The New Anthropology Basics

by Frost on October 25, 2012

One thing is certain about the New Anthropology, aka Edenism. Views are polarized. Judging by comments, emails and just generally what I’ve seen around the web, almost everyone has either drank the Kool-Aid, or dismisses the Thal interbreeding hypothesis entirely. So, doubters, lets figure out exactly where our differences lie:

In today’s post, we’ll start by considering some extremely basic and unarguable facts:

- Neanderthals existed

- They lived in smaller tribes than homo sapiens, and they had larger brains

- Some modern humans are, genetically at least, up to 4% Neanderthal

These propositions are beyond dispute, and they lead us to some interesting questions:

1) To what extent are Neanderthal phenotypes expressed in modern humans?

Some genes don’t do shit. They just hang out in your double-heli all day, dick in hand. So, it’s entirely plausible that we contain remnants of the Thal genotype, but it doen’t change who we are.

Koanic et al. claim that modern-day Thals are phenotypically differentiated. He claims that Thals are more introverted, more trusting, more loyal, more intelligent, and more creative, i.e. exactly what you would expect from a sub-species with larger brains and smaller tribes.

2) Are modern-day Neanderthals physically recognizable?

Koanic claims that there is a distinctive Thal face and skull.

Is he right? This is a question that can only be answered definitively with proper study correlating various personality traits with facial characteristics. Since none appear to be forthcoming, we are left with anecdotes and personal observation.

Here’s an exercise you can try: Spend an hour clicking through your friends’ pictures on Facebook. Do you notice a trend? Are your friends with Neanderthal faces also the ones with Neanderthal personalities?

You can also start looking for the Thal phenotype in the wild. When you meet someone new, make a snap judgement about what sort of person they are based on their face and skull. How often do your predictions turn out correct?

I recommend you do this on your own, but for what it’s worth: I definitely see the trend. My smart, introverted friends tend to have Thal-ish faces, and the two acquaintances of mine who display the most prominent Thal physical features are both extremely intelligent and kind, but with mild social dysfunction. In my profession, I meet a lot of data-monkeys, software geeks and engineers. Most of them have the Thal skull. I recently spent a month in Basque country, home to the population with the highest percentage of Thal DNA in the world. Most Basque look very Thallish to me.

3) What’s it like to be a Neanderthal in a Sapien world?

If Koanic is right, millions of men and women are walking around with brains that have evolved, at least partially, to interact in an entirely different social environment, with entirely different co-actors, than what they now experience. The result is pain, suffering, dysfunction, and a default life condition of failure and depression, for a very smart and sensitive sub-group of the population.


So those are the core three questions that The New Anthropology seeks to answer:

To what extent are we Neanderthals?

How does our Neanderthal DNA affect us?

How can modern hybrids cope in a sapien-run world?

Any curious person should find this stuff interesting. If you’re a ‘spergy introvert who has often struggled to cope in a world full of extroverts, then you should find this stuff exceptionally interesting. If you are a myopic simpleton, you will dismiss all of this out of hand, because it’s “crazy,” i.e. new and different.

But surely if you’re going to do that, you’ll at least walk us through your thought process in the comments below, yeah?

{ 40 comments… read them below or add one }

Koanic November 18, 2012 at 9:29 pm

We have melons and thals and everything inbetween. Just no cro mags. The primary goal of the revolution would be to be left alone with one’s own kind.

Almost any socially relevant information is going to have a who/whom. You might as well reject IQ or gender differences.

Jim November 18, 2012 at 8:44 pm

I’m guessing that all of you promoting this theory posses these so-called neanderthal traits.
Reminds me of that steve sailer theory about all female journalists.
As with most of the social changes and the real truth that the alt-right/white nationalists want implemented, come the revolution, you will be more desirable/have more power.

A Middle-European November 15, 2012 at 1:11 pm

I asked me all the time: 100% of my close friends, all my girlfreinds. Are blond in some ways and have blue eyes.
I always had problems in societies, where the brown/dark-haired and brown eyed people dominated. But I am shure that this has nothing to do with hair or eye color. A few months ago I saw it has something to do with the face – with the area besides the nose and under the eyes. I would never trust people or have the feeling that other people with other faces belong to me.

I hope to find answers here. Thanks for all your thoughts!

Matt Forney November 4, 2012 at 8:09 pm

Video of Koanic attempting to explain Edenism to GentlemanSlut and Vicomte:

Vicomte November 4, 2012 at 9:45 pm
Vicomte November 4, 2012 at 5:19 pm

I’d like to take a brief moment to remind all interested parties that Koanic is the same man that claims his soul was dysfunctional because he was eating wheat.

Also notable was his little ‘Dr. Sal Fiasco’.

Really, Frost, I know your life isn’t going how you planned it right now, but that’s not because you’re a neanderthal, or because you need to start speaking in tongues and cutting out gluten.

Same for Forney.

GentlemanSlut November 2, 2012 at 3:51 pm

The point about Tucker Max was a humorous misrepresentation of your face-reading exercise on Tucker Max that I found on your website.

I also dont believe Neanderthals had a 3 foot mushroom tip. Sorry if that’s unclear.

I am confused about my perceived misrepresentation. I’m sure I read a post on your website that said you only took introverts. I don’t have an inclination to recheck, so I’ll just apologise. My bad.

Am I right in saying entry to the Neander Hall is actually ‘if Koanic says you are a Neanderthal?’

That’s much more valid.

You also say I have constructed a straw man of your arguments. So which of my 3 points is wrong? Have I missed something? A revolutionary 4th point that makes it all alright? Tell me. I don’t need a straw man. I find your original ideas easy enough to discredit, if I’m honest.

As for urbanisation, you actually said Thal dysfunction. Are Thal and introversion synonymous? I hope not, for your arguments sake…

As for “it’s no more complicated than blue eyes, blonde hair”, you are either ignoring my point, or you don’t grasp it, as well as underlining my observation that you simply don’t understand genetics at a basic level, let alone the level your theory would need to be at least slightly coherent.

As for you don’t understand what I’m talking about re: recessive traits, you wrote this:

“Lastly, recessive genetic traits exist regardless of whether you personally “can see” them. Nobody is claiming it’s some sort of binary switch, as you imply. There are clearly gradations.”

You talked about recessive traits. Right there. I answered it. I’m not convinced you know what’s actually going on here.

1. If it’s like “blonde hair and blue eyes. If you see it it’s there”. Implies you think these Thal traits are dominant, with no recessive forms. If I don’t see it, it’s not there, right?
2. You said something completely different in your original response to me. That I quoted. Where nobody said it was a binary switch. Remember?
3. Um…

“They’re recessive because they crop up occasionally in bloodlines, not because they’re invisible when expressed.”

I don’t care what we are talking about here, you don’t seem to understand the very basics of the genetic science involved. Until you have, you shouldn’t talk about it. It would add more gravitas to the other parts of your ‘theory’.

You’re not stupid, but you seem to be trying to bluster your way through a fairly rigorous subject with some sketchy laymens knowledge. No. Bad Koanic. That shit may play in Peoria, but not when someone actually understands the subject.

I don’t wish you any ill will, but I couldn’t give a fuck on your thoughts about my belief/disbelief. I’ve been fairly charitable in my review of it, and I only posted because Frost wanted some comments on it. You are free to spend your time posting unintelligible rubbish if you want. I’m free to laugh at you while I eat popcorn. Each to his own.

We won’t see eye to eye on this, but I’d really appreciate you analysing the bunghole shot. It took some serious angling with the camera to get it.

Koanic November 2, 2012 at 4:48 pm

No, Neanderthals and melonheads are welcome. We tend to attract large eye melons who, while not introverted in the Thal sense, understand alienation to some degree.

Your “my understanding of” three points were fine. Your next three were probably all wrong.

The rise in Thal dysfunction due to urbanization is caused by introvert discomfort with high population density, to spell it out for you.

When I wrote “you personally “can see” them” I was mocking your unsupported opinion that you “can’t see” Neanderthal genetics persisting or whatever. It had nothing to do with invisibility.

Looks like I am going to have to spell out how the genetics work as well. This is getting seriously tedious.

Mom and Dad are not Neanderthal, by which I mean they have neither the facial nor the psychological characteristics. Or, they possess them only to a limited degree. Their son has both the facial and the psychological characteristics, to a strong degree.

My point about visibility is that the psychological characteristics are present if the physical characteristics are. It has nothing to do with carrying the genes without expressing them.

I’m not committing to either recessive or dominant label for those genes. It’s a simplistic dichotomy anyway. I brought up recessive genes only to show that your skepticism was irrational.

If you knew anything about this subject, you’d realize it’s far too soon to draw any but the broadest conclusions from genetics. Correlations with 23andMe data mean nothing as yet. Besides proving interbreeding, the next wave of significant discoveries will be matching of Neanderthal genes with modern ones, and figuring out what they do. This is the work of lab monkies. We have nothing like a reliably complete genome of one Neanderthal, and there exists enough genetic diversity between Neanderthal species to label them different species entirely.

You can be a science fetishist all you want, in which case feel free to go watch Carl Sagan and cut carbon emissions or something similarly idiotic. Wait 20 years and then you can decide this was obvious all along when it’s the safe consensus view.

GentlemanSlut November 2, 2012 at 2:13 pm

Hi Koanic,

You may be right; I have only perused your site, and many of my objections may be null, or previously addressed by you.

However, from what I have seen, I feel I understand the science and general theory fairly well.

My understanding of your theory is as follows:

1. Several different ancestors, with varying degrees of heredity between individuals.
2. Our varying genetic heritage manifests itself in both physical and psychological traits.
3. These physical and psychological traits correlate enough for you and others to be able to use thinslice-style analysis and appraise people with a high degree of reliability and validity.

From my viewpoint, you lose me slowly as we progress from 1 to 3. At 1 I am listening. By 3 I am laughing.

My points were:
1. You misunderstand Autism and the autistic spectrum
2. You appear to misunderstand the genetics behind your argument
3. Your own yardstick for whether someone can join your Neander Hall is whether they judge themselves introverted. Leaving aside peoples poor ability to accurately judge their own personality, given the changes seen in levels of extroversion, this is a remarkably poor way to judge someones ‘Thalness’.

Also, I will have to object to this:

“You are confusing genetic programming with actual performance in the present day world”

You see, that’s exactly what I think you are doing, and is a large part of why I scoff at point 3 of your argument. You are linking Thal programming (if indeed thats actually what it is) with a whole host of traits and behaviours on what seems a bit of a whim. Tucker Max has a pointy head, therefore he doesn’t understand true love, etc etc. You have now just brought up the idea of recessive traits and gradations. Im afraid to achieve some measure of predictive accuracy, you need to have some reliable and valid traits, otherwise it’s a magic trick:

“I’m seeing a black card”

“Actually, no, it’s red”

*without skipping a beat* “so we throw away all the black cards. Now, I’m seeing a diamond…”

If you are now going to say these traits are recessive, phenotypically/genetically heterogeneous, or similar, then I’m going to say “then you can’t discern someones personality traits at anything approaching a reliable level. They may not be expressing the shallow sockets, dome-head, or 3 foot mushroom tip, but it doesn’t mean they don’t have the genetics. They may be expressing all the traits but have a Cro-Mag skull. Your system ain’t helping with SHIT, Son”

The more you move from the anthropology, the more you enter dangerous ground. More supposition and guesswork builds on more supposition and guesswork, and before you know it you are the new L Ron Hubbard.

On a final note – your point about urbanisation is interesting. It aggravates schizophrenia. Im unsure about autism. That’s a whole different debate though, and this is fairly expansive as it is.

Thank for answering my points though. I respect you for that.

Bunghole photo still available for analysis. Let me know.

Koanic November 2, 2012 at 3:03 pm

You don’t know what my position is on autism, Asperger’s and Neanderthals because I haven’t taken one yet, other than that they’re related.

I don’t use self-evaluation as the criteria for entrance to the Neanderhall, and not all admitted members are introverted.

Of course extroversion can change, that’s the whole point of Koanic Soul. It’s also why I look at case history particularly focused on childhood and adolescence. I observe the interplay between genetics, environment and free will. You have constructed a straw man of my methodology in your own mind. If you think your invention is retarded, blame the source.

Please provide the link where I said Tucker Max doesn’t understand true love. You’re lying.

I don’t know what you’re talking about with recessive traits. It’s no more complicated than blue eyes and blonde hair. If you see it, it’s there. They’re recessive because they crop up occasionally in bloodlines, not because they’re invisible when expressed.

I said urbanization increases introvert dysfunction, not autism.

It’s of no important to me whether you believe. At this stage those who need to hear it, will instantly recognize its truth. However it’s telling that you can’t criticize without misrepresenting.

GentlemanSlut October 30, 2012 at 5:42 pm

Despite my reservations, I was wondering – if I send Koanic a picture of my bunghole, could he tell me if it’s Thal, Cro-Mag, or a hybrid? It’s loose and saggy like a Cro-Mag bunghole, but when I’m threatened, it puckers up something awful. Classic Thal.

Koanic October 30, 2012 at 7:20 pm

You don’t understand what you’re attempting to refute.

Your points:
1. Asperger’s people are unpleasant
2. Extroversion is increasing

#1 is one of the key predictions of the model. Those with deep sockets are chronically stressed by large-group social dynamics. Given the Thal tendency to internalize, this frequently results in anger, depression and social maladjustment. Add in disproportionate food intolerances due to herder/carnivore genetics, and you get some very unhappy, unpleasant people.

You are confusing genetic programming with actual performance in the present day world. The model argues that deep sockets are worse at lying and experience greater emotional strain when doing so. Not that they don’t lie.

#2 is what one would expect with rising urbanization, economic progress and a decadent phase. Greater societal extroversion should be accompanied by greater Thal dysfunction.

The bitter component is inextricable from the message, and the main reason for its popularity despite a lack of formal evidence.

There are at least two sources of red hair, melonheads and Thals. Supposedly the Neanderthal red hair gene is not the one present in modern human populations. I haven’t observed a correlation between Thalness and red hair.

Lastly, recessive genetic traits exist regardless of whether you personally “can see” them. Nobody is claiming it’s some sort of binary switch, as you imply. There are clearly gradations.

GentlemanSlut October 30, 2012 at 5:16 pm

In short:

- I can understand the idea of human ancestry being comprised of more than one species. It would make us unique, but it’s not impossible. It has weight.

- I cant see the argument for a gene cluster/clusters passing down Thal traits, bypassing cro-mag genes “like oil and water”. That’s a big point, and one I take issue with one several levels.

- I reject the idea of the ‘noble autist’. Completely. Have you met someone with autism? Or Aspergers? It seems to be a very loose, PUAHate-definition of Aspergers, which isn’t really the same thing.

It’s a spectrum, granted, but it’s a spectrum of how you relate to the other people and the world. The idea that anyone on this spectrum is ‘more loyal, more trustworthy’ is so idiotic, so laughable, so rooted in Romanticism that it makes me want to put on the thickest gardening glove I can find and fist my own throat.

- Following on, the idea that introversion is a reliable indicator of genetic inheritance to the degree implied is ridiculous. Extroversion rates since they’ve been measured have crept up around 50%, and that’s over much less than a century (hint: parenting practises). Introverted parents are having extroverted kids. “Oil and water” my ballsack.

- I reject the idea that a large brain = better brain. Again, idiotic.

- I reject the idea that red-haired people have the attributes listed more than other people. I’ve been to Scotland, bitches.

Power in facial analysis? Possibly. There’s power in gait analysis (v. interesting). Anthropologically plausible? Sure. But ultimately it relies on several leaps of faith, a few hops, skips, and wilful suspension of logic. If anything survives from this, it will be MUCH reduced, with the bitter ravings removed.

Overall, some interesting facets, but certainly no ‘new body of knowledge’, and definitely not a sound theory to base your social beliefs and behaviours around. At all.

jew October 30, 2012 at 1:21 am
Lee Scuppers October 27, 2012 at 11:21 pm

It’s not a scary new idea. It’s a silly old one. Stuff like this was a SF cliché in the 40s. I’m about as “scared” of this melonhead stuff as I am of “strong confident women”. Sometimes people laugh because they’re afraid, but sometimes it’s because your fly is open. If you try to shame people into taking your ideas seriously by calling them fraidy-cats, you are not intellectually serious.

If you’re serious, admit that bizarre claims require serious proof. Admit that science is hard and most hypotheses turn out to be wrong. Admit what Feynman said: An honest scientist’s job is to try to prove himself wrong.

The difference between a crackpot and a scientist is the difference between blind partisan advocacy and trying to prove yourself wrong. Forney’s right that climate catastrophists are crackpots. And some guys outside the establishment are real scientists. But right now, you guys are talking like crackpots. Michael Mann makes fun of his critics. His isn’t company I’d care to keep.

I like ideas like this; I grew up on classic SF. I’m just irritated at the high pressure salesmanship.

Hipparchia October 27, 2012 at 10:59 am

The first time I red Koanic, I thought of The Goblin Reservation by Clifford Simak, where they transported a true Neanderthal from the past, and he managed to get a Ph. D.

I get the idea that all people are the same, though I generally have problem with theories of human nature that so much focus on the internal workings of the human that they manage to draw a mere caricature of human nature.

And I just discovered my toddler is a melonhead. That explains why he manages to command everybody…

Boar October 27, 2012 at 6:55 am

Well, I’ve heard about Koanic and his theories some time ago and I think it’s mostly a massive rationalization on his part over his life, or in other words: „I don’t like my life, but it’s not my fault, it’s those pesky cro-magnons who are keeping me down“ (replace with: blacks, jews, mexicans, whites, democrats, republicans, gays, freemasons, aliens/insert group here etc.).

This can easily be seen when reading between the lines of his writing; the disdain for people in general reeks from every page, and such claims are easily wrapped in some pseudo-theory or the other.

There might be some merit to the theory in general, sure, because not all men are created equal, but I don’t see any real evidence to support the claims (and I’m not talking only about scientific evidence). To me it reads something like new-age, mayan calendar, illuminati mumbo-jumbo, and I say this with open-mind since I believe a lot of things which “normal” people would consider weird or crazy. If some hard evidence is presented, maybe open-minded people would take more interest in the theory; but for now it looks like a new secret club only the “chosen” can enter and then sneer and the rest of the sheeple.

Spoos in August October 26, 2012 at 8:52 pm

Seeing someone in profile also makes assessing socket depth easier. And people with shaved heads have fantastically obvious occipital buns.

Dolichocephalous chaps’ foreheads tend to bulge upwards just below the hairline, and Neanderthal foreheads tend to be pretty even-sloped. I think.

Francis Begbie October 26, 2012 at 5:31 pm

I don’t really buy these ideas , but it’s still fascinating reading regardless, and I’m open. Hey, everything I’ve been taught about diet, women, economics, race has been utterly wrong. What else is there to this?

The manosphere made me realize I wasn’t going nuts. This stuff, well, it explains certain things that I’ve always wondered about, but it could be just a coincidence. A lot of smart people believe crazy things after all.

Keep posting, and I’ll keep looking it up.

Wald November 29, 2012 at 11:38 am

I concur with this sentiment.

Lift Think Meditate Live October 26, 2012 at 7:44 am

And this is why Koanic wrote up a topic on hybrids, which can confuse you if you simplify Edenism as is

I don’t think there are many ‘true’ Thals or Cro-Magnon people living today.

Vicomte October 26, 2012 at 12:16 am

Shark Jumped.

nony October 26, 2012 at 2:24 am


Spoos in August October 25, 2012 at 11:51 pm

Craniofacial development is linked to frontal brain development (the two processes make use of the same cell lineage: the neural crest). This is part of the reason facial symmetry is an honest signal of genetic health. It’s certainly not implausible that faces reflect personality, which likely has a large genetic component.

Depending on which genes were introduced via Neanderthal admixture, there may indeed be a characteristic Neanderthal temperament. Which I expect is not the same thing as the autism spectrum; inability to read social cues would be a huge handicap even in a small-tribe environment.

As far as melonheads go, there are definitely some dolichocephalous fellows among us. Whether they have a bit of some other archaic hominin in them, I can’t say.

Denisovan admixture in SE Asia throws off the stereotypical Neanderthal brow and socket, and probably reduces the frequency of occipital buns, too. Nevertheless, there is substantial Neanderthal admixture in Asian populations. Just not quite as much as in Europe.

namae nanka October 25, 2012 at 8:30 pm
Koanic October 25, 2012 at 8:37 pm

Yes, dolichocephalic skulls are melon.

Compare the mummies to Abraham Lincoln:

Booch Paradise October 25, 2012 at 7:07 pm

Well I have read some of this stuff, and I’ve found two problems with it from an anecdotal point of view.

First is that just walking around I see way, way more thals than cro-mags (could be a Minnesota thing). Then one of the only cro-mags that I met recently seemed to be a fairly interesting guy who was interning in a law firm, although I didn’t spend enough time with him to really get a good feel for how nuanced and interesting he was.

The second problem I have is that the people I know with aspergers and autism did not fit the mold of being highly intelligent, creative, loyal, etc, and simply socially awkward. At my Christian high school they actually were not picked on that much, considering all the selfish, petty things that they did. It was a kid with aspergers, who I generally white knighted for, that decided to jump on my back and bite my shoulder after I evaded his illegal bear hug type defense in a pickup game of basketball (it was through the leather sleeve on my jacket, so no broken skin or even any marks, but still).

So, I’m not saying that the whole theory should be tossed out or anything, just that in my experience, it’s not highly predictive, and there are parts of the paradigm that seem to be flat out wrong.

Frost October 26, 2012 at 7:15 am

Yeah, you’ve nailed my main problem with the theory, or at least how Koanic chooses to present his version of it. Thal/Melonhead ancestry is not binary. Also, even the cro-mags have an extreme right end of their bell curve. I’ll address this in a later post.

Koanic October 26, 2012 at 1:10 pm

Yes, hearing personal anecdotes about contrary evidence is a bit frustrating, because I suspect my own facial analysis and psych profiling would differ, but there’s no way to verify. I welcome challenges based on public figures. It took me a good while to learn the ins and outs of hybrids. It’s really not a melon / Thal dichotomy, but a set of facial features and corresponding traits. And I’ll readily admit that portions are still fuzzy.

Booch Paradise October 26, 2012 at 4:08 pm

That’s fair enough. And I will readily admit that I have difficulty distingeshing between mellonheads and thals. And the one Cro-mag example is hardly scientific, plus I only interacted with him in a group on one occasion. So mostly I’m going on the fact that he is a friend of friends who are thals, and interning in a law office, which would indicate that he’s probably not a knuckle dragging retard.

But I am curious, in your general life when you are at locations where you will tend to see the most randomized groups of people that you don’t personally know (such as at a store), do you see mostly cro-mags? And if so, do you think that the reason is that I’m not is that I’m in a different area, or that I’m simply not correctly reading the faces that I see?

Koanic October 26, 2012 at 4:15 pm

When I’m out and about, I’m most keenly attuned to socket depth. I adjust my levels of depth/shallowness and openness/shielding and contempt/respect accordingly. Then I adjust again based on secondary attributes as the conversation continues.

This seems to work very well. I.e., people, with deep sockets do not punish you for genuine warmth and openness.

Most people do not have deep sockets, except perhaps in super nerdy locations like engineering campuses. Would you disagree?

Booch Paradise October 26, 2012 at 4:53 pm

I’ll have to keep it in mind. I’ve probably been going more by the slope and width of the eyes rather than socket depth. Although I’ve tried to keep it all in mind.

Right now, it does seem to me like most people do have medium depth sockets to deep sockets. But I’ll admit, if you gave me the pictures of faces from your face reading post, I’d probably only sort them with about 80% accuracy.

Koanic October 26, 2012 at 8:04 pm

I think you’re probably measuring socket depth wrong. It’s not actually the surrounding socket that matters, but how deeply the eyeball is recessed. You have to pay closer attention to see that.

ancalgon October 25, 2012 at 6:53 pm

I couldn’t really tell the difference between the Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon types that Koanic laid out in his post, but I did notice that there weren’t any African / Asian faces in the mix. I bet putting them in would mix things up quite a bit.

Ryu October 25, 2012 at 6:13 pm


What are you doing here? Is this HBD without saying the word race? Meatless hamburgers?

Ha ha ha. Yes, the modern PU movement has done similarly, removing all the old language and replacing it with their own, inferior versions. Then they could appear to be new and groundbreaking, “all natural game.”

I have followed your career and I knew about you in the middle days of IMF . You have hung around the PUAs, the MRM but you have not risen to the top of their fields. You don’t need to copy or to present old idea sin new forms. It won’t work here either.

Take some risks! Piss off your readers! Yes, this may reduce book sales. You must speak in your own voice and achieve a higher level.

Koanic October 25, 2012 at 7:32 pm

If you think this is a less offensive version, you simply aren’t paying attention.

But yes, there is one anti-racist conclusion. A heavy Thal white man has more in common with a heavy Thal Thai like Buakaw Por Pramuk than he does with a Cro Magnon white like Brittni Colleps.

Since you’re missing the sting, here it is: There are two human races: Neanderthal and Melonhead. The rest aren’t.

Wald November 29, 2012 at 11:36 am

I’ve just started reading up about this, so your statement confuses me.

From what I’ve read there are three races: Melonhead, Neanderthal, and Cro-Magnon.

Why do you say there are only two?

Koanic November 29, 2012 at 1:16 pm

No, I’m saying that the African and derived Cro-Magnon and Mongoloid races without Neanderthal, Melon or Starchild admixture are less human.

Humanity is a gradient. If one believes in higher life forms such as aliens or extra dimensionals, they would be more “human” than us. That was my usage.

Matt Forney October 25, 2012 at 5:53 pm

I don’t need to show you my thought process, you’re CRAZY! Humans evolved from a common ancestor! I won’t believe you until I see some SCIENCE! You know, from scientists… the same scientists who’ve been caught falsifying data and outright lying when it comes to politically sensitive topics like climate change and IQ!

In all seriousness, you’re starting to discover why I segregated the Edenism stuff into a separate blog: most so-called “red pillers” aren’t ready for it. These people strut around talking about “HBD” (which is flat Eartherism compared to Edenism) and how intelligence and personality are in part genetically determined, but they balk when it comes to taking their beliefs to the logical conclusion. Reading them, it’s not hard to understand why Texas Arcane writes the way he does.

We may not be right, but we’re at least thinking about the issues. Cro-Magnons don’t think, they grunt. They do what they’re told. I’ll bet they’d start believing us if we paid some empty lab coat to conduct a bogus study and vomit it all over the MSM.

Frost October 26, 2012 at 7:17 am

I’m not particularly concerned with incurious readers. Not to say it’s impossible to intelligently challenge Edenism, but anyone who recoils in hind-brain horror from scary new ideas… I’ll get by without them.

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: