The Fall of Man, part I

Francais. Serbian. Spanish.

Let me hold unto this music for some time…

About 12,000 years ago man started to domesticate animals. Mankind all of a sudden became more numerous, and probably for the first time in the history of man diseases started to spread from animal to man. The domestication created a new and unnatural relationship between animal and man.

Altamira,_bison

In this situation the animals changed too. As stated here creatures of different species or sub-species don’t mix in nature, if they have a choice, because of their genetic differences, but also because of their different lifestyles and their geographical locations. Domesticated animals were forced to procreate with animals they otherwise would not have procreated with, because they had to or because they were forced to by man, who wanted to promote certain qualities in their animals.

With time the domesticated creatures became broken, unable to survive on their own, and they were thus completely dependent of their human masters, often in order to even survive. E. g. milk cows today produce a lot of milk, but they will soon die from teat infection unless they are milked every single day – because they produce too much.

But why did they start to domesticate animals?

Because it was easier and less exhausting than to hunt wild animals.

But why did man all of a sudden want to take the easier path some 12,000 years ago? He was no less intelligent even 400,000 years ago, so why this development at that point?

Because the native European man, the Neanderthal, had been a little bit mixed with Africans, Homo Sapiens, and the adverse effects of this mixing were many: loss of speed and muscle-mass, the weakening of the skeleton and a lowering of intelligence. Hunting became more difficult for the “new” and mixed European (the Cro-Magnon). Also, this “new” European was less intelligent than the old European, so he didn’t understand that domesticating animals could have such dramatic and adverse effects.

We have “progress” today too, because we are intelligent. So we e. g. invented pesticides, and by doing so got rid of a lot of the problems we had in agriculture. Today we try to reduce the use of pesticides though, because we understand that they actually do more harm than they do good. I say this, to make you understand that had we been more intelligent than we are today, we would probably not have invented pesticides or used them, because we would have understood that doing so is actually not at all good. The Neanderthals might have not domesticated animals because they were intelligent enough to understand that doing so was not very smart. The mixed Neanderthal though was not that smart….

So the with time dumber and dumber mixed race human beings finally ended up thinking that it would be a good idea to domesticate animals, and they eventually were dumb enough to think this was a good idea around 12,000 years ago.

So why were the Neanderthals dumb enough to mix with Homo Sapiens? We don’t know, but the most likely explanation to this is simply pity. The much stronger and much more intelligent Neanderthals defeated the tribes of Homo Sapiens attacking them in Africa, but they were good at heart, like Europeans still are, so they could not kill the African babies, or leave them there to die, when they had killed or chased away the African adults. So they adopted these babies, probably knowing it was not such a good idea, and every now and then some of these adopted children grew up and was allowed to procreate with a Neanderthal. The female offspring they had was fertile… (as is often the case when two different species mix). Over the course of 120,000 years of conflict in Africa, between Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens, some Homo Sapiens blood was mixed into the Neanderthal tribes, who brought this female African DNA with them back to Europe when the Ice Age ended. And because of this we – Europeans – have on average 0,3% purely African DNA.

The mixing of species or even sub-species is never a good idea. It left much of the European species if not broken, then at least dramatically reduced in quality, and with time this reduction in quality spread out all across Europe.

The last to fall to this racial decline was the Western and Northern European tribes, simply because they lived furthest away from the source of the problem; the land connection between Asia and Africa… 

Advertisements

41 thoughts on “The Fall of Man, part I

  1. Pingback: La Caída del Hombre, parte III | Hermandad Pagana

  2. Pingback: La Caída del Hombre, parte I | Hermandad Pagana

  3. Pingback: The Return of Man | Thulean Perspective

  4. Pingback: The Fall of Man, part III | Thulean Perspective

  5. Pingback: The Fall of Man, part II | Thulean Perspective

  6. Pingback: Пад Човека, део I | The Call of Thule

  7. I have read so much about people saying that native americans were hunter gatherers until the european came, and i can tell it is not truth, most american indians were already settled,look at the mayans, the incans, and many others, that did not develop high technology civilization as asians and europeans, but also were not nomads, the few natives that were hunters,still were mostly settled in small villages.
    Native americans were not smart enough to develop high tech civilizations and also were not able to stay as hunter gatherers, because they were and are now more than ever mixed.
    Mixed humans can not survive in nature as well as neanderthals did.
    Neanderthals did not survive in nature, he was part of it, he did not cut trees and destroy florests,or dosmesticated animals because he was pure, good, and truly a natural being, being that in the americas probably never existed (aside from neanderthals that migrated here)

  8. “Because the native European man, the Neanderthal, had been a little bit mixed with Africans, Homo Sapiens, and the adverse effects of this mixing were many: loss of speed and muscle-mass, the weakening of the skeleton and a lowering of intelligence. Hunting became more difficult for the “new” and mixed European”

    This needs more thought. This is all theoretical anyway, but the anecdotal evidence of the American Indian puts this in question. They faced approximately the same types of prey (deer, elk, etc.) and the same types of Predators (Big Cats, Wolves and Bears) and relatively the same climate and were hunter-gathers into the 1800s. If they hadn’t of been disturbed, they would probably still be hunter-gathers (obviously this is not all tribes.) The American Indian is of relatively the same stature as Europeans and lets just assume for this discussion that the IQ is relatively similar. Obviously if they remained hunter-gathers, our ancestors, contrary to your theory, were more than up to the task as well. You need more than ‘they were physically weaker/dumber than Neanderthals’ to explain the switch to farming/animal domestication. It could be a contributing factor (if your theory is correct), but I remain unconvinced that is THE factor. Something else was going on as well. After all, why did many Indians remain hunter-gatherers, but Europeans switched almost exclusively to farming? I suspect something environmental made the hunter-gather lifestyle fall out of favor in Europe. People tend not to change something as vital as this, which had worked well for untold generations, without a very good reason.

  9. Interesting theory, but I find it quite absurd that Europeans are neanderthals that survived the last ice age.
    The Neanderthal’s larynx was simpler and positioned higher in the throat and that probably caused the neanderthal’s language to consist of words like ughh, duhh, gahh, puhh”. The neanderthal was very good adapted to cold climate and could be seen as a great success but was probably raped, killed, enslaved or even eaten by the homo sapiens. It has been found Neanderthal bones that clearly has the same cut-marks one get when slicing of slabs of meat made by stone knifes used by the homo sapiens. The neanderthal was to bulky and robust and lacked refinement, proved by the poor quality of stone-tools that remained unchanged and primitive through 100 000’s of years. The neanderthal was not suited for the warmer climate and was therefore wiped out of history by the great wheel of fortune.
    The homo sapiens had a rare quality and that was the ability to sweat!
    They could outrun nearly all animals in a couple of days stalking.
    The Neanderthal was great, but not that great.
    Anyway, your ideas are refreshing and interesting and should not be ridiculed even if proven wrong by the wrong. Often great things comes out of the unexpected.

    • With all due respect: you are extremely ignorant in context with the Neanderthals and present a view that is not only old but also thoroughly proven wrong.

      Go to atala.fr and read something about this that was written after 1970 before you say anything more.

      You might know much about other subjects, but this is not your forte, for sure.

      PS. Try reading this too: http://www.burzum.org/eng/library/the_lords_of_lies13.shtml

  10. Cows do not produce too much milk, it is because the calves get taken from them that the humans have to milk them. If grieving cow mothers got to keep their children, they would not have to be milked by us, a different race, and the calves would be drinking the milk meant for them.

    • Sorry, but you are wrong.

      The cows we have today are so specialized in milk production, through breeding, that they produce too much milk for their own good. Even with calves they would get a teat infection and quickly die.

      Why do you think you know better than me and my sources on this topic?

  11. What if it were not the Neanderthals who raped/adopted Sapiens, but a Sapiens gangbang party on the Neanderthals. To those who would mention Neanderthal was the bigger, stronger one, is to forget that one strong, disciplined man may still be beaten and killed by a gang of thugs, especially armed with projectile weapons. Sapiens were r adapted ( see http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/the-theory/rk-selection-theory/ ): quantity over quality, life was cheap. They could subsist on less to support a larger number on the same area of land… like rabbits. Vicious rabbits. Neanderthals were K selected. They were better individuals, but as individuals required more sustenance and thus land, so population density was smaller. Children would have been planned and much effort expended in their raising. I guess this theory only works though, if Sapiens met Neanderthal in an interglacial, or if at least he met in one of Neanderthals Middle Eastern locales, and the subsequent (Cro-Magnon) hybrid combined those Sapiens breeding habits with a bit of Neanderthal hardiness and know-how to beat the Neanderthals in their own territory.

    • This hypothesis definitely doesn’t work if you assume that the Africans came to Europe though, like the modern “scientists” do. Africans in straw skirts doesn’t last long in Europe, inter-glacial period or not. Even today they need extra vitamins just to survive in Scandinavia, because of the lack of Sunshine.

    • What I’m saying is they have different knowledge than we do. Different enculturation. Different plants. If you want to go far out they have different starships from different star systems. They could be aliens we could be aliens as some of them believe. The point is a bear can’t go swim and talk to whale or shark and say I’m smarter. If you believe we are connected to them through evolution(I don’t) than you bring up again. Who’s smarter. The original man or the one who has evolved from. Evidence will show its a non argument. If we all lived as tribes again maybe we would understand other races. Like varg as well as scientists say all the inventions which come from”intelligence” that sparked from species mixing. Not original bloodlines. We were magical and who knows maybe Africans or Hindus could fly when a Norseman could swim around the world. I have a big mouth so excuse my fantasy and factual mixing. Which witch aye;)

    • But… would you rape an African? I would not sleep with an African woman if she was the last woman on this planet…

      • Wouldn’t you even do that, if she was the last woman in the whole universe? Would you rather let the European Species die out than to mix it with the African (which can be compensated by race/species-hygiene afterwards [which would admittedly be very hard and lenghty and would require incest])? In my opinion this should be the very very last option, but we have to do anything to make sure that the European species survives and (only!) if it would be necessary, we also have to mix with Africans, if (and only if!) this would be the last woman in the universe or you would be the last European in the universe etc.

        Remember atala.fr, the polar bear mixed with the grizzly bear when the climate got warmer and thus the polar bear genes were locked away in the hybrid. In case the (still pure) polar bear dies out while the climate is to warm, his genes will break through again out of the hybrid, when it gets colder again.

        “The fair genes are recessive in the hybrid and are ready to emerge again when the climate will be favorable, if the species became extinct between time. (…) This mechanism is dangerous for the species, but it may thus be essential to its survival, and that’s probably why it exists.
        It is likely that if the polar bear would disappear, this “white genes package”, called leucism or leucitism, which is found in the grizzly / pizzly would appear occasionally.”

        http://atala.fr/2012/09/26/2-glaciations-and-migration-hybridization-and-survival-en/

        • ” …to make sure that the European species survives and (only!) if it would be necessary, we also have to mix with Africans…”

          What’s the point of procreating with Africans? Your children would be black Africans. The child would mostly inherit the dominant genes from the African parent. If there were only a handful of Europeans left, I’d rather see them die with dignity than to see them mingle with blacks etc… . If we can’t manage to keep our race alive then we deserve to die out. That’s nature.

          “The fair genes are recessive in the hybrid and are ready to emerge again when the climate will be favorable, if the species became extinct between time.”

          This is only true when e.g. an African mongrel is able to procreate with a fairly pure European. If the mongrel only procreates with blacks than his recessive genes will be wiped out sooner or later, regardless of the climate.

        • That’s awesome. I feel a deep sense of an ages long deja vu with the polar gene arising. Ill tell you your right on track with that. I feel it inside myself as proof. I’m sure many do that have grown in a desert that don’t belong

  12. It is perfectly clear that it is best to hunt your food yourself, but in the case this option falls away, would you say it is worse to eat meat and eggs (from domesticated animals) and drink milk or to simply give up consuming such things. Many vegetarians and vegans claim their livestyle is the best and healthiest, but they do so because they are vegetarians/vegans because they are anti-speciesists and think that every species in the world should have the same rights and so on. Surely factory farming is despicable, but they are even against hunting. So maybe their claim, that a vegetarian/vegan livestyle is the best/healthiest is just a lie for political reasons. As a said i know that hunt and gather would be the best. But what is your opinion on vegetarism/veganism (if it is not for anti-speciesist reasons)? Is it better or worse than consuming meat/animal products from domesticated animals or even factory farmed animals (and most of the meat/milk/eggs you can buy today are such)?

  13. I was already thinking about this too. Could it be possible that this ice age was simply an extremly cold ice age compared to a normal ice age and therefore many Neanderthals died and so they were afraid of extinction and therefore mixed with Homo Sapiens?

  14. Interesting, I’d kinda assumed the mixing was a result of a survival instinct kicking in. Either because of the collapse of some previous civilization or just the ice age eliminating a lot of the neanderthals. Perhaps even the sinking of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland let up to this. I think this is possible because looking around today we see whites mixing in with the other races(depending on which race is becoming the most dominant in our respective countries).

    Your theory though seems more plausible, and could just as easily explain what we are seeing today.

  15. Oooph, varg, you did a lot of posts, writings last 2 days, I just need some time to study it, haha, I’m a busy father with a pddjos adhd child and wife here,…aint got much time left haha.
    But, keep in mind, none of your posts will be unread here. Hailar!

  16. l have to say, I prefer your theory, that NeanderthaI pregnant femaIes couIdn’t survive the escape from the iceage and that the Homosapien femaIes couId not give birth to NeanderthaIs due to the infants Iarger skuII, as the reason why racemixing began.

    • They did give birth to such children, but both children and women died… only those with a more Homo Sapiens skull survived, because they were better suited to come through the pelvis bones of the Homo Sapiens woman…

  17. Interesting ideas, but I have to admit I am not quite there. My understanding of our history and origins is quite different from this view, even though I acknowledge the influence of Neanderthalis. I am not sure about the timeline and causality either. My perception os that we, as a people of sophisticated culture, is much, much older.
    But since I have not heard the entire line of thought and seen the arguments for your view I will spend more time reading.

  18. I am following both you and Marie’s posts on this theory with great interest. I am very curious about the Neanderthal-question and what you and your wife writes does actually make sense!

    PS: Really fascinating how music makes reading something more than just reading. The different moods of the reader create different pictures in the mind.

    Heil og Sæl!

  19. I suppose this is why we have such a difference genetically in populations of Europe going North to South, rather than East to West?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s