Category Archives: Khoisan

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.

32 Comments

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

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.

5 Comments

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

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.

21 Comments

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

Race and Body Hair

Barbara Domino: Are hair strands used for identification of ancestry…Caucasian, Negroid or Mongoloid classification?

Can be. The hairs of the races are different. For that matter, Negrito and Melanesian (woolly) hair is different from Black hair (kinky or coiled). Aborigine (wavy) and Papuan hair is different from Caucasian hair. And Negroid hair is different from Khoisan hair (very tightly coiled and spotty).

Mongoloid hair – straight, black, smooth and sparse, seems different from Caucasian hair.

Not that anyone has any hair on their bodies anymore anyway, but back in the days before body hair went extinct, Asian body hair was definitely different from that of Caucasians and Black body hair differed from Caucasians and Asians.

I know nothing of the body hair of Negritos or Aborigines. When the shaving fad finally hits the devastated Outback or the ruined Aeta villages on the jungle mountains, you will know that the whole world is now postmodern and globalized with nothing left to discover.

Sigh. Alas.

Speaking of which, anybody know where I can get me one of those Aborigine chicks? How bout those cute little Negrito ladies?

Bucket list, guys.

6 Comments

Filed under Aborigines, Anthropology, Asians, Blacks, Europeans, Khoisan, Melanesians, Negritos, Oceanians, Papuans, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, SE Asians

Are Negroids Throwbacks?

Steve writes:

How are black people a new race?

Because they only showed up in the last 6-12,000 years in the context of organized agriculture.

Steve: What people did they evolve from?

We are probably talking about races that don’t even exist anymore. No one seems to know what the pre-Negroids looked like. We have skulls, but I have never seen any reconstructions. Yes, Khoisans are an ancient race, but they have not always looked like this. The Khoisan phenotype you see is only 10-15,000 years old. It’s new too.

Steve: Aren’t they just an evolution of Homo Erectus but with modern human sized brains?

This is what we all are actually. Blacks no more or less than anyone else really. Actually Africans have been evolving away from prehistoric humans longer than anyone else.

Steve: Apart from the head size, they look the same, unless the artists depictions are biased.

Negroids don’t look like Erectus or certainly Ergaster. Anyway, phenotype doesn’t mean a whole lot when comparing modern humans to prehistoric men. We’re all equally far away from them as far as I can tell. I don’t think there are any modern humans that are closer to prehistoric men than other modern humans. Aborigines look pretty primitive, but they are further away genetically from the African prehistoric base than any other humans. There are no throwbacks and it’s a nasty lie to call Black people throwbacks or imply they are closer to prehistoric men than anyone else is.

57 Comments

Filed under Aborigines, Anthropology, Blacks, Khoisan, Physical, Race/Ethnicity

Every Race Is a New Race

From here.

This is so perfect.

Problem is that ancient Caucasoids look anything but Caucasoid, and ancient Northern Eurasians look anything but Northern Eurasian. Both ancient Caucasoids and ancient Northern Eurasians looked like Australoids or Paleomongoloids phenotypically.

It is important to note that phenotypically, all races are modern.

The Aborigines showed up ~15,000 YBP (13-17,000 YBP). Much more archaic types are known before then, including some that look like Homo Erectus.

Even the Khoisan are only known from 12,000 YBP.

Modern Europeans do not show up until 11,000 YBP. Before that, Europeans genetically and phenotypically resemble Arabs. The “White race” is very new. Sorry Alt Reichers.

The modern Negroid race does not show up until 6-12,000 YBP.

Modern Amerindians only show up 8,000 YBP. Before that, they look first Australoid (Lacondon Woman) and then Australoid-Paleomongoloid transitional or Ainuid (Kennebunk Man).

Polynesians and Micronesians only show up 3,000 YBP. Before that, no one lived on those islands.

SE Asians are quite new and have only appeared in the last 5,000 years. Before that, they looked like Aborigines, Negritos, Veddoids or Melanesians (Australoids).

Modern Thais only show up 900 YBP. Before that, they were Paleomongoloids.

Modern South Indians only appear 8,000 YBP. Before that, they looked like Veddoids types or Aborigines (Australoids).

All skulls from Vietnam, Thailand and Malaysia from 2,500-25,000 YBP appear Australoid. They look like either Aborigines, Veddoids or Melanesians. Vietnamese anthropologists have studied Vietnamese skulls from 21,000 YBP to present, and the unmistakable conclusion is that the originally Australoid Melanesian skulls slowly from 21,000 YBP become more gracile and finally evolve into full Neomongoloid only 2,300 YBP.

Early Northern Eurasians may have looked like Australoids.

One of the oldest Proto-Caucasoid skulls from 35,000 YBP in the Caucasus has been classed as Australoid.

At the archeological digs in Northern China, skulls prior to 9,000 YBP look like Aborigines (probably Ainuid Australoids). At 9,000 YBP, they transition into Mongoloids, maybe with Caucasoid input.

Anyway, ancient Caucasoids look anything but. 22,000 YBP Caucasoids from Central Europe look more like the Makah Indians of NW Washington State than anyone else. So Europeans at this time looked like Paleomongoloids.

53 Comments

Filed under Aborigines, Amerindians, Anthropology, Arabs, Asia, Asians, Blacks, East Indians, Eurasia, Europe, Europeans, Khoisan, Malaysia, Melanesians, Micronesians, Negritos, Oceanians, Physical, Polynesians, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, SE Asians, South Asians, Thai, Thailand, Vietnam, Vietnamese, Whites

Primitive People Have Some of the Most Complicated Languages of Them All

On A Look at the Australian Aborigine Languages, Jason writes:

Perhaps they don’t have such a low IQ if their language is most difficult.

The people with the lowest IQ’s of all have some of the maddeningly complex languages out there.

Pygmies along with the Khoisan are said to have the lowest IQ’s on Earth, somewhere in the 50’s. The original Pygmy languages are gone, but we can see traces of the original languages in the Bantu languages that they now speak. The Bantu languages supplanted their original tongues, whatever those were.

Nevertheless, Bantu languages themselves are quite difficult. Many are tonal, and they feature such tonal bizarreness as tone terracing and terraced tones. They distinguish such features mark such things as + or – Advanced Tongue Root (ATR), which is quite strange among the world’s languages, and they often have a bafflingly long list of genders for noun classes. It is not easy for Westerners to learn Bantu languages and few bother or even try.

The Khoisan are said to have the lowest IQ’s on Earth, estimated in the 50’s. Most of them never go to school, and when they do, they tend to flounder and drop out. The Kenyan government has given up on trying to educate the Hadza. They do not to appear to be genetically or culturally adapted to the modern world.

However, their languages are insanely complex, consisting among other things of bizarre click sounds that no other languages on Earth have. They are almost impossible for non-natives to learn. Nelson Mandela said that he spoke one of those click languages most of his life and he never did learn to make those click sounds correctly.

The Australians have the next lowest at 62 IQ. They do very poorly in schools when they go to school at all, and they are rife with all sorts of pathologies. In short, they are simply not adapted genetically or culturally to the modern world.

Australian languages are wildly complex and in fact are so strange that they have been the source of many very controversial debates in Linguistics, especially the configurationality debate where Chomsky claimed all languages were configurational, yet the Australian language Warlpiri was said to violate this so-called linguistic universal. The configurational supporters claim dubiously that Warlpiri is actually configurational. But even if it is, it would still be crazily complex.

These languages are very difficult but not impossible to learn. One of the greatest polyglot linguists of all time,. Ken Hale, prided himself on his fluency in Warlpiri. Nevertheless, many non-aboriginal Australians are trying to learn some Aboriginal languages as part of an Australian cultural revival, and they are finding it quite hard going.

The Papuans have the next lowest at 64 IQ. However, one wonders just how stupid they actually are. Jared Diamond spent a lot of time with Papuans, and he said that they did not seem stupid at all to him.

Papuan languages are also crazy complicated, and few if any outsiders even bother to learn them.

Papuans are frankly failing at adopting to the modern world. The large city Port Moresby is full of Papuans who have completely failed the test of modernity. It has one of the highest violence rates on Earth, and it is so dangerous that I would not recommend that anyone go there. The entire city is locked in a wild gang war, and the gangs seem to have actual armies and modern weapons. Furthermore there is unbelievable amount of common crime such as robbery, rape and homicide. Clearly Papuans are not cut out genetically or culturally for modern life.

As you can see, some of the primitive people seem to have some of the most insanely complex languages on Earth. Linguistics has gotten so insane with PC that you cannot say that anymore. In fact, lunatic linguists insist that no language is more inherently complex or harder to learn than any other language.

One of my professors told me that primitive peoples are often bored and being highly intelligent humans, they look around for mind games to relieve their boredom. Many of them enjoy their complicated languages, and a favorite pastime especially of the men is to spend their time playing language games utilizing the complexity of their language.

Moronic linguists have falsely stated that I am saying that primitive people are bored so they make their languages more complex for something to do. But I never said that. Maybe they do, maybe they don’t. We don’t know.

However, certainly many of these languages are already crazy complex, and there does not seem to be a cultural trend to reduce the complexity of and simplify their language, as they seem to enjoy their complicated languages. And primitive peoples seem to defy that trend as their languages do not tend to simplify over time.

I believe that there is a trend that as a society and civilization develops, languages tend to simplify. This definitely seems to be true in our modern industrialized era. Time is money after all, and modern languages need to get their message across as quickly as possible in a way that is as easy to understand as possible. That is, unless you are an attorney for whom complex language is a form of information warfare against the opposing team of lawyers and the public in general.

Supposedly consensus among modern linguist idiots is that this is not true either and that languages do not get simpler as speakers modernize.

However, it is my opinion that linguistic consensus is sheer idiocy on many different levels.

The explanation for why primitive people often have very complex languages is that human beings are naturally highly intelligent, even those with IQ’s from 52-64. All humans seem to be born with a natural tendency to learn even the most complex languages and this ability is a base human feature that is independent of IQ. Further, primitive languages have no need to simplify to deal with the modern world and furthermore, they seem to enjoy their complex tongues as some sort of an intellectual exercise in what is often an intellectually impoverished life in the wilds.

12 Comments

Filed under Aborigines, Africa, Anthropology, Applied, Australia, Blacks, Crime, Cultural, East Africa, Intelligence, Kenya, Khoisan, Khoisan, Language Families, Language Learning, Linguistics, Pacific, Papua New Guinea, Papuans, Psychology, Pygmies, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Social Problems, Sociology, Urban Studies

An Australoid Asia of 9,000 YBP

Pumpkin Person wrote:

Robert, Sforza’s tree shows non-Africans splitting off of Africans.

And then Northern Eurasians splitting off Australoids (including southeast Asians & Pacific Islanders).

And then finally Mongoloids splitting off Caucasoids.

See here.

Now this is confusing because southeast Asians look Mongoloid yet are on the Australoid branch. You seem to think this is evidence of Australoid evolving into Mongoloids. More likely, Southeast Asians are just a hybrid of Mongoloids and Australoids just as Indians are a hybrid of Caucasoids and Australoids.

Pumpkin is confusing genes with skulls and phenotypes. The problem is that ancient Caucasoids look anything but Caucasoid, and ancient Northern Eurasians look anything but Northern Eurasians. Both ancient Caucasoids and ancient Northern Eurasians looked like Australoids or Paleomongoloids phenotypically.

It is important to note that phenotypically, all races are modern.

The Aborigines showed up 15,000 YBP. Much more archaic types are known before then, including some that look like Homo Erectus.

Even the Khoisan are only known from 12,000 YBP.

Modern Europeans do not show up until 11,000 YBP. Before that, Europeans genetically and phenotypically resemble Arabs.

The modern Negroid race does not show up until 6-12,000 YBP.

Modern Amerindians only show up 8,000 YBP. Before that, they look Australoid and then Australoid-Paleomongoloid transitional.

Polynesians and Micronesians only show up 3,000 YBP. Before that, no one lived there.

SE Asians are quite new and have only appeared in the last 5,000 years. Before that, they looked like Aborigines, Negritos, Veddoids or Melanesians (Australoids).

Modern Thais only show up 900 YBP. Before that, they were Paleomongoloids.

Modern South Indians only appear 8,000 YBP. Before that, they looked like Veddoids types or Aborigines (Australoids).

All skulls from Vietnam, Thailand and Malaysia from 2,500-25,000 YBP appear Australoid. They look like either Aborigines, Veddoids or Melanesians. Vietnamese anthropologists have studied Vietnamese skulls from 21,000 YBP to present, and the unmistakeable conclusion is that the originally Australoid Melanesian skulls slowly become more gracile and finally evolve into full Neomongoloid 2,300 YBP.

Those Northern Eurasians may have looked like Australoids.

One of the oldest Caucasoid skulls from 35,000 YBP in the Caucasus has been classed as Australoid.

At the archeological digs in Northern China, skulls prior to 9,000 YBP look like Aborigines (probably Ainuid Australoids). At 9,000 YBP, they transition into Mongoloids, maybe with Caucasoid input as Pumpkin suggests.

Pumpkin is talking about genes, and I am comparing skulls, so we are going to get different results. Anyway, ancient Caucasoids look anything but. 22,000 YBP Caucasoids from Central Europe look more like the Makah Indians of NW Washington State than anyone else. So Europeans at this time looked like Paleomongoloids.

11 Comments

Filed under Aborigines, Amerindians, Anthropology, Arabs, Asia, Asians, Blacks, East Indians, Europeans, Khoisan, Melanesians, Micronesians, Negritos, Oceanians, Physical, Polynesians, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, SE Asians, South Asians, Thai, Vietnamese

Africa, 12,000 YBP: The Dawn of the Negroid Race

An anonymous emailer asks:

I’m a little confused. I have many questions, you seem to be good resource..

I see that you said that the Khoisan is the oldest race, but how can that be the oldest race when the oldest skull they found only goes back 15,000 years?

Caucasoids inhabited Sub Sahara before Khoisan and Bantu types:

Hofmeyr: 36,000 (Grine 2007)

Khoisan: 15,000 (Grine 2007)

Bantu/Iwo Eleru: 10,000 (Grine 2007, Mauny 1978, Allsworth-Jones 2002, Phillipson, 2005)

Also how did Negroids come into existence? Any peer reviewed articles?

Not true, we have human skulls going all the way back to 90,000 YBP in Southern Africa and probably even before that. We have skulls of Homo Rhodesiensis dating back 185,000+ years.

What is Hofmeyr? There were no Caucasoids anywhere until 42,000 YBP.

Negroids evolved probably from archaic Pygmy and Khoisan types from 6,000 to 12,000 YBP. The process started at 12,000 YBP, which coincides with the first proto-agriculture in Africa and in the world. Yes it is true, Black Africans were some of the first agriculturalists on Earth!

Over this 6,000 year period, proto-Negroids slowly evolve from archaic Africans into the more modern and progressive Negroid type. This happened in the context of primitive agriculture, tribes with chiefs and hangers-on and monopolization of women in harems by a few elite men while leaving few women for the rest of the tribe. The most aggressive, brutal and sociopathic proto-Negroids out-competed all of the nicer men and rose to become chiefs of the tribe.

In addition, females in primitive agricultural no longer needed men to survive, so they were able to choose mates. Women when left to their devices will choose hypermasculine, robust, aggressive and even cruel, sociopathic, powerful and wealthy men over all others. They will even happily join a harem of such men instead of hooking up with a weaker male. In other words, given a choice, females will mass-choose the “Alphas” and leave most of the “Betas” twisting in the wind.

In contrast, primitive hunter-gatherers often have low testosterone. In Africa, the Negroid agriculturalists tend to have high testosterone while the Pygmy and Khoisan hunter-gatherers tend to have lower testosterone. Khoisans are described as friendlier, more engaging and less aggressive than Negroids. Pygmy’s are extremely non-aggressive nearly to the point of extreme passivity. Negroids are dramatically more aggressive than Pygmies.

Primitive hunter-gatherer females do not have the luxury of lives without men. They need to hook up with a man early in order to survive. Hence by age 18-22 if not earlier, most tribal women are married to a hunter-gatherer male. The marriages may not last long, but they do exist.

The important thing is that nearly every hunter-gatherer male gets a female and females exert almost no selection pressure on males for much of anything. All males tend to contribute their genes fairly equally. Under such a situation, testosterone levels in males will not rise.

The hangers-on of the chiefs were similarly robust and aggressive males. The process was completed by 6,000 YBP with the appearance due to the strong selection pressure above of the hypermasculine Negroid race, a robust, extremely athletic, physically skilled, aggressive, possibly more Machiavellian and sociopathic race with high testosterone levels driving the hypermasculinization.

9 Comments

Filed under Africa, Agricutlure, Anthropology, Blacks, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Khoisan, Physical, Pygmies, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Sex, Sociology

Are Blacks Closer to Apes Than Other Humans?

Justin writes:

Since Khosians lie at the root of modern humanity, are they more closely related to apes than the races that followed? I’m serious. Africans have features like flatter faces and noses, flared nostrils, big lips, etc which make them look more like more like Mighty Joe Young than Paddy the Irishman.

You can pick any black out of a crowd in America, strip ‘em of his clothes and place him in a jungle and he’d look right at home. Just give him a spear and wish him good luck.

Whether or not Khoisans are closer to apes than other races of humanity is not known.

Whether or not Blacks are closer to apes than other races of humanity is very controversial. There is a book out called Erectus Among Us by a virulent racist named Richard Fuerle that makes the case for this. His argument is that Blacks are actually a separate species, a vestigial Homo Erectus. As far as his Homo Erectus argument, the general agreement is that Blacks are Homo Sapiens sapiens, just like all the rest of us. Fuerle’s argument that Blacks are Homo Erectus is completely specious.

I am uncertain of the evidence he presents that Blacks are more ape-like (he does present a lot of evidence for this case), as the studies he references are mostly very old, from the early racist era of US history. It’s not an issue that is likely to be looked into soon in this era of political correctness.

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

690 Comments

Filed under Blacks, Dangerous Idiots, Idiots, Khoisan, Race Realism, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, White Nationalism, White Racism, Whites