I love reading illegal or forbidden books, i.e., ones not listed on Amazon, or ones put on the old Catholic Church’s prohibited book list, the Index Librorum Prohibitorum. I started reading them as a teenager, including Mein Kampf and Das Kapital. Both of these books felt very illegal to read.
First they called me a Nazi, then they called me a Marxist, but I was really a teenager trying to figure out why adults hated and feared these books so much. So, I decided to read them myself. And I ended up thinking not much of them. Das Kapital isn’t a revolutionary work. It is the work of an autistic man who never bathed. And Mein Kampf’s anecdotal backstories bored me to death, though the more philosophical parts piqued my interest.
Nowadays, I find books such as Capitalist Nigger by Chika Onyeani, Mossad Base Italia (never translated into English), or The Myth of the 20th Century by Alfred Rosenberg quite interesting to read. Their forbidden status doesn’t make the contents of these books any truer. It does make these works interesting reads, because of their alternative points of view offered to the disadvantage of the prevailing power (today, the Anglo-American globalist trade empire).
So, recently, I discovered Richard D. Fuerle’s book Erectus Walks Amongst Us (2008), a book in which the author makes the case that sub-Saharan black people (not including pygmies or North Africans) are physically as different from Eurasian people as chimpanzees are from bonobos. I.e., we’re different species, the author claims.
Fuerle argues that no African trait is more modern than Eurasian people’s traits. I.e., Eurasian sapiens evolved quite separately from Africans. He suggests our groups separated not some mere 300,000 years ago, but rather 2 million years ago.
Also, the long-held claim that all human beings on Earth somehow descended from a single East African woman never felt right to me. Fuerle’s direction seems more appropriate: humanity is made up of several species or subspecies that each developed independently of one another. The three largest of these groups are now the three dominant races (Caucasian, Negroe, and Mongolid—referring to skull shapes, not skin tone or culture).
In fact, I always felt that the reason why leftist scientists hated the polygenic, or multi-origin, theory of humanity was that it made humans less unique, less special. If three separate races or species of humans evolved speech and tools independently, then miracles such as speech and opposable thumbs aren’t special qualities reserved to only one species. Any species could develop these traits.
Without the specialness reserved to a single dominant race (“the human race”), I feel that leftists, not right-wingers, might devolve into blood-thirsted genociders of “the other”. Right-wingers can deal with diversity, just not in our neighborhoods, whereas leftists must deny the existence of “others”, for they would otherwise engage themselves in continuous genocides.
This leftist denialism, for the sake of keeping up appearances, after some time, becomes very boring and annoying. It would be better to go with Fuerle and simply admit to ourselves our differences:
Mitochondrial DNA diversity in Africa reflects ancient erectus populations, not sapiens origins.
Non-Africans have 1–4% Neanderthal DNA; Africans lack this but show higher “archaic” erectus-like alleles (e.g., in Bantus > Bushmen), indicating separate ancestries.
Alleles for traits like woolly hair, dark skin, and lactose intolerance are fixed in Africans as primitive holdovers, contrasting Eurasian mutations (e.g., for light skin).
Sub-Saharan skulls exhibit erectus-like prognathism, heavy supraorbital ridges, post-orbital constriction (for jaw muscles, crowding forebrain), and posteriorly placed foramen magnum (ape-like posture).
Average Negroe brain size ~1,250–1,300 cc vs. Eurasian 1,400–1,500 cc; thinner supragranular brain layers (15% less). Suture closure earlier, limiting brain growth.
Long limbs/narrow hips for heat dissipation in blacks; larger teeth/jaws for raw food; woolly hair and yellowish sclera as primitive. Fossil parallels (e.g., Kabwe skull) show continuity with erectus, not sapiens transition.
Average IQ 70–80 (Lynn, 2006) vs. Eurasian 100+, persistent in adoption studies; attributed to genetic limits from erectus ancestry, not environment. Lower tool complexity in African archaeology reflects this.
Sub-Saharan Africans were already specialized and could not have reverted to more generalist traits found in Eurasians (i.e., African bodies’ heat dissipation could not evolve back into Eurasian generalist bodies).
Interestingly, Negroes have higher promiscuity/rape rates, weaker pair-bonding (self-supporting females in tropics), greater impulsivity (e.g., elevated homicide), and less cooperation (tribal conflicts).
Indeed, in the tropics, females can more easily provide for themselves, whereas in the cold climates of Europe, this was impossible. In the cold, bigger males (who trap heat better) had to do work outdoors, whereas women could then stay inside. It made females more dependent on their working males.
To win the loyalty of their males, Nordic/European females thus had to offer men long-term pair bonding. It is no surprise, then, that the first romantic novels were written in Europe (named after Rome), and that romantic love is a European ideal, whereas non-European sexuality is largely transactional (exchanging food for fucks the way chimpanzees and bonobos do).
On race-mixing (or hybridization), Fuerle writes:
Hybrids inherit mismatched genes, leading to issues like reduced parental attachment (less resemblance) and disease susceptibility (incompatible antibodies).
No sustained hybrid vigor; IQ regresses to midpoint in mixes; health risks and neglect due to genetic distance (e.g., Asian father shares more alleles with random Asian than African child).
Fuerle concludes that Negroe/Black Africans are more related to archaic Homo erectus than to Eurasian Homo sapiens. He calls Africans Homo erectus africanus.
It’s definitely the most racist book ever written. But then again, didn’t Charles Darwin also say similar things in his book The Descent of Man? And didn’t the American Founding Fathers also say they thought blacks were halfway (or two-thirds of the way) between apes and men?
The racism is truly shocking. But what if it’s largely true? The real question then becomes why White polite society can’t discuss racial differences without killing ourselves with paranoia and fear. (I doubt black people share our apprehensions.)
It is true. Sub-saharans have a 5-20% genetic admixture from an "unknown hominid species."
With such distant genetics, their daily state of being also becomes different from ours. Therefore, making compatibility impossible when it comes to shoulder-to-shoulder multi-racialism. Non-Europeans (as a whole) understand this.
Whites need to understand this sooner than later.