Category Archives: Anthropology

The Fate of Psychopaths in Primitive Societies

Research has shown that psychopaths are present in all human societies. Robert Hare, famous psychopath researcher, asked some Eskimos if they had psychopaths in their villages.

“Yes,” they said, “We have people like that. It’s usually a man. He refuses to hunt or do any work at all and simply lives off everyone else. He is charming and has a high sex drive and when the men go off hunting, he stays in the village and has sex with all of the other men’s wives. He steals and gets into a lot of fights with other man and lies almost constantly.”

“What do you do about someone like that?” Hare asked.

The Eskimos replied, “Well, after this behavior has gone on for some time, the men of the village will get together, tie up the psychopath, and paddle him out to an ice floe. They will drop him off on the ice floe and paddle back to shore.”

In case you don’t know about the Arctic, being left on an ice floe is a death sentence for a human being. So the Eskimos say that after putting up with the psychopath’s antics for some time, the men of the village rise up and all kill the psychopath.

American Indians were known for their kindness and charity. I did a lot of anthropological work on California Indians when I was working as a cultural anthropologist. Here in California, some Indians refused to work. However much the other Indians disliked this behavior, they continued to feed the parasite. He was allowed to survive. Obviously you can’t allow too many folks like this in your society or your tribe will go extinct. In primitive societies, if nobody works, nobody eats because work mostly consists of efforts to obtain food.

However, in doing research on the Indians of the Southwest, I found that some Indians who chronically engaged in bad behavior or broke group rules by committing adultery, stealing, getting into fights, or killing other members would typically simply be thrown out of the tribe. In tribal societies, this could well be a death sentence because while the tribe together knows how to hunt and gather to survive, an individual Indian may not be able to do it well enough to survive.

However these men often survived long enough. In addition, being thrown out of tribes for bad behavior was uncommon but not rare. At any given time, there were a number of  Indian loners roaming about who had been tossed out of their groups for bad behavior. It was common for these men to find each other, and they would then roam about in pairs, threesomes or even in small groups. There were enough of these men that they sometimes formed mini-tribes of their own – outcast tribes so to speak.


Filed under Amerindians, Anthropology, California, Cultural, Inuit, North America, Psychology, Psychopathology, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, USA, West

Did Blacks Split off from the Rest of Humanity 250-300,000 Years Ago?

8ball writes: No, I’m telling you, the latest data shows the human genetic tree split into two about 250,000-300,000 years ago. Sub-Saharan Africans on one side, the rest on the other.

That is a fucking long time ago. For comparison Neanderthals split off from us about 600,000 years ago.

I am not aware of this new data. Someone needs to link me to some proof of this if it is even true at all, which I doubt. I don’t see how it’s true. All non-Africans came out of Africa 65,000 YBP. Africans could not have split off from non-Africans so early because all non-Africans were Africans themselves until 65,000 YBP.

There were no Homo sapiens sapiens 250-300,000 YBP. Our species had not even been created yet. We were some prior form or Homo, I think Homo sapiens idaltu, but even he does not appear until 190,000 YBP. I have never heard that Blacks split off that early. Anyway, Negroids are a new race. They were only formed in the last 9,000 years. The oldest races are the Khoisan (52,000 years), and the Orang Asli in Thailand (72,000 years). Everybody else is way more recent. There are no human lines that go back 250-300,000 years and anyway back then we were not even the fully modern humans that we are today.

If you enjoy the hard work that goes into this website, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site. Donations are the only thing that keep the site operating.


Filed under Africa, Anthropology, Asia, Blacks, Khoisan, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, SE Asia, Thailand

Race in India: An Anthropological View

I have had lots of East Indians coming to my site lately for some reason. They are looking at a few pieces, especially The Major and Minor Races of Man, The Peopling of India and The Birth of the Caucasian Race.

They’ve mostly been females, possibly young females. They are interested in a few questions. First, what race are East Indians? Caucasians (Whites), Africans (Blacks), Asians or Australoids? These are the four macro races of man, though honestly, there may be more than that. They’ve been subjected to a lot of Afrocentric propaganda that says that East Indians are Black people. Truth is, East Indians don’t have a speck of Black in them. Your average group of Germans has more Black in them than a group of East Indians.

There are some other theories about East Indians suggesting that they are Asians. In my work The Major and Minor Races of Man, which I worked on for many months, I dealt with this question a lot. True, some charts show East Indians just outside of Caucasians proper. But those same charts don’t really show them in Asians either. They are floating in between both groups.

But most other charts seem to show them in Caucasians. Truth is that even those charts show them right on the border of the two groups. But if we look at the charts from a great enough distance and look at the group as a whole, they are clearly in Caucasians. In these cases, we have to go by what they look like. Do East Indians look like Asians? Of course not.

East Indians are part of a cline running from Turkey up to the Chukchi Peninsula that rides right on the border between Asian and Caucasian. Some groups are almost literally 50-50. The cline includes Jews, Armenians, Turks, Iranians, people of the Caucasus, Kurds, Uzbeks, Kazakhs, Pashtuns, Tajiks, Uighurs, Mongolians, Altai, Shor, Buryats, Koreans, East Indians, Punjabis, Pakistanis, NE Chinese, Manchus, up to the Chukchi. On one chart, the Chukchi, bizarrely enough, are over with Caucasians. But if you look at them, they look like Eskimos. So into Asians they go.

With East Indians, we go by appearance. What do they look like, Caucasians or Asians? All or almost all East Asians have an epicanthic eyefold, lacking in most Indians. What about Asian genes? Asian genes are found up to a maximum of 10-15% in NW Indians around Punjab.

They look like Caucasians, lack an eyefold, and have few Asian genes, so into Caucasians they go.

The fact that Caucasians are also referred to as Whites is confusing to some. Blacks get upset when Whites claim East Indians. “Those people are not White!” They exclaim angrily. White is just shorthand for Caucasians. A lot of White folks, or Caucasians, can have skins that are anywhere from slightly to very dark.

So genetically and based on simple appearance, we can put all East Indians into Caucasians. The problem arises in that a paper has found that Tamils have skulls that link them, phenotypically but not genetically, to the Australoid race. Who are the Australoids?

Genetically, they are Aborigines, Melanesians, and Papuans.

Phenotypically, they are Tamils and some other South Indians, Senoi (a tribe in Thailand that resemble Veddoids), Semang (a Negrito group in Thailand), Negritos, Papuans, Melanesians and Aborigines.

Hema Malini, a very White-looking Indian.

Hema Malini, a very White looking Indian. Caucasian by phenotype and genes. She could easily be a Spaniard or Italian.

The question arises about which South Indians are also Australoids phenotypically? So far, only Tamils have been proven to be Australoid by skulls. However, any other South Indian group that looks a lot like Tamils is probably also Australoid, such as the Telegu.

Raju, Bishop N John S D classic dravidian

Bishop N John S D Raju, an Indian Christian and a classic Dravidian type. Possible Australoid phenotype.

If you enjoy the hard work that goes into this website, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site. Donations are the only thing that keep the site operating.


Filed under Aborigines, Anthropology, Armenians, Asia, Asians, Caucasus, Chinese (Ethnic), East Indians, Europe, Europeans, Kazakhs, Koreans, Kurds, Melanesians, Mongolians, Near East, Near Easterners, Negritos, Northeast Asians, Oceanians, Pakistanis, Papuans, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, SE Asians, South Asia, South Asians, Tajiks, Turkey, Turks, Uighurs, Uzbeks, Whites

Species and Subspecies in Current Races of Homo sapiens sapiens

We already dealt with the racist nonsense about Black people being a different species than the rest of us. By the way, this is just another way of saying, “Niggers aren’t human,” which is exactly what a lot of anti-Black racists say about Black people in precisely those words.

I hate to break it to these guys, but Black people are as human as the rest of us. We are all one species.

I did a lot of research on the question the other day because I wanted to see if there was anything to the racist argument. The overwhelming opinion, based on multiple lines of excellent evidence is that all races of human are part of a single species. I won’t go into the lines of evidence here, but you can go look them up if you want. And it’s good science too, not junk science.

One of the lines is that no human race has any particular type of DNA that is particular to its own race. In different species, the new evidence is that all species have areas of DNA that are specific to just them. This is true even in species that can and do interbreed.

In studying two types of butterflies in the Amazon that readily interbreed, it was found that one area of DNA in each species never transferred to the other. Obviously when you mate two different lines, you end with each line contributing a lot of its DNA to the offspring. This is the DNA that carries over so to speak in interbreeding. The areas of DNA that never carried over or transferred in interbreeding were two areas: one that gave it its blue flavor and another that deals with how the blue butterfly is able to recognize others of its kind. In the orange butterfly, the non-transferring DNA was also for orange color and for how the species recognizes its own species. This is where we get the notion that “species breed true.”

Another is that humans can readily interbreed with other humans. For an example of what happens when humans breed with other hominid species, we can look at the evidence of human-Neandertal breeding.

Human-Neandertal breeding was very difficult and most of the offspring did not survive for some reason. Neandertal males mating with human females was rarely successful. However, human males mating with Neandertal females apparently worked sometimes.

The example given that species can interbreed is dog and wolves. However, science now says that dogs and wolves are one species. From my study of birds, when two different bird species start interbreeding a lot, after a while, they usually merge them into one species on the basis that they interbreed.

Crossbreeds of different species often produce sterile offspring. Yes, a horse can breed with a mule but the offspring is a donkey and donkeys are sterile. I believe that ligers, the offspring of lions and tigers, are also sterile. There are other species that can interbreed, however the offspring are weak, sickly and fail to thrive.

If any human races were separate species, we would expect to see something like the results of the human-Neandertal interbreeding and we don’t see that. Blacks and Whites can interbreed just fine, immaculately, in fact.

The question then boils down to whether any races could be said to be subspecies. The German Wikipedia has done some work on that and they have concluded that based on geographic separation, Negritos, Aborigines and Khoisan (Bushmen/Hottentots) could probably be seen as subspecies. On looking at their work, I think the writers on the German Wiki are basing their argument on good, solid science.

I would also argue that these three could be seen as subspecies based on genetic distance. The genetic line of Negroid Africans specifically does not go back all that far. They are a new race that only arose 9,000 YBP.

However, the Khoisan are one of the oldest people on Earth with a specific line going back 53,000 years.

Previously, a type of Negrito Australoid in Thailand, the Orang Asli, had been found to be the oldest race of living race with a line going back 72,000 years.

The Aborigine of course are very ancient. They are quite distant from all other humans. In fact the two races with the greatest distance between them are Aborigines and African Negroids. If anyone would have a hard time interbreeding it would be them, but there’s no evidence of any problems. On the other hand, few if any of them have bred at all. African Negroids and European Whites are dramatically closer to each other than Africans and Aborigines. If Africans and Aborigines are one species, how could Africans and Whites be two species? Makes no sense.

It is important to note that by their nature, all subspecies can interbreed. They are only called subspecies because for whatever reason, they only live in a restricted geographical area. In addition, there are some anatomical and genetic differences in all subspecies. At some genetic and anatomical difference level, two types of a species are said to be separate subspecies. Since no humans are restricted to any separate geographical areas, we cannot use that metric for setting aside human subspecies. However, I would no problem with setting aside Aborigines, Negritos and Khoisan as human subspecies. There’s nothing derogatory or racist about that statement, at least to any rational person, which leaves out all SJW’s.

If you enjoy the hard work that goes into this website, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site. Donations are the only thing that keep the site operating.


Filed under Aborigines, Africa, Animals, Anthropology, Asia, Asians, Australia, Birds, Blacks, Canids, Carnivores, Dogs, Domestic, Genetics, Horses, Khoisan, Mammals, Negritos, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, SE Asia, SE Asians, Thailand, White Racism, Whites, Wild, Wolves

Interesting Racial Arguments: Blacks As Less Domesticated Humans, and Whites and Asians as Domesticated “Slave Races”

Great comment from Francis Melville. 

African Blacks are humans, period.

The main mistake about that by those who see them as a parallel species closer to apes than man relies upon the infamous argument of neoteny: evolution from ape to man (so as devolution from man to ape as some religious fundamentalists postulate) is supposed to have happened through greater and greater retention at adult age of traits only the primitive species’ infants shows before losing them at adult age.

But that argument, however seducing it seems, is fallacious the way it is used: clearly, for instance, dogs as we know them are descendants of the wild dog, which is a parallel species of wolves to the point only zoologists can distinguish them from other wolves. And from that lupine ancestry, dogs have evolved far more than humans are supposed to have evolved from more primitive men, they have kept infantile traits at a degree humans themselves never went to…yet they remain dogs and show no sign of turning into a kind of speaking intelligent species capable of writing with all fours.

Though they cannot survive outside an apartment and require the same care as a human infant or even more, they still bark and bite each one according to its capacity. Neoteny produces domestic or more domesticable animals out of wild ones and nothing beyond. Neoteny alone cannot make a lineage change of species, nothing of that kind of phenomenon has ever been observed under any microscope or otherwise through paleontological history. You could still invent more and more puppy-like races of dogs under the pressure of lawmakers prohibiting Rottweilers, none of these new races would end up being human-like or humanoid-like in any way, none of these dogs would suddenly learn to speak like Pluto, though they may look like cartoon dogs more and more.

African Blacks show many traits (though not all) of less or no neoteny compared to the mean European and even more compared to East Asians (for instance African babies learn to sit and adopt various other adult postures at an earlier age than other humans), but that may make an African a wilder human, NOT a lesser human…in the very same way Sub-Saharan Africa seems to be by its ecological vocation the conservatory of the wilder versions of so many other species, like the wild dogs, the wild asses (which include the zebra as well as countless other onagres), the wild buffaloes, and the famed wild elephants.

African elephants, for being wild and having never been domesticated, are not less elephantine than the ones used in India and Indochina as beast of burden or transportation, in the same way the wild African buffaloes are by no means less bovine than the domestic buffaloes used in India to till the soil: quite the contrary, anybody would qualify the African elephant as more elephant-like by its spectacular bodily features than its more modestly-looking Indian far cousin, for the same reason wild bulls and buffaloes have always symbolized the epitome of bovine nature with far more intensity and sacredness than domestic oxen.

Europeans are not more human than Africans, they are more domesticable and amenable to so-called civilized life, actually it is a more polite expression to say they are easier to enslave and put to hard work by neurological programming rather than by mere physical shackles only.

Some say among Haitian and Benin voodoo practitioners that Whites and Asians were the first species reduced to a more fragile and specialized one but far easier to put to useful work by the process of trans-generational domestication and bodily modification by the first animal tamers: according to them, non-Blacks are born out of the will of malevolent sorcerers to dispose of population of dependent slaves by birth. That is probably a short caricature, but there seems to be something real about it.

So many proverbs from so many cultures are wont to say laughter is what really makes humans human, animals being so serious in comparison of the most serious humans. Do Black Africans laugh less?


Filed under Africa, Animals, Anthropology, Asia, Asians, Blacks, Canids, Carnivores, Cows, Cultural, Dogs, Domestic, Europeans, Herbivores, India, Mammals, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, South Asia, Wild, Wolves

Black People Are Fully Human

Nope folks, Black people are fully human, just like us. Their line has been evolving longer than ours has, by the way. Also, Negroids are a new race, as new as Europeans. They only go back 9,000 years in agricultural Central Africa in the context of organized agriculture and the village societies it produced. If you want to look at Blacks who are more archaic, check out the Khoisans. Their genetic line at least goes back ~45,000 years, the oldest of any humans. Pygmies are also very archaic. Some proto-Pygmies were around ~50,000 YBP.

We are just the latest model is all.



European types only go back ~13,000 years. Before that, Europeans looked like Arabs and before that, like Amerindians from Washington state. Check out the Makah. Their skulls are closest to Europeans ~22,000 YBP. If you go back 35,000 YBP in Southern Russia, Proto-Caucasians look Australoid. So Australoid types may be the mother of us all.

Anyway Whites and Blacks can breed just fine, so we are not separate species. In fact when two species of say birds start breeding in the wild, they quit calling them separate species and lump them all into one species because they can breed.


Filed under Africa, Agricutlure, Anthropology, Blacks, Central Africa, Eurasia, Europeans, Khoisan, Physical, Pygmies, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Russia

Humble Pie Origins: The Glorious Caucasian Race Was Created By Crossing Two Types of Aborigines

All White people used to be Black or Asian.

1/3 Proto-Black (Warm-adapted Australoid, Negrito type?) + 2/3 Proto-NE Asian (Cold-adapted Australoid, proto-Ainuid?) = Caucasoids, 42,000 YBP.

So basically you crossed two Ainu Australoids with one Negrito Australoid and you get a White person. So Caucasians were created by breeding two types of, let’s call it what it was, Australian Aborigine types together.

Most humans don’t have illustrious lines if you go back far enough. It’s nothing to be ashamed of. I mean after all, if you go back far enough, we were all frogs. Why is that an insult. It’s not an insult to say that Pepe is the Father of All of US Shitlords.


Filed under Aborigines, Ainu, Anthropology, Asians, Blacks, Europeans, Negritos, Northeast Asians, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, SE Asians, Whites

Human Civilization as Collectivism in Action, or Nothing New under the Sun

Most great theories have one or often more intellectual precursors.

Check out the idea that Charles Darwin invented the Theory of Evolution. In a sense, of course he did, but there were definitely more than a few folks playing around with it before he did. What Darwin did more than anything else was to lay out the theory in a pure, connected and conclusive form. The others were tinkering around the edges, playing with the idea, tossing theoretical coins in the air. All of this is valuable, but it takes the masterstroke of a great genius to lay it out brilliantly and conclusively once and for all.

As my mother likes to say, “People have been writing for thousands of years. There aren’t a whole lot of new ideas floating around.”

Really most all theory is plagiarism. We are all building on blocks that have been laid down before us, just as creation and evolution build on the chemicals and adaptations that proceeded to them to create brand new forms that look little like their forerunners.

There is noting new under the sun.

– Famous quote.

My own take on the quote above is that no matter how brilliant you think your theory or idea or even line of prose is, I am pretty sure that someone has written it down before, and if not spoken it, and even more likely, thought of it.

Bottom line is that scientific theory is not as individualist as capitalist fanboys think. Scientific theory is a collectivist effort, as is nearly all of human evolution. No man is an island, not even Marlon Brando, who is about as big as one. Alone we produce nearly nothing. Together we have produced and innovated the whole of human experience and achievement. Sit every human off in his own cubicle in the ultimate individualist experiment and see how far it gets you, Randtards. Not far I assure you.

+1 for us collectivists.


Filed under Anthropology, Capitalism, Cultural, Economics, Evolution, Science

Alt Left: Were Human Females Sexually Selected for Beauty?

Let’s face it, folks, women are beautiful. They are far more beautiful than us men, and this is given as a reason that a lot of basically straight women drift into bisexuality. At least one bi-curious woman told me that, and I have seen others state it.

Put that idea in your head:

“Women are beautiful as a part of their basic genetic nature. They are far more beautiful than us men, who are more ruggedly handsome when attractive.”

Now start looking at women anywhere, especially on a dating site or Facebook. where you can see many women in short period of time. They are beautiful, aren’t they? They are beautiful in a way that most of us men are not. In fact, they appear to have been specifically bred for beauty, to put it crudely.

It must be that males across space and time have been specifically selecting for beauty in females. The less attractive females were apparently simply selected against.

If human females tend to have a core natural beauty as a result of sexual selection in favor of beauty cross-racially, it stands to reason that Black females have been selected for beauty also. The women of most races are beautiful, although I must admit I still can’t see the beauty in Aboriginal women, though Aborigine/White mixes are often remarkably beautiful. One of these mixes is a famous model in Australia. At any rate, races with largely unattractive females are quite rare. Poke around in any major human race, and you will start to see the beauty in the women if you look closely enough.


Filed under Aborigines, Anthropology, Blacks, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Mixed Race, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, Sex, Women

Alt Left: The Creation of a New Race in the US – a Black/White Converged Race

It must be that males across space and time have been specifically selecting for beauty in females. The less attractive females were apparently simply selected against.

We see this trend even in modern times as the Black phenotype in the US has remarkably merged with the White phenotype, but only from the late 1800’s on. The changes in Black skulls in the US from the 1870’s on are nothing short of miraculous. Some it is probably due to diet, but most of it seems to be due to pure genetics. At the same time, a remarkable change has occurred in the White phenotype in terms of selection against archaic features and for progressive features from the 1600’s to the present day such that White people now look more like Black people than they do like their very own Colonial ancestors.

We what we are seeing is a merger of the two races. We have already had the creation of the American Negro, almost a new race among Blacks characterized by more progessive features and greater beauty, fewer archaic features, increased intelligence (apparently genetic) and heavy White minority admixture. Yet US Whites are also creating a new race as they merge together with Blacks phenotypically. It is almost as if we are heading towards the creation of a new Black-White merged and somewhat mixed race here in the Americas. Some it is due to interbreeding, but much is also due to parallel development.

What happened what that after the First Liberation, Black men were probably finally able to be more selective in Black females. They selected for lighter skin and Whiter or at least more progressive features and against more archaic features. Black females were also able to be more choosy about men. As some Black men began to accumulate money and wealth (quite a bit of which could be accumulated in Black neighborhoods among the new Black professionals) women began selecting possibly for the most moneyed, prominent or powerful men.

This type of Black men has always been lighter-skinned and more White-admixed than other Blacks. Hence these men would have more progessive and fewer archaic features. It also seems to be a truism that archaic features as associated with lower IQ’s and more progressive features are associated with higher IQ’s. This is even true across racial lines and within races themselves. Mass Black selection for more progressive and Whiter features may have led to the increased IQ among US Negroes, which can only partly be explained by genetics. There may also have been some epigenetics at work here in the US.


Filed under Anthropology, Biology, Blacks, Genetics, History, Intelligence, Physical, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, US, USA, Whites