[RedPillUK]

I've just read this book in 3 days. The information contained in it kept me awake until 3am last night when I should have been resting for my first game for a new Sunday morning football team.

The introduction and preface of this book explains the author's intentions better than I can and includes an excellent description of the egalitarianism ideology and how it is has affected the world.

Most of us here have seen how it has affected society in many different ways for the worse, and the first mindblowing bit of information is how it has affected Science, specificially the British natural history museum.

In the early 20th century, It had a display of skulls from around the world, demonstrating human diversity. It was replaced by a poster of football fans with the caption 'We are all the same'. And later even that mockery of science was removed.

The book 'Culture of Critique' reviewed by Roosh describes the many ways in which Jewish and other scientists spread misinformation designed to support egalitarianism after WWII.

This has had devastating effects on anthropology, the study of humans. This is not a conspiracy theory. This is simply because even scientists cannot objectively see past their ideological biases.



The author has made the book available to reproduce freely and gives his reasons for that below. You can read the book here. Erectus Walks Amongst Us

Anyway here is the books preface and introduction.

Preface

Every person is a product of the times he lives in. We all believe that our values are objective and moral, but that cannot be true because every generation believes that, yet they have vastly conflicting values. Only a few hundred years ago our ancestors found nothing objectionable about owning and selling other people, and some millenniums prior to that the main course at dinner might be a member of a neighboring tribe. Had we lived then, there is little doubt we would not have objected. Several hundred years from now a future generation is likely to consider our values to be as ignorant and barbaric as we consider those of our predecessors.

    I mention this to encourage the reader to jettison, or at least rein in, the opinions, attitudes, and beliefs that he has picked up during his life, because in this book many of them will be disputed. Step out of your times, as though you had just arrived on this planet, and weigh the evidence and reasoning presented. It is nearly impossible to arrive at the truth by listening to only one side of the story, and you are about to hear another side.
    Much of what people are told in schools and in the media today just isn’t so. There are knowledgeable people who know it isn’t so, but they dare not say anything. The rest of us live in this sea of misinformation. Since almost everyone believes the prevailing misinformation, we assume it must be true. So we act on it, making important decisions about our lives, decisions that all too often are disastrous.

    Now, in my waning years, I can see no contribution I could make to the next generation more important than to challenge what I believe to be at least some of these erroneous beliefs. To encourage the dissemination of this book, it is being published without royalties and may be copied, with attribution, without liability to the author. I hope to make it available on the internet without charge, as I have done with my other books.

    Very little is held back in this book. 2 An effort was made to avoid unnecessary insensitivity, but shocking facts, even facts that some will find offensive, are displayed right out in the open where they cannot be missed. I have tried to be as accurate as possible, though I would be amazed if there were no mistakes, as so much ground is covered and speculation was required to fill in gaps in the evidence. Technical language is avoided where possible and explained where used. Large amounts of additional material could have been included, but after working on this almost full time for about four years, I’ve decided it’s time to call it quits.

Introduction

When man first acquired a brain capable of abstract thought, one of his first questions must have been, “Where did we come from?” His answer was to give himself a glorious origin - from gods, from the earth itself, from monsters or giant animals.

    But modern science offers a more mundane origin – man evolved from an ape, a member of the same family as today’s chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. 1 Millions of years later, a descendant of that ape had evolved far enough away from his simian ancestors to be given his own genus, Homo, man. Many more years and many species of Homo later, the first wise men, a somewhat primitive-looking Homo sapiens, arrived then, still later, the first very wise men, Homo sapiens sapiens, modern man, appeared. (Those who name themselves have the most laudatory names.)

    In paleoanthropology, the study of man’s extinct ancestors, much is in dispute and the farther back in time that one goes, the less certain is man’s lineage. Nevertheless, I have decided to accept the risk of error and make some plausible guesses at the early part of man’s journey, from his beginning as a primitive mammal until he walked on two feet, though the book will focus primarily on the question of how did man evolve from a bipedal ape to what he is today.

    Ask most paleoanthropologists where man originated and they, like Charles Darwin, will answer with a single word – “Africa” – Africa from the very beginning and every step of the way, save the last few when the races formed. Sub-Saharan (“s-S”) Africans, they will say, were the first modern people and the Asians evolved from the S-s Africans and then the Europeans evolved from the Asians. Not everyone agrees with that answer, however, and this book presents an alternative scenario.

    A layman might think that the question of modern man’s origins would be studied as other questions in science are studied, or at least as they are supposed to be studied – by dispassionately examining the evidence and letting the chips fall where they may. Unfortunately, when man studies himself, he is not an unbiased observer; anthropologists are not Martians, they are humans and, like everyone else, they have their ideological and psychological hang-ups.

    Like some of the first humans who asked where they came from, one might expect paleoanthropologists to favor a glorious past for their own people and a less reputable past for others, but that is not the case. Just as tennis etiquette dictates that the winner should not gloat over his victory but should graciously inform the loser that he played well and was a formidable opponent, even though it is clearly not true, most paleoanthropologists try not to draw attention to the differences between different populations, so they minimize the strengths of their own people and exaggerate the strengths of others.

    Why they do this is an interesting question, since it is surely more natural to boast than to denigrate oneself, but there is, nevertheless, a powerful need to do so. And anthropologists are not the only people behaving this way. It is now the only acceptable behavior in all Western (white) societies, including the United States, Canada, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand. And, although the winning tennis player who tells his losing opponent, “You stink at tennis,” suffers only a frown for his breach of etiquette, making a remark that an ethnic group finds objectionable can cost you a fine and land you in jail, especially if it is true.

    Egalitarianism, the dominant ideology of our time, holds that all people everywhere are equal, at least genetically, and any suggestion to the contrary is simply not acceptable. 2 I will call those who permit no one to question genetic equality the “Equality Police.” On most college campuses, the Equality Police have speech codes (i.e., rules that prohibit free speech) and (required) sensitivity sessions (i.e., brainwashing), and those who are “insensitive” (i.e., think for themselves) may end up disciplined, expelled, or worse. 3 Research that might reveal racial differences, particularly in intelligence and behavior, is strictly verboten, which has made it difficult to gather up-to-date information for this book, in some areas necessitating reliance upon data that was gathered over a century ago.

    The origin of egalitarianism and the damage it has done to science and to scientists is mostly beyond the scope of this book, but it should be noted that egalitarianism is an intellectual plague that has infected mostly the West and has left s-S Africans and Asians relatively unscathed. Particularly in anthropology, psychology, and sociology, the scientific study of racial differences has been corrupted by egalitarianism. 4 Only those conclusions that are consistent with racial egalitarianism may be published by reputable journals 5 and any research that might produce data to the contrary is not financed by government or any organization that wishes to be avoid being labeled a “hate” group.

    What happens when man sees the world not as it is, but as he wishes it to be? He makes unwise decisions that lead to disasters and the waste of vital resources. He fails to progress and stagnates in his backward imaginary world. Like Lamarck, and later Lysenko, who believed that changes in the environment could not only improve living things, but that those improvements would be inherited and passed on to the next generation, today’s egalitarians also hold that genetics is not a constraint – it does not determine men’s fate. But unlike Lysenko, the reason is not that the environment can change genes, 6 but that the genes of all people everywhere are already virtually the same. It is only the environment that has made people different – poor education, poor nutrition, poverty, and most of all, the evil racism of white people. 7 All that is necessary in order for everyone everywhere to be equally successful and accomplished is to provide an equal environment and do “whatever it takes” to get rid of white racism.

    Today in the West we are living through that same political climate that the anti-Lysenko scientists faced in the Soviet Union. A scientist’s conclusions had better be the “right” conclusions, or else. 8 He will not disappear entirely, as some of those scientists did, but he may well disappear from his place of employment and from the pages of respectable journals, even if he is lucky enough to avoid prison. 9 As Charles Murray famously put it, “When it comes to race, science is corrupt.” 10

    Egalitarianism has more power over the people of the West than any other ideology. It has destroyed careers, bankrupted companies, and wasted trillions of dollars. The weak cringe, lie, and relinquish their wealth and the welfare of themselves and their children to avoid the wrath of the Equality Police. The strong and principled, who will not bend, are demonized and ostracized.

    The Equality Police do not permit any cracks in the egalitarian edifice, and those who defy them suffer the modern version of the Inquisition. Jon Entine wrote the book, Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We’re Afraid to Talk About It (Entine, 2001), where he documented racial differences in athletic ability, with blacks excelling in sports that required jumping (e.g., basketball) and running (e.g., football, track, and marathons) 11 and whites excelling in swimming, diving, and gymnastics. Had he stopped there, his book would have drawn little ire from the Equality Police, as those observations are obvious to all. But Entine went on to show that the anatomy of blacks and whites differs in ways that account for those differences in athletic ability. Anatomical differences are not as “superficial” as skin and hair are said to be, but go much deeper, and threaten the core premise of egalitarianism, that all peoples are genetically equal. For that, he was vilified.

    Dr. J. Philippe Rushton, a psychology professor at the University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada, suffered even more when he discussed intellectual and other differences between the races. In Race, Evolution, and Behavior (Rushton, 2000a), 12 he noted that Africans American had an average IQ of 85 and s-S Africans of only 70. Had he gone on to say that this was due to the shameful racism of whites, who biased the tests and denied blacks the education needed to obtain a high IQ on those tests, he might have been a hero. But instead, he said this IQ gap was not due to bias or the environment, but to genetic differences, such as a smaller brain. And he was demonized, ostracized by his university, and even investigated by the police for criminal conduct. 13

    That bastion of multiculturalism, 14 the self-righteous United Nations, was even provoked to declare that there was no proof of racial differences in intelligence. (“Statement on Race,” 1950). And one prominent geneticist, Dr. Bruce Lahn, gave up doing research into genetic differences between the races that affect intelligence because it was “too controversial.” (Regalado, 2006). Spenser Wells, the head of the National Geographic Society’s Genographic Project, a five-year, forty million dollar effort to collect DNA samples from 100,000 indigenous people, said that brain differences will not be studied because, “I think there is very little evidence of IQ differences between the races,” despite massive evidence to the contrary. (Id.).

    Scientists, just as most of the remainder of the white population, are terrified of being labeled “racist” by the Equality Police. 15 From some of their convoluted publications, one suspects that they do not dare question egalitarianism even in their own minds, much like “double-think” in George Orwell’s “1984,” where Winston had to suppress even his own thoughts.

    Just as Entine may not suggest that there are racial difference in athletic ability and Rushton may not suggest that there are racial difference in intellectual ability, scientists may not suggest that the races diverged a long time ago (and therefore had plenty of time to evolve into genetically very different peoples). No, since all the races are genetically equal, they could not have diverged long ago, and therefore the origin of modern man must be recent and all the discoveries in the study of modern human origins must support that conclusion.

    How far will the Equality Police go to distort and suppress our origins? 16 Here is one story from Great Britain by Armand M. Leroi:

    “Henry Flower became director of the British Museum of Natural History in 1884, and promptly set about rearranging exhibits. He set a display of human skulls to show their diversity of shape across the globe. A century later, the skulls had gone, and in their place was a large photograph of soccer fans standing in their terraces bearing the legend: 'We are all members of a single species, Homo sapiens. But we are not identical.' In 2004 even this went, and so it is that the world's greatest natural history museum has nothing to say to the public about the nature and extent of human biological diversity.

    “Of course, The Natural History Museum, as the British Museum of Natural History is now known, is not the only institution to relegate such demonstrations to the basement. After the 1960s, physical anthropologists, struggling to bury the idea of race, buried phenotypes [different forms] as well – sometimes literally so, as human remains have been reinterred by aboriginal claimants.”

    The scientific theory of modern human origins that is consistent with egalitarianism is the “OoA” (Out-of-Africa) theory. OoA hold that modern man (Homo sapiens sapiens) arose in Africa, then migrated out of Africa. Thus, consistent with egalitarianism, all living human beings are fully modern. Furthermore, since that migration out of Africa occurred recently (about 65,000 ya), very little human evolution has had time to occur since then. 17 Because the migrating s-S Africans were fully modern and there has not been enough time for any significant genetic changes to occur, all living human beings must be genetically equal. In essence, then, “we are all Africans.” 18

    OoA is the accepted theory of modern human origins. It is in the textbooks and is taught in colleges and universities and is taken for granted by scientists. Even Rushton believes that it is correct (Rushton, 2000a, pp 217-233). But science moves inexorably onward in its march towards the truth. The truth will prevail, not because man is noble or wise, but because man cannot long survive when he has an erroneous view of reality. Eventually, erroneous man will be supplanted by those who see reality as it really is.

Read this book. It is hard to find information like this from a variety of scientific sources that is readable to the average person.

The effect of reading it has been like taking another red pill. A massive awakening, that has given me a better perspective on people, society, race and history. The information is shocking, but at the same time profound, life changing and fascinating.