How Leftist Ideology Might Have Destroyed The Neanderthals

Much about the Neanderthals is shrouded in the mists of time, but archaeology provides some clues. Their disappearance is one of the mysteries of early mankind. Several theories have been proposed. I’ll put forth another; not entirely seriously, but to illustrate some important points.

It’s unlikely that ideology predated the dawn of civilization, but unconsciously following a few leftist principles doomed the Neanderthals. (When cultural Marxism is running the show, the things that once were thoughtless mistakes are actively promoted!) Thus, their demise is uncannily similar to some of today’s trends. The fate of the Neanderthals is a prime example of why packing greatly dissimilar societies into the same territory is a recipe for destruction.

What were Neanderthals like?


Be careful, you toward the left: not all change leads to progress!

The stereotype is that Neanderthals were brutish knuckleheads, but that might be wrong. They had a somewhat larger average brain size than the Cro-Magnons, their later rivals. (Interestingly, the Cro-Magnons had larger brains than modern people do, something easier to believe with each passing year. Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard tried to warn us…) So they weren’t complete morons. Survival in a very harsh climate—Europe and Central Asia during the Ice Age—meant that Neanderthals (and their little-known Denisovan cousins to the east) had the know-how to prepare for the brutal winters. They certainly didn’t have a nanny-state government to bail them out if they couldn’t plan ahead.

Neanderthal burial customs show that they cared about their departed, and we might deduce that they believed in an afterlife. They used tools. They made the first known musical instrument, a bone flute. The first realistic sculptures featured Neanderthal heads. They made cave paintings too. Although the Cro-Magnons were better at it, Neanderthals still were more talented than many artists today. They were physiologically capable of speech, so they likely had languages. All told, then, they did have culture, though what form it took is pretty speculative. In any event, there’s no clear evidence  they were any more savage than other Paleolithic population groups.

They were stocky, with large brows, eyes, and noses, and small chins.  Other than that, they were very muscular. I’m a bit of a gym rat, but even Neanderthal chicks were considerably tougher than I am. The trade-off was that they had less dexterity than Cro-Magnons, as we can see by comparing their spearheads.

As for the Cro-Magnons, they evolved in East Africa perhaps as early as 200,000 years ago. They were likely bronze-complexioned, before spreading across the globe and adapting to local conditions, eventually becoming the races of today. They had pointy chins and somewhat square eye sockets, but otherwise looked a lot like we do now. What happened when these two peoples met?

Open borders immigration

The first contact was likely in the Levant. I can imagine how the conversation between two Neanderthals might have gone:

“Hey, Og, there are some new people coming in. They’re tall and skinny, their heads look a little weird, and they talk funny. Who are they?”

“They must be refugees. We should welcome them.”

“Well, I don’t want them taking our land.”

“I’m telling you, one of these days someone around here will write a book that says ‘Therefore love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.’”

“I’m just not sure about all this. How do we know they won’t take our hospitality as a sign that they can play us for chumps? What’s their agenda, anyway? Will they fit in and respect our values? How do we know that they’re not going to take over one of these days? Why can’t these tired, poor, huddled masses yearn to breathe free somewhere else? How do we benefit from letting in this wretched refuse from their teeming shore?”

“You’re such a reactionary, Grunk. This is the Fertile Crescent, after all. Resources are plentiful here, and I see that there are only a few of these immigrants right now. All they want is a better place to live. Surely they’ll assimilate and learn our ways, and we’ll all get along together if only we set aside our prejudices and open our hearts. Let’s stop being xenophobic and give diversity a chance.”

“Okay, Og, you’ve convinced me. We outnumber them now, we’re stronger, and we’re in charge, so we’ll always be in control of the situation, right? Maybe they can pick our vegetables for us or something. After all, what’s the worst thing that possibly could happen?

Later, the Cro-Magnons had overrun much of the Middle East by about 36,500 BC. By 28,000 BC, they had taken over almost all territories that Neanderthals used to inhabit nearly exclusively. Mass immigration—then a careless lack of vigilance—is something aggressively promoted today.

This certainly led to resource competition. Due to the greater musculature, Neanderthals required about twice the caloric intake as modern people (including the Cro-Magnons, who weren’t too different from us anatomically). It’s basically the same reason why you can’t graze cattle and sheep in the same pasture; the sheep chew the grass down to the ground before the cattle can get their fill.

The Neanderthals were very sparsely populated and practiced big-game hunting. That worked out fine, until people who could get by with greater population density came in and started eating all their food. Studies on the remains of the late Neanderthals suggest that malnutrition was fairly common.

Were they resentful that their hunting grounds were being picked clean by the newcomers? Perhaps that was like many conservatives today grumbling about fresh-off-the-boat immigrants milking the welfare system while staying home and making babies. The taxpayers (52% of the American population, as Mitt Romney indelicately observed) have to work to support everyone on public assistance, sometimes limiting their own family size because they’re being taxed to death. We want at least a decent, middle-class existence (high resources) for our kids; those living on the government tit (low resources) have no such requirements. And on the subject of differential fertility rates…



Andrea Dworkin, grand high poobah of the Junior Anti-Sex League

The new immigrants, the Cro-Magnons, had a slightly higher fertility rate than Neanderthals did. The population change wasn’t much per year, but over thousands of years it was very significant. Even so, the Neanderthals didn’t have much to complain about, since the populations now invited to flood the Western world have a much higher fertility rate than the host populations.

Why was the Neanderthal fertility rate lower? The real reason probably has to do with them being a little bit more K-selected. Still, I can’t help but wonder if leftist ideology might have been involved. After all, much of their platform serves the depopulation agenda, for reasons which are pretty obvious. They aggressively promote anti-natal policies: abortion, homosexuality, the transsexual fad, the “childfree” lifestyle, even the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, etc. Leftists would dwindle away, if they didn’t control the media and education systems to indoctrinate the public.

Were there any of the likes of Bella Abzug, Valerie Solanas, or Andrea Dworkin during the Paleolithic Era? We don’t have any direct evidence of this, of course. Still, quite a few feminists bear more than a passing resemblance to burly cavewomen, so they might be throwbacks. And on the subject of looks…

Self-defeating diversity


“Hey, baby, what’s your sign?” “Buy me a drink and I’ll tell you.” “Shit Test, huh? I bet you’re a Capricorn, Taurus, Aries… well, anything I guess.”

When the exotic newcomers entered Neanderthal territory, they did what differing populations packed into close proximity eventually get around to doing. Those Neanderthals who hadn’t been overcrowded to death ended up interbreeding themselves out of existence. The process began pretty quickly; hybrid skulls have been found, such as in the Levant.

Interestingly, there has never been any Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA found in any modern humans. This means that there are no female lineages. There are a few hypotheses for this. Jean Auel put forth a couple of scenarios in her Earth’s Children novels, and that’s all I care to say about it. Another explanation is that boys born from Cro-Magnon male to Neanderthal female crossings could have been infertile. Likewise, there may be something to another hypothesis as to why there are no Neanderthal Y-chromosomes today, but I won’t bore you to tears.

I propose another reason why nobody has matrilineal descent from a Neanderthal woman. We at Return Of Kings are aware of the following indelicate facts:

  1. Chicks dig big, tough guys with muscles.
  2. Given the choice, guys prefer chicks who are least likely to push them around.

So, Neanderthal men were attracted to the slender Cro-Magnon ladies who surely respected them, and let neither cultural differences nor exotic looks stand in the way of getting laid. Meanwhile, Cro-Magnon guys liked their women slender too. They weren’t so enthusiastic about burly Neanderthal babes who would have written them off as betas and friend-zoned them anyway.

This undoubtedly drove the Neanderthal fertility rate further down. Because they believed that race isn’t important (“only a social construct“, as it goes now), they nailed their own coffin shut. They scored some Cro-Magnon punani, but their descendants don’t look very much like them.

As a result, most people have about 1-4% Neanderthal DNA; the numbers being slightly on the higher side for East Asians. That’s about the equivalent of having one Neanderthal great-great-great grandfather, and the rest of your ancestry is Cro-Magnon. (If indeed fertile offspring was less likely, these matches may have been more common than we’d expect.) Pure Africans are the exception, since Neanderthals never went there. As for the rest of us, basically we’re the Neanderthals now, but not very much.

So that’s the story of the two ancient races which—after tens of thousands more years of evolution—developed into the modern races of mankind across the globe.  Unfortunately for the Neanderthals, their unique looks and culture effectively became extinct a long time ago. Basically, these hardy Ice Age apex predators were surrounded by a faster growing population which overwhelmed them as time went by, and got assimilated to death.

Today’s Social Justice Warriors would be delighted to do that to all of humanity today, destroying diversity in the name of diversity. If the globalist elites calling the shots get their way, not even the pure Africans will escape the pan-gaeic biological stir-fry, even though they’re not the primary target yet.

Global warming


Could this be the true cause of global warming today?

Here’s one item where liberalism actually was right. Climate change removed the habitat where Neanderthals had a natural advantage, as they thrived in cold climates. Unlike today’s hot controversy, global warming certainly happened; the Ice Age ended. Rising oceans ate up a tremendous amount of coastline. For example, the English Channel used to be only a river. What is now the North Sea was above ground. However, even if we could send Al Gore back to the Ice Age to warn everybody, it wouldn’t have helped. Climate change happened because of natural forces, not people driving too many cars.

What could be done about global warming today? More nuclear power would drive carbon emissions way down. At the very least, it would conserve valuable resources. Next-generation designs (pebble bed reactors, thorium reactors, etc.) could be quite safe. However, nuclear power makes liberals quake with fear. Note also that the Obama administration ordered the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste disposal facility closed after billions were spent to get it ready, despite it being one of the safest places on earth to store spent nuclear fuel. Liberals refuse to consider uncomfortable subjects; Pizzagate being the latest example of this.

If anthropogenic climate change is true—I’ll consider it to be one possible factor of many—then refusal to allow an expedient solution might submerge much more coastline. Many liberals believe we should severely curtail using modern technology. So some leftists (ecofeminism, Ted Kaczynski) think we were better off before industrialization—and a few (anarcho-primitivism) actually propose returning to the Stone Age—but I don’t see many giving up their iPads, cell phones, and other gadgets.

Even when leftists make correct observations (at least arguably so), they can’t find practical solutions. Thus, they’re pretty much useless at public policy. Even worse is when they make short-sighted decisions to assuage their bleeding hearts. Often, this involves social engineering that eventually will destroy their own way of life if they get their way. Although they might long for collective suicide, they have no right to send their people the way of the Neanderthals.

Read more: The Incomplete And Flawed History Of The Human Species

116 thoughts on “How Leftist Ideology Might Have Destroyed The Neanderthals”

  1. Women in the West are becoming so boring, stupid, vapid and lovers of cats that we will all be fucking replicants in the near future. Probably that is what happened with the neanderthals: cro magnon pussy was better.

    1. Well, if the replicants are going to be as hot as Sean Young in Blade Runner count me in…..
      Now, talking seriously, a thing like that will be the final nail in the coffin of western civilisation. Why should a white man bother with some spoiled femicunt when you have a perfectly docile and hot Darryl Hannah at home willing to do anything you want?

      1. High birthrates are only needed when a country has open borders and is subject to invasion (ironically similar to dark ages times when barbarians could just stampede around, rob and loot and kill, and then move on). When a border is secure, a stable population is desired (such as, say, Egypt for thousands of years.) Why have huge populations if everything else is otherwise stable?
        If we subtract the welfare state and the worthless workers who do nothing more than generate powerpoint presentations, there’s probably a good 2/3’ds of excess population. But in a Darwinistic survival of the fittest game, then high birthrates are important even if standard of living goes into the toilet.
        Which brings us to the neanderthals who thrived best when the weather was bad. Yeah, life was hard and stunk but they lived in it. In other words, for men to thrive we have to have a sucky life unless we have a state that’s not corrupt and, sadly, that just hasn’t happened yet.

        1. Aging populations are the hallmark of decaying civilizations. Egypt was in decadence for hundreds of years. The fact that their enemies lacked the transportation and logistics capabilities to carry out an invasion doesn’t deny this underlying reality. Once they were able to strike into the heart of a weakened Egypt, they did.

          If we subtract the welfare state and the worthless workers who do nothing more than generate powerpoint presentations, there’s probably a good 2/3’ds of excess population. But in a Darwinistic survival of the fittest game, then high birthrates are important even if standard of living goes into the toilet.

          Your logic for some reason goes against everything the recorded history shows; sparsely populated Europe was the main theater of quasi-eternal conflicts, struggle, plagues and hunger as a result of abandoned farmlands. Densely populated 19th and early 20th century Europe represented an unequaled time of prosperity and rising standards of living. Now I am not advocating open borders, but birthrates below 2 children per women are catastrophic, even with a semi-automated economy and they most likely mean one thing: stagnation in one or several fields of inquiry (high specialization makes it harder for one genius to come and make major breakthroughs in several fields.
          Any thriving organism expands, sick organisms stagnate, wither and die. Just as a society is reaching its peak, its outlook is outward, focused on discovery, expansion, conquest, problem solving, nothing seems impossible. When a society is passed its zenith, navel gazing and inward outlook are some of its hallmarks…Our current international order is an anomaly. Once the Pax Americana is over, it will return to the natural state of things. Little nations ally themselves with the stronger ones and it becomes a free for all.

        2. Ok, here’s my take on it. There are a variety of game changes in human evolution (such as language, hunting for meat as omnivores, and of course agriculture) or as some would also put it: Stone, Bronze, Steel, plastic, but let’s go with agriculture for a moment.
          For a few thousand years, human civilization thrived with agriculture so large populations were required to generate enough resources to support the top pyramid of warriors, scientists, and philosophers. About a century ago, that all changed due to mechanization. I stand by what I said: the excess population that no longer works on farms (or were brought to work on farms) instead go on welfare. Heck, consider the fall of Rome and the welfare class of that republic.
          I accuse you (politely) of looking in the past regarding history without considering the moments when history changed and how previous historical events occurred where similar backward looking people couldn’t consider game changers.
          This planet would do just fine with 1/6th of the population. Heck, due to agriculture mechanization, even in the USA forests have been replanted at an astounding rate.
          The only reason why some push for the greater birthrates is because of open borders and a (race for the bottom) idiocracy of breeding for welfare dollars that will result in the next dark ages. Also, there’s short term profiteering from cheaper labor and the ponzi pension scheme system.
          Regarding aging populations: With advances in civilization, a person really can’t start producing significant intellectual work until the age of their mid-20’s or even beyond. Note that young people are typical millennial snowflakes who buy into diversity and political correctness and men (and women) start to develop a sense of conservative, logical thinking in their 30’s or 40’s or so. So really, we need lifespans to go longer to get anything done effectively unless you think that some 19 year old mumbling into a smartphone is going to advance human civilization.
          This is getting fun (hope you’re having fun too)

        3. Thank you for your response. Interesting points.
          Some things I need to point out:
          Welfare state as we know it dates back to the late 19th century as far as I know, with Bismark and back then it was just the Social Security meant for the elders not for children or their slutty single mothers. The people in the days of yore had children for two reasons:
          1. They wanted to continue their legacy (either out of conviction, social pressure, etc)
          2. They wanted someone to take care of them in their “golden years”.
          Notice that none of these reasons has anything to do with extracting resources from fellow taxpayers via the state.

          For a few thousand years, human civilization thrived with agriculture so large populations were required to generate enough resources to support the top pyramid of warriors, scientists, and philosophers. About a century ago, that all changed due to mechanization. I stand by what I said: the excess population that no longer works on farms (or were brought to work on farms) instead go on welfare. Heck, consider the fall of Rome and the welfare class of that republic.

          You just skipped the industrial revolution which required even more people (more mining and specialization of labour). Leaving that aside there is one factor that is missing in your analysis. The raison d’etre of the West’s Scientific and engineering breakthroughs. Christianity laid the philosophical foundation for the rise of science in the west, however without specialization and the population to sustain it and the numbers to make it necessary, the sequence of breakthroughs that followed would have been impossible and many inventions useless.
          Without demand most of the scientific and engineering breakthroughs we enjoy wouldn’t have been possible or would have been ignored and deemed unnecessary. The demand pressures (including continuous warfare) are one of the reasons behind the spread of different solutions and one of the main reasons why densely populated Europe was full of technological breakthroughs instead of squalor which characterized most of its history while other regions of the world that had been sparsely populated or lived under one single regime, without competing factions fighting against one another constantly. These factors were even more important than people with extremely high IQs.
          A world with one sixth of its current population would be comfortable for some (only with a higher than it’s now available level of automation, unless you are willing to do some sacrifices to your “standard of living”) but will be an stagnant world, or should I say an stagnant civilization. This would be specially true if artificial birth control is available. History shows that many if not most geniuses were not born to aristocrats, they were from the low and middle classes, many of them the third or so child. In a world with artificial birth control those people wouldn’t have been born and their discoveries would have happened much later or maybe never. I am not advocating for a “race to the bottom” or uncontrolled births but we must understand that everything in life is a tradeoff. A less populated world might be comfortable but will be no utopia and will be even more stagnant than ours.
          As I said before, when an inward looking mindset spreads, one can safely say one’s civilization is fucked. In your dreamworld one can safely assume no one will ever look to the stars let alone finance exploration beyond what we are doing now if the population stays the same; or for efficient methods to ensure organic food in a limited amount of land is grown, with the adequate concentrations of nutrients. It wouldn’t be necessary…until catastrophe strikes

          Regarding aging populations: With advances in civilization, a person really can’t start producing significant intellectual work until the age of their mid-20’s or even beyond. Note that young people are typical millennial snowflakes who buy into diversity and political correctness and men (and women) start to develop a sense of conservative, logical thinking in their 30’s or 40’s or so. So really, we need lifespans to go longer to get anything done effectively unless you think that some 19 year old mumbling into a smartphone is going to advance human civilization.

          While it’s true that most breakthroughs and discoveries are made by people well beyond their 20s, the discoverers themselves are rarely in their 70s, let alone their 80 or 90s. This is specially true in engineering. Bottom line: Current science has been expanding our lifespans or should I say our aging not our youth. Today’s octogenarians have the same capabilities than their counterparts in the late 18th century and with the widespread onset of Alzheimers, Parkinson and other degenerative diseases that go well beyond senility or arthritis, one can even argue that many are worse off than their forefathers at that age. Bottom line: Unless science can expand our youths, those longer lifespans will be pretty useless and in a massive scale toxic (young couples trying to take care of their parents and grandparents and other elder relatives while being outnumbered by them is not a pretty sight unless you consider euthanasia in a never seen before scale in the west something viable…an even uglier sight). Add to these international tensions and conflict (wars will not go away in your perfect world, that’s human nature).
          Moreover if modern men and women start their maturing process into their 30 and 40s (well beyond the prime age for child bearing in the case of women) the blame lies with their incompetent parents, who didn’t care enough to even try to fight the indoctrination of the state and media. They quit their responsibilities en masse and now complain about the results?
          At last, regarding your polite accusation: I accuse (politely) of looking at history as if it were a linear process where the assumptions of today (international order forever and ever, women unlimited freedom which is the main culprit behind our current birthrates, fiat money, never ending scientific progress etc.) will hold tomorrow and for the foreseeable future. In my opinion history is more cyclic. Unless we look forward to expand we will go bust or lose what we have today and go backwards in time (a la Europe post Roman Empire, or after a well deserved Carrington event).
          Sorry for the rant, I got carried away.

        4. The problem with an argument like this (or a debate to put it more politely) that goes beyond the scope and size of the original article is that we’ll get disconnected and, well, boring as the counterpoints grow in length exponentionally. Hopefully, I don’t ignore a valid point you made due to ignorance or dishonesty (especially the former.)
          Regardless of the history of the welfare state, my argument is that it’s more of a burden than asset, I believe we can agree on that? The industrial revolution was about REDUCING the number of laborers rather than expanding it. The growth in manufacturing jobs was due to a wonderful era long gone from our history back when “made in the USA” meant something and we had a lot of exports (such as, say, China is doing now.)
          The argument we need to keep packing more and more people onto the planet and/or nation lest we all lose our nerve, so to speak, sounds a lot like a pyramid/ponzi scheme. Agreed that wars in Europe (including WWI and WWII) helped to drive innovation but simultaneously, a lot of innovations happened in the absence of war such as the period between the end of the USA civil war and WWI when electricity, telephone, telegraph, and powered air flight all happened without a cattle prod to push these innovators forward. In any case, unless humanity can burst into space, this keynsian/ponzi scheme I (think) you’re arguing is necessary is going to run out of gas soon. The west isn’t doing well due to the huge influx of illegals/etc. and we actually have a devolution in progress (as per Idiocracy or, if you’re classical, read The Marching Morons.)
          I propose that a world with 1/6th of the population would be more comfortable for most and the opposite of stagnant. Wars today and dealing with 3rd world immigration isn’t fueling innovation or an improvement in standard of living. Sheesh, I shouldn’t even need to say that since it’s so darn obvious.
          Not a rant (either of us) but it’s rather difficult to make a truly coherent response without getting overly long. Wonderful discussion but I doubt we can prove “I’m right and you’re wrong because I have Facts and History and you don’t”. Well, I think so but if you want to believe you’re so right, fantastic. Please make a billion dollars in the stock market and take some of my cash for the portfolio if you could be so kind otherwise you’re just spouting off your opinion like I am. 🙂

        5. Thank you for your response. I’ll try to be brief. First off the industrial revolution v1.0 (late 18th-first half 20th century) didn’t replace workers it required more due to specialization (as described by Smith in the wealth of nations) the intensification of mining and the rise of new activities dedicated to the mgmt of this complexity. A brief description of this process can be in Sharp and McDermott’s workflow modeling.
          Second the late 19th and 20th century witnessed the greatest surge in wealth and population that the western world had ever seen. It wasn’t a period of stagnant populations and oldsters outnumbering young people and children (or slutty women set as the standard of womanhood).
          Third welfare state is the bane of western civilization. I am not in favor of it in case you were wondering. Neither am I in favor of keynesian schemes, those are a sort of an intellectual cancer that tainted the whole economic profession.
          At last I will say that we’ll have to agree to disagree. I accuse you politely of the same defect that libertarians, communists and liberals have: you ignore human nature and its numerous examples throughout history. Even if a 100% of your elected 1/6th were white in less than a generation conflict will arise…unless your dreamworld also includes a world gov a Là 1984 or brave new world that’s a whole set of other nightmarish problems and I believe we are heading there, the difference is that the remnant will not be 1/6th but 1/20th…
          If you think you are right because “humans have changed” or “we have progressed beyond our forefathers and we are not as savage as them” then be my guest.

        6. Addendum: the next decades will be interesting. It’s the first time wealth creation,the result of work,is being detached from human work, thus millions of humans are likely to be rendered obsolete. A great culling is in order I think. By the end of this century there will be much less people on this planet one way or another.

        7. I’ll start with the last first so I set a theme and move from there. I do think humans change in that we are active participants in evolution otherwise why do we care who we marry, really? Why is there selection in nature at all? In that regard, I think we as humans do evolve, or devolve, to adapt or transition to our environments as either created by ourselves or external forces. Also, culture has something to do with it.
          So that being said, I didn’t advocate a genocide in favor of whites or anyone so much as how it would behoove humanity to make sensible movements towards progress instead of random acts of the crowd that usually work towards forward evolution and sometimes not.
          That leads us to the next point regarding progress in the 20th and 19th century. Most of that was due, you’ll agree, to new technologies being adopted rather than whether lots of people were old or young. I provided some reasoning for causality rather than correlation. You can dismiss them as insufficient if you like, but simply because history happens doesn’t mean it’s for the reasons you suppose. You know, like two blind men feeling around an elephant and coming up with different conclusions.
          Regarding industrial revolution 1.0: I wouldn’t say most of these workers were really much more specialized than agricultural workers. Heck, I’d say the opposite when Chinese laborers are put on an assembly line or women on factory looms in the 19th century.
          Cheers and happy new year.

        8. I was just musing about this when walking through our local shopping center: There was a photography store that went under (yeah, duh!) and then in its place, two, count ’em two, discount hair stylist places opened (hair cuttery, I refer to as butchers) and a barber shop. I can’t see how the economy will support them.
          In the same shopping center there are about 7 different restaurants including 3 medium end ones where you can blow $80 in a night. I personally don’t do this unless for a special occasion but I guess this is why so many people I know have money problems. I also think out of the box so I shouldn’t project my economic thinking onto the rest of society much less my local neighbors.

        9. I’ll be brief

          So that being said, I didn’t advocate a genocide in favor of whites
          or anyone so much as how it would behoove humanity to make sensible movements towards progress instead of random acts of the crowd that usually work towards forward evolution and sometimes not.

          I am not tainted by PC sensibilities. My statement was just to point out that even if the remnant in your ideal world was a homogeneous group (white was just used as an example, it could have been black, yellow, blue, etc), conflict would arise. I didn’t imply you were a racist or a would be genocide apologist or anything like that. Conflict is part of our nature and that would be specially true if our modern technology still around. Only a biological change on DNA level would change this fact. Each one of us consumes as much resources if not more from Earth as 1000 starving Africans. Our lifestyle coupled with bad industrial policies whose aim is to increase profits at the expense of the future is the reason behind the environmental deterioration not our numbers. Late 20th century lifestyle of everything-is-throwaway-or-too-complex-to-repair-anyway is simply unsustainable.

          That leads us to the next point regarding progress in the 20th and 19th century. Most of that was due, you’ll agree, to new technologies being adopted rather than whether lots of people were old or young. I provided some reasoning for causality rather than correlation.

          My point was that without this centuries-long population boom in the west, neither the people who made the inventions nor the people who became potential users of these inventions, thus bringing in an economic justification for their widespread adoption would have been available, therefore the rhythm of technological invention would have been slower. Noticeably slower. Many inventions were ignored due to the simple fact that there was no compelling reason to change the status quo especially if adoption was expensive and painful, for starters, Industrial revolution could have started in 16th century but Elizabeth I stopped it in its tracks due to pressure from guilds. It wasn’t until demographic pressures and imperial concerns led to the adoption of the steam power and other machinery that kickstarted Industrial Rev v1.0…200 years later…thankfully.
          Widespread adoption of inventions is not driven by starry eyed ideologues who dream of a better man but for practical reasons (will it further the power of our country/company/house? or will it bring profits to our country/company/house?). If these reasons are absent, status quo wins, human progress loses. Which in itself is not something bad in hindsight. Our society has been changed by a large number of innovations whose impact wasn’t foreseen and not all of these changes were for good (nuclear power, digital revolution, social media, etc.). Maybe society needs to adapt itself before adopting each groundbreaking innovation…

          Regarding industrial revolution 1.0: I wouldn’t say most of these
          workers were really much more specialized than agricultural workers. Heck, I’d say the opposite when Chinese laborers are put on an assembly line or women on factory looms in the 19th century.

          I think the problem is that we don’t share the same definition for the term specialization. In the days of yore, before the Industrial revolution, everything was the product of a craftworker who normally participated in the whole process of manufacture, from the purchase of iron ore to the final delivery of a horseshoe or a sword and oftentimes he was the one who marketed and sold his product. He was an expert worker but no specialist. I will put a description of a specialized worker at the beginning of the IR v.10:

          “One man draws out the wire, another straightens it, a third cuts it, a fourth points it, a fifth grinds it at the top for receiving the head; to make the head requires three distinct operations; to put it on is a peculiar business, to whiten the pins another; it is even a trade unto itself to put them into the paper.”
          …now 10 men, who, individually, could not make even 20 pins in a day, were collectively able to make 48,000 pins in a day….
          Source: Adam Smith The wealth of Nations

          I’ll leave it there. Have a happy new year. I hope you found our exchange fun.

        10. Hey, hope you’re having a good start on the New Year. Have hit a glass of wine already so hopefully this will be cogent (in spite of).
          Regarding the 1000 starving Africans. I have thought about this as well and heck, if we were still cavemen then sustainability wouldn’t be an issue. The coal would sit in the ground and natural deaths would balance out the equilibrium.
          But… ponder that we no longer will allow natural equilibrium. Those 1000 starving Africans have airlifts from the west for food and locally, as we discussed, the welfare state. If allowed for decreasing populations as discussed previously, then our impact on the environment would be significantly minimalized. As I think I mentioned before, millions of acres of forest that previously were used for crops for less efficient agriculture have been reclaimed.
          Much of the reason why we’re tearing the planet apart is so-called free market open borders as Asia (mostly) but also Africa to a certain extent dumps their excess population on the west. So the 1000s of African’s are just sitting there.
          Regarding pressure of invention: I recall on the history channel a documentary about the steam engine being invented in ancient greece but didn’t catch on because wood was expensive but slaves and beasts of burden were not. Kind of works with your point regarding the keynsian nature (IMO, don’t take it personally) of your argument that we need mo’ people to justify invention.
          I think it was more the opposite actually in that, and I’m throwing this into the ring, that as the west became more affluent, then they could afford more luxury goods such as cars, etc. Make a third world mass of people and then you got everyone fighting for bread again.
          Regarding specialization again, in the case of the wire example, I think that’s a bit dishonest of the author to claim that somehow five guys doing specialized work could increase their productivity by a factor of 480 simply because they are doing single tasks. I call balderdash. Really. Balderdash. In any case, it’s a red herring to claim that these men are so specialized like, say, IT workers and are more like low paid factory workers currently in China.
          Hmm, fun way to take the discussion. I have met many managers who want to make IT work into factory work and simply treat us as cheap factory workers who can do a single task quickly and then “automate” it. It’s kind of funny. I’d like them to binge watch “Battlestar Galactica” to understand that they can’t ask us to write computers to program themselves. 🙂 Instead, they get tons of bad code written by bad coders so they hire more…
          er, bad coders. 🙂
          And in a way, that’s kind of what I think has happened with a lot workplaces that do work incredibly badly but since so many other places are equally if not more dysfunctional, nobody notices much. Yet.

        11. But… ponder that we no longer will allow natural equilibrium. Those 1000 starving Africans have airlifts from the west for food and locally, as we discussed, the welfare state. If allowed for decreasing populations as discussed previously, then our impact on the environment would be significantly minimalized. As I think I mentioned before, millions of acres of forest that previously were used for crops for less efficient agriculture have been reclaimed.

          That’s a self-inflicted problem. The only welfare Africans receive is given to them in the form of handouts by international activists. What these useless do-gooders and heretics (most missionaries) don’t realize is that Africans would be better served by an Inquisition and ironclad rule of law, such things would improve the character of their people and would further their human progress far more than any handout.

          Regarding specialization again, in the case of the wire example, I think that’s a bit dishonest of the author to claim that somehow five guys doing specialized work could increase their productivity by a factor of 480 simply because they are doing single tasks. I call balderdash. Really. Balderdash. In any case, it’s a red herring to claim that these men are so specialized like, say, IT workers and are more like low paid factory workers currently in China.

          That’s division of labour for you. Actually is not hard to believe when you see that they produced different pieces instead of focusing in a single product every time, leaving assembly as a separate task, just ask Henry Ford. My main point was that for this specialization and division of labour to work, you needed even more people than before IR v1.0 where a craft-master would oversee the production from end to end e.g. from the purchase of iron ore to the forge of the iron plates to the manufacturing of a rifle. All done by a single team or in some cases by a single person in charge of the production (master blacksmith).
          Interesting insight about your work and very true. Many people think IT and other intelligence heavy work can be simplified and reduced to single repetitive procedures without realizing they are shooting themselves to their feet.

        12. 3/4’s of a bottle of Coppola and you win this round. For now. I’ll try to get back to you tomorrow!

  2. Wanna talk about how leftist ideology destroyed the Neanderthals? Brendan Fraser had a bright future ahead of him after he played a thawed out Neanderthal in “Encino Man” back in the day. On top of the world with the first two Mummy movies around the turn of the millennium.
    Now, divorce rape from a probably leftist Huffington Shitpost reading ex-wife has left him completely broken and seemingly likely to take his own life in 2017 if he doesn’t get some manosphere mojo back. #SaveBrendanFraser

    1. $900,000 per year for a worthless washed up old unknown whore…
      plus the millions, and houses she already received…
      so sad… poor guy.
      we are the new(old) neanderthals

      1. She took the children too. Think alpha male Mel Gibson would put up with all that crap?

        1. yes.
          same thing happened:
          millions per year for a worthless washed up old unknown whore…
          and again…

    2. Sad to hear that. But still hundreds and thousands of guys who will hear about that will marry nonetheless…cuz “that wont happen to us”

      1. A lot of men get into their 30s and do just hate waking up single every day. There is an innate desire to pair up and have children at some stage.
        The fact that all their friends on Facebook are posting only “happy time” photos with their wives and children only adds to their illusion of dismay. But that’s what it is, an illusion.

        1. Pay attention to this story:
          I have a friend, we went to the same collegue, I know him since 10 years ago, maybe more. He was redpilled in an unsconcious way: he kept in shape, he’s handsome, he earns what in my country is a good salary (aprox USD 3000 per month), he owns his own flat in a good part of the city, he dated hot girls, etc, etc, etc.
          A year or so ago, he knew this girl from work, barely a 6, with an useless degree, divorced (no childs) and her marriage lasted only months, she earns a bad salary, etc, etc, etc. He fucked her the first date. The following day he told me that 1) the girl was experienced, 2) that he didnt considered nothing serious with her and 3) that he was feeling ‘social pressure’ because all his friends were married or have serious girlfriends and he didn’t. I told him that he was acting like a pussy. A couple of months later, she was his super official girlfriend. 3 months later they were living together. 6 months later she stopped taking her pills purposely (she didn’t say a word to him) and get pregnant. The marriage is in february 2017.
          The moral of this story is clear: there are weak males, men who like you said ‘hate waking up alone’, and because of their weakness they fall in the claws of maipulative whores who only want $$ and social status. And the worse is that they don’t even care, they are blissfully ignorant and they are happy in their illusion.

        2. Yes I do believe you are right on that point. But as I am currently 30 now and have a lot of these “happily” married couples with kids (i often see things others obviously dont see, that makes these guys look trapped lmao) i never really felt even the slightest need for pairing up and/or having children.
          Can some older guys comment on this? I have a vasectomy planned for spring and am little afraid that some biology will kick in later eventually.
          And yes i thought about that for several years now.

        3. Been married for 14 years to a nice Ukrainian woman with a country background. Like all women, she can be annoying as hell at times but is otherwise sensible and loyal. Have a daughter with her and happy to have her. It’s nice to know there’s this little girl who looks up to me and is in love with me (the daughter.)
          So it’s really up to you. At the age of 50 or so, regular sex will become less important and there are fun things to do (such as exploring the world, knocking off the bucket list, or even just having some fun hobbies) If you want to have a child, it’s best to have a (decent) woman around whose not an ungrateful b*tch or on drugs like so many American women are but there are some decent American women around (it’s just harder pickin’s in the states).

        4. I believe every man worth his salt fucking deserves a stable family if thats what they want but as we can see this fucked up species has it’s own disgusting plans for us all.
          Time to walk away harder and faster.

        5. while i get all that….there is a natural inner desire to be a mother and a father.
          basically all men want to have a stable home and wife to return to and rest and enjoy…away from the chaotic world.
          even the most hardened red pill MGTOW man wants this whether they admit it or not. a husband and wife complete the human pair and make us utterly whole.
          so it is not odd to find men wanting to pair up….all that said….men should take the red pill and be keenly aware of the current state of affairs in relationships, women, feminism, and marriage….because as it stands now, that shit is largely suicidal….but its not hard to see why a man in his 30s would grow tire of waking up alone….we are born to pair up.

        6. A little aclaration: my critique wasn’t to the marriage as institution, but to marry an used ugly whore. Marriage is not the problem, the problem is the lack of adequate material for marriage. I support traditional marriage, but the problem is that 99.9% of the girls today are simply trash (of every race and culture…..yes, you filipino lovers, even those ugly yellow things).
          Years ago the society, the culture, and even the religion kept in check all the negative traits of the female of the species. I always say that women are simply overgrown children: educate a children and he will be nice and cute, spoil a children and will be a nuissance.
          In my personal case, I would love to marry and have children, but the lack of adequate material and the state of the world today are making that almost impossible.

        7. i see….yes we are in agreement then….just in these parts almost everyone hates marriage and there is this odd hypocrisy of thought….they all want sluts to bang daily, but then bemoan the fact that girls are all entitled sluts and none are worth marrying. i can’t tell you irritating it is to read articles about supposedly alpha men finding a good girl(the unicorn) and then dumping her because LOL REAL MEN DON”T SETTLE DOWN!!!

    3. Whoa, I wondered what happened to this guy. He was the “Nathan Fillion” and “Chris Pratt” of his day, squared. One of the last “movie stars” . Then he just disappeared off the face of the Earth.
      …When the decision is between “staying married to a shrew” and “Paying a not-insignificant $900,000 annually to her for nothing”, why would he divorce?

  3. I wonder if modern SJWism is actually a mental disorder inherited from the Neanderthals. Many of the black people in this country have white heritage buried in their family trees due to slave holders taking advantage of them and the occasional slutty white bitch. It would explain why conservative blacks who tend not to interbreed with white people and newly immigranted non-Muslim blacks are more sane than the left leaning blacks in this country. Also the Jewish people might have more of that intermixed DNA given that the Levant is where they first interacted, it would certainly explain the phenomenon of Jewish guilt and self-hate amongst white Jews. If so SJWism is a inheritable disorder and with gene therapy it could be removed in the future without destroying the underlying racial groups.

      1. There is truth to the old saying “a thin line between genius and madness”. What you said when linked with my theory would also explain again why when combined with clannish inbreeding Jewish and Asian people tend to have higher IQs than other groups yet many are notoriously leftist.

    1. That’s a common theory within white nationalism known as “pathological altruism”, though you are the first person I have seen to apply it to mixed-race blacks.

      1. Eh even crazy people/groups can come up with an intelligent idea once in a while. “Even a broken clock is right twice a day.”

  4. Without being a specialist, i know neanderthal quite well. I’ll analyse your article with great care and publish an answer later.

      1. Very touchy !
        Great aricle for the most part.
        Some scientifics hypothsis are ‘non canon’ yet, and some important détails are missing, but for the most part, it’s better than most presentation about Neanderthal i’ve read.
        One thing is sure. If our cousins ever wanted to exterminate us, we would be all dead…They were extraodirnary strong,well adapted and capable of complex hunting strategies.
        There were highly social beings. They took care of their disabled and elderly. We have strong evidence than they practice some kind of medecine and surgery, with succes. (‘cowboy’ wounds were frequent and well treated).
        They were more ‘conservative’ than us. Their technology didn’t change for thousand years, but was perffecty efficient. They survived twice as long as us…
        They were super predators, but we have no trace that any animals of mega fauna disapeared under their reign… Unlike under Sapiens.
        There is one important detail. We have NO indication that Neanderthale ever lived WITH Cro Magnon. We know they meet each other (their technology changed rapidelly when Cro Magon arrived in Europe) BUt there us NO evidence of any mixed camp (remains of N. and Sapiens are quite different).
        In fact, Neanderthal communities seemed to avoid Sapiens communities. To the end.

        1. In almost 200k years, the Neanderthal had absolutely no technological innovations. Still using the same hand axes and wood tipped spears as Africans. They much weaker communication skills, likely couldn’t anatomically pronounce vowels.
          The Arugnacian culture (the first Cro-Magnon culture) was the first real explosion of human potential of any kind. They had massive, powerful physiques for the time especially, and brains bigger than modern Europeans. Aside from one cave painting in Polynesia (I think), there is nothing but obscure, questionable Neanderthal contribution before that. Some burials, possibly flute and a mural. Sad!

        2. I hardly consider technological innovation as the bedrock of what makes a civilization virtuous. I think the quality of the people is first and foremost.
          I can admire a civilization that is intelligent enough not to overpopulate or destroy its own habitat. I don’t see anything wrong with a simple life if it is a good life.
          You may be right though that the Neanderthals were nothing special, I don’t know enough anthropology to make a claim on that.

        3. More than sensible. Their kind existed twice long as us, and they didn’t destroy any animal specie, while bieng the apex superpredator of their Era.

        4. Well, Neanderthal were very conservative, but they WERE capable of innovation.
          Their technol

        5. “In almost 200k years, the Neanderthal had absolutely no technological innovations”
          On what we found. They were maybe great with their singular capacity to make tatoos or leather painting (like some native american tribes), but we can’t find évidences of that… because time destroy such type of évidences, but no stone carning…
          We know that they were highly intelligent, but conservative. They didn’t like to change what worked perfectly for them.
          But when they meet Sapiens, their technology changed rapidly. They were adaptative as well.
          Anthtopologists have an interesting theory about their apparent lack of bone crafting for their culture.
          They were perfectly able to craft wood in various ways, and bone crafting is not so different
          Some ‘modern’ tribal culture with animistic belifeves refuse to use animal remains against other animals.
          It might have been a cultural trait instead of a lack of capacity.
          Something like not eting pork, if you see what i mean. It make no sense for most people, but it’s essential for some cultures.

        6. “But when they meet Sapiens, their technology changed rapidly. They were adaptative as well.”
          And this was exclusively using or attempting to recreate Cro-Magnon techniques, which they often failed at. From what we do know of their vocal structure, it would have been difficult, perhaps impossible for them to use vowels. I think this, along with their brain structure were their downfall when they faced competition.
          I don’t think its accurate to label them as conservative. They lacked the social intelligence of sapiens, and that is clear to most everyone. It’s not a valid logical connection to consider the social naiveté conservative people sometimes possess with legitimate intellectual deficit on a genetic level. Or that they lived in smaller, patriarchal groups as well, as that patriarchal structure was likely just a product of necessity (groups who face climate hardship and scarcity need leadership capable of foresight).
          From what I can gather, they did view each other as different species with about, what, 25 thousand yeas of cohabitation, but never integration. Aside from interbreeding, but just as you made that social rule connection of not eating certain food and etc… interbreeding could have been considered something on par with bestiality on a social level by the sapiens (or Neanderthal) and not tolerated at all or at least tolerated lightly.
          Culture is a product of genetics, and the Neanderthal were just objectively out-competed on a genetic level imo.

        7. You underestimate the cognitive ability wich is necessary to use the “Levallois method” (extract the exact type of fratured stone needed from a nucleus. It’ s not try and miss. You must have a very clear idea of the byproduct you want to extract.
          Or the ability needed to extract ‘brai’ (polymeric glue) from birch tree bark (we simply can’t do it in the same conditions).
          Or the carefull preparation of the type of wood, the drying time for green wood, the carefull attention to straighten it perfectly to make a good spear usable for hunting. It take months. Litterally. One mistake, and your weapon is too heavy, too light, too flexible, to breakable to be usefull against opponents that weight sometimes thousands of pounds.
          Did yoy know that each neaderthal groups specialized in some type of hunting? They had their ‘favorite’ preys (horses, reindeers…) wich they choose among a multitude of other availbale. They knew perfectly the ethology and ecology of their preys. Some suppose that they did it for ‘cultural’ reasons
          And they didn’t bring back the entire animals, but made halts to butcher them perfectly to their main camps.
          By the way, they didn’t live in caves all the years. Only in summer. In cold season (very cold) they build camps to follow their preys.
          They might seems primitive to us, but they were very intelligent indeed. They took the best of a hardcore difficult situation, with their accute abilities and sheer intelligence. They clearly have a conception of time, were able of ellaborate complex stratégies (non opportunist hunting), and were able to take care and to feed non productive members of their familly.
          They seem to lack the versability of Sapien’s mind. But we don’t know for sure. They were able to assimilate every sapiens technology of the same age, wich shows a capacity to see further their former needs.

  5. Am I the only one who got two paragraphs in wondering what this had to do with the Dutch and then had to start from the top….neadrathals not Netherlands!

    1. Jeeeeesus Christ you were an university professor for petes sakes, even you? No wonder why our kids are dumb…SMH!

      1. Lol! I was the best of the best. That’s why I had to leave. My students were actually learning shit. To be fair, Christmas in the knee family is a heavy drinking multiple day affair

  6. From reconstructions, we think that Cro-Magnon had dark skin, light eyes, and, craniometrically, most closely resembled Swedes and Finns.
    There’s flimsy evidence that Neanderthals may have been matriarchal (I was looking for the article, but couldn’t find it and got lazy). A Neanderthal woman, with her huge muscles, prominent brows and likely bossy personality might have been a bit unpleasant to deal with.
    Now, imagine you’re a Neanderthal dude. You have a choice: A) A slim girl with the features of a tanned, brunette Swede or B) a squat muscled bitch that can wrestle down an deer.
    Who are you going to choose?

    1. Seeing as how this is an Amren article, I think the real question isn’t “what did Cro-Magnon man look like,” but rather “how can Jared Taylor somehow find a way to blame Negroes for the disappearance of Neanderthals?”
      Because you know he’ll find SOME way to do that.

      1. Ah… jz95. Our favorite defender of multiculturalism and all things jewish.
        You fit in here about as well as a purple-haired, lesbian feminist.

        1. 113 average IQ…
          I’ll take it. Beats being you any day. Don’t you have to go back to be with your fellow 89 IQ Serbs?

        2. You haven’t been paying attention, kid. I am pure northern and western European. I just dig beautiful Serbian ladies and one of the finest examples of that type digs me. So I’ve learned some of the language, as a courtesy, though her English is quite exceptional.
          But keep trying to fit in here, if it makes you feel alpha.

        3. White nationalist hanging around site of Middle Eastern man who fucks Slavic women…
          I think you need to learn a few things about “fitting in” buddy…

    2. Like people take the inquisitorial procedure in middle age justice for the Inquisition, people think that matilineal are matriarcat. They are NOT.
      Matrilenea is one one’s children have to descent from the women of the tribe to be a natural member of the tribe.
      It’s comon in africa. In that case, the uncles take care of the kid. THAT DOESN’T MEAN THAT WOMEN ARE IN CHARGE.
      Patrilineal is our ‘classical’ system.
      Both system practice exogamy.
      In matrilineal, fathers comes from other tribes.
      In patrilineal, women are ‘exchanged’ /married when they got pubescent. to a valuable man of another tribe.
      Matrilineal avoid that other people interfere with the ‘business’ of your tribe.
      Patrilineal is good to make ‘deals’ and long term alliances alliance with other tribes. It’s probably the one of the first economic system.
      Note: we says that prostitution is the oldest work in the world, because in matrilenal system, no matter who is the father, the child is still a member of the tribe.
      “Yes, my sister is quite gentle. She accepts gifts. Mainly furs and meat. Or good silex, your choice”

  7. There is no chance that the Neanderthals could have been lefties. Their most prominent feature was a sloping forehead so the frontal part of the brain responsible for sympathy and empathy was less developed. Psychopaths usually have sloping foreheads too.
    But then again, if we are to believe this article maybe they were lefties like modern Europeans are.
    Europeans are closer to Neanderthals than Africans are

    1. Neanderthived in close knitted communities, took care of his elderly and disabled; Few chances for him to have been a sociopah.

        1. In fact, there are strong probability that they fonction like ‘high performing’ autists. and not like sociopaths.
          They were HIGHLY sociable among themselves, took great care of their own, had powerfull and well functioning brains, were great team players (complex hunting stratégies against Giants animals)
          But their mind had probably not the versatility of our specie.
          One of our characteristic is our unability to be satisfied with what we got. We are always inventing new things.
          Neanderthal never changed what worked quite well. He seems to be quite able to innovate (he create new Tools when he mate us) but was quite satisfied with his goog old techniques until that.
          Sociopath are parasitic. They took profit of others. We have no signs of such a behaviour in his ‘civilisation’ (no signs of murders, maybe ritualistic canniblism (you eat your dead parents), no difference of status in graves)
          In fact, in tribal hunter societies, psycopaths and sociopaths are rare, and are generally eliminated by their sibllings. Sollidarity was probably everything in those ‘primitive’ societies.

        2. Sociopaths with generally any genetic distance in a contemporary setting are psychologically compartmentalized and usually very good at concealing it from people. Like most antisocial disorders, people with these conditions faced a good deal of genetic pruning from the Paleolithic era until the bronze age.
          But many sociopaths are capable of empathy and understanding higher principles, even deeper emotions. It’s a slight chemical imbalance in many who have it, and they aren’t violent psychopaths.
          I like that you’re trying to reach back into history (far, far back in this article) and use history as a reference to game, but I think I should add that “Cro-Magnon” people didn’t populate the earth as you said.
          They populated all of Europe until the Mesolithic and copper age invasions by farmers. They are likely to have originated in east Africa under an archaic linage they were descended from, like most men who aren’t sub-Saharan African.
          They were called Cro-Magnon because their remains were discovered in that specific area of France. Their skulls were bigger than modern Europeans, and they had a powerful physique. Scientists initial thought they were some ancestor to h. Sapiens because of their size and robust nature. And for some Europeans (and the Guanche aristocracy) they were.
          It was a specific male lineage which entered Europe 45 thousand years ago, coming from the middle east (halogroup IJ, that would eventually become the various haplogroups of I in Europe) and multiple female lineages that periodically entered the continent prior to the Mesolithic era which are the European hunter gatherer groups called Cro-Magnon.
          I don’t think the Neanderthal were innovative or capable of the level of communication or intellectual capacity of their contemporaries, but it was interesting to read your take. This point in history is interesting and I’m glad you tried to use it for an article. Something about this era holds a lot of hidden truth.

        3. Personally, i think that this trait become more frequant with the bronze age, when it became an evolutionnary advantage…to take advantage of other people. Your need a hierarchy system, an over abondance of products, and a certain number of population to express fully this trait.
          in a society with ‘scarce’ ressource (or difficult to obtain ressouces), you need cooperation from your pair to survive, and you have to expose yourseld as much as others to be respected.
          i don’t say that those traits didn’t exist. I say that ‘tribal’ and ‘primitive’ gatherer hunters society are not fertile soils to grow them. It’s not an advantge in those situation, and you probably won’t have many offspring : becasue when you are not productive in such society (without the excuse to be old, disabled, to be pregnat etc) you are not allowed to live under the protection of your clan. You have Value, or you are Nothing.
          But when agriculture and farming began, it became interesting to take advantage of your pairs, of the social system etc. It’s interesting to be parasitic when there are stocks.

        4. Absolutely, I agree. You can see a lot of sociopathic traits in the historical record of the first rulers, even mythological rulers like Gilgamesh. The bronze age incentivized sociopathy, and women I think seek out men who’re like that for material gain on a sub-conscious and perhaps even conscious level.
          The Cro-Magnon people, or the European hunter gatherers are an excellent example of your point. As they too (or at least the male linages) were out competed by the Middle Eastern farmers moving into Europe during the copper age.
          It likely wasn’t an honest competition, as the Cro-Magnon descended men had no knowledge of metallurgy or farming. Their only weapons were their very advanced stone tools and hunting tools. Most of the genetic composition reflects this in Europe.
          Not all, but most of European women are of one group of Cro-Magnon female linages. Almost half of Europe is of one mitochondrial haplogroup (or female linage). Most men are descended from Miiddle Eastern farmers that entered Europe in the Mesolithic and copper ages (R, J, G and other y-haplogroups, but mostly R y-haplogroups). These y-haplogroups or male linages make up the majority of Europe, and its not even close.
          There are still many men who’re descended from Cro-Magnon male linages alive and kicking, especially in Scandinavia where they are about half the population, some parts of Germany, France, Spain, eastern Europe and in lower frequencies throughout Europe. Some are even in Sicily and Italy because they’re descendants of Normans.
          But the proof of your point is in the contemporary genetic composition.

        5. And on another note, in general societies with higher social trust and a disdain for pluralism (especially western cultures) tend to have very little tolerance for any antisocial behavior.
          With the west’s forced march of multiculturalism, unchecked pluralism and egalitarian codes of conduct, that all changed. There is no social trust anymore. And its like literally all of the antisocial disorders have been unleashed on us all.

        6. Being a sociopath isn’t advantageous though as there are great handicaps that come with it, notably being unrelatable/emotionally shallow (which results in the “superficial charm/smarm” that they’re known for) and too high on hubris to see the big picture.
          Being ruthless can be advantageous, but you don’t need to be a sociopath to be that.

        7. “Being a sociopath isn’t advantageous though as there are great handicaps that come with it, notably being unrelatable/emotionally shallow (which results in the “superficial charm/smarm” that they’re known for) and too high on hubris to see the big picture.”
          Exactly. That doesn’t match with the NEanderthal profile. They were HIGHLY sociable. We don’t know if they saw the ‘big picture’, but they do practiced long term thinking (we have évidences of that). And that might be a trait that European and Asian inherited from them, by the way

        1. “How do you know that ?” (that they took care of their crippled and elderly)
          We found dead elderly Neanderthal body who was crippled from an early age (his crippled arm has been amputated at birth).
          This man gad no physical value whatsoever, and he was taken care of by his community all his life long.
          Neanderthal skelettons often have ‘cowboys wounds’ (type of woulds you got when you handle very big animals). those wound were treated well, and there are no signs of malnutrition during their recovery period. Their community took care of us.
          We also got indication that Neanderthal practised some kind of surgery, with success ! (surgical treatment of epidural hematoma, and indication that the patient survived and recoverded from the operation !)

        2. “Do psychopaths look after their own children?”
          It’s a VERY difficult question to answer.
          To summarize to the extreme, sociopath are pathological cheaters, and psychopath are childs (intolerant to frustration+anger).
          To be complete, we should add Narcissists, who share some traits with them, but have their particular issues.
          Those traits are not pathologic ‘per se’until they express themselves to a certain level.
          Plus, even if those traits have genetics origins, society and education play a great role in the developpement of those pathology. (you have high fonctioning psychopaths, who are NOT threats to anybody)
          In evolutionary terms, those traits are advantages to those who can have access to other ‘possessions’ (food, hierarchy, women etc), but a disadvantge to give real care to anybody on the middle terms.
          So, it’s not an advantage to be a sociopath in a ‘society’ were you need real cooperation (hunter gatherer), but it might be an advantage if you can use the ‘surplus’ of a society (stock of food, slaves etc (‘bronze age) and where others have to raise your children.
          By the way, those two society have coexisted, and it could become advantageous for a hunter gatherer society to become the raiders of a farmer society. And it’s a game changer !
          Individuals who would be considered as threats and troublemakers to a hunter gatherer sociaty could become imlportant because they gave their clan an access to ressources they could not have without it.
          So, i really think that only the Bronze age could have permitted such traits to flourish…

  8. who knows about them?
    However, did happen to the Spartans.
    revered as greatest fighting force…
    But women inherited the estates…
    According to Aristotle,”…the Lacedaemonian women defeats the intention of the Spartan constitution,…”(Aristotle,The Politics of Aristotle,).[52] The wives of the Warriors of Sparta would gain the estates at the loss of their husbands. Some would have very large places and some with very small places. This caused the transfer for property to the few. With the men constantly out to war and the women at home to run the estates the population started to diminish. Aristotle came from a male-dominated society even the thought of women in charge was against his views from the beginning this creates a very biased View of the reason Sparta Fell. Aristotle argues “The result proves the faulty nature of their laws respecting property; for the city sank under a single defeat; the want of men was their ruin.”(Aristotle,The Politics of Aristotle,: Book 2)

  9. I have a black ancestor who was portugese/black named Mulatto Rose. It’s not so bad but I did not get the donkey dick gene unfortunately. Only average so if any ever gets cut off I might be up shit creek.

  10. Totally off topic, and I will get back to the article, but: I was dragged to watch rogue one; verdict, the go girlism is minimal. Don’t know what fuss is about. Yea I planned to boycott the film but was given a ticket. It featured a helpless girl at times with a team of strong assertive males, including alpha white males. Besides the cuck writers saying the empire are “white supremacists” there isn’t much outward (I’m sure there are esoteric symbolism) agendas. Plus, Idgaf about the feelings of a bunch of stormcuck Hitler fanboys. Please don’t take this as me caving into mainstream media but I’m just saying some of the criticisms may have been over blown. But by all means boycott the film.

    1. I thought the same thing. I heard that they had to actually reshoot some scenes to tone down the feminism. The movie was alright and Darth Vader got to pimp-slap the galaxy like the terrifying sonofabitch he used to be.

    2. I tentatively agree with your assessment of Rogue One. It wasn’t great on the SJW front, more SJW than the more-reviled Fury Road, but not as bad as I expected in that regard.
      The ending, which was extremely cliche, did manage to rather literally shoot feminism down. The irony of that was appreciated.
      That said, where were the “alpha white males” in the film?

      1. I think the “alpha white males” he refers to were the Rebel officers and squadron leader, all still white. Not to mention the scientists and main villain were all white as well as Vader and they were no pushovers.

  11. I passed the Geno 2.0 Test with National Geographic and I have 2% of my DNA that is Neanderthal and 3% Denisovian. I wonder if most Beta Males around us are not at a percentage closer to zero.

  12. They had larger brains, but size isn’t exactly what makes a brain special. Really simply put: they had larger ‘animal-brains.’ Their fight/flight skills were much greater than ours. We have a special part of the brain that is more developed, and that’s where we get complex thinking from.

  13. Are aussie aboriginals the same as neanderthals? There is this middle age aussie male at the gym who has hair all over his back.

  14. We can resurrect the old Neanderthal race by using science… All we need is some intact ancient DNA and some women willing to be impregnated with it…

  15. The Neanderthals did not disappear. Unless all of us are black (homo-sapien] than the Neanderthal genes are still here. Science states that all humans originated in Africa.. That is a lie. Neanderthals orginated in the Caucus Mountains. This is also why we call people who are white.. Caucasians. Sounds better than Neanderthal. What they want you all to forget.. is the Bible. The caucus mountains are the mountains where the Tigris and Euphrates rivers originate. They are the mountains of creation of man in the Bible. They are the location of the Garden of Eden. Which means that homo sapiens came from Africa long before Neanderthals were created in the garden. But make no mistake, they are still 2 very different species. Those that decend from Adam and those that decended from apes (ok evolved) . Use logic.. I know those small brains have a hard time with that. Logic not Feelings dictates that there are 2 creation stories in the Bible. On the 6th day, God created man in Africa and told him ro go multiply. Much much later, he created a man and woman to tend his Garden. The Hebrew are decended from those 2. If you are caucasian, even just a part, you are decended from Adam.

  16. The writer a descendant of caucauzoid Neanderthald from the caves of Europe wants us to believe that having his white Neanderthal ancestors roaming the earth club in hand would be a good thing. The last thing mankind need is more white savages terrorizing homo sapiens ( Black people) the only race who are 100% human. Whites and Asians have up to 20% Neanderthal DNA. Which explains the Honkee’s genocidal savagery, fear, and hatred of his natural masters..who is the black man. White people – Neanderthals should be happy Pure Africans -Homo sapiens F there women thus creating modern Neanderthals or Caucasians. We have given them what little humanity they have. Diversity and leftist ideology has been good for Caucasoid Neanderthals. Whitey would still be living in caves eating raw meat and giving each other genital warts if it was not for the black African and diversity. Black is beautiful baby… Nothing has changed we have given you every thing you have even to this day ….we have even given you your music and culture.

  17. You are not current. The nethardals had a weaker immune system. Also there is the same mitochondrial DNA in all species of humans.

Comments are closed.