Got 'em.
(media.scored.co)
New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
Toast message
Interesting. What do you think are the problem with Grant's book?
I haven't read Coon's book (wait, wait... a book about race written by someone named *coon*? LOL), is it good? I just found it online, and it's 900 pages...
> Varg Vikernes and his wife's Neanderthal theory
I listen to anthropologists like Grant and this Coon, not to a "musician" that made stupid noise, and this comes from someone who used to listen to Black Metal.
His theory is absurd: the Neanderthal reconstructions that we have now look very different from a modern human. It looks like a completely different species.
I don't believe that Homo Sapiens were dark, not even when they lived in Africa. Science says that White people are like 95% homo sapiens and 5% Neanderthal, and this makes more sense.
Nordic subrace evolved its traits (e.g. blue eyes, abstract thinking) around 6,000 to 4,000 years ago in the Baltic region.
Niggers are probably the result of homo sapiens breeding with homo erectus or some other ape and this is why they are so different from us.
Just to be clear, even if we accept the "out of Africa" hypothesis, which is just a hypothesis, that doesn't mean that the old homo sapiens were niggers. I believe niggers came after.
Africa is a big and rich continent and niggers are just one of the species in it. It's a shame that we now connect Africa = niggers. Even if my long long long time ancestors come from Africa they had never been niggers.
Well for instance he lumps all Slavs as Alpine, with no mention of the Baltic or Dinaric subraces...
On Coon's book, I didn't read it entirely, mostly its main definitions which are largely used on Anthropology forums. They are considered outdated by modern science so, yes, it's worth checking.
>I listen to anthropologists like Grant and this Coon, not to a "musician" that made stupid noise
I knew Varg through his Youtube channel in 2015, prior to that I had never heard of him. He used to make good videos about anti-consumerism, simple living, permaculture, homeschooling and some controversial ones about race and paganism.
I didn't care about his music or his convict past (as far as I know he was in the right when he killed Euronymous), but about 2 years later he published [a video](https://odysee.com/@ThuleanPerspective:d/2017-04-02---About-Eyes---Ice:9) telling deliberate lies to support his claims. In the video he says that "most Arctic animals have blue eyes", which isn't true, and shows some edited images of a blue-eyed Arctic fox and a blue-eyed Arctic wolf. NO wild Arctic animals have blue eyes, the only Arctic animals that have blue eyes are some dog breeds such as husky. You have to search for "arctic fox blue eyes" to find a photo of one. So, I stopped following him.
Still, the idea that the European subraces are actually a result of mixing of different early human species doesn't sound that far-fetched to me, some old obscure works theorize that the white race originated near the North Pole which kind of aligns with that Neanderthal theory.
Basically, it would be:
Europeans descend from Neanderthals.
Africans descend from Homo Sapiens.
Asians descend from Denisovans.
Middle Eastern peoples are a mix of all those.
There are various levels of mixing, for example, some dark Southeast Asians would have more Homo Sapiens admixture while light Northern Asians have more Neanderthal.
So in reality there would only be two types of European: less mixed (fair skin, blue or gray eyes, blonde hair, occipital bun, shorter lower arms/lower legs compared to the upper arms/upper legs are Neanderthal features) and more mixed (swarthy skin, brown eyes, etc. are the result of non-Neanderthal admixture).
All that might be wrong of course, but the idea that Homo Sapiens moved to Europe during the Ice Age and beat the Neanderthals in their own turf and that blue eyes are only 7.000 years old sound nonsensical to me.
About the modern Neanderthal reconstructions, if someone discovered that the Neanderthals really were the proto-Europeans, or more specifically the proto-Nordics, and Homo Sapiens were the proto-niggers, then I wouldn't be suprised if the whole thing was subverted to turn the Neanderthal into the ape man and the Homo Sapiens into the superior species... This is one of the leading geneticists in Archaic Europeans: [David Reich](https://wukali.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/David-Reich.webp) (yes, he is a jew).
I don't know, man, I think that no matter how much our technology evolves we might never be able to fully understand the past.
Why? It makes perfect sense to me.
From what we know about the Neanderthals, at least from "official science", they were physically much stronger than us, with a bigger and broader body. Which presumably meant that they needed more calories, making survival more difficult.
Natural selection is not a 1 vs 1 combat. There are countless different ways in which homo sapiens may have prevailed, for example with more intelligence or by living in larger groups.
As for blue eyes, it makes sense that it was just a mutation which was then selected because it's objectively beautiful. So yes I believe that the Nordic subrace (blue eyes, blonde hair, etc) is only 7,000 years old. If we take a period between 7,000 and 5,000 years ago, that would be 100 generations which is more than enough to bring the evolutionary changes that separate a Nordic man from a Mediterrenean (still White) man.
On blue eyes: all the aboriginal peoples of Northern, Central and Eastern Europe in classical antiquity (Germanic, Gauls, Dacians, Balts, Scythians, etc.) are described as being overwhelmingly blue-eyed. Tacitus described the Germanic peoples as being 100% blonde, blue-eyed and having huge frames, and he said that they were like that because they weren't mixed with other races through immigration or intercourse, unlike the Romans.
So the official narrative is that one single blue-eyed individual in a population that was 100% brown-eyed resulted, after about 5.000 years, in a 100% blue-eyed population.
Blue eyes are recessive, they can be easily bred out by mixing with brown eyes, a blue-eyed and a brown-eyed individual will only *have the chance* of producing blue-eyed offspring if the brown-eyed parent carries the gene for blue eyes. How one single blue-eyed individual could in about 5.000 years turn the entire population of Northern Europe a 100% blue-eyed is beyond me.
Northern Europeans having their blue eyes (and the other Nordic features) from a proto-European species makes more sense to me. The Neanderthal fits the bill, thus making the genes for Nordic features about 500.000 years old.
Ah and even though Varg's wife, Marie Cachet, [wrote extensively](https://mariecachet.wordpress.com/chapter-1/) about this hypothesis, focusing on the importance of Neanderthal culture and genetics on the development of European mythology, religion and culture in general, she did not originate it. I know that I said "her" theory in a previous comment but I mispoke, it's because they spread this hypothesis among some racially conscious folks during their time on Youtube.
Dr. Svante Pääbo is one modern scientist who used to talk about it years ago but later on he changed the narrative. This hypothesis could undermine the idea that we are all essentially "one species", as supported by the Out of Africa theory, giving trouble to the modern idea of human unity and the broader narrative of a unified human history.
I'm sure you are aware that science is under political pressure and has been used for propaganda purposes, such as the well-known Out of Africa theory, the Cheddar man, etc.
But regarding blue eyes: there is an evolutionary advantage in having blue eyes in the north: you can see better in the dark. Therefore, if we accept that the color of the skin was changed by the environment, for the eyes it was the same thing as blue eyes have less melanin just like fair skin.
Therefore rather than only 1 person randomly spawning with blue eyes, another explanation is that everyone living up north gradually lost melanin from both skin and eyes.
This doesn't contradict the Neanderthal hypothesis, as it's possible that Neanderthals from southern regions were more brown and those who migrated north because lighter.
However, the biggest problem with the theory is that - at least based on the Neanderthal as shown by modern science - White people seem more similar to niggers than the Neanderthals in the bone structure for example.
> giving trouble to the modern idea of human unity and the broader narrative of a unified human history
Of course, even if we all come from homo sapiens I do not believe that niggers and shitskin are my same species.
We are just too different, biologically.
A White man is more different from a nigger than a wolf is different from a coyote.
Therefore in the "out of Africa" hypothesis I consider that homo sapiens who came out of Africa as a common ancestor that we have with niggers, but we followed different evolutionary paths.
The hypothesis is that Neanderthals became swarthier as the result of mixing with Homo Sapiens, not from evolution. There are some Berber tribes who are fair skinned and blue-eyed despite been living in a very sunny environment for many generations. They could be the descendants of a population of Neanderthals that had little contact with Homo Sapiens despite remaining in North Africa after the end of the Ice age, but it's more accepted that they are the result of later Nordic migration southwards.
>However, the biggest problem with the theory is that - at least based on the Neanderthal as shown by modern science - White people seem more similar to niggers than the Neanderthals in the bone structure for example.
Unfortunately I can't quote anyone else on this other than the Cachets, in their writings they say that the first archaeologists were mostly priests, who often systematically destroyed all evidence suggesting that Europeans had had any type of culture prior to Christianity.
When those priests found Neanderthal skulls, large skulls that obviously had held brains larger than those of modern humans, they had to do something about it because both those believing in the theory of evolution and the Judeo-Christians claiming that Pagan Europe was primitive had a serious problem, so they intentionally misplaced the spinal column and the lower jaw, making the Neanderthal look ape-like.
That image has already been proven to be false, but the image of the Neanderthal as some ape-like creature with a protruding face still remains and people understandably don’t want to have such a forebear, and so the Cro Magnon mulatto is accepted instead as being the proto-European.
So in reality the Neanderthal didn’t have a protruding face at all, and the supra-orbital ridge, found in adults only, can still occasionally be found in modern adult Europeans: [example 1](https://thuleanperspective.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/nowitzki_dpa_400.jpg), [example 2](https://thuleanperspective.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/rugby_player_with_a_pronounced_supraorbital_ridge.jpg?w=600&h=400).
They would have looked pretty much just like the aboriginal peoples of North, Central and Eastern Europe during classical antiquity. Gallic Coins with portraits of Gauls with Neanderthal features: [example 1](https://thuleanperspective.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/vercingetorix.jpg), [example 2](https://thuleanperspective.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/rrc-448-2-obverse.jpg)
>Therefore in the "out of Africa" hypothesis I consider that homo sapiens who came out of Africa as a common ancestor that we have with niggers, but we followed different evolutionary paths.
That's very plausible too, just like what you said earlier that niggers might be the result of mixing with Homo Erectus or another ape, but it seems to be much less accepted or talked about for obvious reasons. The official story tells us that we are all Homo Sapiens with just bits of other species DNA, and that people of African ancestry have the least of those other bits of DNA thus making Africans more "human" than Europeans, even though it's not that simple but it is how it was meant to be understood by the general public.