can be offered.

            You lost the debate years ago.

      • “Blacks are clearly superior in fast twitch muscle exercises and clearly inferior in cognitive skills.”

        And they’re better at music but worse at art and writing.

        • Anon

          Again….what music are you listening to. Are you regularly turning on the radio and going….gee…that Kenya West sure is talented.

          • Fair Dinkum

            Listen to some first rate jazz, particularly Ornette Coleman, the Modern Jazz Quartet and Duke Ellington. These are musical achievements that deserve respect. Or better yet, watch Ken Burns’ documentary series about jazz. It does not diminish our race to recognize and respect the accomplishments of others.

          • “It does not diminish our race to recognize and respect the accomplishments of others.”

            Right you are. Ellington showed the world how to use the advanced harmonies and chord voicings that we take for granted today, especially ninths and thirteenths. Even rap often retains the AABA song structure of the 12-bar and 16-bar blues that underlie much of modern music.

            I’ve barely heard of Kanye West but I still listen to James Brown, and the people of 500 years from now will still be playing some of his songs now and then.

            Most of today’s rap is degenerate filth but hip-hop didn’t start out that way (it’s jazz). For a wonderful example of early white hip hop, google Youtube “Truth Is Out Of Style”. (Mark Griffin was a classical music major at the Univeristy of Texas of all places.)

          • Brian

            Jazz and ragtime developed out of an amalgam of black and white styles. ‘They’ wouldn’t have developed them without ‘us’ either.

          • MikeofAges

            “If it weren’t for blacks we’d all still be singing “She’ll Be Coming ‘Round The Mountain”. That, sir, is cheap shot. But things would be very different, that is true. Exactly in what way is big question, though. Musicians and musicologists can better address that question.

          • “That, sir, is cheap shot.”

            No, it’s editorial license intended to make a point … and it seems to have worked.

          • MikeofAges

            Not it’s not editorial license. It’s what’s called “broadside”. But it was lousy broadside. Now followed up by lousy spin doctoring.

          • EuroHero

            Jazz is for black homos.

          • Actually, jazz is for musician’s musicians. They don’t play for you, they play for themselves. They don’t give a rodent’s rear about getting rich, only about playing alongside superior musicians regardless of color. Top jazz players can and do work till they drop dead of old age.

          • EuroHero

            In other words they play queer music til they drop dead…what a waste of life.

          • Emperor Naked

            Ken Burns typically aggrandizes his chosen issue while ignoring a huge amount of other intersecting historical fact. Jazz was not an “out of the air” achievement of blacks, but a borrowing of Ashkenazi “Klezmer” style of music that Jews brought into the South during Reconstruction. Blacks also used European developed instruments. There is a reason that early 20th century jazz bands were so often led by Jews when not led by blacks. There were some excellent jazz bands in Germany in the 20s-30s that had never had any contact with Blacks or their jazz style.

            The only jazz I have ever found attractive is Brubeck and he’s a white guy. I read up on him and found that he and Paul Desmond (a Jew) took the inspiration for “Take Five” while on a trip in Eurasia and the song is based on what is called “Bulgarian meter.” I don’t think that I need to go on, but I will.

            Most musicians I have known that played jazz sometimes complained about the attitude problems among jazz bands. I mean that they said it was too much competition with everyone trying to outdo the other. I think what happened with jazz is what happened in some ways to rock and roll, where it became a vogue to take it to extreme lengths. But when people calm down, they really just like “That old time, rock and roll.” There are a number of jazz styles, but the type where the musicians are endlessly running up and down scales (is that Bebop?), doesn’t seem so brilliant to me as it seems obsessive. Blowing on a horn as hard and wild as you can doesn’t strike me as attractive or an achievement, but Bunny Berigan (another white guy) sure makes a case for the trumpet. (Check out Can’t Get Started with You). I’ll take classical for beauty and spiritual inspiration any day and I’ll take rock and roll for excitement and variations on older styles of folk music. And I’ll always take folk music as the real music of the real people.

          • [Guest]

            >>>Blacks also used European developed instruments.

            I think the same thing concerning just about any area in which blacks are said to do well. Black success stories are built on white technology, white innovations, white money, white resources, white production, and opportunities provided by white people in a white-founded, white-built, and white-maintained culture to which the net contribution of blacks is far to the negative.

            Take the white out of black success stories and you have black failure.

          • MikeofAges

            Only jazz bands have attitude problems?

          • Emperor Naked

            I didn’t say that. Come on, think for yourself a little. Jazz musicians have a reputation for elitism. If you don’t know that, you haven’t been around music and musicians enough.

        • rightrightright

          You call their noise music? Come on.

        • Max Krakah

          I work in the art field, and there are some AA cases that I occasionally have to work with. You are right, they are absolutely incompetent at art. A child with parkinson’s disease would create better work.

          • “A child with parkinson’s disease would create better work.”

            Better than me, too — I like to say that I can’t even draw stick figures.

            I dabble in abstract art and jewelry design, but because I can’t draw I don’t consider myself a real artist.

          • Max Krakah

            Good, you’re not.

        • [Guest]

          >>>And they’re better at music but worse at art and writing.

          By what criteria are we to judge music, the visual arts, and writing so that we can determine where on the scale to place each individual creation?

          Below you said that “most of today’s rap is degenerate filth.” But blacks would call it better than Bach.

          • I’m awfully sorry but art is what good artists say it is, not what bad artists or non-artists say. And so on through all the various creative forms of human expression. So, I’ll value the opinions of a Michael Caine on the subject of acting, but not on what constitutes good music.

            As the pioneer in the late 80s of pre-recorded midi cover music for computer bands I can tell you that the critique space is two dimensional — like/don’t versus good/bad.

          • [Guest]

            That’s an interesting but unconvincing statement. No need to be sorry, though.

          • If you feel that you should be allowed to like whatever you like, I agree. Just don’t confuse your likes with taste.

          • [Guest]

            I don’t mean to belabor the point, it’s just that I’m not buying the idea that blacks are better than white people at music-making.

            To determine that acting is good because someone you’ve determined is a good actor (such as Michael Caine) believes it’s good strikes me as circular.

            If you can’t draw stick figures yourself, how do you determine that blacks are worse than white people at art? Is a good artist telling you that? And if you’re not an artist yourself, how did you reach the conclusion that the good artist is good and therefore qualified to judge the artistic output of blacks?

            ‘Round and ’round it goes.

          • “If you can’t draw stick figures yourself, how do you determine that
            blacks are worse than white people at art? Is a good artist telling you
            that? And if you’re not an artist yourself, how did you reach the
            conclusion that the good artist is good and therefore qualified to judge
            the artistic output of blacks?”

            Again, I took editorial license. The fact is that I come from a family of painters, writers and musicians and when I was a kid our home frequently had creative people as guests.

            While I myself have never been interested in picking up a brush, as a kid I spent a lot of time in the art museums of NYC. In college I passed two terms of History of Art midterms and finals without ever attending a class — I already knew the material.

            I’m also a former music producer and in the late 80s pioneered the business of pre-recorded midi music for early computer-based bands. I have relative pitch and a near-eidetic memory for music when the pieces interest me.

            You might not consider me qualified to make these judgments but I know differently.

          • [Guest]

            This exchange might have been somewhat off-topic for this forum, but it’s been interesting. Thanks.

        • ben no

          No blacks are not better at music. Classical music and neo-classical guitar are obviously not African. Silly rabbit.

      • Anon

        Whites never left africa. We were never there…..which is the point.

        The out of africa theory isn’t just wrong, it is an intentional lie.

        Also, as far as blacks being superior physically….only on the TV, my friend. Spend any time at all in any inner city and ask yourself, what percentage of the blacks you see, could you easily outrun. The percentage is pretty high.

        The teeny, tiny, infinitesimal group of blacks in pro sports, are large, muscular, fast etc. compared to the average. But your average black….especially over age 30, is like Rerun on What’s Happening. Fat, slow, weak. By age 40, most need a powered chair to tool around walmart. By age 50….well…not too many live that long.

        • Brian

          The Out of Africa theory is pretty much the only game in town these days, as supported by scientific data. Recognition of racial differences is perfectly compatible with common African origin. It’s the time we’ve been separated, and the environmental differences, that make the distinction in our time…not separate origins.

      • Max Krakah

        You mean a “half brother” that is black, correct?

      • Brian

        The differences between whites and blacks can easily be produced in 60,000 years, given the remarkably different environments we’ve been in since.

    • Chip Carver

      We could jokingly say that Africans came from Europe or somewhere else originally – that wandering, primitive tree dwelling nomads on the run from harsh weather, too lazy or not tough enough or smart enough to make it, kept moving until they found a nice warm place with lots of animals running around and fruit falling off trees. And while Caucasians and Asians kept developing and advancing, the hot weather peoples…well, you know.

      Seriously, this story shows that the more you learn, the less you realize you know.

      • ixObserver

        “Seriously, this story shows that the more you learn, the less you realize you know.”

        So true!

    • JohnEngelman

      Negroes who have Neanderthal DNA are really mulattoes. They got the Neanderthal genes from white ancestors.

    • Spartacus

      I believe there are some scientists in Russia who claim modern humans originated somewhere in central Asia, and not in Africa. Maybe you should look that up.

      • Bossman

        Humans and also all mammals originated in Africa. There’s all kinds of evidence for that.

        • Spartacus

          All mammals ? Really ? Isn’t that kind of a stretch ?

          • Bossman

            No, it is not a stretch. All mammals radiated out of Africa.

          • Prove it.

          • Bossman

            You can go read a book called: Mammalian Radiation or go to Google and do some research. Africa was once a super-continent and all the other continents slowly drifted away by what is called continental drift. India drifted away from Africa and bumped into Eurasia to form the Himalayas.

    • JohnEngelman

      Europeans have 1 to 4 percent Neanderthal DNA. The rest came from modern humans who evolved in Africa 100,000 to 200,000 years ago and probably resembled San Bushmen.

      • Like I said: about 160,000 years ago.

        • JohnEngelman

          The informed consensus is 60,000 to 70,000 years ago.

          • Now you are contradicting yourself.

            I don’t even have the proper number of teeth – at age 47, I only have 24 – let alone the right shape for them, and you are still somehow wishing that I’m some sort of descendant of a lost, wandering African.

            I do not believe it.

          • Marc Zuckurburg

            I support comprehensive immigration reform.

            Comprehensive immigration reform will raise wages and salaries, strengthen national security, prevent terrorism, enhance our domestic crime-fighting ability, ensure that we continue to encourage the best and brightest to partake of the American dream, enhance our competitiveness and our ability to innovate, and make America more prosperous.

            Make my immigration reform comprehensive, please!

          • Metasticize my malignant brain tumor, please!

    • Emperor Naked

      Yes, I think what will become clearer in the near future is that blacks or “negroe” developed after these groups left Africa. Negroes do have the oldest, that is less mutated dna among the modern races, but that has never meant that they did not become as they are until after the migrations of other groups left Africa or that homo-sapiens were black originally. (A chimpanzee’s actual skin is light, not dark and they are the nearest non-humanoid biped).

    • ixObserver

      It doesn’t necessarily suggest that Whites did not come out of Africa. Whites could still have set out of Africa long long ago and mixed with Neanderthals in Europe/Asia while those left behind in Africa didn’t.

      “Neanderthals didn’t want to mix with the blacks!”

      LOL. I think they would have to whatever extent if they cohabited or were in proximity. History reflects this. Moreover who knows what the social mores, taboos etc were at the time of Neanderthals. Given that they were more primitive than today’s humans their societies would have been much much simpler, more closer to the animal kingdom basically.

  • crockadoodle6

    Proof that homo sapien sapiens have been breeding with lower forms of genus homo can be found in Obamas mother who bred with a feral black poser with real eye glasses

    • Alfred the Great

      Is “playa” synonymous with poser?

      • crockadoodle6

        They are all ‘playas’. Just listen to their music. Obama’s dad posed as an educated ‘opinion leader’. Basically, he was almost as full of $hit as his now famous son, but didn’t get the benefit of affirmative action and hidden school records….he just disappeared when they asked for child support.

  • crockadoodle6

    At the time of first colonization blacks did not have the wheel, had not built a boat, and had not domesticated any plants or animals. In short they had no civilization and a culture that was at the level of chimpanzees.

    • Fair Dinkum

      They didn’t have the wheel, but they certainly had agriculture and cattle. They had canoes and rafts for navigating rivers, and there was an extensive network of trade routes. Many sub-Saharan populations had mastered metallurgy ranging from copper to bronze and even iron and steel. No African group developed a system of writing by themselves, but some readily adapted Arabic script for their use, just as some of the Celtic and Germanic peoples of Europe adapted Latin script for their needs. In terms of technology and social and political organization, sub-Saharan African cultures were certainly inferior to European and Asian cultures, but pre-colonial Africans were not primitive, ape-like ape-like hunters and gatherers.

      • EuroHero

        Actually they were primitive, extremely primitive my little raging Afrocentric. Tell me what mechanical device did they invent? What was the tallest building they ever constructed? Nothing over a single story. What form of math and advanced math did they develop? As for iron and steel well iron isn’t impressive and btw the Zulu nation were still using iron tipped spears when Europeans were using repeating bolt action rifles,…that’s called primitive by comparison. All steels are not equal. Can you tell me what percentage of slag their steel contained? Want to take a guess? Here’s a clue,…it is laughable.

        • Brian

          No one is claiming that SSA was not primitive, compared to Euro, Asians and even Meso-America. But saying that they were at the level of chimpanzees is going too far. Even the Oz aborginals were beyond that. The distinctions are stark enough that we don’t have to exaggerate.

          • EuroHero

            I agree with your latter point, but I didn’t like how that lunatic Afrocentric tried to imply that Africans were inferior but not primitive compared to Europeans and others. Did you know these morons are actually saying Italians are not white but black? I’ve been surrounded my whole life by this type of mentally crippling mind dribble and it is just like needles in eyes when I see it written. He/she also said they are not ape-like. We are ALL ape-like since we are all apes according to taxonomy. The ignorance just burns.

      • Iron and steel were introduced by the Egyptians, likewise domesticated cattle after the Assyrians conquered Egypt.

        African blacks never tamed any of their wild, native ruminants. Genuine cattle are not native to Africa at all; they were native to the central Eurasian steppes. Chickens were also introduced; they were native to south China and Vietnam.

    • Bossman

      In the lush tropics they may not have needed many of the things that other racial groups needed to survive.

      • Your statement completely ignores successful white, Oriental and Amerind survival in very harsh climates – in which they would have had to adapt. The short legs of eastern Europeans, Amerinds and some Asians are a cold-weather adaptation that lessens the surface area of the body. Light skin allows better use of sunlight to produce adequate amounts of Vitamin-D in cloudy weather and short winter days. Adult lactose tolerance allows white people to consume milk products as a source of protein without killing a valuable animal. Even our intellectual prowess was forced upon us by the environment; we evolved to survive outside the tropics, and I suspect this was not a pleasant process.

  • JohnEngelman

    Until the development of agriculture human evolution was moving faster in Africa. There were two reasons for this. The human population in Africa was higher. African humans had more genetic diversity. Negroes still have more genetic diversity than all the other races combined.

    This means that Negroes can evolve faster in response to the population pressures of civilization. Because the races are merging together it will not matter.

    • M.

      Negroes may have had more potential for evolution, but Whites and Asians still “outevolved” them.
      Why are you so pessimistic on “races merging together”? Like it’s a fatality. It’s not. Whites just have to man up on this issue once again.

      • IstvanIN

        Blacks devolve.

    • This means that Negroes can evolve faster in response to the population pressures of civilization.

      Maybe I’m misreading what you are saying, but….

      this would have to mean that you should see much greater variation among black populations throughout the world. Any group or entity that has the ability to move from point A to point B quicker than other groups and entities should produce wild fluctuations in abilities of their populations throughout the world. Where are the black nations known for producing master artisans, architects, mathematicians, engineers, philosophers, etc.? Where are the black thinkers who have solved the countless problems and epidemics throughout black Africa? I just don’t see much variation among black populations of the world. Not when compared to other races. And I’m not just saying this because I am very pro-White.

      • JohnEngelman

        Genetic diversity means more possible alleles for every genetic location. Wolves have more genetic diversity than the ancestors of house cats, so dog breeders can do more with dogs than cat breeders can do with cats. Dog breeds differ far more in size, and shape, cat breeds.

        60,000 to 70,000 one hundred to several hundred modern humans left Africa. Everyone who is not a Negro is descended from them.

        At this time there were probably several tens of thousands of modern humans in Africa. Negroes are descended from them. They had many more alleles. Their descendants still do. It was not until the development of agriculture about 10,000 years ago, and civilization 5,000 years ago that the descendants of those who left Africa earlier faced population pressure for superior intelligence.

      • Brian

        The black diversity is at the genetic level, not the macro level of civilizational achievement. DNA, not behaviour.

        • But that doesn’t explain how blacks can supposedly “evolve faster” than others.

          Evolve is usually synonymous with advancement, progress and attaining higher levels of learning and understanding in order to offset that population pressure John was speaking of. None of those things are synonymous with black people anywhere on the planet.

          White men built airplanes. White men scale mountains. White men explore the ocean depths. White men have been to the moon. White men explore the solar system and beyond. There’s no real population pressure to do any of this, so does that mean that these aren’t true evolutionary feats of the mind and body? Black people simply stagnate and face the same problems year after year, century after century. This whole genetic diversity leading to faster stages of evolution line of thinking is a dead end.

          • Brian

            ‘Evolve faster’ in this context just means that whatever is thrown at them, like a new disease, they would have some fraction of the population with some genetic variant that might have resistance to it, because of the broader underlying genetic diversity in SS Africa, and the fraction that survives the disease could spread that gene through the descending population better. It’s like if you toss a Mandarin speaking Chinese person in a room– the greater diversity of languages known by other people in the room, the greater the chance of someone there being able to communicate with that one guy. It’s not a value judgement of superiority in this case. Men came out of Africa originally, so the remnant population there has a lot of original genetic diversity. The groups like Europeans, Austronesians, Meso-Am Indians, and Asians, are from smaller fragments of the original group, so they are more attuned to specific environments they’ve encountered, but with greater similarity and less genetic diversity. A person in Nigeria could have any of 10,000 ancestors from 100k years ago; everyone in Iceland might come from just 30-40 ancestors from that far back. The white man is a thoroughbred built for racing; the Asian is a draft horse built for pulling wagons. The African is a mixture of all the original traits of the ancestral horse– greater underlying diversity at the genetic level, but not particularly attuned to modern ‘racing’ conditions like we are.

            Evolve is usually synonymous with advancement, progress and attaining higher levels of learning and understanding
            ===
            No, it isn’t synonymous with any of that. Evolution in the biological sense only means change in the genotype and accompanying phenotype, in response to mutation, selection, environmental change and such. There is no inherent ‘forward/upward’ movement implied. All nature cares about is giving you the maximum chance of surviving and reproducing, in your current environment. If food gets scarce on the ground but can be gotten from treetops, the giraffe develops a long neck. If food gets plentiful on the ground again, the giraffe will revert to a short neck so as not to waste calories on building a uselessly long neck. There is no inherent ‘better’ to it either way.

            There’s no real population pressure to do any of this, so does that mean that these aren’t true evolutionary feats of the mind and body?
            ===
            White men are built to cooperate and plan ahead with high intelligence and flexibility, to survive harsh winter conditions and seasonal unpredictabilities, short growing seasons, etc. The traits we’ve enhanced in response to all of that coincidentally allow us to do better at modern civilizational tasks, like inventing stock markets and gunsmithing…the same underlying physical and mental traits apply to the Information Age even though they were ‘intended’ for the Ice Age. Longer fingers selected/evolved for grasping mammoth-hunting spears can be an advantage now, in playing the piano.

          • No, it isn’t synonymous with any of that. Evolution in the biological sense…

            Evolve : : to change or develop slowly often into a better, more complex, or more advanced state : to develop by a process of evolution

            1) develop gradually, especially from a simple to a more complex form:

            You don’t get to pick and choose what “sense” you believe is relevant, and then tell me evolve doesn’t mean what the actual definition of the word is understood to be. Stop trying to explain how some hypothetical natural selection process is favoring of black people. That big mass of nerves and tissue that sits atop your shoulders would most certainly qualify in the “biological sense” of your understanding of what it means to evolve. How quickly does the black man’s brain evolve to offset all of the population pressures and competition of today?

            White men are built to cooperate and plan ahead with high intelligence and flexibility, to survive harsh winter conditions and seasonal unpredictabilities, short growing seasons, etc.

            You mean they evolved to get to this point, right?

          • Brian

            You don’t get to pick and choose what “sense” you believe is relevant, and then tell me evolve doesn’t mean what the actual definition of the word is understood to be.
            ===
            Yeah, actually I can do exactly that. Do you not understand that many English words have multiple meanings, often a colloquial sense and a specific technical sense? ‘Evolution’, ‘theory’, ‘work’, and even ‘gravity’ all have conversational meanings that don’t apply to a scientific discussion. We are talking about genetics here, so that is the sense of ‘evolution’ that applies…the Darwinian sense, not some meaning of how Impressionism evolved into another painting style, or how the Ford Mustang’s design ‘evolved’ over time.

            Stop trying to explain how some hypothetical natural selection process is favoring of black people.
            ===
            Natural selection is real, not hypothetical. And ‘favoring’ is not an all-or-nothing proposition. Whites are more generally favored to fit in with industrial civilization, but there are certain advantages that blacks have for genetic reasons. Malarial resistance for example. Or perhaps you’ve noticed that >85% of NBA players are black. Blacks also physically develop certain benchmarks in infancy faster– walking, holding their heads upright, etc. That could possibly be of some advantage under some conditions, or it wouldn’t have happened that way. Every group has at least a few ancestral advantages, even if the overall picture in modernity is quite different. Whites are better able to built moon rockets, sure, or anything involving brainpower. But the black man might have some advantage against sunburn or sleeping sickness.

            White men are built to cooperate and plan ahead with high
            intelligence and flexibility, to survive harsh winter conditions and
            seasonal unpredictabilities, short growing seasons, etc.

            You mean they evolved to get to this point, right?
            ===
            Yes. In terms of suitability for modern civilization, they are the Model T and we are the Corvette.

          • You said evolve is not synonymous with advancement, progress, and attaining higher levels of learning and understanding. When you are shown that the actual definition of the word runs perfectly parallel to what I said, you then spout something about specific technical definition vs colloquial meanings. So you get spanked with a basic understood definition of a word and have to claim all those dictionaries got it wrong?

            Natural selection is most certainly hypothetical when you defend an argument that says black people “evolve faster,” but give nothing as an example of how all that evolving has produced anything you can actually point to as being a sign that they evolved faster. Could, might, should…. none of those words can be used to call something a scientific FACT. You are, therefore, arguing a hypothetical point that natural selection favors black people.

            Natural Selection sometimes gives the nod to the stronger. Sometimes it gives it to the smarter. Sometimes it gives it to those who adapt more quickly. Sometimes it’s a combination of those.

            Then there’s one more often forgotten factor that sometimes plays a key role. It’s along the same lines as adaptation with a hint of intelligence thrown in, but it is strictly an emotional characteristic. It’s called the Initiative Factor. It’s a reward for taking risks, exploring and pushing boundaries. It doesn’t always depend on being stronger, smarter or even having the ability to physically adapt more quickly than others. While the black Africans were mostly living a primitive life confined to a single continent, White Europeans were putting their stock in every corner of the globe. Some would say like an evil virus or plague, but I guess since natural selection/evolution knows no good or evil, then I guess we should refer to this part of history as nothing more than evolutionary progress.

            If you know anything about black people, then you would know they are not risk-takers beyond what would be a very basic self-serving definition of the word. So when black Africans are staring at the giant 7-mile-wide ball of flame that is streaking across the sky and about to wipe out every biped on the planet, there will be White men and women watching this catastrophe unfold from about 200 miles above the Earth. My hypothetical version of natural selection and evolution isn’t too far from reality today.

          • Brian

            Your ‘basic dictionary definition’ _DOES NOT APPLY HERE_. Read this again if necessary. We are talking about Darwinian biological evolution, not any meaning of the word that a dictionary definition could possibly encompass. Darwinian biological evolution of species does not imply progress or advancement.

            when you defend an argument that says black people “evolve faster,” but give nothing as an example of how all that evolving has produced anything you can actually point to as being a sign that they evolved faster.
            ===
            I did explain this, in context of the original comment, and gave an example. Whether you read it and understood it is up to you.

            If you know anything about black people, then you would know…
            ===
            Is this the first time on Amren you have read anything I’ve written?

          • You don’t trump dictionaries. Sorry, Brian, but your opinion isn’t really that special. Evolution is Evolution. Advance and Progress have always been part of the understanding of what it means to evolve.

          • The stupid and uncooperative ones died.

      • Bossman

        The best and the brightest of the black race are always interbreeding with whites.

      • DonReynolds

        I agree with you Celestial Time. I reject the idea that Negroes can evolve faster when they have YET to develop the stomach enzyme necessary to digest milk products. Adaptation to food would seem to be pretty basic. We can worry about more recent failures to evolve later.

        • You wrote something to JohnEngelman that is now deleted. Do you remember what was deleted?

      • DonReynolds

        Yes, Celestial Time. “I said it was the worst of his many posts on this web site. Pure baloney.” No idea why that would be worthy of delete, unless John is doing the moderating.

        • Thank you. My best guess is that a woman or very effeminate man is pulling the moderator trigger. So the Yellow John theory might make perfect sense. No offense to women, just an observation.

  • dd121

    The left is going to use this to say, see race mixing has always been going on, nothing new.

    • M.

      There has been some interbreeding, but the fact of the matter is only one main species survived in Europe: the Cro-Magnon. The Neanderthal admixture only accounts for 3 or 4% of modern-day Europeans.
      If miscegenation was that widespread, we would have way more Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA.

      • dd121

        That’s a very good point.

      • That 1-4 percent is only an average. My best friend Glenn looks every bit of 50% and is built approximately like a gorilla, right down to the short legs and 32-inch biceps. Glenn never worked out; he’s just naturally built like a gorilla.

        Before agriculture was developed, people were apex-predators, even driving other apex-predators away from kills. A given bit of land would not support very many top predators, so the neanderthals would naturally have been few in number.

        European whites and east Asian orientals have some neanderthal traits, but these are different traits, which we inherited independently of each other.

        • Jack Burton

          Humans are still apex predators, due to our social organization and tool-making, not innate physical abilities. Humans wouldn’t have much success winning a physical fight vs a gorilla, tiger or bear for example.

          It would be interesting to have a study on individuals who are at the high range of Neanderthal or other archaic admixtures to see how that plays out. The European average for Neanderthal ancestry is 2.7% according to 23andMe, which is what I have.

          • Pit three or four men with spears against a tiger or a bear, with a few women to throw rocks, and what you get is a human family that eats and a tiger or bear driven off its kill. If it decides to fight, you get another dead animal and more food and clothing for the humans.

            Humans made the American lion, the smilodon and the cave bear extinct in North America and they did this with flint or obsidian-tipped spears.

      • JohnEngelman

        The differences between Cro-Magnons, Neanderthals, and Denisovans were considerably more than between each of the surviving races.

        Evidence from the shapes of their brains and from their campsites indicates that Cro-Magnons were considerably more intelligent than Neanderthals. Nevertheless, the Neanderthals had a few genes worth having. So did the Denisovans.

        • Jack Burton

          That’s pure speculation. It is known that Neanderthals actually had larger brains, which has a correlation with high IQ.

          Assuming that the more intelligent race is necessarily the one that survives goes against the current predicament of White survival.

          • DonReynolds

            Intelligence cannot save a race if they are badly led. Part of the Roman problem, was not their intelligence or their organization or level of technology…..it was sweet wine, stored in lead casts. Leaded wine was the more expensive, sweet wine, preferred by the wealthy aristocracy. Yes, they were badly led by lead-poisoned lunatics.

          • JohnEngelman

            The parts of the Neanderthal brain that were larger were the parts that regulate reflexes and coordination. The frontal lobes, which determine conscious thought, were smaller.

            The Neanderthal stone tool kit was less varied. Neanderthals do not seem to have practiced trade. They do not seem to have been able to plan for the future.

          • Jack Burton

            Well, the parts that were larger where the visual centers of the brain, Neanderthals had much larger eyes.

            Given the Out of Africa theory, they speculate that one reason for this is that Neanderthals evolved in the low light north, while we had plenty of light in Africa. We are also more social than Neanderthals, which probably was the prevailing factor.

            The fact that they survived for hundreds of thousands of years refutes your idea that they couldn’t plan. Obviously they were a very resilient species given the climate they survived in. Their extinction is still an unsolved puzzle.

          • Grantland

            Neanderthal-sapiens mixture occurred only before 50k years BP, when h sapiens was probably a prey item for incursions of Neanderthals in the Levant. Modern h sapiens sapiens (Cro-Magnon) did not interbreed with Neanderthals. They killed them.

          • Grantland

            Neanderthals had a pronounced occipital bun, implying a large occipital lobe, the portion of the brain dealing with visual processing. This, together with their very large eye-sockets and their exclusively carnivorous diet, would imply that they were nocturnal predators. It also explains the large brain/low(er) intelligence contradiction.

          • JohnEngelman

            Thank you for that information.

          • Trade presupposes the notion that surplus material is being produced and that group A can somehow find a group B who wants it. The population density of apex-predators with no agriculture must have been very low, which would naturally inhibit any sort of trade.

          • JohnEngelman

            The best kind of stone to use in stone weapons is flint. Neanderthals used flint if it was available where they lived. Otherwise they used local stones. Cro-Magnons nearly always used flint. This indicates that Cro-Magnons who lived in areas without flint traded with Cro-Magnons who lived in areas with flint.

            Also, sea shells from the Mediterranean Sea have been found in Cro-Magnon camp sites as far away as the Ukraine. This again indicates that trade was going on.

            There were not trade caravans traveling around. Instead, valued items passed from one group to another group.

      • Bossman

        The Neanderthals may have been too dumb and ugly to breed with the Cro-Magnons much.

        • Jack Burton

          Dumb and ugly never stopped Negroes.

        • DonReynolds

          Dumb and ugly applies to quite a few welfare moms, but obviously that does not make them less fertile.

      • Jack Burton

        2.7% is the European average.

    • JohnEngelman

      What the left has been saying is true.

      • WR_the_realist

        There simple fact that distinct races have evolved is proof that race mixing was much less common than it is today.

        • JohnEngelman

          What you say is true.

          During human evolution different sub species of humans evolved in different areas in response to different climates and other population pressures. When these encountered each other one displaced the other, although not before some genes were exchanged.

          • Fak_Zakaix

            Like the stupid Germans displaced the smart Jews in the ’40s, do you mean? Survival of the fittest, eh?

          • JohnEngelman

            What matters is survival to the most intelligent. They will have descendants centuries from now. The rest of us will not.

          • Fak_Zakaix

            Unless genetic diseases from inbreeding kill them. But tell me how the stupid Gypsies managed to survive to this day. Not only survive but multiply!
            What about your faiblesse, the Blacks? How they managed to survive in civilised America? And not only survive but multiply!

          • M.

            They survived because of human rights and socialism, which impedes nature from taking its course.
            That’s also why they’re still so numerous in Africa.

          • JohnEngelman

            The Germans got the beating they deserved. The Jews got Israel.

          • Fak_Zakaix

            “Accidents of history”…

    • Brian

      Technically it has, but that’s no excuse to intentionally, blithely destroy all the variations and useful distinctions that have arisen, any more than we would have done all the work of producing different dog breeds and then we throw in the towel and just breed them all back into a uniform mutt.

  • sbuffalonative

    Based on previously discovered ancient DNA and fossil evidence, scientists generally agreed that humans’ direct ancestors shared a common ancestor with Neanderthals and Denisovans that lived about half a million years ago in Africa.

    Too many poltically correct-driven scientist hoped the Out of Africa model would destroy the idea of race once and for all.

  • bigone4u

    One hundred thousand years from now, a race of scientists arriving on earth from another planet will marvel at how the mudsharking and oil drilling destroyed the white race, leading eventually to the extermination of human life on this planet. They will say a prayer for us to their gods and then climb back into their spaceships while ruminating on how destructive the DNA of the black race was.

    • IstvanIN

      Yup, whites will be the lost race like Denisovans and Neanderthals.

  • D.B. Cooper

    Come on, man! Haven’t you seen the final episode of Battlestar Galactica?
    Earth’s hominids mixed with the survivors of Caprica and a few Cylons, resulting in the modern human we are today.

    It’s all in Genesis.
    Chapter 4: Cain’s lineage is listed, and his offspring are where we got our skills in the trades and arts. Cain is NOT Adam’s son, and it is the only way that whole banishment story makes perfect sense, and it is hinted throughout the Bible.
    Chapter 5: Adam’s lineage all the way to Noah’s sons. It starts with Seth. Cain is not included in the list of Adam’s descendants.

    Ch. 6
    Verse 2: The sons of God saw the daughters of men, and took them as wives.
    Verse 3: This is where God took away our 1,000 year lifespan, probably by selective breeding.
    Verse 4: The “There were Giants in those days” verse, and where we were no longer the same species as what Adam and Eve were.

    Every once in a while, I’ll explain my theory to the most serious bible thumper. A very large number of them have that look of the fog being lifted. I have come to recognize that same look when a white liberal realizes that diversity was all a bit lie.

  • M.

    Haha, more discredit on the “out of Africa” theory! I love it!

    • JohnEngelman

      This is consistent with the out of Africa theory. Human evolution began in Africa. Perhaps three times a small number of humans left Africa. Until the last group left human evolution was moving faster in Africa because the population was higher, and there was more genetic diversity.

      Agriculture began in the fertile crescent in Asia ten thousand years ago, and in what is now China a thousand years later. It was only then that human evolution moved faster outside of Africa. This is because agriculture exerts different population pressures than hunting and gathering.

    • Jack Burton

      More scientific evidence that we are not all the same, we all don’t have the same DNA, and some populations are in fact more primitive.

    • DonReynolds

      I do not know why anyone would believe the “Out of Afrika” theory to be significant. Harlem, New York, would probably remind you of Afrika today but was originally a Dutch town and had nothing to do with Afrika. Just because there are Negroes in Afrika today does not mean everyone is related to them.

  • Anon

    What exactly is the mystery here? Evolution is junk science, only kept around as an anti-Christian canard by atheist zealots and anti-science liberals. It fails every single test put to it across all scientific disciplines. And here it is again, failing when applied as the “descent of man” hypothesis. Yet again, we are seeing scientific evidence that is THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what we would see were evolution true.

    This is only troublesome to those that absolutely must adhere to evolution as religious dogma. To anyone else, the implications are CLEAR. More than one, intelligent, tool using hominid walked the earth along side mankind. They are gone now. Or are they….it’s not like any serious attempt has been made to see if any of the people thought of as human are actually a different species more related to one of these others. We really don’t know until such a study is undertaken.

    What implication is there for the human condition knowing that others, like us, but not “of us” existed on this earth. Proof that humanity is not unique in the animal kingdom.

  • [Guest]

    “Now we have to rethink the whole story.”—Dr. Arsuaga

    I enjoy that quotation. The “stories” that are having to be rethought derive from various scientific facts put together incorrectly by scientists, right? It’s not that the science is in error (although it’s incomplete, as it always will be), but the interpretation of the science is wrong.

    Perhaps a little less story-telling, i.e., interpretation, would be in order.

  • Talltrees

    That’s because they were indoctrinated with Marxism.

    • JohnEngelman

      Indoctrination only works when it tells people what they want to believe, or what they know to to be true in their own lives.

      • DonReynolds

        This is your worst of many posts on this web site. Pure baloney.

        • He’s here to sow discord and misinformation, and to try and steer opinion away from any kind of pro-White views that would exclude his fetishes and agendas.

          Sorry, John, but indoctrination is about conditioning. Not everyone wants to believe they are the oppressive and hateful people that they are painted as, but some will begin to believe it if they are conditioned to believe it is true. This is especially true when you are talking about children who were never given the opportunity to think independently.

          • JohnEngelman

            I am here because I enjoy political arguments.

            In addition, I really do believe in race realism, although I perceive of it as a scientific theory, rather than a movement or a cause.

            Race realism holds that race is a valid biological classification, that the different races differ in average ability levels and behavior, and that these differences have evolved in response to different population pressures lasting for hundreds and thousands of years.

            Race realism is different from white supremacy. A race realist acknowledges that Orientals tend to be more intelligent, more sexually responsible, and more obedient to the law than whites. In short, they tend to be better people.

        • JohnEngelman

          Actually, it is one of my many excellent posts. Pure gold.

      • Talltrees

        During their most impressionable time, youth, Marxists’ primary target, rely on adults for education, all knowledge. They believe what parents tell them, schools teach, and what government and media say. With limited life experience, they are unable to make the distinction or even question, whether what they are being told is morally acceptable, true or untrue. Even non-verbal language sinks in.

        The reason for segregation, as you know, was to preserve the White race in the United States before 1965. There was a law preventing miscegenation. How and why did that change? Why, when so dead against it before, did Whites change their minds about it? Don’t give me a generic answer such as “times have changed.” The answer is….Whites were brainwashed in schools and colleges just as they are today with multiculturalism. It’s cultural Marxism at it’s best.

        Don’t pretend to be naive because I know better. You do know this. Don’t want to admit it because you like the New World Order.
        In a way, you are doing some brainwashing here but you are dealing with the wrong audience. We don’t buy it.

        • JohnEngelman

          The reason for segregation was that whites are often unsafe in environments where blacks are in the majority. Blacks are also often unsafe in environments where blacks are in the majority. That is why the criminal justice system needs to be more vigorous in controlling black crime.

          Whites and Orientals get along fine. So do white Gentiles and Jews. That is why there is no need for laws prohibiting miscegenation.

          The trend toward the amalgamation of the races into one hybrid race is accelerating. It cannot be reversed. There is no reason why it should be.

          People reject political messages that conflict with what they know to be true from their own lives. During the 1960’s white blue collar workers were told by upper middle class liberal Democrats that black crime was not a problem. Because white blue collar workers knew it was a problem, most of them began voting Republican.

          • Nobody is safe in areas in which blacks are the majority. Not even blacks.

          • Talltrees

            “The reason for segregation was that whites are often unsafe in environments where blacks are in the majority. Blacks are also often unsafe in environments where blacks are in the majority.
            No so, when segregation laws were in place. They were in place to protect White Europeans from mixing with blacks. Look it up. I’m not going to do your research for you.

            During that time, there weren’t enough Orientals and Jews in this country to be concerned about mixing. You do remember there were severe restrictions on the number of Oriental and Jewish immigrants, then.
            Years ago, blacks were not as much of a problem as they are today; therefore, it’s not surprising all other races don’t want to live with them.
            One hybrid race IS accelerating; however, increasingly, Whites aren’t buying into it. This is what AmRen and other sites are all about.
            The reason for race mixing is because our youth are being taught it is OK, cool. I’d say anyone who marries a different race has low self-esteem. Not that that race is bad, but because there is no respect for one’s own race.

          • JohnEngelman

            Mixed race couples where one spouse is Oriental and the other is white tend to have higher combined incomes than white couples. There is no legitimate reason to oppose Oriental – white marriages.

            Those who do not want to marry someone of another race do not have to. What is it about “freedom to choose” that you do not understand.

          • They should change the name of this site to Yellow Fever in your honor.

          • Talltrees

            “What is it about “freedom to choose” that you do not understand.”

            What is it that you don’t understand about preserving all races and cultures? All of them are unique and interesting.

          • JohnEngelman

            Civilization evolved faster in the Old World than in the New World because the Old World civilizations learned from each.

            We in the West learned paper from the Chinese. We learned “Arabic numerals” from the Arabs, who learned them from India. The Arabs invented algebra. The use of copper and bronze spread from Egypt and Sumeria. They use of iron spread from what is now Turkey.

            Also, large gene pools evolved faster than small gene pools. There is more possibilities for beneficial mutations, and more room for them to spread.

          • Talltrees

            “the Old World civilizations learned from each other.”

            “who learned them from India”…..or Greece.

            “In Renaissance Europe, al-Khwarizmi was considered the original inventor of algebra, although it is now known that his work is based on older Indian or Greek sources.”

            Most civilizations either stole, copied from the West, or given by the West.

            Your examples pale by comparison to Western contributions to the world.

          • M.

            Al-Khawarizmi was Persian, by the way, not Arab. He just had an Arabized name, like most of those who were part of the Islamic empires.

          • Talltrees

            You are correct.

          • ben no

            This Engelmann promotes the mixing of white and East Asians, because he wants to see Asians become more attractive from white admixture at the terrible expense of white numbers declining along with their cultural dominance. You see, this is what those evil Asians are really all about. They are unspeakably wicked and envious of white peoples features and desire to genetically eat them up for the admixture that results in beautification of the mixed-Asians.

            UNDERSTAND YOU WHITE FOOL!!!

          • You’re talking about intermarriage between civilized people and not African blacks.

          • JohnEngelman

            Of course I am.

          • Golly! I wish I’d known that because Sayaka and I might have been rich. Instead, we’re back down to one vehicle that runs, we set the heat to 57 F and the three of us are wearing sweaters inside.

          • Fak_Zakaix

            Of course that there must be a monetary compensation of sorts. They must compensate the White partner for their ugliness. Is like in the marriage of a young women with a rich old man.

          • ben no

            You’re a pathetic ugly evil Asian who wishes for the beautification of your people from white admixture as the terrible expense of white numbers and cultural decline. There is EVERY reason to appose the death of white numbers for the sake of making the envious Asians more mixed and attractive. You evil Asian scum!

          • JohnEngelman

            I seem to have hit a raw nerve. 🙂

            I admire Orientals because of their intelligence and their low rates of crime and illegitimacy. Nevertheless, I am a white Gentile.

          • Talltrees

            “A race realist acknowledges that Orientals tend to be more intelligent”

            Here is a reply from a Chinese student to someone’s comment to an article about why sons and daughters were not accepted to an Ivy League school. One poster said Orientals are smarter.

            “I’m not so sure, from my perch here in Shanghai. American
            parents may want their kids to be happy, but they also want them to be fair and just. Here, stealing, cheating and lying (not to mention bribery and coercion) are all pretty much fine so long as it ‘advances’ you/your child, and the only shame in getting caught is, well, in getting caught, not in having actually
            done something wrong. So they want their kids to win, yes, but at any cost.

            Many Americans would find the moral cost far too high.”

            This from a Chinese consulting company advising Chinese how to get into an American or Chinese university:

            “The company concluded that 90 percent of Chinese applicants submit false recommendations, 70 percent have other people write their personal essays, 50 percent have forged high-school transcripts, and 10 percent list academic awards and other achievements they did not receive.

            Ms. Parker estimates that she contacts the Educational Testing Services, the nonprofit group that is in charge of the Toefl, every other day during the admissions season to investigate suspicious scores. Like many educators, she would like to see changes to make it harder to beat the exam. Students will hire someone to slip in, in their stead, after breaks.”

            They study and memorize tests, permitted to take them several times to improve their scores. It’s ingrained into their culture. I had no access to studying anything and allowed to take every test only one time. So, tell me about those IQ scores they receive. When they perform honestly and as Whites, I might admit Orientals are smarter than Whites.

          • M.

            “The trend toward the amalgamation of the races into one hybrid race is
            accelerating. It cannot be reversed. There is no reason why it should
            be.”

            Because our race would go extinct, that’s why.
            And even if you’re okay with, the number of Africans is set to be double that of Whites by the end of the century. So a hybridization would leave little to no trace to creative and civilized whites. Civilization would be over. Would you be okay with that?
            If not, why aren’t you fighting it?

          • JohnEngelman

            Those of all races with high IQ’s will survive, prosper, and have descendants. Dysgenics is a temporary detour on the road toward a more intelligent species.

          • M.

            Wouldn’t the species be even more intelligent if Whites remained white? We would just keep rising in eugenic white civilization with no dysgenic detour whatsoever.

  • WR_the_realist

    All theories of human origins accept that if you go back far enough our ancestors came from Africa. After all, our closest living non-human relatives are chimpanzees and the common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans lived in Africa. What is debatable is how recently our ancestors came from Africa, and the degree to which the more recent African ancestors interbred with Eurasian descendents of earlier African emigrants.

  • Chris Granzow XI

    Yea, but then you have to take into account that they either had big eyes staring at them from behind a clipboard when answering the question, or someone who called their home and addressed them by their first and last name. In both situations they’re not likely to give truthful answers if they fear it’ll make them be perceived negatively. Just look at the study that claimed “white men prefer asian faces, and white women prefer black faces.” It was all based on asking people directly and the researchers did admit that people could just be answering the way they did in an attempt to not come off as racist.

    • JohnEngelman

      Whenever I quote Gallup that approval of inter racial marriage has become virtually the consensus, I also quote Pew Research that the incidence of inter racial marriage is increasing. People do not marry people from other races because they think it is expected of them. They do it because they want to.

      What matters is that what Strom Thurmond condemned and practiced is becoming the trend. Political movements succeed by getting in front of trends, not by fighting them.

      • Hmmm…. well, it sounds like the real power comes from those setting the trends, not the opportunistic political movements that follow them. What do you think?

        • JohnEngelman

          Trends happen because circumstances are congenial to them. The trend toward inter racial dating and inter racial marriage is happening because people of different races are coming together on the job, and in other environments. Many of these people discover that they are attracted to people of other races, and that the attraction is mutual.

          Many white women are attracted to black men for reasons I will not explain for fear of bringing a blush to the cheeks of Courtney from Alabama. Many white men – including me – think Oriental women are more feminine. Women of all races are attracted to Oriental men because of their higher average intelligence, education, and income.

          • John, real men don’t need the illusion of Asian women being more feminine. I’ve generally found that the kind of men who buy into this are effeminate and don’t have the kind of alpha male genes it takes to satisfy(both emotionally and physically) other women. The perceived docile and slavish devotion you see them for is the result of your own inadequacies as a man. I’ve never had a problem finding very feminine White women. My best guess is that you generally fell below the threshold of what most decent looking White women were looking for throughout your life, so Asian conformity and “yes women” was a natural progression of your failure to attract feminine White women.

          • JohnEngelman

            I have dated Oriental and white women. Oriental women are more difficult to attract. They have higher standards.

          • Now Yellow John is back to saying White women have low standards. I don’t believe you have dated many White women. I really believe you are a bottom feeder when it comes to White females. White women probably see you and observe your personality, and then assume dating someone like you would be as appealing as eating a soggy rice cake.

          • Awww, now Yellow John is fearful of making a White woman, Courtney, blush because of hearing his version of truth that seems to only apply to White women, not his fetish of the perfect Asian women.

            You don’t have an agenda. Nope, not you.

          • MikeofAges

            “Many white women are attracted to black men for reasons I will not
            explain for fear of bringing a blush to the cheeks of Courtney from
            Alabama.”

            Another cheap shot, John. I grew up in Mr. Obama’s neighborhood, literal decades before he arrived there. I have been observing interracial relationships since childhood. One reason why white women enter into interracial relationships is because they may find a man who is more cultured and less violent and uncouth than the white men who are available to them. In other cases, the woman herself might have traits which ultimately would make her less than desirable in the eyes of men in her peer group.

            The film “Guess Who’s Coming For Dinner”, I see as an early and inadvertent representation of the latter principle. The daughter, Joey Drayton, was unruly, irresponsible and really not very bright either. God only knows what women of his own color were available to John Prentice. Three generations of “strides” may not have changed this picture as much a people would like to imagine.

            Hollywood is ingenious in not letting people know what its own movies are actually about. Nothing new under the sun, you know..

          • I saw plenty of blacks naked in the showers in the Denver County Jail, and they’re not hung bigger.

          • MikeofAges

            Remember, we’ve gone to high school. Served in the military. Belonged to a fitness club. Watched x-rated flicks. In the Old South, kids went skinny dipping together, up to a certain age. No secrets, except in the heads of buffoons who revel in disfunctionality.

      • Chris Granzow XI

        No, but I think society (media, “education” system, etc.) can encourage different things and that has a role. They spread stereotypes to white men about white women and vice versa, then spread disinformation that makes you not even want to be white.

  • Max Krakah

    At the end of the day I would wager that creationism is vindicated. Not the everything was created at once kind of creationism, but fossil evidence shows periods where there suddenly appear whole new species, in abundance, and there is no fossil evidence of any intermediate species, any where, at all, Once again, there has NEVER been a fossil of an intermediate species discovered. New species have spontaneously occurred, out of nowhere, at various times in earths history. THAT is what the fossil record tells us. IT seems that at various times in earths history, there have been episodes of “creationism” and that the new species did NOT spring from the old ones.This is consistent with the fossil record. Evolution is NOT consistent with the fossil record. Blacks and humans are NOT related.

    • Brian

      Once again, there has NEVER been a fossil of an intermediate species discovered.
      ===
      Eh, no. Every living thing is a ‘transitional form’ between its parents and children. What we call a species is just a snapshot of what could interbreed at a specific point in time. The seeming ‘spontaneous creation of new species’ you’re talking about does not mean things spring out of thin air. It’s the result of it being difficult to locate surviving fossils in the ground from very ancient times…the record is spotty, like a man walking along a beach, making footprints in a continuous path, but in many places the tide comes in and washes some segments away. Or if you take a photograph of your children once a year on Jan. 1, you wouldn’t think that every year, your children vanish and get replaced by some new group that’s taller…they are growing continuously, but you only have the annual snapshot to refer back to.

    • Wrong, wrong, wrong! The whole notion of a “species” is a human construct, and arctic terns are living examples of a group of related species. Alaskan terns can and do mate with Icelandic terns and produce fertile offspring. Icelandic terns can and do mate with Siberian terns and also produce fertile offspring. The territory of Siberian and Alaskan terns overlap, but they’re too different from each other to mate.

      You are wrong, wrong, wrong, and even your bronze-age “god” can’t help you here.

      • Max Krakah

        oh, sorry, forgive me

    • ixObserver

      “This is consistent with the fossil record. Evolution is NOT consistent with the fossil record.”

      Fossil record itself is evolving. You think everything that needs to be studied has already been ? The inconsistencies you see are only potential gaps that need further exploration to fill in. Go where evidence leads, not where you wish it lead.

      ================================

      “Blacks and humans are NOT related.”

      Sigh…

  • freddy_hills

    Engleman

    I did an in depth review of Espenshade’s book for my blog a couple of years ago. When I was researching I looked at that specifically. There’s a section in the book that shows what the admission rates for each group would be without affirmative action. Rates go up for both whites and asians. However, the difference between white and asian scores isn’t due to affirmative action. It’s due to legacy admissions and sports. Asians haven’t been in the US long enough to have a lot of legacy admissions and they’re not very athletic. Someone might say that legacy admissions and sports shouldn’t be a consideration because the focus should be on academics. However, alumni connections are critical to the success of a university. Legacy admissions and sports are two very important ways in which elite colleges keep their alumni engaged. If you had a choice between two elite but otherwise schools and one had legacy admissions and winning sports teams and the other didn’t who would you choose? The irony is they have to let in a few students with lesser scores in order to attract the top students,

    • Chip Carver

      Asians are admitted at higher rates than more deserving Whites. What skews the numbers is the high number of Jewish students who haven’t met the highest standards and yet they are admitted. Things have been so bad the past 35 years with the Ivy League for example, that there really aren’t that many slots opened for White “legacies”. Look up Ron Unz / Kevin MacDonald on college admissions as I’ve mentioned before. Whites get mixed in with Jewish students when “the stats” are put together. This is so a certain group can hide the fact that they benefit from behind the scenes pressure, a type of Affirmative Action. Remove Jewish students from the equation, and then you see it’s the Whites being hammered when it comes to admissions. In raw numbers, there are more White students with top scores and grades. Yet they have the hardest time being admitted to their first choice of school. Non-Jewish White males have become almost non-existent when it comes to the freshman classes at Harvard each year.

      The trolls stay away from the facts. They also bring up Asians and other groups to keep people’s minds off of who’s really in charge and causing most of the problems.

  • Alec Smart

    We all come from Africa.

    But long ago clearly all the smart ones left…

    • We became smart living in harsher climates, and we interbred with similar subspecies who were already there. The stupid ones died.

  • HJ11

    I see a lot of comments here and elsewhere trying to knock the out of Africa theory as a way of saying we Whites are different. Firstly, we are different, but it doesn’t matter if at some point in the distant past we evolved out of hominids who first evolved in Africa or elsewhere.

    Go back far enough and ALL life on Earth evolved from that first molecule of DNA that made the leap from so-called non-living minerals to the living minerals that is life.

    Living organisms move about constantly. Humans and pre-humans are no different. So, we may have evolved in Africa then moved north and kept evolving and branching off.

    We Whites have branched off from the rest of humans, and if we avoid gene flow from them to us, we will continue to branch off from them and eventually be unable to breed with them (a good thing to hope for).

  • Kris Roys

    That’s not a reliable source, OnGuard.

  • Emperor Naked

    How do you arrive at such a conclusion when the population of Asians in the world is so much higher than Europeans or whites of European descent? I have known/seen many examples of Asian imbecility, personally.

    • Our bell-curve is wider.

      • Emperor Naked

        That can be said, but so can the rule that a larger population pool produces a wider talent choice because of that large pool. This is why smaller countries win Olympic medals are a lower rate than China or the U.S. or Russia (even though some sports specialize in certain countries).

        I need a reference.

        • Bantu_Education

          Learn of the many instances where Chinese have stolen our military and scientific secrets. Haven’t heard of the reverse happening, have you? Its like cheaters at exams. They wouldn’t do it if they had the confidence or ability themselves.

          • Emperor Naked

            I don’t have to learn about it, I KNOW about it. But it’s not as if we don’t spy. If the Chinese had anything worth taking, we’d likely have our own espionage record and we probably do have some now. The problem we have had is due to allowing so many of them to immigrate and even giving them security clearances at sensitive military or industrial sites. As for commercial spying, yes, they must have set some sort of new record. I agree that cheating is part of the Chinese and Asian culture, but having lived in the Balkans for a while I can tell you that cheating is also a big part of Eastern European culture, too.

  • Everyone should save their comments made on AmRen. When you find that a moderator has deleted your comments, then please go to the website in my profile.

    I never had time to make the site fully operational and active, but that may be changing soon. I will make a section where you can post your deleted comments that AmRen moderators found to be too truthful or not politically correct enough. If nothing else this would be a great help to me in establishing a community-driven site that is more focused on actions and organizing in the real world than just pie-in-the-sky proselytizing and endless and redundant scientific studies.

  • Everyone should save their comments made on AmRen. When you find that a moderator has deleted your comments, then please go to the website on my profile.

    I never had time to make the site fully operational and active, but that may be changing soon. I will make a section where you can post your deleted comments that AmRen moderators found to be too truthful or not politically correct enough. If nothing else this would be a great help to me in establishing a community-driven site that is more focused on actions and organizing in the real world than just pie-in-the-sky proselytizing and endless and redundant scientific studies.

  • WR_the_realist

    All of those earlier emigrants were of the genus Homo and the Neanderthals are considered to be a subspecies of Homo sapiens by some scientists. In any case they had advanced tools, used fire, and probably had some sort of language. So Neanderthals would satisfy at least some people’s definition of “human”.

    • M.

      Neanderthals, yes. But when the very first African ancestors moved to Europe, there were no Neanderthals yet. Neanderthals and Denisovans are the result of a geographical split of that ancestor. A part of it went to the east; another to the west.
      We don’t know what Denisovans looked like, but we know that Neanderthals looked barely human. So their ancestor must’ve looked even less human.
      But anyway, with this discovery, it’s not even sure anymore if that’s how our Homo ancestors branched off.
      I think the whole conventional out-of-Africa scenario is gonna have to be revised.

      • Neanderthals probably looked more human than African blacks.

        • M.

          Actually, they did. Especially if compared to a full-blooded thick-lipped Negro. So, in sum, the Neanderthals, who aren’t considered human, looked more like us than modern-day Africans, who are considered just as human as us. In other words, we’re at least as different from purebred Africans as we are to Neanderthals. We can tell the amount of African ancestry in someone as efficiently as we can tell the Neanderthal part in them. But no one dares point that out.
          Our real common ancestor is yet to be discovered if you ask me.

  • dogbone, you just have to click on my avatar to see my Disqus profile.

  • ixObserver

    “Now we have to rethink the whole story,” Dr. Arsuaga said.

    Change is good, in this case.

  • ixObserver

    AUS aboriginals are related to the lower castes of India, especially from southern India. I was surprised when I saw a few pictures of them due to their striking resemblance to southern Indians. Australian land mass was connected to the sub continent long long ago. They seem to be some ancient race/sub-race. Most don’t look like Africans although blackish in complexion. Their temperament, physical build etc are different from Africans as well. There are a few who do look African, very much like Gorillas actually. I think I saw these in the picture of Australia’s old Cricket team.

  • I don’t approve of bestiality.

  • What you get instead is stagnation.

  • Emperor Naked

    I’ll go with this. And to Michael Scott; this might be what makes the curve larger, but on the upward end, moving the belly of the curve “ahead” of the Asian one.

  • Max Krakah

    only if it is rational. Being altruistic to the point of believing all other races deserve your birthright to a nation your ancestors created for their descendants is not rational.

  • Brian

    I feel a bit sorry for the abos…dumbest people on the planet, and the ugliest too? Yikes. Some of them look like the missing link.

  • Le Fox

    I love how most of the comments have almost nothing to do with the research being discussed. If there’s anyway to turn this into a forum, this is it.

    Gotta love you, Internet. Enough comments here to make an ED article.

    • We each have our own opinions, and when those concern racial identity, this is going to matter, especially on a site like AmRen.

      It thus seems to me that you are complaining that the sky is blue.

  • The Germans built progressively smaller subs during World War Two. They wanted to dive fast and hit hard. If I have any complaints about the German Type-VIIC/41, it was that is really should have had a six- or eight-tube bow salvo for sinking battleships and fast aircraft carriers. The Japanese went in the other direction. They never got over the four-tube front arrangement and the heavy gun armament of the larger German World War One subs. The big Japanese subs dived much more slowly than anything we or the Germans had, and were thus very vulnerable to air attack.

  • MikeofAges

    I’m glad someone brought this up, because there is a nuance here that has been overlooked. Actors are actors, not social or behavioral scientists. One of things they do in preparing for a contemporary part is to study the speech and mannerisms of actual people of the type they are playing, which they then imitate. I saw the part as the product of the actual study of actual people involved in interracial relationship. I stick by my thesis.

    The issue is whether Joey, as represented, actually was deficient. As I saw it, yes. I think you overrate the extent to which women, in your time were required to “act like idiots”.

  • MikeofAges

    How quickly this process can happen is amazing. My youngest brother has a different father than the three older ones, but his father also is Jewish. He married around 1978, to a white gentile girl. His daughter had a daughter as teenager and now his daughter’s daughter already has had a child. That makes for going from 1/2 Jewish to 1/16 Jewish in a little more than 30 years. My brothers family lives on the fringes of the mid-South. I doubt anybody who would hook up with his daughter, granddaughter or great grandaughter would much care about the Jewish “blood” in the family tree.

    You can only imagine how quickly any heritage of black or Indian “blood”, would have been lost in the mists in early America.

    • Emperor Naked

      And is they were an Ashkenazi Jew, there would be even fewer actual Semitic markers in their dna. There is no “Jew” gene. Race is objectively determined by phenotype. If you have a blue eyed, blonde person, regardless of their religion or lack of it, and you mate them with another blue eyed blonde, the chance that their offspring will be the same is almost 100%.

      • MikeofAges

        I regard Jews as an ethnic group. Many ethnic groups are made up of more than one “type”. One thing that really bugs me is when American Jews use the phrase “secular Jew” to denote someone who is not religious but maintains their cultural identity as Jewish. I don’t think anyone has to apologize for their own existence or qualify it in some way. The Third World immigrants who have come into the United States since 1970 sure don’t. Why should any Euro-American have to wring their hands about who they are?

        • Emperor Naked

          Actually, since Jews also come in different races, there are also a number of different Jewish ethnic groups, as well.

          A secular Jew is as far as I can gather, an “apostate” according to Judaism and particularly damned. But it’s difficult to expect people to not remember or carry on things they were brought up with. An ethnic group by definition is identified by language, religion, art and music and other things like stories (myths) or what could be called historical popular culture. If you speak English, didn’t go to Hebrew school or speak Hebrew, don’t practice Judaism as in going to the Synagog, don’t regularly eat or observe things like Kosher Law., you are by definition not a Jew. But Hitler would say you are, (but then, so was he).

          • MikeofAges

            In America, and maybe in other countries these days, an ethnic group is defined by its heritage.

            The practice in America, largely, is that people derive their ethnic identity from their father, but often take their religion from their mother. Significant variations in this pattern but it still very often prevails.

            By my estimation, though Judaism is a religion, the Jews are an ethnic group. Again, there are ethnic groups which have significantly divergent contributors to their gene pool.

            Race and ethnicity are not the same thing. This is a big topic. The narrow question of “What is a Jew?” is not fully settled either legally (where it is a legal issue) or culturally. Nor is the issue settled for other ethic groups, really. I don’t think it can be, because the issue of “race” and “type” comes into play along with issues of language, culture and citizenship or residency.

            Someone pointed out that our president, in Luo country, would regarded as a particular type of Luo. In Nairobi, just a Luo. Elsewhere in Africa and maybe in Europe, a Kenyan. And in America, an African or African American. I consider him a biracial African in descent. But it is interesting that, while he took his father’s etnic identity, his religion is his mother’s. Same with me, by the way. And I still consider myself an ethnic Jew.

          • Emperor Naked

            I think that you are right regarding what Americans count as an ethnic group, but that is because of a lack of education. I lived in Eastern Europe and traveled all over Europe. Even in Britain, people are very conscious of the finer and actual definitions of what constitutes an ethnic group.

            Americans mix everything up and delude meanings by habit. Monty Python does a good skit on this (way back in the 70s) where American tourists are dinning in a restaurant featuring Hawaiian music (and dancing in a Medieval dungeon (complete with torture victims on view). Americans are so mixed up and intellectually lazy, they argue and argue on issues that they never read one valid apolitical bit of information about. They typically do not know anything about their “heritage.” beyond simple popular myths based on their political affiliations/opinions.

            In the end, what matters is how others define you. You can try to be one thing, but claiming something without an identifiable demonstration materially, is just talking to yourself. I don’t mean that as in insult, I mean it as a thing to consider as we speak to ourselves about ourselves. You’ve got to actually BE something and being means DOING.

  • Emperor Naked

    The “writers” of the Gospels were not these people, but attributed to these people by later “Church Fathers” of the Second Century. The only “gospel” document to survive into the first century is known as the “Q Document” but it is also known that it was based on many other earlier versions (stories). The “Gospels” you speak of where all written in the Second century and added to or modified beyond it for centuries.

    However, you miss the entire point. The Church arrogated literacy to itself. It did not want the lay public to be able to read the Bible because once they did, they knew problems would arise and educated people are more difficult to “shepherd.”

    Stating that anyone in those times was a Christian is not proof of compliance or even support. One had to profess Christianity if one hoped to survive at all and sometimes that was not enough. I am always amazed the lack of historical knowledge show by whites here that profess to support whites and white culture. Nominally, “everyone” was a Christian, including Edward Gibbon and most of the “heretics” that were tortured and burnt at the stake, Joan of Arc being perhaps the most famous of all (a witch and heretic later made a saint).

    The “genius” of Christianity was to absorb everything it could not destroy, putting Christian names and labels to almost everything, including the big Christian festival of Christmas, which had been celebrated for thousands of years as a solar event known as Winter Solstice. In fact, it stole the actual birth date of the then popular Persian religion Mithraism’s god Mithra – December 25th.