Multiculturalism and Miscegenation. Benefit to Civilisation or grave danger ?

We are flooded everyday with slogans such as "Strength Through Diversity" and "All man is equal", we are told that Multiculturalism is good and Miscegenation is beneficial to society. But . . . what if it was all a lie?
The Book Erectus Walks Among us explores indepth what we are told, and through extensive research proves it all wrong. But if this is the case, then why is western society drowned in these lies ???.
Here is the E-Book
EWAU Ebook

Take This Test
True or False

1. Race does not exist - a black person is just a white person with a suntan and wooly hair.
   
2. All the races are equally intelligent.
   
3. White racism is responsible for black failures.
   
4. Africans were the first modern humans
   
5. Humans evolved in Africa from an African ape.
   
6. The people living today who are most closely related to apes live in the Amazon jungle.
   
7. A woman is always more closely related to her own child than she is to any other child.
   

If you answered “True” to these questions, when you read this book drink a glass of wine while listening to a recording of the ocean surf.

    The author is a retired patent attorney who lives on a small wildlife refuge on an island in upstate of New York. A perpetual student, he has degrees in math (BS), law (JD), economics (MA), physics (BA), and chemistry (BA). He is an amateur composer (www.whiskeyrebellion.us) and has written books on Austrian economics (www.purelogic.us), natural rights (www.naturalrights.us), and anarchy (www.anarchism.net/steppes.htm).

-Book Review-

Anybody who's bothered to research race and IQ, or even more generally the nature/nurture debate, knows that just because a lot of smart people, even experts, believe something doesn't mean it's true. The story of human origins may be one of those things. The story goes that 60,000 years ago modern humans left Africa and over time settled the continents, wiping out the more primitive member of genus Homo in the process. Richard D. Fuerle doesn't buy it.

For most laymen OoA sounds convincing because we're told that it's based on genetic data. One of the main points is that Africans have the most genetic diversity of any living population. The population with the most diversity is assumed to be the older one. Let's say that there are two populations, A and B. B has 5 possible alleles on a certain gene and A has 20 including the 5 in B.

OoA assumes that population A is older and population B was the break off population, being a subset group and having taken only a portion of the alleles with them. But that's not necessarily the case. Population B may have suffered a catastrophic accident that knocked out some of their genetic diversity (the ice ages). Also, population A's territory might've been invaded and acquired the genetic diversity that way. OoE says that that's what happened and the variance in the DNA of Africans comes from Eurasian invaders. Also, OoA needs to assume descent in order to prove it. If one population didn't descend from the other then the genetic diversity argument can't be used.

The book deals with many more technical criticisms of the genetic basis for OoA.
The idea that the genetic diversity between Africans is due to invaders from Euarasia is backed up by some of the traits of different Africans. NE Africans like Ethiopians resemble Caucasians and Bushmen have the slanted eyes of East Asians.
All these populations have low IQs, which means that after the Eurasians invaded Africa their intelligence dropped. This suggests that intelligence is maladaptive in Africa.

*To be Continued

In nature there are specialized and generalized populations. Think of the latter as a Swiss army knife, species that can do a lot but nothing too well. A specialized species has one niche, like a parasite that lives off a certain host. Specialized populations tend to evolve where climate is stable (i.e. Africa) and generalized populations where climate changes (i.e. Eurasia). It's easier to go from generalized to specialized than the other way around. This means that Eurasians were more likely to evolve into Africans than vice versa. Africans, specialized for the tropics, were less likely to be able to conquer those living in seasonal climates and evolve into Eurasians than Eurasians, generalized by seasonal climates, were to invade Africa and become a tropic specialized population. Also, humans are the most generalized species there is and by that reasoning most likely evolved in a changing climate.

Also, there's the issue of selection pressure. erectus and Neanderthals were well adapted to the Northern climates. If we believe OoA, we have to ask how did Africans, never having left the tropics, evolve the traits to wipe out populations that had evolved in their respective environments for hundreds of thousands or millions of years? The Neanderthal was no slouch. He was stronger and had a bigger skull than any group of humans living today (as mentioned above, this may be due more to bulk than IQ but regardless they had a 200 cc advantage over modern Africans). In many ways Eurasian pre-human populations were more advanced than modern Africans.

Charles Murray said, "When it comes to race, science is corrupt." Nobody with a clear view of the intellectual climate can believe that every theory of human origins has been given an equal hearing. For the interested reader, section IV of this book is devoted to the author's political and philosophical ideas including entertaining rants against miscegenation and egalitarianism.

This review simply scratches the surface of what's in this fascinating book. The story of human origins and race is more interesting than you think. The author tells us about the Australian pygmies, a short people not very well known due to political correctness, Baskop, a 30,000-10,000 ya skull found in South Africa with an 1860 cc brain that doesn't fit into any theory of human origins (besides maybe the one in this book), and how differences in sexual behavior between gorillas and orangoutangs and how they walk can shed light on the human past. Science is indeed corrupt and Erectus Walks Amongst Us is the best collection of politically incorrect information on where we came from available.

*To be Continued


[edit on 28/7/09 by fapython]

This book is geniusly put together and thoroughly researched, an i advise you all to read it. It also begs to ask, how and why our society has become this way, and why our governments would allow it to happen and flood us with this ideology ?

erectuswalksamongst.us...

Thank you.

[edit on 28/7/09 by fapython]

I have a feeling I'll learn many new words by reading this book.

Thank you for letting us know about this book. I probably would never have heard about it if you had not posted this thread. It is fascinating subject matter. And the part about being politically incorrect was the clincher.

The introduction was interesting because it made so much sense. Why would science defraud us?

Its very interesting but your link is not working at all

second line

The IQ test (on which I scored in the genius level) is flawed and skewed in favor of white European culture, specifically the literate variation. It also does not represent axes of knowledge such as mechanics, visual schematics and social relationships on which nonwhites and non-Europeans vastly outperform whites.

I think we should change the term "race" to "genetics."

Are there different genetics in the world, which plays a role in IQ, fitness, skin color, vulnerability to disease, etc. Yes. Yes there are.

Saying all people with black skin fit into such and such category is wrong, though.

My 2 cents, at least.

Originally posted by secretagent woooman
The IQ test (on which I scored in the genius level) is flawed and skewed in favor of white European culture, specifically the literate variation. It also does not represent axes of knowledge such as mechanics, visual schematics and social relationships on which nonwhites and non-Europeans vastly outperform whites.

They say that the Eskimo are even better on IQ than the Whites(which are better than the Blacks) Do they have so many bookstores and libraries up there in Arctic??

Oh dear.
I have seen a resurgence of thinly and inexpertly veiled racism lately.
It is currently taking refuge behind the buzzphrase "politically incorrect."
As if "politically incorrect" makes it alright.

It is not alright.
It is so far from alright that it occupies another planet.

I hope the author of this book, and all of you who agree with him, form your own little commune somewhere where you won't have to see anyone who isn't white.

That way, the rest of us (who are white, black, asian, blue, green. polka dotted and consider ourselves equals) could go about our daily lives without having to deal with this sort of rabid idiocy.

One should be clued in by the books cover - or at least the last one I saw - and the affliations the author has. He isn't exactly unbiased.

Some of us probably do have more Erectus in us. And some of us have some Neandrathal. And all of us are descended from cro-magnon, but some will have more doubling back.

That is the most likely source of our difference. Varied amounts of interaction from reproductively compatible splits, coupled with geographic isolation.

Now...I'm waiting from someone to figure out that caucasians and lighter skinned types have more doubling back with the variations that are more like the bonobos and that the darker skinned have more doubling back with the larger apes. Even the trends towards societal types should clue them in eventually.

The logic of the Swiss army knife is flawed. True, it does many tasks, but it doesn't do any of them as well as a single tool for that task. However, you are much more likely to carry a single Swiss army knife, than a toolbox filled with tools. A somewhat inadequate tool is often better than no tool at all.

There is a lot of nattering about "intelligence", but we don't even know what that is. The truth about intelligence is that it is a measure of how well we do on intelligence tests. It is not based on scientific principles. The reasoning about it is circular - a person is intelligent, based on his IQ tests. Brilliant people often test poorly on those tests; dullards may test well. It's how well they take the test, not how intelligent they really are. Blacks don't test as well on IQ tests. That says nothing about how intelligent they are. It only says that they don't do as well on IQ tests.

Intelligence, while highly respected in Western society, is not necessarily a survival trait. Yes, we needed it when we were small little rodents hiding from larger reptiles; it stood us in good stead when we started walking upright. It was absolutely vital for our survival in the past. Whether intelligence - and in particular, extreme intelligence - is useful now is debatable. We have the intelligence to blow ourselves out of existence, but not the common sense not to do it. It may well be that more common sense is better than more intelligence.

Species develop as a result of stresses in the environment, changes that put pressure on organisms. The organisms who can adapt to the new circumstances tend to reproduce and prosper. The ones who don't adapt tend not to reproduce, and they eventually die out. Exactly what an organism may need at any given moment is unpredictable, random. For example, maybe they'll need to be able to handle heat to survive global warming; maybe they'll need to handle cold to survive a new ice age.

Because of this unpredictability, it is exactly the Swiss army knife of organisms that we need - people who may not be the smartest, the strongest, the bravest, the fastest - but who can adapt to whatever comes their way. It's no good being the smartest organisms on earth, if we need to survive temperature extremes. It's no good being the biggest, if we need to adapt to lack of food. It's no good being the most civilized, if civilization breaks down and jungle law takes over. What is great in one situation is death in others.

BTW, I doubt very much that there are any "pure" "races" left. There has been so much intermingling of genetic material between these "races" that it is likely not one person is without some material from another "race".

I'm sorry to see such active, blatant racism here on ATS. What a shame...

reply to post by chiron613


So You are suggesting that for a moment given the best evolutionary option is lazy, mediocre chap living on social aid system, who also easily support high "racist" temperatures and without hesitation will throw away our civilisation, embracing law of the jungle...
Quite tragic and racist as well...

Originally posted by secretagent woooman
The IQ test (on which I scored in the genius level) is flawed and skewed in favor of white European culture, specifically the literate variation. It also does not represent axes of knowledge such as mechanics, visual schematics and social relationships on which nonwhites and non-Europeans vastly outperform whites.

Ok first and foremost, if that was the case, then why is it that asians (Who are non-europeans) usually perform better then white (Europeans) in IQ tests, surely if they were flawed in favour of white european culture, then the asians would be down their with the other races instead of above the Europeans, so your logic is plain wrong and incorrect in claiming it favours white european culture.

Originally posted by DaisyAnne
Oh dear.
I have seen a resurgence of thinly and inexpertly veiled racism lately.
It is currently taking refuge behind the buzzphrase "politically incorrect."
As if "politically incorrect" makes it alright.

It is not alright.
It is so far from alright that it occupies another planet.

I hope the author of this book, and all of you who agree with him, form your own little commune somewhere where you won't have to see anyone who isn't white.

That way, the rest of us (who are white, black, asian, blue, green. polka dotted and consider ourselves equals) could go about our daily lives without having to deal with this sort of rabid idiocy.

I have seen a carrying on of great ignorance, and you my friend are full of it. First and foremost before you make the claim that the book is racist and is not alright , how about you read it first, then make your opinion based on proper evidence, not on pathetic ideological nonsense; absolutely nothing in nature is equal and that is fact, so why should the races be any different, because quite frankly this book is backed up by sound evidence and makes perfect sense. So being perfectly frank here, you are the idiot to have the nerve to claim this book and people who see the truth in it are idiots without infact reading it yourself.

reply to post by chiron613

Intelligence, while highly respected in Western society, is not necessarily a survival trait.

Well hopefully you read the book, and when you do, you will find that intelligence is a very necessary survival trait in the seasonal environments, and especially those which experience Ice ages. The greater the intelligence a person has, the better they are at planning for things, for example, the europeans live in a seasonal environment, so there was food in the warm season but barely any in the cold season, so they had to plan ahead and store that food. This did not happen in africa and the tropics as it is farely warm all year around and there is an abundance of food. So they did not have to plan to save food at all, or prepare for the cold. After many hundreds of thousands of years this will increase or decrease the intelligence of people. Which is why European and Asians brains are much bigger then the africans. They didn't need to be intelligent to survive.

Horse poop.

Africa has shifts. Just because they aren't as extreme on the cold end does not mean they aren't there. You survive a day of +50C.

Innu and Innuit should be the smartest people on the planet by your theory.

An Australian Aboriginie would kill you off by taking you for a walk on a big empty seeming plain, and then "losing" you - because they have WAY better spatial perception. Survive that smarty pants.

reply to post by DaisyAnne


I couldn't agree more. These racists are absolutely repulsive creatures. They are a pox on modern civil society.

Whenever there is a discussion of race, any differences between the races, have to be ignored otherwise you are called racist.

We all have to pretend that there are no differences, yet there are.

There was a book written back in the early 90s I believe called the "Bell Curve"
Bell Curve

This book analyzes the differences between race and IQ.
There are differences. But, if you point out the differences, you are immediately labeled a racist.

My question is why do we have to pretend that there are no differences? Would it be possible to better educate the kids of the US if these differences were recognized and teachers aimed their lessons at the population that they were teaching?

reply to post by fapython


Yes, and the White Spremacists at Stormfront agree with you!


As do the Pan Aryan National Front!



I'm sure you could all sit down and have a wonderful conversation about it.

I'll pass on that. I don't have a problem with sound scientific data. I do have an enormous problem with people picking up on this data and twisting it, using it to prove their ridiculous "Africans are stupid" theories.

I judge everyone on their own merit. Period.

If you judge a whole race, then I have zero respect for you.

Racism is not and will never be OK.

[edit on 29-7-2009 by DaisyAnne]