Papuan Barbarism

Waltem writes: Read Lawrence Keeley. “Savage” warfare (like say, in New Guinea) is proportionately more lethal than “civilized” warfare.

Correct. Primitive man leads a short, nasty and brutish existence. As recently as the 1300’s in England, the homicide rate in the larger cities was 50 times higher than it is today in the US. Fifty times higher. We think Latin America is out of control because it has a homicide rate 10X hours. Now imagine a society that is 5 times worse than Honduras. That was urban England in the 1300’s.  Whites were unbelievably barbarous not so long ago themselves. So what happened? How did the homicide rate decline by 98%? Did our genes change? Come on hereditarians, let’s dish it up.

Yes, the Papuans engage in warfare continuously. At least until recently, they habitually molested most if not all of the children, and the children were exposed to incredible violence. Childhood was a time of frequent  beatings from your parents and even your siblings. You probably witnessed your mother murdering one of your newborn on 2-3 year old siblings. You may have even participated because some Papuans force the children to murder their own three year old siblings as some sort of an object lesson. There’s no escaping it warfare and violence in these places.

And when Papuans are put into modern culture, the result has been a complete catastrophe. They cannot function at all in modern society, and Port Moresby is one of the most brutal, savage, barbarous, and out and out dangerous cities on Earth. Many of the Papuans there have formed vicious street gangs and the city has one of the highest rates of violent crime on Earth. Port Moresby is worse than most cities in Africa.

These people are simply not suited for modern society, at the moment anyway, because they are too backwards, barbarous, savage, uncivilized, brutish, incompetent and violent. That 64 IQ no doubt does not help matters. African Blacks were not in a very different place centuries ago  with 67 IQ’s, but centuries in America had a profoundly civilizing effect such that hundreds of years out of Africa, a Black today would probably regard his ancestors from the 1700’s as so brutish and vicious that he probably would not to have anything to do with him.

I suppose 25% White genes in modern Blacks didn’t hurt, but that alone cannot be all of the story. The story is one of acculturation and the civilizing of a profoundly backwards and barbarous race. It is actually incredible how different US Blacks are from those early anthropologists’ findings of Africa. You almost wonder if humans can actually change that much, but apparently they can. Not everyone can become civilized, but people can sure get a Hell of a lot more civilized than they were before. It might take centuries, but it can be done.

All of you hereditarians, how can you possibly explain the almost unheard of transformation of these barbarous Africans into modern Blacks? Their genes are the same. You guys say everything is genes. Fine, well how did these people change so much then?

11 Comments

Filed under Africa, Anthropology, Blacks, Crime, Cultural, European, Europeans, History, Latin America, North America, Papua New Guinea, Papuans, Race Realism, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Social Problems, Sociology, Urban Studies, USA, Whites

11 responses to “Papuan Barbarism

  1. Another William Playfair Web

    My uncle taught law as part of an exchange program in Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea.
    He apparently was not impressed by the students saying the Law students ‘were about the equivalent of an American Middle School students’
    the educational system was a failure, I guess.

  2. How close are the Papuans to Australian aborigines? Are they related to tribes of Sentinel island and the negritos of Southeast Asia?

  3. Stary Wylk

    Some of the difference between the 1300s and later is century after century of hangings taking many people out of the gene pool.

  4. Rowlii

    Is it possible that civilisation with :

    -jail (wich affect the fertility rate of inmates http://faculty.washington.edu/blsykes/Publications_files/fertility_incarceration_v8-1.pdf) and,

    -death sentence (still on going in maning countries)

    selected “non-aggresive” genes ?

    • Onfd

      Sure, why not? A mean, also animals change their genes when they co-exist with people. Bears who are curious (and wander through inhabited localities) get shot. Those birds who are not smart/careful enough, hit windows and die. So I think all species including people try to (or are forced to) adapt to their environment/culture).

      We can debate about the scale of this selection, though.

    • Indeed, but it’s effectiveness depends on the rate of execution, the frequency of aggressive genes as well as their fertility.

    • Bert

      Peter Frost has suggested this. A similar theory of the evolutionary effects of civilisation has been put forward by Gregory Clark (‘A Farewell to Alms’).

      (BTW: Robert you’re an hereditarian yourself, since you believe in the importance of biological heritage. You’re setting up a strawman when claiming that anyone thinks that genes are all that matter.)

  5. Rowlii

    So sharia must be eugenic😉

  6. RudyM

    This Papuan seems to be doing fine as a singer:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s