Reactionary posters…

… by Radish Magazine. Formerly known as Unamusement Park. Good work Radish!

Click here.

 

An interview with HBD chick

I found a recent interview with HBD chick at The Hoover Hog. I had bookmarked it a while ago and it might be old news for some but it’s definitely worth reading.

we love you hbd chick!

 

“Future Human Evolution” book review

I just finished reading “Future Human Evolution” by Prof. John Glad. I learned long ago to avoid taking the titles and accomplishments we find on dust jackets too seriously. This is because of the tremendous amount of rubbish we are served by “illustrious professors” with impressive-sounding titles and long lists of books and papers to their names. I’ve learned that a university degree does not bestow its owner with common sense, nor does it cleanse him of hidden agendas such as the defense of dogma or the will to further his career, truth be damned.

But Future Human Evolution has no such agenda, unless one considers battling for the truth, and the preservation of our species an “agenda.” Therefore I’ll quote the dust jacket:

John Glad is a retired professor of Russian studies, having taught at Rutgers University, the University of Chicago, the University of Iowa, and the University of Maryland. He is also the former Director of the Kennan Institute for Advanced Russian Studies in the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, in Washington, D.C. A Guggenheim grant recipient, he is the author, editor, or translator of twenty books, some of which have been honored in the American Book Awards. Future Human Evolution is part of his long-standing work on behalf of human rights, in this case of future generations.

And this brings me to a critical concept in eugenics, which Prof. Glad makes perfectly clear in his book: That future generations have rights. This is a point that I myself expounded upon in the first post of this blog, Reflections of a “Racist” Father. We take the view that human society includes not only those who are alive today, but also those who are yet to be born. When we consider how much we owe to the sacrifices of our ancestors, our generation should certainly appreciate this position. As beneficiaries of previous generations, we should be eager to bestow similar benefits upon future generations.

Glad points out that, although there are racial differences (in general terms), eugenics is race-neutral. Whatever traits we wish to promote in one race, we wish to promote in other races as well. All races stand to benefit from eugenics – and all races stand to suffer from dysgenic policies.

One of the most important services Prof. Glad offers us in his book is that he gives historical context to the eugenics movement and exposes the supposed link between Nazism and eugenics as a myth – a myth that has been promoted by certain forces on the left. Nazism had nothing to do with eugenics. On the contrary, Nazi policies were dysgenic to the extreme. Any “eugenic” policies followed by the Nazis were also followed by their enemies in the U.S. and Europe at the time. Glad points out that Hitler’s euthanasia campaign was not eugenic in nature, but rather a crude way to free up hospital beds for the large numbers of expected war casualties. Glad also devotes a chapter to the contributions of Jews to the eugenics movement – a subject to which he later devoted an entire book, Jewish Eugenics.

Prof. Glad explains that, contrary to common belief, the eugenics movement was not an offshoot of a wider discipline of genetics. On the contrary. The science of genetics was an offshoot of eugenics. Not only that, but the eugenics movement has been very much alive and kicking right up to the present time. Several surveys of published books on eugenics, through the years, backs this up.

Perhaps most importantly of all, Prof. Glad offers practical advice as to what eugenic policies we should pursue. For example (pg. 97):

Welfare policies need to be radically reexamined. Rather than simply pay low-IQ women more for each child, financial support should be made dependent on consent to undergo sterilization. Society should put more emphasis on greater tax credits for families with children, nurseries, day-care centers, etc. This would promote fertility among high-IQ women, who otherwise are tempted to either not to have children at all, or to have too few, sacrificing their unborn children before the alter of career advancement. The goals of the feminist movement are in and of themselves legitimate and fair, but wed to the anti-scientific worldview of radical egalitarianism, they will devastate our species.

Glad’s suggestion regarding sterilization of welfare recipients echoes that of Jared Taylor in his book Paved with Good Intentions.

Though Future Human Evolution is available online for free here, it should be noted that this is an abridged (and revised) version of the printed edition.

 

 

 

Jewish Eugenics by John Glad

I came across “Jewish Eugenics” by John Glad at a used bookstore. Needless to say, I bought it and have been reading it. So far, I’m very impressed. Glad is a race-realist and takes a brutally honest approach to every issue he addresses. The book is a treasure trove of knowledge and ideas.

At the beginning of the book, Glad tells us (pg. 7):

In 1979, co-chairing a department at the University of Maryland in College Park, I was summoned by the Dean and asked in a tone that must have been familiar to victims of the Inquisition about my opinions on race.

Sadly, he writes elsewhere (pgs. 28,29):

… making Jews forerunners in the more and more global game of panmixia. Russia’s greatest poet Alexander Pushkin (1799-1837) was part African, as is the president of the United States even as I write these lines. One can with justice regret the loss of diversity, but it is senseless to resist the inevitable – illustrated by 60,000 Ethiopian Jews in Israel. Even without this latest infusion, genetic tests have shown that the present Jewish population would appear to have a total Negro admixture of the order of five to ten percent. The distinctions between races are inexorably being erased. As the popular phrase runs, ‘Deal with it.’

I find this fatalism rather odd coming from a eugenicist. Eugenicists are supposed to believe in taking a more proactive role in our destiny. Furthermore, Glad fails to point out that what we have here is not so much an eradication of race, but rather a march toward blackness around the world. Globalism has created a situation where the least successful societies propagate themselves by creating large quantities of spores (AKA “refugees”) to replicate themselves elsewhere. It’s “Survival of the most dysfunctional.” Eugenicists should be demanding a reversal of this trend.

On a more positive note, his explanation of the link between Lamarckism and racial equalitariasm is worth quoting. He writes (pg. 59):

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) had posited that environmental factors created heritable characteristics. Applied to the Jews, habits viewed as negative were explained as having their origins in ghetto life but were considered curable within an altered environment, with new characteristics transmitted to future generations. Thus, while not all Lamarckians were Jewish and not all anti-Lamarckians were gentiles, the divide separating these two camps clearly lay along these fault lines. When Lamarckism was decisively overturned by science, the Jewish fall-back position was to assert that biological variance in humans was trivial and that ‘nurture’ trumped ‘nature’ – hands down.

The ‘nature/nurture’ controversy (an 1874 coinage of Galton’s) had been presented to the public as a strawman intended to discredit the hereditarians. In point of fact, while there is indeed still a good deal of uncertainty as to the relative importance of the one factor relative to the other, absolute denial of any role to environment is a position that was never espoused by anyone. By contrast, the absolute nurture model was and is still popularly presented to the general public as the only correct paradigm, denouncing even moderately hereditarian views as ‘racist,’ ‘classist,’ ‘sexist,’ or ‘misogynist.’

The Soviet Union was the great bastion of Lamarckian ideology. The Jewish-American geneticist Herman J. Miller, who was doing research in the U.S.S.R., thought he could reverse this line of thought and wrote Stalin a letter suggesting the creation of a eugenic state. Muller barely escaped the U.S.S.R. with his life.

He goes on to recount the huge death toll, on both sides of the Lamarckian debate, from Stalin’s subsequent purges. When we refer to racial equalitarians as “Marxists,” we may be more right than many of us realized. Thought-control and authoritarianism are the only ways to maintain the illusion that “race is but a social construct.” Today’s corporate-controlled media in the U.S. and Western Europe are direct descendants of the Soviet Pravda.

As I read more of this book, I’ll post more about it. There’s too much material to cover in one review.

 

Humans versus bees; not much difference

I’ve been reading “The Perfect Swarm” by Len Fisher. The subheading is “The science of complexity in everyday life” and Fisher tries to explain how patterns form in nature, how swarms of insects and humans take on specific forms and apparent purpose. On pages 29-31 he writes:

Individual bees in swarms follow the basic rules of avoidance, alignment, and attraction, but the swarm as a whole has something that locust swarms don’t – an ability to fly directly to a target that has been identified by scouts. The way the swarm does this provides the first clue to the processes by which swarm intelligence emerges.

“Well,” you might think, “it’s pretty obvious how they find the target. They use the well-known waggle dance. It’s the method that bee scouts use to tell the others where something is, such as a food source or a site for a new home. The scouts dance like teenagers in a disco, waggling their abdomens while moving in a tight figure eight. The overall direction of the dance points in the direction of the target, and the speed of the waggling tells how far away it is.

Unfortunately this explanation doesn’t provide a full answer. The dance is performed in a hive that is almost as dark as some discos, so only those bees nearby (about 5 percent of the total) see the dance. The majority doesn’t see it, so most bees start flying in complete ignorance. Those that have seen the dance aren’t even out in front, showing the others the way. They are in the middle of the swarm, flying with the rest. So how does the swarm find the target? …

Simulations have revealed that the knowledgeable bees do not need to identify or advertise themselves to the rest of the swarm to lead it successfully. Just a few informed individuals can lead a much larger group of uninformed individuals simply by moving faster and in the appropriate direction. Guidance is achieved by way of a cascade effect, in which uninformed individuals align their directions with those of their neighbors. Even if only a few bees know their way, Reynolds’ three rules – avoidance, alignment, and attraction – ensure that the whole swam moves in the direction that those knowledgeable bees take.

Leadership by these individuals arises, according to the computer modelers, “simply as a function of information differences between informed and uninformed individuals.” In other words, it needs only a few anonymous individuals who have a definite goal in mind, and definite knowledge of how to reach it, for the rest of the group to follow them to that goal, unaware that they are following. The only requirements are that the other individuals have a conscious or unconscious desire to stay with the group and that they do not have conflicting goals.

Is there a lesson to be learned from this for HBD? I think so. As reality wreaks havoc on the worldview of the Left, and their edifice of dogma crumbles, the masses will lose direction. They will be confused and come to resemble a leaderless swarm of bees. At that point it is up to us, those who have seen the dance of HBD to take the reigns of leadership (anonymously or nearly so) and lead them in the right direction. In the meantime, we should continue to create more and more light in order to maximize the number of people who see the dance.

 

 

A partial retraction from my previous post

A couple of commenters, Hugh and Ivan, set me straight on my appraisal of the movie Agora. I should have done more research before posting. It appears that the producers of Agora took some liberties with historical facts – which is not unusual in movies. I had also been told, by a trusted source, that the movie more or less stuck to the facts. It is entirely possible that this source, if he reads this blog, can defend Agora against its critics. He is a knowledgeable fellow. Thank you, Hugh and Ivan, for bringing the controversy surrounding this movie to my attention.

I believe somebody was quoted, in the movie, as saying that idolators can only believe in things they can see. Hence the need for statuary. It dawned on me that movies are today’s idols. People base their opinions  up0n dramatic events in their lives – and the vast majority of dramatic events people see occur in movies. In fact, I would bet that for every one dramatic event that occurs in real life, there are hundreds that the average person sees in movies and television shows. For the most part, television shows and movies constitute the a huge portion of what most Americans experience (through the senses of sight and sound). This medium is so powerful that it overrides real experiences in their lives. When it comes to ancient history, actual history doesn’t stand a chance against the make-believe history of movies and television – since no living person has experienced the real thing.

I suggested, in a comment on the previous post, that Agora’s producer, Amenábar, used the story of Hypatia as an allegory of the Muslim threat we face today.

I do stand by my previous opinion that the movie is wonderfully made and I recommend it to those who are not as sentimental as I.

 

Agora: The story of Hypatia

While visiting a friend recently, he persuaded me to watch the movie Agora with him. Accolades flowed from his mouth. “You must see it”, he said. In the end, I regretted it.

The movie is extraordinarily well done. Indeed, I would call it a masterpiece. The acting is phenomenal, though I admit that I’m no expert. It was obvious that its producers went to great pains to depict Roman Alexandria as accurately as possible. The actors looked like the actual people who lived in Alexandria at that time, with the exception of the prominent black faces their P.C. sensibilities forced them to include. The hair styles were 100% spot on. The architecture, the dress, and even Hypatia’s dog were clearly gleaned from accurate historical sources. The only thing, other than the painfully obvious inclusion of blacks, that bothered me was the way they depicted Jews. I seriously doubt that the Jews of ancient Alexandria wore earlocks and played Hassidic-style music. But I can forgive them for this, since nobody can prove otherwise.

I regret having seen it because the character of Hypatia, played by Rachel Weisz, was so perfect that I could not help but feel anguish over her murder. It’s a real tearjerker and I watch very few movies – so my resistance level is very low. I didn’t actually cry but it bothered me. It bothered me because my friend kept reminding me that, in real life, she died a much more horrible death than depicted in the movie.

What I loved about the Hypatia character was, aside from her stunning beauty, that she loved knowledge purely for the sake of knowledge. This is something I was brought up with. While I appreciate people who learn a profession in order to earn a living, the attainment of knowledge strictly for its own sake is on a higher plane in my eyes. Actually, it’s not so much the attainment that excites me, it’s the effort and fervor that speaks to my soul. Rachel Weisz did such a good job depicted the love of learning that it touched me deeply. The thought of her death, at the hands of ignorant monks, repels me – and this, by most accounts, is what truly happened.

After reading the Wikipedia account of Hypatia’s life, it seems Agora’s account of what transpired is as valid as anybody else’s. Not much, for certain, is known about her except that she was a brilliant thinker who was murdered in the prime of her life by monks. None of her works survive and all the theories, attributed to her in the movie, are conjecture.

In Agora, the Christians come across much as Muslims do today. Obviously, reality is much more complicated. The movie has Christians destroying the great library at Alexandria, but nobody really knows how the library was destroyed.

Why did Christianity spread so rapidly in Roman Egypt? Perhaps traditional Egyptian beliefs had been on the decline for centuries, as had the Greco-Roman pantheon. Greek philosophy, and ever-changing Roman emperors, had weakened the old gods to the point where only formalities remained and few still believed in their power. Greek philosophy was one of the first attempts at secularism and free-thinking. But the Egyptians were not ready for it. They had nostalgic memories of their own pharaonic theocracy in centuries past. As soon as Christianity gained some authority, they latched onto it as a return to the past. Religious authority was what they craved and Christianity was the only vehicle available to them that had any credibility. The Egyptians were sick and tired of Greco-Roman secularism and politics masquerading as religion. They wanted the real thing but their old gods were dead. Their anger toward Hypatia may have actually been anger toward secularism. A secularism that had been imposed upon them by force through Greeks like Hypatia.

In our own day, knowledge far greater than anything Hypatia could have imagined is at our fingertips. It’s there for the taking. But most people are more interested in celebrities or sports. Politics is a combination of the two. We’re swimming in knowledge and yet few seek it for its own sake. In its stead, faith sustains them. Whether it’s the blind faith of liberalism or an organized religion. Modern Western civilization can flourish because Christianity has lost the power to impose its will on others. It can no longer decree inquisitions, burn witches or force scientists to deny their work. It lurks in the background, mostly harmless and sometimes helpful. But what about the teeming multitudes who practice Islam? While there are some signs that it too is receding to the background, the process might take centuries. We must recognize the risks – something Hypatia failed to do.

 

Ann Coulter’s race-realism in “Godless”

I just finished reading Ann Coulter’s “Godless“. Though I find her style to be abrasive and sometimes difficult to read, there are a lot of gems to be found in “Godless”. For the time being, however, I want to focus on Coulter’s particular brand of race-realism. Racial differences in I.Q. is a subject that she is willing to broach – but only with a ten-foot pole. On page 175 she writes, regarding “The Bell Curve“:

Liberals were afraid of a book that told the truth about IQ because they are godless secularists who do not believe humans are in God’s image. Christians have no fear of hearing facts about genetic differences in IQ because we don’t think humans are special because they are smart. There may be some advantages to being intelligent, but a lot of liberals appear to have high IQs, so, really, what’s the point? After Hitler carried the secularists’ philosophy to its bloody conclusion, liberals became terrified of making any comment that seems to acknowledge that there are any differences among groups of people – especially racial groups. It’s difficult to have a simple conversation, much less engage in free-ranging, open scientific inquiry, when liberals are constantly rushing in with their rule book about what can and cannot be said.

Apparently, it’s difficult for Coulter as well; for she leaves this (obviously important) IQ issue at that one paragraph and then launches into a seven and a half page tirade about AIDS and homosexuals. Though she’s willing to mention racial IQ differences, she clearly wants to keep such talk to a minimum. Coulter does bring up race and IQ once more toward the end of her book (pgs. 277,278):

This is why liberals have panic attacks in response to any science that reveals differences in humans – differences in acquiring AIDS, IQ, mathematical abilities, and so on. If there really is a genetic component to IQ, what arguments do atheists have against sterilizing, enslaving, or killing the stupid among us?…

But with the secular crowd, their political ideology keeps shutting off open scientific inquiry. Over and over again, they can only accept one answer: AIDS doesn’t discriminate, IQ is an artificially contrived social construct with no genetic component, there are no innate differences between the sexes, and the human soul was created by random mutation and natural selection. Their religion prevents them from engaging in honest discussion because science without God leaves them with no arguments against barbarism – like bestiality, abortion, slavery, and eugenics.

The only lesson liberals learned from Hitler is: Don’t discriminate! Not that human life is sacred, but that we must never say people are different. Girls are the same as boys, and homosexuals are the same as heterosexuals, and blacks are the same as whites. That’s their plan for nipping any aspiring Hitlers in the bud…

If race-realism is the hard liquor of controversial conservatism, then attacks on homosexuality/AIDS would be the mixer that makes it more palatable for Coulter. Without bringing up homosexuality, bestiality, AIDS etc., Coulter is unable to discuss racial differences*. AIDS is her aid in dealing with this issue. It’s her crutch.

It’s easy to see why, despite her knowledge of racial differences, she’s loath to dwell on them: When it comes to race, she is a liberal. She has fallen for the same racism phobia that has infected the Left. According to Coulter, racists are among the most evil people on Earth. She writes (pg. 271):

In a 1939 manifesto titled “Birth Control and the Negro,” she noted that “the poorer areas, particularly in the South… are producing alarmingly more than their share of future generations.” Sanger recommended birth control to lessen the financial burden of caring for such weeds, “destined to become a burden to themselves, to their family, and ultimately to the nation.” Undoubtedly, she would be delighted to know that today (1) Planned Parenthood is the leading provider of abortions in the United States, and (2) about 36 percent of our aborted babies are black, almost three times their percentage in the American population. Mission accomplished, Margaret!

In fact, the last chapter of “Godless” can just about be summed up by saying that liberalism (via Darwinism) was responsible for the greatest evils mankind has ever known: Nazism and eugenics/racism. It’s no wonder Coulter fears expounding on race/IQ differences too much. She doesn’t want to sound like a “racist” herself. Not that her AIDS/race-realism mix has protected her from accusations of “racism”. She should have known that even the slightest hint of acknowledging racial differences is all it takes to be labeled a “Hitler” these days.

Since couching race-realism within the folds of homosexuality/AIDS is futile, and since open recognition of racial differences is crucial to the preservation of civilized society, she might as well just come out and state the facts without compunction.

*This is the only book of hers I’ve read. Also, it’s been six years since it came out and I’m sure she’s said/written much since then. So my comments only apply to the contents of “Godless”.

 

“Cro-Magnon” by Brian Fagan

I just finished reading Cro-Magnon by Brian Fagan. Overall, it’s pretty good reading, though it’s clearly meant as a primer. It doesn’t have much in the way of Earth-shattering, ground-breaking, material.

From an HBD standpoint, I wanted to highlight some interesting statements that Fagan makes:

Neanderthals may have also interbred with moderns in Europe, where they survived alongside Cro-Magnon for a long time… Perhaps it resulted from very rare encounters between solitary or near-solitary individuals rather than bands, where commonly shared prejudices, especially among modern human groups, might have militated against any form of close contact, let alone sexual intercourse (pg. XI of the preface).

I’ll admit it’s likely I’m missing something obvious here, but this looks like a Freudian slip to me. Why would Fagan assign prejudices more to modern humans than to Neanderthals? Is there any evidence that early Cro-Magnons were more prejudiced than late Neanderthals? I seriously doubt it. I think Fagan is sub-consciously equating Cro-Magnons with whites, and Neanderthals with blacks. Since it’s customary to be critical of white prejudices, but not black ones, Fagan carries this over to prehistory as well.

What can we say about them from this research? They were striking people, with brains as large as our own, but their heads were shaped differently. We have high foreheads and rounded heads, whereas the Neanderthals had long, low skull vaults, which were larger and protruded at the back. A pair of large, rounded, and continuous ridges overhung the eye sockets. The front of the skull was somewhat flattened and constricted like that of much earlier, archaic humans. This may be significant, for it is in this area, the so-called prefrontal association cortex, that much of our thinking takes place( pg. 46).

Is Fagan a proponent of phrenology? I doubt it. Most likely, he would make a distinction between comparing the skulls of members of the same species and those of different species. Though both human, Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon were certainly different species – or were they? Milford Wolpoff and Rachel Caspari, in “Race and Human Evolution” (which I reviewed here) claim we are the same species. Either way, we have here an admission that consistent differences in skull shape may have deeper meaning. How would Fagan’s description of modern skull structure pertain to this person?

For all I know, the man could be a genius; I don’t believe we can conclude anything, about an individual, from his skull shape. But if this skull shape is typical for his population, it isn’t far fetched to surmise that it may have deeper significance – at least according to Fagan.

The African Eve is a fictional person, a product of molecular biology… If such a person existed, she would have been dark haired and black skinned, a member of a small hunting band, and strong enough to tear apart human flesh with her hands and carry heavy loads (pg. 89).

This is a rather bold statement, especially considering the fact that much of Africa was populated by Khoisan-type people until they were overrun by Bantu tribes only a few thousand years ago. The Khoisan are not “black skinned”. In fact, Fagan himself writes (pg. 91):

They concentrated much of their effort on the Khoi and San peoples of southern Africa, because they are surviving representatives of ancient hunter-gatherer traditions – people with a slender, light build… Their paternal and maternal lineages are along the deepest branches known among modern humans.

What would motivate a scientist to make such a statement without any evidence? It looks more like a political statement than a scientific one.

The harsh environmental conditions after the Toba disaster would have fostered strong pressures for cooperation over longer distances, even entire regions. Such cooperation would have come from expanding social networks far beyond the limited contacts between neighbors…

These developments came at a time of stress and reduced population, when only a few thousand people lived south of the Sahara and when Africa was cut off from the outside world by intense drought. Then, after seventy thousand years ago, Africa’s population began to grow once again as the cold receded. Small numbers of people, with all the cognitive abilities of modern humans, now moved out of Africa into Asia and lands beyond…

Fagan elaborates upon the pressures of a harsh environment. He makes much of the Toba vulcanic eruption, which occurred 70,000 years ago. But would not the much longer ice ages, which affected Eurasia far more than Africa, have exerted at least as much pressure? It makes no sense to assume that these ice ages exerted no evolutionary pressure upon the humans who lived through them. According to Fagan, once humans attained the status of “modern humanity” (a title arbitrarily bestowed by people such as himself), then their cognitive abilities much be equal to our own. Fagan allows for no variance, in cognitive ability, within Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Fagan is even more blunt about his position on page 146, where he writes:

How, then, does one explain the sudden appearance of sophisticated cave paintings at just one location? Certainly, painting the Chauvet art was well within the intellectual capabilities of people who had exactly the same cognitive abilities as painters of later millennia…

Was Fagan there to administer I.Q. tests to both populations? Even if he was, how can he be sure they weren’t “culturally biased”? I think it’s irresponsible for a scientist to make such blanket statements. Perhaps he believes that his experience and expertise gives him carte blanche to make, under that same authority, any fanciful statements he wishes. But getting back to the rigors of the ice ages, Fagan writes (pg. 170):

Infinite patience and persistence were also qualities common to tropical and cold-climate hunters alike. Everywhere, mental attitudes were important, but they were particularly central to survival in environments where strong winds and the bitter cold of subzero temperatures for days on end sapped human energy. Successful hunting and survival depended on deeply ingrained attitudes of self-assurance and competence, on mental attitudes that were part of the Cro-Magnon personality.

Fagan chose his words carefully. It is becoming more and more obvious that mental capabilities are largely heritable. But there is far less consensus when it comes to the heritability of “mental attitudes”, “self-assurance” and “competence”. Note that Fagan carefully avoids using the word “intelligence” of “cognitive ability” in the above paragraph. Doing so would have implied that the colder environment might have led to smarter people. Perhaps Fagan knows this, but he prefers to avoid controversy. In any event, it doesn’t take much “cognitive ability” to replace the words “mental attitudes” with “mental capabilities” in the above paragraph – and understand that the statement makes just as much sense. We don’t need Fagan to tell us that.

Along the same lines, Fagan implies that civic mindedness was also a trait that was more necessary in the cold north:

All of these qualities would have served the Cro-Magnons well in a world where climate change was often rapid, winters were severe, and periods of warmth and abundance were usually short. Of course there were exceptions to the norm: quarrelsome individuals, volatile family situations, interpersonal violence, and other far-from-ideal circumstances -  but in general, the personal qualities shared by the Cro-Magnons, and their encyclopedic knowledge of their world, were their most powerful weapons for survival… (pg. 173).

Indeed, the subtitle of the book is “How the Ice Age Gave Birth to the First Modern Humans”. So maybe Fagan is a closet believer in HBD, not that he’ll admit it. But he does proclaim pride in his own heritage at the very end of the book (pg. 264):

The genes of the Cro-Magnons are still dominant among modern Europeans today. My DNA tells me that genetically I’m one of them, and I’m proud of it.

 

Voice of Reason interviews Unamusement Park

Unlike myself, Unamusement Park (who calls himself “Richard Smith” for this interview), actually does have a good radio-voice. I thoroughly enjoyed this interview and I’m sure many of y’all will too:

Click here to listen to the interview.