To understand the human condition before cooking and agriculture, one must know our evolutionary past up to that point. Where do we come from, where do we descend from? Biology and genetics have many foundation myths, however the most obnoxious deceptions and lies - with the greatest harm resulting, perhaps second only to the Holohoax and defilement of the Axis’ reputation - lie in the contemporary theory of human origins, by a wide margin.
We unraveled the real hidden history of the different human species (and not races), especially the European and African. While absolute microscopic accuracy is a but pipe dream given the hundreds of thousands of years we contemplate, the broad steps from the advanced primeval past to our degenerate state now lays clear, casting both cruel lights on our present and genuine hopes for our foreseeable future.
An official theory that does not hold up
Materialism and the scientific establishment (
Science TM) has become an established religion, erecting altars for its dogmas with the same absolutism as we erected cathedrals. It has its priests, and catechism, its fanatical and stupid followers. Hardly the moral ground needed to teach the bliss of rationality to fundamentalists of other creeds.
Biology and evolution theory textbooks, documentaries, all science, it seems, teach that the so-called
modern human species, the current one, descends from African apes about 6 million years ago (the number varies) from which a great number of other groups proliferated, developed and died, or merged with our remote ancestors, until they emerged victorious in the great evolutionary contest.
For the first part, we see nothing to criticize. When and where exactly we separated from bonobos, how long we wandered in Africa, is but of a mild intellectual interest at best as at the end of the day we were still apes, not human by any stretch of the word. Nothing political here. It gets hairy when we touch upon the emergence of men with brain size at least relative to ours, from 1200 cc onward.
The establishment says modern man left Africa around 50,000 B.C. to conquer all of Asia and Europe, mostly replacing and driving to extinction the species of men (called primitive> or archaic) already present. To then become fully modern, but strangely enough only outside Africa, miraculously.
These modern men were supposedly black, quite similar to Bushmen , and migrating all the way to Europe in the heart of the ice age, to beat in a few thousand years a native species much more robust physically and adapted to life in the North (we found some in the South of Siberia). In a nutshell, an ultra-Nordic man with a brain volume larger than any current ethny (save for… White Scandinavians) got replaced by an African bushman whose purest modern descendants barely reach a 70IQ.
It is this myth you will hear ad nauseam to justify migratory invasions, the replacement of white populations by hordes of blacks and generalized racial mixing.
We are all Africans, children of immigrants, they are at home. The same ideologues and media repeat night and day that races do not exist, but the white one is decidedly too big and intrinsically evil. The same ones, claiming we are genetically wired to find physical differences more attractive or that mixed individuals - enriched racially - are healthier.
A short series of questions is enough to dismantle the official narrative:
- How can a handful of immigrants adapted to a different climate whose skin is still unable to synthesize enough vitamin D without vitamin supplements survive in a northern climate during a glacial ice age period? Even the Inuit, despite a raw diet very rich in vitamins and a skin less dark than that of the Blacks, traditionally suffer from deficiencies and have a short life.
- Not only would they would have to survive, but also beat the natives intrinsically adapted to a low-light environment with revolutionary features such as fair hair and blue eyes, and a robust body frame (Modern Europeans hold almost all strongman positions and strength records in the world).
- Plus an important technological gap
- Two hundred millennia ago when according to the mainstream narrative Africans had barely made it out of their diapers European men glued spears with plant-based tar .
But somehow, after an epic race war against these Übermensch Blacks fell into an eternal slumber of the mind, for fifty thousands years.Also, same thing in all of Asia as well with the neighboring Denisovan species residing there, with brains just as big, but benefiting from much easier climates (India, Thailand,, all the South of Asia) hence possibly bigger numbers.
The environmental pressure combined with a stark overall inferiority when competing with the Neandertals would doom any African colonization of the European continent. Still today they can not survive Northern countries without vitamin supplements and other artifices. Genetics has been used to prove our Negro origin, and that the traits of whites are not only mutations, but recent mutations: no more than 6000 years!
The official interpretation of fossils and genetics is wrong and oftentimes subversive. See the Cheddar man fiasco portraying the British WHG population as being phenotypically negroid in early-Neolithic Europe).
The other explanation is a multi-regional origin of the man, or more exactly of the three root races: White, Black (including Congoides and Capoides/Bushmen/San), Asian/Mongoloid. The genetic aspect of the argument will be touched upon below.
This classification as old as it is, is easy to apply, and recent (dependable, unlike when dealing with degraded 30 000 years remains) population genetics validate it .
It is easier to refer to craniometric measurements than to genetics, because such visible traits depend on a large number of genes, difficult to isolate as well as to quantify… while their expression is observed in the mirror. Moreover, skulls are much better preserved than DNA and mutations (natural or due to degradation) considerably distort genetic analyses, while physical characteristics, often produced by natural selection, can remain the same through time. This fact will be useful to us later.
There is no question that humans do originate from Africa but much earlier, leaving the continent along coastal lines. Then several groups splitted giving the homo antecessor, from which the Homo Sapiens or Negro evolved, and homo heidelbergensis, probable common ancestor of Neandertals man and Denisova man (presumed main ancestor of the mongoloid populations of which the purest instance would be Southeast Asians, that is to say the Chinese, Koreans and Tibetans). Other branches of homo erectus appeared and disappeared, like these two dwarf species (no more than 1.50 m) with a reduced brain, Homo floresiensis and Homo Luzonensis.
Insular dwarfism aside, the tendency for all other species/races, has been a continuous process of encephalization, a larger brain size. But some more than others. Thus the species in Asia and Europe have developed a brain reaching a ceiling of 1700 cm3.
It makes no sense that the Negro, judging from his current technological and cultural inferiority… his significantly lower average IQ throughout the continent and elsewhere after decades of integration, including in interracial adoption contexts, makes it unlikely that he could have beaten men considerably more robust, strong and intelligent than the current European, in a climate entirely different from his own.
- Ergo the logical explanation is
The mitochondrial DNA Myth
It is often said that their DNA shows an entirely different species, especially their mitochondrial DNA, since it is often the only one whose abundance makes the degradation of time survive.
But it should be noted that DNA degrades so much that it is almost impossible to reconstruct the original sequence. These mutations are of many types and partly unpredictable.
this one in particular
describes the problem well, and points to all the scientific references needed to to demonstrate how all the
proofs for the Out of Africa thesis fall apart as close examination.
If White European populations really are mostly descended from Neandertals and that the genetic differences distinguishing them from current humans (not only Europeans) are due to contamination, we may verify this theory like this:
If we were to find a sufficient quantity and of equivalent quality of mitochondrial DNA (or not) of Homo Sapiens from an equivalent period, say 140,000 years before Christ, it would appear just as different from us, alien, incompatible with any current population as time-related decay will have mutated it beyond recognition.
But there is no such fossil, none whose conditions enabled the preservation of quality DNA!
There is no archaic sapiens DNA with which to compare Neandertals. One obvious reason behind the low density of prehistoric
modern humans remains is its appalling inhospitality for organic materials: heat and aridity promote exponential degradation, in particular of DNA which is extremely fragile, except in very special conditions such as clay ice or acidic peat bogs.
Also, a lot of evidences convinced me that the idea of some people aware of the incoherence of mainstream theories deliberately destroyed fossils undermining their agenda, is far more than a wacky conspiracy theory.
So, our approach does not revolve solely on DNA analyses which we deem increasingly invalid beyond the last Ice Age, as the past irreparably blurred the tracks like a sort of cosmic censorship.
Instead, the morphological continuity between Neanderthals, Paleolithic and Neolithic Europeans (Asian paleontology just getting out its diapers) drives us: on the same sites from one thousand to another we see not only the succession of one species to another from about 40,000 years ago but also their cohabitation and intermediate morphologies, tending more and more towards the modern man of today.
While for the few remains we have, the sub-Saharan African skull (pure type without mixture) has essentially not changed since 200,000. Erectus did originate in Africa and groups left it around 1.5 million years it earned the label of
chronospecies as for a long time we find a morphological continuity between the different groups with no clear boundaries, so that local denominations change willy-nilly and the usual definition of a species (inter-fertility) might or might not apply anymore, with gradual incompatibilities both in time and space between the first almost ape-like Erectus and the latest stage relatively big-brained specimens.
The description resembles many current Africans. In all likelihood multiple branches of Erectus around the world, including the Eurasian ones, evolved along a common trend of cerebral increase (at different rates though) with very slow but continuous by gene exchanges along genetic clines ?1
Homo Ergaster would be the ancestor of homo erectus in Asia. It is likely that it is also the ancestor of Homo Antecessor [circa 800 000 years ago] in Europe. It may seem hard to believe populations of twice 800,000 years divergence can still interbred (Pygmies and Norwegians to take the purest examples), but in reality it is not the only case in nature. Time is less important than the mutation rate, and amount of selected, significant mutations vs neutral ones vs drift, and some adaptations matter more than others when it comes to breeding, resulting in various degrees of anatomical, genetic, behavior incompatibilities etc. All of this, one cannot estimate from time passing only.
The likes of the Tautavel Man (Europe, 455 000 years) with very mature features somewhat closer to Erectus with 1166 cm³, is hard to place. We don’t really need to think that far, as various theories based on analyzes are routinely invalidated: paleontology competes with social psychology for the medal of the softest science. However a large consensus is established regards to Tautavel as the first safe element of the line of Neandertals.
So it seems likely, to conclude, that at least 500,000 due to environmental change (the onset of the last glaciation cycle) the different lines hitherto in low-intensity but enduring exchange (with boats, no see being a hard impediment), started differentiating with a common trend towards an increase in brain size - as getting dumber is never an advantage. So that the European species - the Nordic race - dates from at least 500,000 years.
Notice how the modern European skull meant to have appeared all around the world at the same time around -40 000 has nothing in common with neither modern nor Ancient African skulls, whereas the Asiatic and European skulls look a lot like a juvenile Neandertals skull (which does not show yet prominent brow-ridges).
archaic homo sapiens:
The Nordic European skull currently peak at 1500 and average at 1440 cm³. The Neandertals or his Asian cousin had a ceiling of 1700. Here is a rather striking comparison:
For those who might be shocked by these large arches, it is important to understand that really ugly eyebrow arches are not that common in Neandertals, perhaps 3 or 4 fossils in all. At an equivalent level of maturity (in proportion to their total lifespan), they retained more childlike and gentler features than we do, without sacrificing strength and robustness as aesthetics and beauty, both inner and outer, were major elements of their instincts, as they are of ours. children looked like… children. A lot more so, for the same age. We used to stay young for decades.
If figures need be cast, assuming a rough proportionality (certainly wrong), a Neandertals in the third of his life, which would correspond to 30 years in our country.
Several details have often been exaggerated or even flatly falsified in some cases (and the fossils tampered with), such as this forward projection to give it a simian look and the absence of a chin. For two hundred years, reconstructions did not stop making him look primitive and brutal2. From the start centuries ago the first archaeologists being Christian priests destroyed many relics and finds, for fear of turning the official biblical story upside down. How can we place such men, similar but better in every way, than current humanity saved by Jesus? Could they date back to before the flood ?
Now, what we preserve by lying and hiding artifacts, is the culture the victors of WW2 cemented, with its antiracism and egalitariasm. *If the world were to know that the White Man is Neanderthal itself and has degenerated from a semi-divine anterior race, Nazis would be proved right over night in the eyes of millions if not tens of millions, and rightly so.
From Neandertals to White men
I owe 30% of what I know about this subject to Marie Cachet and her husband Varg Vikernes, 30% to the creationist orthodontist Jack Cuozzo, and 40% to the conclusions I have drawn in the context of instinctotherapy, which itself draws its justification from a number of studies, including those of Pottenger.
I do not share all the opinions of the people already mentioned, and I would never have supposed that I could learn anything from a fundamentalist Christian, but to be fair, the anthropological analyses of both are of high quality, even though they are not specialists… or because of it. I encourage everyone to visit the atala.fr website, and to get the book Buried Alive.
These researches are in themselves unpublished and daring, but remain partial, and complementary. What was missing, in order to link the whole, was the knowledge of the genotoxic effects of cooking and the understanding of the real human instincts, in particular of the original functioning of reproduction, which is very different in humans than in all other species.
If a lot of robustness was lost, it was quite gradual, and the typical Neandertal skull shape is regularly found in some individuals, to the point that assuming a simple mixture between 3 to 5% as one can read, does not make much sense.
The suborbital balls, the eyes and the light skin and a brain size of 1500 cm³ on average (against the world average of 1350 cm³) are found in one European population in particular: the Nordic race, still the majority of Europe 2000 years ago according to Roman historians.
Hence the Nordic race, adapted to the arctic conditions of life, is the Neandertal man, who did not undergo any substantial mixing, as indicated by the conservation of many recessive traits.
The question you may ask is: how to explain the change?
Cachet hybridization theory
Mrs. Marie Cachet
talks about hybridization with some Africans in the Middle East at a time of extreme cold that pushed the European populations to the brink of extinction, and this very slight mixture would have been enough to properly curse our species, decreasing the size of women’s pelvises, selecting through their death in childbirth, the children with a smaller skull, to gradually reach the point where we are.
While for some reasons the most obvious and least subject to natural selection, blond hair and blue eyes, lasted until now.
The incoherent mixtures in the same site of characteristics and diseases that we begin to observe in the bones from 40,000 kg would be explained by the mixtures, the first
half-breeds, disparate and dysfunctional sets of genetic and anatomical inheritances, just as with current half-breeds. The rest of the degeneration (loss of robustness) would have come with the sedentarization, the civilization, producing a self-domestication with effects similar to what we observe in cows, dogs and pigs.
Domestication also involves the selection of infantile traits, such as barking in dogs, which disappears in wolves as adults. The whole psychology and the attitude of dependence of the dog towards man, shows a perpetual regression to the state of a puppy, an attitude selected for the ease with which one can train and control a cub rather than an adult wolf, and this is true for any species. With the infantile character comes an underdevelopment of the brain3.
Here I will speak of species, because without modern medicine 70% of Black women whose partner is a white man have to undergo a cesarean section: it is a safe bet that in nature a hybrid population would have great difficulty in developing, even ignoring other barriers of a behavioral and geographical nature - without modern methods of transportation, would we see Africans in Europe?
The definition of the terms species, subspecies and races or varieties is quite arbitrary, because if we talk about the criterion of possibility of fertile offspring, to take or name the ecological and psychological contexts of such a hypothetical meeting is a choice.
So species it will be.
Living in environments and artificial conditions extremely far from the natural conditions and evolutionary pressures that gave birth to our species, maintaining an artificial environment moreover arranged to facilitate a lazy life compared a hunter-gatherer lifestyle (in the Ice Age !), mutations of any order whose carriers would not have survived in the natural conditions, can proliferate and amplify, damaging more and more the genetic or epigenetic patrimony.
Resulting in a gradual loss of highly evolved traits less and less required or even incompatible with life in civilization, such as a superior intelligence or anti-social tendencies.
I don’t believe at all in the theory of hybridization as the mother of all ills, which sounds like an improvable deus ex-machina, a kind of cosmic catastrophe whose unfolding steps seem very hypothetical and gratuitous.
Instead, the element that allows us to understand everything, that Marie Cachet missed, is that of cooking and the onslaught of pathogenic and mutagenic denatured molecules.
The neoteny theory: domestication and cooking
Cooking also explains self-domestication, by the disturbance of the fundamental instincts presiding over love and sexuality, magic and the choice of partners according to eugenistic criteria and obedience to a higher order.
Mental automatisms known as feedback that - automatically - accompany cooking cause an imbalance of higher mind functions and the essential divide with the extrasensory world. This is the real reason behind the tendency for civilization which took root since. Christians would call this the
The cases of wild children scattered in today’s literature show that it is in fact not very difficult to live in nature, even the highly degraded nature found at the end of the Middle Ages. It makes me believe it was not necessary to have a Greek god-like Neandertal body to survive in nature.
I already explained how the Lamarckian heredity of the acquired characters allowed for a new unique dynamic, through which a population would impulse its own evolution in reaction to the environment, encoding adaptations and especially instincts in a certain reaction, modifying moral and aesthetic sensibilities so as to alter the very consciousness and experiences life would occasion, as well as change our criteria for love partners: starting from the environment, instincts and intelligence become their own evolutionary engines, in a virtuous circle.
In a way, genes through consciousness developed the ability of foresight, looking at the environment and actively provoking meaningful mutations aimed at adaptation. Instead of passively suffering the blind game of natural selection, the death of the weakest, etc. This is probably how human species starting from some threshold in brain size (say, 1000 cubic centimeters perhaps) have continued to develop despite being effectively immune to predation through their tools and team work.
Beside being a nutjob worshiping old age and grey hair, and criminally wasting her Aryan children’ body with mountains of chocolates and industrial white sugar lies in her misunderstanding of the very nature of classic Neandertal traits. One had to be familiar with the problem of raw and cooked food to have even the slightest clue of its disproportionate, cosmic importance. Then to understand the nature of the anatomical change we underwent, another key was needed.
Our species in its present state, especially the white and Asian race, has what can be called a tendency to neoteny: we reach maturity more slowly and maintain juvenile traits throughout our lives.
Technically, neoteny corresponds to a stop of maturation before its end point typical for the ancestral species. In humans, this means that features often considered more
primitive and more apparent in chimpanzees, such as a slight prognathism - projection of the face forward in relation to the skull - only appear much later, and even later in women than in men.
The most common and extreme example is the axolotl, literally a large tadpole reproducing without reaching adulthood.
This analogy may have more truth than at first glance: in many ways, compared to chimpanzees, human beings remain eternal juveniles. From our own point of view we enjoy an exceptionally long juvenile period (between weaning around 6 years and adulthood), compared to the faster fertile apes. Here as elsewhere, dietary and racial factors are prevalent. Europeans and Asians grow much longer (even after puberty) and so-called rich diets lead to more abundant, frequent, and early menstruation, faster growth… and an early menopause.
Dentist Dr. Jack Cuozzo, from a literals Christian perspective, has found the key to the mystery. Studying the fossils as a dentist, he revealed many anomalies not congruent with the interpretations of paleontologists, especially regard to the growth rate and supposed age of the fossils. It has also revealed false reconstructions that no one with a basic knowledge of anatomy could have done in good conscience… revealed alterations and damage done to the fossils themselves with the obvious aim of forcing fossils to submit to their desires and to depict Neandertals as inferior.
The fanatics of the theory of evolution, who like all fanatics react with violence and denial to any evidence of errors of their doctrines. These are serious accusations, but widely documented.
The most disturbing details, concerned the age of the fossils:
Dental and bone morphology seems to indicate either a strong precocity and speed of growth even superior to that of the apes, or… a very, very long elongated growth, much more than ours.
We could give the example of a morphologically very young crane, but the jaw was well developed (indicating weaning), and the milk teeth showed signs of extensive wear which did not correspond to the estimated age. Problem is tooth wear has been shown a constant independent of lifestyle, and (over whole populations) only reflects the passing of time.
We have also indirect evidences of long lasting primary teeth. In all cases, wear is attributed to unknown lifestyle agents yet undiscovered in current populations, however primitive…
We used to estimate age by the number of deciduous and permanent teeth by assuming the eruption schedule of modern populations for these prehistoric men and ignoring signs of dental wear or cranial development.
In the 1980s people still wondered if Neandertals could even talk!
Cuozzo’s second discovery was the typical Neandertal morphology not being a simian trait we would have lost from the apes that prehistoric men preserved, nor the result of a very rapid growth, but the result of a multi-century growth instead.
In his own words:
Ape or age ! Protracted growth or unbelievably accelerated maturation in the same amount of time as us.
Many people ignore it but we continue to grow after puberty: though in a slowed down fashion (in absence of disease or deficiency) bone mineralization continues, in particular on long bones (limbs) and the face, causing an elongation of the face. We are all born with a very small face in relation to the head, a ratio increasing with age from some level of retrognathism (pushed backwards) in babies and fetuses to the flat face of maturity, to a forward extension on older people.
As he explains in the article:
What Happens to the Craniofacial Structure of Humans Who Live Past a hundred years", if one mathematically projected the bone profile one would get if one could continue to live past the canonical ages of 120 years, considering contemporary growth rates one would find back Neandertal-like features. The Neandertals were the old people of the Bible just after the Fall, before and just after the Flood, when mankind began to live shorter and shorter lives.
Even at an accelerated growth rate, bone thickening such as that of the suborbital bulges (brow ridges), is a structural compensation of the mechanical constraints exerted by jaw muscles. Thus these bulges were found only rarely when people’s life expectancy started to approach ours. Not after the Flood, but after the beginning of the cooking. We are not really prevented from becoming full
adults and remain children all our life: we just don’t live old enough, while still maturing and degenerating, much too fast.
This was caused by Cooking damaging our DNA thanks to an unprecedented amount of denatured mutagenic and genotoxic molecules etc. Hence the loss of complexity, brain size, women’s pelvises, joints… everything got dumbed down.
It is likely that the vast majority of mutations in humans, in a natural context, are intentional and endogenous, not chaotic. It took a very important source of chaotic mutations, which was cooking, to break the genetic correction mechanisms that allowed us to live so long.
In itself, longevity is not a novelty in nature, the axolotl can live up to 150 years and as for the Greenland shark, let’s quote wikipedia :
The hypothesis was consequently made that an adult shark of seven meters in length could be over 200 years old. The ages of two females, 4.93 m and 5.02 m long, were estimated to be between 260 and 410 years (335 ± 75 years) for the former and between 270 and 510 years (392 ± 120 years) for the latter, based on carbon-14 dating of the lens. This makes it probably the longest-lived vertebrate animal known in the world, surpassing the bowhead whale. The negligible senescence of the Greenland shark is explained by the very slow growth and development of the animal.
Human beings have a much faster metabolism than theirs, of course, but other animals are known to strictly speaking
not age at all, i.e. not losing any ability with age. This is rather common with crustaceans like the lobster, which grows (sometimes to impressive sizes) until it dies by predators or fellow creatures (cannibalism), or if it’s lucky by surviving until a moult when its carapace has become too thick for it to discard, and he dies. The strong natural selection and intraspecific competition regulates their population. Closer still is the dwarf mole rat, which I have already mentioned. So the idea of living a thousand years, a biological quasi-immortality, would merely be the next evolutionary step.
Putative health issues
Along with teeth wear, remains commonly display a wide range of Arthritis is often identified in Neanderthals, but My hunch is that either/or: Closely related, there is the calcium pyrophosphate disease: In most cases, it is not clear why the crystals form, although crystal deposits clearly increase with age. As such, and given how it is not said in that article that joints suffered from those concretions of bony materials, these observations may also fall in the category of natural alteration due to age, meant to solidify the skeleton, but going too far in a traditional diet context, due to inflammation and auto-immunity taking over and removing more material than the body can add in a syntonic way, resulting in the bony or cartilaginous equivalent of scar tissues replacing functional tissues. The resemblance of such growth to cancerous tumors is not fortuitous, but reflects the survival of such processes in our current degenerated human species suffering from constant high background levels of inflammation and an awfully diminutive lifespan, plus the probable disruption of our most delicate biochemical abilities, leading cellular masses to go their own way, CGTOW so to speak. The same remarks apply to tooth periodontis and alveolar exostostosis.
Exostosis, also known as bone spur, is the formation of new bone on the surface of a bone. Produced by a cap of germ cartilage during growth, it is the most common benign bone tumor
. We posit, that what appears here as a tumor but whose pathological character can not stated with certitude, was just the organism’s bony compensation to higher stress levels (a more powerful jaw) to secure the stability of teeth sockets throughout an extended lifespan. Not surprisingly, S2 exhibits such bony formations all over his skeleton. Periodontal disease, also known as gum disease, is a set of inflammatory conditions affecting the tissues surrounding the teeth. In its early stage, called gingivitis, the gums become swollen and red and may bleed. In its more serious form, called periodontitis, the gums can pull away from the tooth, bone can be lost, and the teeth may loosen or fall out. Periodontal disease is generally due to bacteria in the mouth infecting the tissue around the teeth. About Shanidar 5 (50.6-46.9ky, layer D): The right and left mandibular molar alveoli were largely resorbed, and several of the molars were lost antemortem. Assuming that the Shanidar 4 teeth were not lost through carious decay, given the absence of caries among the Neandertals [assuming they truly were lost antemortem !], they must have become loose as a result of periodontal inflammation and associated bone loss. The present state of the mandibular alveoli is thus probably the product of initial periodontal disease around the molars, followed by tooth loss, and finally remodeling of the alveolar bone possibly associated with further periodontal inflammation. And about Shanidar 1 (same level): The most impressive aspect of the Shanidar 1 dentition is its extreme occlusal attrition, especially on the anterior teeth. **All of the anterior teeth except the right mandibular C have lost their crowns, and all of the posterior teeth except the maxillary second and third molars have their occlusal surfaces made up almost exclusively of secondary dentin. Associated with this occlusal attrition is considerable interproximal wear, especially around the first molars. Unless Shanidar 1 died at an age more advanced than that suggested by the other age indicators, there is little question that there were considerable wear-producing agents in his diet. And Shanidar 2 (same level): There were no caries, there does not appear to have been any antemortem tooth loss, and where preserved the alveoli lack infrabony pockets. The maxillary molar alveoli exhibit alveolar exostoses, which may or may not be related to periodontal inflammation. Associated with the exostoses is a moderate degree of alveolar recession. In addition, there is a considerable development of calculus on the buccal molar and premolar surfaces, which is still present on the right side and can be discerned on the left side. Let us clarify this conundrum, aided by our experience of instinctive paleodiet, the same that Neanderthals practice. It entails that it is not really periodontis but the same bones growing throughout time to accommodate for natural wear. It is a fact that we cannot really know merely from bones, if gum tissue was still present at the moment of death or how much.
issues (calling them such is part of our bone of contention) whose clinical significance is hard to gauge, and always require an unhealthy dose of subjective interpretation, always based what we think as pathological on average in our civilized context. Two premises a priori invalid for pre-civilization, pre-cooked early men. Notwithstanding our own knowledge, often the mainstream medical reading grid usually does not allow for positive conclusions as to the clinical implication of those observations and almost never as to the corresponding degree of pain and practical disability. We will go through a few of them, as indeed degenerative processes would seem (and in all likelihood are) wholly incompatible with our view that these are only brought about natural the introduction of either/or cooked food or environmental disturbance in the food supply variety, disrupting our dietary balance. To emphasize that classical Neanderthals represented the peak of biological evolution, far above us in all respects, enjoyed the benefits of our giga chad superhuman diet, obviously we ought to debunk all assumptions of diseases or maybe come up with decent explanations.
You may follow the developments below at your leisure, although we strongly suggest that you do.
Despite the extensive attrition of the Shanidar 1 teeth, no significant dental abnormalities are evident. Caries are absent, as they are from the other Shanidar teeth and all known Neandertal dental remains.
The only teeth lost, the mandibular central incisors, were lost postmortem from damaged alveoli. The maxillary central incisors had their pulp chambers exposed through occlusal attrition, but there does not appear to have been any subsequent inflammation.
Allegedly this individual also shows advanced external aural exostoses to the point of quasi-total deafness.
Similar exostoses are present but rare among recent humans. They have variously been considered as the products of inflammation of the subgingival alveolus, part of a functional hypertrophy of the alveolar bone, and genetically determined discrete traits. Because there is no pronounced periodontal inflammation on the Shanidar 2 maxillae, one of the latter two interpretations appears to be more probable as an explanation here.
Arthritis is often identified in Neanderthals, but
My hunch is that either/or:
Closely related, there is the calcium pyrophosphate disease:
In most cases, it is not clear why the crystals form, although crystal deposits clearly increase with age. As such, and given how it is not said in that article that joints suffered from those concretions of bony materials, these observations may also fall in the category of natural alteration due to age, meant to solidify the skeleton, but going too far in a traditional diet context, due to inflammation and auto-immunity taking over and removing more material than the body can add in a syntonic way, resulting in the bony or cartilaginous equivalent of scar tissues replacing functional tissues.
The resemblance of such growth to cancerous tumors is not fortuitous, but reflects the survival of such processes in our current degenerated human species suffering from constant high background levels of inflammation and an awfully diminutive lifespan, plus the probable disruption of our most delicate biochemical abilities, leading cellular masses to go their own way, CGTOW so to speak.
The same remarks apply to tooth periodontis and alveolar exostostosis. Exostosis, also known as bone spur, is the formation of new bone on the surface of a bone. Produced by a cap of germ cartilage during growth, it is the most common benign bone tumor .
We posit, that what appears here as a tumor but whose pathological character can not stated with certitude, was just the organism’s bony compensation to higher stress levels (a more powerful jaw) to secure the stability of teeth sockets throughout an extended lifespan. Not surprisingly, S2 exhibits such bony formations all over his skeleton.
Periodontal disease, also known as gum disease, is a set of inflammatory conditions affecting the tissues surrounding the teeth. In its early stage, called gingivitis, the gums become swollen and red and may bleed. In its more serious form, called periodontitis, the gums can pull away from the tooth, bone can be lost, and the teeth may loosen or fall out. Periodontal disease is generally due to bacteria in the mouth infecting the tissue around the teeth.
About Shanidar 5 (50.6-46.9ky, layer D):
The right and left mandibular molar alveoli were largely resorbed, and several of the molars were lost antemortem. Assuming that the Shanidar 4 teeth were not lost through carious decay, given the absence of caries among the Neandertals [assuming they truly were lost antemortem !], they must have become loose as a result of periodontal inflammation and associated bone loss. The present state of the mandibular alveoli is thus probably the product of initial periodontal disease around the molars, followed by tooth loss, and finally remodeling of the alveolar bone possibly associated with further periodontal inflammation.
And about Shanidar 1 (same level):
The most impressive aspect of the Shanidar 1 dentition is its extreme occlusal attrition, especially on the anterior teeth. **All of the anterior teeth except the right mandibular C have lost their crowns, and all of the posterior teeth except the maxillary second and third molars have their occlusal surfaces made up almost exclusively of secondary dentin. Associated with this occlusal attrition is considerable interproximal wear, especially around the first molars. Unless Shanidar 1 died at an age more advanced than that suggested by the other age indicators, there is little question that there were considerable wear-producing agents in his diet.
And Shanidar 2 (same level):
There were no caries, there does not appear to have been any antemortem tooth loss, and where preserved the alveoli lack infrabony pockets. The maxillary molar alveoli exhibit alveolar exostoses, which may or may not be related to periodontal inflammation. Associated with the exostoses is a moderate degree of alveolar recession. In addition, there is a considerable development of calculus on the buccal molar and premolar surfaces, which is still present on the right side and can be discerned on the left side.
Let us clarify this conundrum, aided by our experience of instinctive paleodiet, the same that Neanderthals practice.
It entails that it is not really periodontis but the same bones growing throughout time to accommodate for natural wear. It is a fact that we cannot really know merely from bones, if gum tissue was still present at the moment of death or how much.
Funnily enough, Neandertal fossils provide a glaring confirmation for our theory about the evolutionary importance of incest for the human species. Different levels of inbreeding occur in nature, depending on many factors. While most species simply don’t mind, some show a clear preference for incestuous mating: I think this was our case until not too long ago, and in particular for Neandertals.
A study4 indicates a high rate of inbreeding, much higher in fact than any current population with the possible exception of some groups like the
whose love of incest is known but which have not yet been studied from a genetic point of view, only legalistic, and in very bad English.
Bone anomalies associated with recessive genes have indeed been found. Nevertheless (the article makes it clear) none of these anomalies taken independently unambiguously cause clinical symptoms.
Here are the most important passages:
However, although the morphological abnormalities observed in the maxilla, patella, and foot may have been clinically relevant, in modern humans many of the conditions described correspond to asymptomatic and incidental findings during routine medical examinations, and a diagnosis of complex disease based on isolated skeletal elements is not possible. Thus, the possibility that the anomalies found in El Sidrón may reflect an underlying genetic syndrome remains speculative. Even in cases of inbreeding, when evaluating the impact of close relative mating on any aspect of health, a clear causal relationship must be established, rather than relying on speculation motivated solely by the presence of a close relative union in the family pedigree.
What did Neanderthals look like ?
Let us analyze their physical strength first. We know they had an otherworldly strength from markings on bones (musculo-tendinous attachments) (akin to that of apes) indicating approximately the level of stress muscles exerted throughout the individual’s life, on the the corresponding bones, relative to our own bones. As we saw, prior analysis draw the inescapable conclusions that they were not merely earlier stage of our evolution but a higher one, a perfection version of the current Nordic race, just like Elves are often described, so simply imagining a rugged mountain of muscles deprived of the slightest grace (as in most modern reconstitution) wouldn’t make any sense. Instead, we must consider they were stronger pound for pound than us, like apes. They had close if not exactly chimpanzee strength.
Indeed those figures are even higher than what recent studies found for apes, albeit with a caveat as we’ll see. So let us first look a bit at studies on chimpanzees.
Here is a summary of the scientific consensus on ape strength:
We oppose those conclusions. Firstly, the assumption that fibers composition or type or architecture was the same, the muscle quality in other words, must be wrong, because chimpanzees do not cook food. While their specific strength (power per pound) are measured at from 1.20–2.05 times ours across studies (see Appendix and Discussion sections from ) and predicted in this latest one at a mere 1.35 through computers models and isolated fibbers under a microscope don’t seem to shown any difference in quality or density (allegedly), anecdotal displays of power related by onlookers, allude to much higher feats than a mere 2 times, maybe due a higher nervous fiber activation (mentioned here as cortical inhibition. Scientists think ape muscles are no different than ours, except fibers are longer and more of the type 2 (fast, powerful but quickly tiring) than type 1 (slow, enduring).
But performance in whole-organism tasks - real life situations - can not be reduced to fibers, it is often the case that with better coordination, one can perform several times better than previously, because the right muscles were sufficiently developed before to use other muscles in their full capacity in the right moment and right direction. For instance, handstand push-ups are impossible for nearly anyone untrained, the performance is 0, muscles can not respond, especially not when falling from a distance. But trained, a man develops a desirable physique and the skills to pull out stunts impossible for others. The power developed in a real life situation (unlike under a musculation bench or a microscope) isn’t proportional to muscle mass.
- There is also the idea that we lost fast-twitch fibers in order to last longer, hypothetically due to natural selection, forcing us to forage for longer distances once we quit the forest
A high fraction of MHC I fibers can also reduce fatigue by limiting the muscle’s reliance on glycogen and other intracellular substrates during contractions, which permits more frequent muscle activation per day in the aerobic range. Indeed, the large muscle masses (both in absolute and relative terms) in human hind (lower) limbs further enhance our aerobic range during bipedalism.
But we know we didn’t quit anything, and I couldn’t find a test on those alleged
type 1 chimpanzee fibers or whole muscles during exercises, showing their getting tired more easily than in humans. Of course they are not made to walk upright like us, neither their muscle architecture nor skeleton. Regardless of biochemical identification through MHC isoforms, the main point of nearly all those scientists (that is, that we lost something in exchange for another quality) holds no water, until proved otherwise. If anything, the arms of apes constantly straining for considerable times while moving from branches to branches, show the very opposite of tirelessness. They can sustain a body weight for extended periods.
Incidentally, humans share with sloths the palm of having the most relative amount of slow-twitch type I fibers. Yet while bearing less muscles for their size compared to other mammals and obviously not requiring much explosive power, sloth arms are twice as strong as ours for the same mass.
Despite suspensory habits requiring great strength, skeletal muscle mass in tree sloths is reduced, accounting for only ~24% of total body mass (21) compared with 33% reported for other arboreal mammals (40). However, sloth forelimbs are strong and capable of applying nearly twice as much total joint torque as an average human.
It appears that sloths actually use a fair amount of what we could qualify as
fast or MHC-II fibers, and not I, to eschew fatigue yet maintain mass-power efficiency, if not increase it. In reality, the IIa type is intermediate and good at both kind of sustained effort and power generation… and is the most commonly found kind of type II, among both athletes and animals:
Myosin heavy chain (MHC) fiber type and fiber metabolic properties were evaluated to understand the ability of sloths to remain suspended for extended periods without muscle fatigue. Broad distributions of large, slow MHC-1 fibers as well as small, fast MHC-2A fibers are expressed in sloth forelimbs, but muscle metabolism is generally not correlated with myosin fiber type or body size. Sloth muscles rely on rapid, anaerobic pathways to resist fatigue and sustain force production.
Indeed MHC types distributions for a given muscle varies a lot among humans too5, and means nothing.
We descend from Neanderthals which, that we know for certain due to studies and artifacts found, that they did not lack in fine motor control in any way. Yet possessed ape-like strength, as estimated from bones. As if nervous activation of many smaller motor units at once could create the same strength as a lesser number of bigger ones ! Also I think that cortical inhibition is not an evolutionary feature in the slightest. We should be able to access 100% of our strength on command, otherwise it is a constant dead-weight, that evolution could not possibly favor. The legs of populations culturally specialized for either long distance running, despite it being a highly aerobic task, do not show big muscles, instead boasting a surprisingly lean, efficient physique.
Another truth, is that humans don’t need to use their muscles in any capacity. We are not fit. But more importantly, using them to the fullest would rip our tendons and articulations apart, because they are made of bad proteins, at least it is the unambiguous reality of humans under agriculture. But thus was not the case for Neanderthals, as bones tell us. They had both accuracy and strength, period.
Now on to their looks.
While the shape of bones hints at the stress exerted on them, our point is that if true, the more than likely hypothesis of a higher ape-like efficiency allowed Neanderthals to keep a peak-human look, Captain America-like look. super-human look maybe, but human nonetheless, not gorilla-like. At least for some some muscle groups, the proportion and thus physique to deduce, doesn’t require much imagination since they still exist in some rare populations, the Aleuts, who obviously, beside good-looking thicker arms, look fine.
Talking about males and females, now seems as good a place as any to challenge a prejudice very damaging to society:
This could mean either of two things: Or a disproportionate number of men (including for early hominins) died sooner, or their women were equally as tough and possibly as muscular as the men although not necessarily harboring the same proportions (a more balanced lower:upper body ratio). From musculo-tendinous attachments on their bones (and their curvature under great tension, something we don’t see today) we are forced to consider physiques hardly common today, strong women capable to arm-strong current halterophiles, and men throwing them around like rag dolls. Such fit bodies, we hardly ever see today in men, let alone women.
The complicated question of what physique is the most natural for women won’t be tackled here, but everything from our decades of instincto experiences to pure aesthetic considerations, points at our girls being much too fat and physically pathetic. Like for any animal, women should be on average more agile than men of the same size, lighter (so should be their skeletal mass), and for the same age, usually smaller. However, the same mass should warrant the same power, even though distributed differently. There is simply no point in excess fat for survival value, no ape is a bear, we do not hibernate nor need to stock fat during winter, instead we use our brain to find food or stockpile it in prior auspicious seasons. Monkeys and chimpanzees have been seen hoarding fruits, perhaps intuiting that they risked missing the occasion to come by again to eat more of them. Friggin’ squirrels with a brain the size of walnut singlehandedly proves that agriculture (or for Vargites, either abundant subcutaneous fat or tons of meat) being necessary to endure food-deprived winters without half your children dying, is utter bullcrap:
Many animals store or hoard food, by instinct or conscious forecasting, it doesn’t matter. But to assume muh big brained humans/aryans/whatever didn’t use to, is an insult to our allegued intelligence.
Monkeys and chimpanzees have been seen hoarding fruits, perhaps intuiting that they risked missing the occasion to come by again to eat more of them. Friggin’ squirrels with a brain the size of walnut singlehandedly proves that agriculture (or for Vargites, either abundant subcutaneous fat or tons of meat) being necessary to endure food-deprived winters without half your children dying, is utter bullcrap:
Ultimately, the best practice to find the perfect adult female physique from a functional point of view (best male physique too), seems to be calisthenics. While our sense of aesthetics can be fickle or subject to conditioning, evolution favors this kind of efficient body.
The Biblical story
If we start by accepting the notion that Neanderthals used to live for centuries, we may as well consider reading the Bible not a figment of the imagination, but as a realistic retelling of the prehistory of men from the First Age to the Flood and modern times, describing in a condensed (sometimes symbolic, sometimes literal) way the sequence of events which led the Man-God from the origins to what it became. Since we know the precise dates of death and ages of every patriarch, we can compute the number of years from the Fall to the Flood, to 1656, over ten generations .
We see in the list of patriarchs that from Adam to Noah, everyone has had a lifespan of roughly 1000 years, with no discernible degradation in vitality. But let us first start at the beginning, with Genesis:
At the beginning of Genesis, God explicitely forbids eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil but does not forbid doing so from the tree of Eternal Life. We can safely assume this
knowledge of good and evil represents intellectual intelligence, which is part of nature (human nature in particular) but God (which is the extrasensory) intended humans to obtain transcendent wisdom before he reached his intellectual maturity. In this story we were meant to reach godhood, both as individuals and as a species: reaching a state of complete identification to the realm of the archetypes, while living.
Before the Fall, men were mostly vegetarians, as are apes, their amount of animal proteins being nearly negligeable, never more than 5%. Then God created the woman6. As 2:24 implies, sexuality was meant to exist before the Fall7, but a different kind, without guilt, without desire and without the typical heterosexual fixation of females on males. The subjugation of females to males was not intended by nature either but is an artifact of the breeding program instinctively inducing a meek, subserviant personality, which we already see in nearly all lower animals, cows, deers or hens. Theology teaches that the Original Sin was pride (thinking they knew better than God), a word nearly synonymous with intellect. But such a quality existing prior to the Fall, would have been placed there by God beforehand, opening thus a whole other can of worms… making no sense and removing any kind of meaning to the story. We must therefore assume the eating of that fruit and fall in a degraded form of intellect (and thus, of sexuality) refers to an accident, a fundamental change causing our dissociation from God’s grace.
Since God is Nature, this change could only have been cooking. This adds us eerily well with the precise content of God’s curse:
- Pain in childbearing and labor
- Not relying on fruit trees anymore but having to toil to produce cereals8
- hyper-intellectualization leading to the loss of sexual innocence and the capability for transcendence
- Condemnation of women to a purely reproductive sexuality.
Eating cereals (I doubt this was refering to sweat maize !) just can’t happen without cooking them, for I doubt the text was refering to sweet corn or sprouts .
God didn’t change change Adam’s body much if at all, since for ten generations him and his descent lived just as long as one another, not is it said that he was immortal in heaven. On the contrary, it’s logical to assume he was meant to become immortal at some point after eating from the right tree, whenever he wanted, and that his newly-found mortality is not caused by God directly but by Man’s own estrangement from God after having been casted from Eden and banned access to the Tree that could make him fully equal to God (
The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.)(for details see below9).
Meaning it is the failure of the metasexual program with cooking, that made the end goal of all life, attaining a superior plane of existence beyond death in this very life, forever forever unobtainable. Then later down the line, out of pity, God sends its son, to hint at the redemption from the Original Sin, and a renewed possibility for transcendence - absent from Jewish religion - in the form of the rapture:
The rapture is an eschatological position held by some Christians, particularly those of American evangelicalism, consisting of an end-time event when all Christian believers who are alive, along with resurrected believers, will risein the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air.
Therefore mirroring exactly what Ancient Chineses say of their Immortals, Buddhists about the Jalus and the outcome of tantric practice. Furthermore, primitive Christians (some variants of it at least) were mystics and hoped for more than idle worship. Christianism always included an undercurrent, however fought against by the Establishment, the belief that one could become one with Jesus (hence, God) in this life and produce the same miracles as he did, as attested by the Bible itself:
Only much later, right before the Flood, did God decide that enough was enough, not only did mankind not understood any lesson in this reprieve He gave us (instead of striking us dead from disobeying Him and natural laws in general, as he should have), profitting from long lives to repent on our sin and perhaps change our ways. Hence he opted on killing all but a few of us, and to add insult to injuries, marred our environment to a new level, as He did for our very bodies, meaning that the genetic damage of cooking naturally took some time to accumulate, reaching a threshold.
While other (Egyptian) accounts talk of a much slower and progressive rate of degeneration, a mere ten generations (a few thousand years if corrected for more realistic ages of first child) doesn’t seem so overly short once you see on your own person the dire and wide-ranging health effects. Indeed, fossiles positively show somewhat of a sudden turn in morphologies between 40 000 and 30 000 BCE, then taking yet a good 10 000 more years to fully transition to Modern men, erasing any trace of classic Neanderthals save for your rare occasional bronze age Übernord developping mature traits very early.
It is much more than the time needed for cooking to become general in due time throughout the whole planet, at least before recorded history (circa -20 000 BC). If we consider it took Alexander the Great’s army only 7 years, on foot and taking its time (and fighting!) from Greece to India, traveling the world must not have taken long, when customs and modern States did not exist and lands were almost empty (compared to even antiquity’s population densities).
It entails that later European Nordid types, such as Hallstatt Nordids and Trønders, presenting traits in comparison highly neotenic (such as a pronunced high forehead, reduced browridge), should not be interpreted as signs of the arrival of a new species, or worse, God forbid, the unholy union of frail Nigger blood and brutish-looking Neanderthals.
Instead those new types, coexisting with the Cro-Magnoids Coon labelled “Upper paleolithic survivors” presenting much closer characteristics, with more robust-looking skulls, proportionally smaller foreheads and longer faces (but larger as well relative to the head), reflects what ageing does while our lifetime became too short for classical Neanderthal traits to develop fully at their initial speed.
In short, neoteny (the persistence of juvenile traits) is normal for kids, that breed and die before reaching maturity. Indeed, while those that do reach maturity demonstrate undeniable Neanderthal blood, it might also indicate accelerated ageing. Looking old and mature when most hope to live exactly a mere tenth of what our genetic is still mostly programmed for, is not good a sign at all.
We must consider, that nearly Neanderthals we found with accentuated mature traits, all
adults in paleontologists’ thought), were not adults but extremely old people10, which to cite the late Dr Cuozzo, “would look very funny”. White people should not aspire to look like that, anymore than a child should desire growing too fast, way too fast. On the contrary, the longer we look young while growing strong (otherwise it’s confusing slow maturation with under-maturation) the slower we age and in better diet condition the longer we could hope to live. There is no good or bad Nordic types as long as no obvious admixture witih Mediterranneans (read: Semites) or Asians can be proved.
If anything, the classic Nordid look seems more natural as we could assume the bulk of the population at any given time, was morphologically speaking either young or adult but not old, hence would look exactly like us, just stronger. Our model, should be Galadriel, to which we might as well have looked like for the longest part of our life.
As I see it… maybe 1 million years ago, local groups of late Homo Erectus (whose cranial box varied from 775 to 1225 cubic centimeters) that gave birth to the Asian and European races, began to live older than the chimpanzees to the extent that their intelligence approached our current level, and their speed of maturation decreased more and more, at first similar to ours today, then decreased again and again, while their life expectancy increased, until approaching 1000 years as the Bible says. .. It would be interesting to project a bonobo face with a more advanced age and match it with erectus skulls.
We are left with a glaring question: while a primitive man could understandably fall for an artifice unexpected by nature, how could a hyper-intelligent über-Nordic seemingly more knowledgeable about the universe fall for it, while having stayed clean for a good two hundred thousands years, a time span we can hardly wholly outside our comprehension ?
We think appealing to supernatural causes to explain the Fall as in almost all myths and religions, might not be so ludicrous after all, for no
rational explanation seem all to fly the in the face of known facts, of our experience and reasonable projections from them. At the beginning of the cooking process, with degeneration significantly undermining our life force and natural regenerative abilities, the damage must have been light, perhaps imperceptible, like the patriarchs like Noah who lived after the Fall but before the Flood, and merely drank wine.
There are more people cured from hard drugs, than those weaned from cooking. According to a drug addict, giving up cooking is even more difficult than for heroin. It is not improbable if we imagine a people both uninformed and hospitable, that cooking swept the world almost instantaneously as far as fossil records are concerned, so on the scale of a few thousand years.
With animals as well as human beings, we observe a difference between the cooked state and the natural raw state, proportional to the size of the brain… to the capacity for introspection and metacognition. Your intellect has to be able to control and regulate your deranged impulses. Animals fed cooked food without the support of recipes (such as dog food) specially designed to reduce the immediate effect on health, for the most part, will eat whatever they find and die quite quickly of disease, violence, rather spectacularly.
We have seen this with rats, not to mention the countless domestic and farm animals fed then raw food, bulls, pigs, cats and dogs. Although human behavior is greatly altered, animal behavior of animals is even more so due to their impulsivity (lack of a metacognition which would imply higher brain functions). It is possible that human beings with bigger and more complex brains than ours, genetically more advanced, devoid of our frustrations and still very close to energy, could not see much difference, much less than for us, their degenerate descendants.
The idea of a proportional effect on the brain inversely proportional to the degree of intelligence or more exactly self-control, is also confirmed between humans: individuals (or racial groups) notably below average or backward one way or another, shows much stronger or visible psychopathic and schizoid tendencies. This explains the horrors visible in Africa since time immemorial, the incessant wars, abominable genital mutilations and persistence of cannibalism and rape as a weapon of war.
So once the transition to cooking might have gone wholly unnoticed, if people were significantly less addicted than today, and had enjoyed centuries of mental stability. Then the next generations would suffer more, and more, and more, and more. As their sexual instincts went unbounded cooked groups ended up outbreeding the rest. For beings endowed with low intelligence perhaps cooking has occurred regularly (once a generation over a whole continent…) starting from a certain brain size but individuals or groups falling into that trap would die quickly, thus needing quite the particular conditions and enough of a population limit size so that their increased fertility could counteract the mortality. Lots of speculation here.
For years I have felt uneasy with these theories, as if missing a piece of the puzzle.We are talking about men with an average intelligence superior to anything we know today, equal to our Mozart, Kim Peeks and Max Planck. Geniuses with unfathomable extrasensory faculties, possibly equal to the gods of our mythologies…
In all likelihood some gods (Isis and Osiris for example, maybe the Irish Tuatha de Dana) were based on the last generations of (relatively) advanced men more than 10,000 years ago, who left a mark in our collective memory. Evehmerism perhaps didn’t miss the mark from much after all…
Neo-Evehmerism just swapped for Neandertals/gods for aliens.
Why didn’t the visions, all preoccupied with
destiny, warn us of the impending doom ? Exterminating the few groups responsible for initiating the debacle would have been enough. In the light of the technological talents that archaeology revealed, it seems clear to me that such men with so much brain and time on their hand could have, had they wanted to, in the span of a few centuries, built a civilization similar to ours, packed with weapons or whatever else to ensure their supremacy on the planet for all eternity. It would not have taken much: simple hot air balloons and trebuchets would do the trick. Within a generation or two, God knows what an army of hundreds of nearly immortal, clairvoyant Einsteins and Teslas could create ?
Something feels missing.
Archaeological finds are much too limited in their resolution in time and completion, unable to take us any further as far as hard evidences are concerned. The future will rely on the extrasensory - the grace of gods - to provide more information, and the location of more evidences.
Regardless, our immediate task in the foreseeable future is to regenerate Neandertals, our lost brain size, physical robustness and lifespan.
- The first step is to stop cooking.
- Defining and preserving the pure strains from admixture at all costs. Breeding selectively the stronger on every trait, and most importantly stop the onslaught of mutations that caused all of this, stop cooking, get back to an instinctive raw food diet imitating apes. Rely on incest to screen out in mass recessive alleles responsible for most of our mutational load, diminishing the quality of people and health. Finally we must live hard again, exposing ourselves to dangers, to difficult moral choices, to the most severe physical and mental training, for both men and women: we must seek to be the best versions of ourselves. Memories and experiences will persist, accelerating evolution in a Lamarckian way.
This is laid out in some scientific details, in our eugenic plan .
Measurable gradient in a single character (or biological trait) of a species across its geographical range. Clines can show smooth, continuous gradation in a character, or they may show more abrupt changes in the trait from one geographic region to the next depending on physical barriers to gene exchange. ↩︎
The ’evolution’ of Neandertals over the last 100 years says more about us | Abroad in the Yard ↩︎
Mammalian Domestication and its Effect on Brain Structure and Behavior ↩︎
Skeletal Anomalies in The Neandertal Family of El Sidrón (Spain) Support A Role of Inbreeding in Neandertal Extinction ↩︎
For the second time actually… he already creates it at the end of book one, equal to man, from the dust as well, but this woman simply disappears in book three, then comes the woman molded out of Adam’s rib cage, the bane of feminists. This and Lilith’s myth will be commented upon another day. ↩︎
By the way Eve being the literal clone of Adam, this was incest of the highest degree hence holy. ↩︎
Explaining a few health defects typical of extremely outworn skeletons, despite otherwise not looking that old to our scientists, rarely more than 50 :
La Ferrassie 1: New perspectives on a “classic” Neandertal ↩︎