Biological Reality, part 3
American Dissident Voices broadcast of January 10, 2015Listen to the broadcast
by Kevin Alfred Strom
THIS WEEK, I’m concluding my current three-part series on Black/White racial differences. Africans are so different — genetically, physically, chemically, mentally, and behaviorally — that by any reasonable definition they ought to be considered a separate subspecies, if not species. The differences are so pronounced and so well-documented that they prove beyond any doubt that the writers and academicians and commissars who constantly repeat the empty slogans that “race does not exist” and “race is a social construct” are lying. (ILLUSTRATION: Relative genetic distance of various groups is shown in this chart based on the work of Cavalli-Sforza et al.)
* * *
What do scientists mean when they say one race or group is more primitive than another? Are Blacks more primitive than other races?
A living population is more primitive than another living population if it has more of the same traits that the last common ancestor of the two populations had. If the last common ancestor is extinct (e.g. erectus) and all we have of it are teeth, bones, and a few stone tools, then [the other] traits of the two populations are compared, either to the traits of chimpanzees, who are assumed to have not evolved drastically away from the chimp-human last common ancestor, or to the traits of living populations of humans who are otherwise known to be primitive. Thus, “primitive” traits are “simian” (ape-like) because they are similar to traits possessed by our last common ancestor with living apes.
Many simian traits (e.g., long skull [from back to “snout”], brow ridges, prognathism, small ears, flat nose) are illustrated [in a picture I’ll include in the text version of this broadcast], which shows a computer reconstruction of a bipedal ape… that has some human features. Any human population that has significantly more primitive traits than another population has evolved less away from our ape common ancestor and is therefore more simian and more primitive.
The picture speaks for itself. No one needs me to point out that the bipedal ape resembles rapper “50 cent” — and other typical Blacks — far more than it resembles violinist Bjarte Eike — or any other Whites you care to name. Both are shown in my illustration.
To say that a race is primitive is not to say that the modern races evolved from it, but rather that the more primitive race has evolved less.
Ideally, a trait that is primitive will be possessed by all of the large anthropoid apes, will be less pronounced in Homo erectus, and still less so in most humans, so that the prominence of the trait diminishes as genetic distance from apes increases, [though there are exceptions to this].
Primitive traits can also be acquired by interbreeding with a more primitive population…. Primitive traits correlate highly with tropical traits, which is to be expected because our ancestors lived in warmer climates before they evolved traits that enabled them to live in colder climates. Thus, living descendants of those tropical ancestors will tend to retain those tropical primitive traits… Long arms, for example, useful to apes for swinging through the trees, may be retained by their tropical descendants, although they no longer swing through the trees, since long arms are also useful in dissipating heat and throwing objects….
…[A] larger brain is an advantageous… trait in a mentally challenging colder environment, but its high energy cost makes it a disadvantageous trait if the environment is not as mentally challenging….
Far, far more than skin color
Technological advancement can also reduce some primitive traits. A person who is more “robust” (i.e., heavier bones and stronger muscles) is more primitive than a person who is more “gracile” (i.e., lighter bones and less muscular) because apes are more robust and so was early man. A population that is more technologically advanced (e.g., has spears and other long-distance weapons) relies less on physical strength, giving an advantage to more gracile individuals who invest resources in brains instead of strong muscles and bones. (Lewin, 1998). [Eating food obtained through advanced thought (hunting, agriculture)] and cooking food (i.e., controlling fire) to soften it reduced the need for primitive traits such as powerful chewing muscles, large teeth, a supraorbital ridge, a saggital keel, and thick, heavy skull bones.
All of these characteristics are prominent in modern Blacks.
[Psychological tudies have also shown that] both blacks and whites regard black facial characteristics (i.e., primitive traits) as threatening (Lieberman, M.D., 2005; Eberhardt, 2006).
As I pointed out in part one of this series:
…primitive traits found more often in the skulls of Africans include a thicker and narrower skull with less cranial capacity, a more sloping forehead, a more massive protruding jaw, and larger teeth. [The illustration I’ll show in the text version of this broadcast] compares the skull of an ape with a European skull to illustrate these differences. (Howells, 1948, p. 130). [The next picture] compare[s] a European skull (left) with an African (Sudanese) skull (right). The eye sockets and nasal openings have been aligned. Although it looks like the two skull halves are misaligned, they are not; the smaller brain and larger jaw of the African skull just makes it appear that way.
|Ape skull compared with a European’s||White/African skulls|
Less prominent external nose bones are a primitive trait as early hominoids had no external nose bones; [and] the African nose is “very flat.” (Hanihara, 2000). A less prominent chin and the percentage of skull bones that join on the side of the head are also primitive traits….
Primitive soft tissue traits include larger muscles, larger scent glands, and a smaller, and less fissured brain with a smaller front-to-back ratio (a smaller forebrain), and a thinner supragranular layer in the brain.
…There is some indication in the literature that the African hair type differs in fundamental ways from Eurasian hair in that, among other things, it lacks a central duct. Since Africans and some Asian Negritos have very curly hair, it would be interesting to know if Negrito hair also lacks a central duct. If it did, a reasonable conclusion would be that tropical erectus had hair that lacked a central duct and that such hair is primitive.
Another primitive soft tissue trait that might be mentioned is a sclera (cornea) that is yellowish rather than completely white, usually in only adult males. The primitiveness of this trait is shown by its presence in the gorilla, some Africans, and some of the aborigines of the Pacific.
In apes, the larynx is higher in the throat and, as a result, the number of different sounds they can make, and the ease with which they can control the sounds they make, is diminished. The ability to make more varied sounds means superior communications between people so that they can transfer information more easily and more accurately…. Gibbs (1865) says the larynx of Africans differs from that of whites.
An unusually large mouth is a primitive trait, as it is a characteristic of apes (required for fully opening the mouth to expose the teeth and bite), and most Africans do have large mouths….
The flat nose of Africans is primitive, because apes have very flat noses and external nose bones (needed for a more protruding nose) are absent in apes and early man. The nose only gradually became more prominent, most likely when man moved into colder climates where a longer nasal passage was advantageous in warming inhaled air.
Large buttocks is a primitive African trait as it is found in the most primitive people (Andaman Islanders, Hottentots, and Bushmen…), and prominent buttocks are a feature of some female primates, particularly when in heat (e.g., the baboon).
Reproductive traits: Blacks more like simians
Reproductive strategy is a very fundamental trait as it determines the solution to the all-important problem of how best to create the next generation, which then influences a large number of other traits. A more “r” orientated reproductive strategy [more offspring, less care] is definitely more primitive as man has a more “K” reproductive strategy than any other primate. There is extensive evidence (Rushton, 2000a) that Africans are more “r” orientated. The faster maturation of blacks also applies to the development of their intelligence, which develops close to whites until about age 2, then begins to stagnate. (Chapter 11, FN 12 & Chapter 14, FN 37).
A propensity for violence is a primitive behavioral trait because, as intelligence increased and man became more civilized, intra-populational violence became more disruptive. A propensity for violence correlates with physical traits such as a protruding jaw and large mouth (for biting), strong, dense bones and larger muscles, as well as behavioral traits, such as impulsiveness and the inability to plan for the future, all of which are higher in blacks. Cannibalism was, and still is, a primitive behavioral trait in Africans, despite the best efforts of foolish, but tasty, missionaries to put a stop to it.
Genes tell the truth
The “smoking gun” that proves primitiveness beyond question is genes. If a population has the same alleles that the great apes have, and other populations do not have those alleles, then that population is more primitive. Genetics has just begun to determine the distribution of different alleles among people across the Earth, but the use of chimpanzee and gorilla alleles to identify Africans as the “ancestral” population (i.e., Africans have alleles that chimps and gorillas have, but Eurasians do not have) is widespread.
More recent work is identifying the genes responsible for important traits, such as intelligence and the propensity towards violence. So far, it is known that a few of the alleles thought to be responsible for high intelligence, of the genes microcephalin (“MCPH1”) and ASPM, are rare or absent in Africans. Eventually, all of the alleles responsible for the racial differences in traits will be identified, and their distribution is expected to coincide with the racial distribution of those traits.
Low average intelligence in a population is the most important primitive trait as intelligence has increased over millions of years and it is the defining trait of humans. It is now well-accepted by psychologists that blacks have a lower intelligence.
Civilization tells the truth, too
The inability to create and maintain a civilization or to accomplish much of any note are primitive traits, as earlier hominoids were capable of neither; nor are today’s Africans.
The obvious conclusion
It should be obvious from the preceding that Africans possess a large number of primitive traits, but some South Pacific aborigines possess even more, though they do not necessarily have the same primitive traits that Africans do. Some… aborigines are so primitive that they might even be classified as late Homo erectus instead of Homo sapiens. The number of South Pacific aborigines are not great as the number of Africans, however, and they are concentrated in Australia and the South Pacific Islands and do not present all the social problems that the large numbers of blacks in the West do.
[There is] overwhelming evidence that race is real and that blacks are the most primitive of the major races…. Because research on racial differences, except where they are medically important, has been effectively outlawed for at least the last 50 years, there are no doubt thousands of other racial differences that have not been discovered or published….
The fact is that virtually all of the racial differences between Africans and Eurasians are in traits that are primitive; there are few, if any, African traits that are more modern than Eurasian traits. The evidence comes from a large variety of very different traits, hard tissue, soft tissue, physiology, behavior, intelligence, accomplishments, and genes. And, most importantly, all of the evidence is consistent. It is not the case that genes are saying blacks are modern and bones are saying they are primitive. All of the evidence is saying the same thing – they are primitive, less evolved, and closer to our ape ancestors.
That is why Richard Fuerle chose Erectus Walks Amongst Us as the title for his book, which is the source of much of what I’ve said in this series:
[It’s] not that Homo erectus is alive today as the species that lived from nearly 2 million years ago until as recently as a few tens of thousands, but that erectine alleles long lost by Eurasians are still active in Africans and some aborigine populations, expressing themselves in primitive traits of body and behavior. These traits are readily discernable at a glance, though people are indoctrinated and warned not to notice such things and to deny them if they are mentioned. [Notice] the erectine features of the black athletes [shown in the illustration in the text version of this program]: the prominent brow ridges and receding forehead of Jerry Stackhouse, the protruding jaw of Shaquille O’Neal, and the slight saggital keel of former NBA player Karl Malone.
|Genetic distance as evolutionary tree|
Whites have romanticized primitive people as “noble savages” and, in movies and on television, they are usually portrayed as competent, wise, and kind-hearted towards whites. Real life data, however, does not support that portrayal. (Keeley, 1996; Wade, 2006; Lablanc, 2003). European soccer fans, who make ape-like hooting noises and throw bananas to taunt black players may be boorish, but biologically, they have a point. Blacks, biologically, have traits that man had hundreds of thousands of years ago. [In the chart I’ll include] the horizontal length of the lines is proportional to genetic distance; the short length of the horizontal line going to “African” indicates that Africans have not evolved much, and the long length of the horizontal line labeled “non-African” indicates that non-Africans have evolved a long way away from Africans.
* * *
There is more — much more, volumes upon volumes more — of data I could cite proving that Africans are inherently, biologically different from us. But I have shown the intelligent and objective listener enough, I think, in the last three weeks to demolish his preposterous prejudice, implanted in childhood and fostered by the controlled media, that the races are “equal.” So I urge all of you who thirst after knowledge to do further research and find out for yourself if what I say is true. Read the sources I’ve cited. Then, when you find out I am right, join the ranks of those who have rediscovered their long- and unnaturally-suppressed sense of racial loyalty — join the ranks of those who thirst after action as well as knowledge. Join the ranks of the men and women of the National Alliance.
Living among Blacks is dangerous for us. It is doubly dangerous for White women and children. It is dangerous in the obvious ways — murder, rape, robbery, assault, and so on — and it is dangerous in more subtle ways too: cultural degeneration, huge losses of wealth to support their burgeoning underclass, introduction of Black mores and behavior among our youth, the demoralization that results when we are no longer allowed to have our own culture and social institutions that are ours alone, and the Black control over governments in many major cities and the stranglehold this places on mass democracy — guaranteeing that we can never vote our way out of this dilemma.
It is especially dangerous to live among them when we have lost control of our government and media to an alien group — the Jews — far more clever and far more hostile to us than Blacks ever were, a group dedicated to mixing us with Blacks and others so that we will cease to be ourselves. By mixing our advanced genes with theirs, we will become them.
The Whites who do so, or encourage others to do so, are committing a sin greater than any other sin. They are exterminating the future children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren who ought to be. And they are throwing away the evolutionary advancement of hundreds of thousands of years.
Living among Blacks in such an unhealthy, suicidal society means death for us, death for our culture, death for our heritage, death for our children, death for our genetic destiny. That’s exactly the situation we’re in.
The extremity of our plight may be a new revelation to many. But it has been known to some advanced thinkers for decades. One such man, physicist Dr. William Pierce, founded the National Alliance, the organization behind this radio program. The National Alliance is dedicated to organizing aware, responsible White men and women into a force to change the future. With the scientific facts on our side, armed with the knowledge of who our enemies are, what they are doing, and why they are doing it, and with an awareness of our place in the history of the evolving universe, we are toppling the myths that enslave us and beginning to build a new community that will ensure our race’s survival and progress. Won’t you help make our voice a stronger one? Go to our Web site, natall.com, and join us today.
* * *
You’ve been listening to American Dissident Voices, the radio program of the National Alliance, founded by William Luther Pierce in 1970. This program is published every week at whitebiocentrism.com and nationalvanguard.org. You can join and support us by visiting natall.com — or write to National Alliance, Box 172, Laurel Bloomery, TN 37680 USA. We welcome your support, your inquiries, and your help in spreading our message of hope to our people. Once again, that address is Box 172, Laurel Bloomery, TN 37680 USA. Until next week, this is Kevin Alfred Strom reminding you to keep on thinking free.Listen to the broadcast