In a recent YouTube video, Primal Truth attempts to answer this question – with the click-bait title:
The Terrifying Reason Cave Art has no Faces
He presents several theories, all of them have been around for a long time, and none of them are “terrifying.”
It’s an interesting video nevertheless. All of the explanations presented are, to say the least, far-fetched.
I have a better one:
Stone-age humans wandered about in bands. These bands were loosely associated with each other for trade, mating and probably ritual gatherings of a spiritual nature.
A band, or perhaps only a few families, would occupy a cave seasonally and then move on – with the intention of returning to that same cave the next year.
Not all clan relations were cordial. Sometimes, they hated each other. They would often have different appearances, types of clothing or jewelry. This is how they could distinguish members of a friendly clan from members of an enemy clan from a distance.
Drawing portraits of yourself, or your fellow clan-members, on a cave wall would clearly identify that cave as belonging to your clan. Any enemy clan members why discovered that cave would not only take it over, destroy your art and nullify your magic, but they might also lay in wait for you upon your return. At that point, they’d kill you and steal your women.
Leaving human characters neutral would help reduce this risk. Enemy clan members who stumbled upon it would have no idea whether it belonged to a friendly clan (maybe their own) or to a hostile clan. Hence, they would not be inclined to destroy your magic, much less plan to ambush you upon your return. It might be a long wait, possibly for nothing.
The avoidance of human faces in cave art was about safety and survival. That’s my take on it, for what it’s worth.
For many years, I’ve known that archaic cranial features are retained, to various degrees, by all the races of Mankind. I assumed that it was simply luck of the draw, at least in most cases.
The brow-ridge always puzzled me. What is it about Europeans that caused them to retain the brow-ridge while Africans and most Asians lost it?
Recently, I found a video that might explain it:
Brow-ridges and sloping foreheads have advantages for hunting. People hunted everywhere, and they hunted everywhere at long range, so why would the brow-ridge have disappeared from black Africa? Watch this clip from the video for an answer:
I’m proposing that black Africans experienced more of a threat from other black Africans than from wildlife, even while hunting. Therefore, more visible facial expressions (smiling or a wink for example) did more to protect them from other black Africans than heavy brow-ridges would have benefited them during hunts.
I’m not referring to times of war. The threat from war seems to have been a constant wherever humans lived. I’m referring to interpersonal (non-organized) spontaneous violence – perhaps over a woman or the last piece of chicken.
I’ve travelled quite a bit, and I’ve asked many questions of people from around the world. Generally speaking, a smile is more important among Africans (speaking of encounters among strangers) than other cultures. I’ve personally experienced how valuable a smile can be in black Africa; it tells people you’re not a threat. Smiling involves the eyes as much as it involves the mouth. Clearly visible eyes make it easier for others to determine that you mean them no harm. Brow-ridges might not only hide a smile, but it might signal hostility by default.
In Europe, for the most part, only males have brow-ridges. They’re useful for holding one’s sunglasses over the eyes when not using them, but more importantly, it was mainly males who hunted. Upon return to the village, Europeans were presumably less likely to get killed by an otherwise friendly local than were Africans. Brow-ridges, at least in a reduced state, could remain in Europe. Women, being non-hunters, simply had no use for them. One could argue that facial signaling was important for European women as well, and this is why their brow-ridges disappeared. I’ll quote a random media source to bolster my point:
Evolutionary Perspectives
From an evolutionary perspective, smiling may have developed as a way to convey non-threatening intentions. In primates, baring teeth can be a sign of submission or friendly greeting. Humans, as social animals, likely evolved the smile as a means to foster social bonds and communicate goodwill. Infants, for example, begin to smile shortly after birth, a behavior that promotes bonding with caregivers….
African Cultures
African cultures, with their rich diversity, exhibit a wide range of smiling behaviors. In many Sub-Saharan African societies, smiles are an integral part of social interactions and community life. Smiling can signify warmth, hospitality, and social connection. For instance, in countries like Nigeria and Ghana, smiles are commonly used to greet others and establish rapport.
What of Australian Aborigines? They have massive brow-ridges, at least by modern standards – and they seem to be every bit as impulsive as Africans. It could be that their Denisovan genes contributed to this, overriding the risks and benefits I listed above. It could also be that their extremely sparse population density meant less interpersonal violence, but a much greater emphasis on hunting. I look forward to more informed insights in comments.
I present this hypothesis in skeletal form. My hope is that a real scientist, more knowledgeable than myself, will do further research – but not lose his job as a result.
It’s been an eventful month for me. almost 3 weeks with the religious side of my family and then a week with my “secular” family. Both were nice but stressful in their own ways.
In Yiddish, we call seriously religious Jews “froom.” After almost 3 weeks, I was all froomed out! It was almost like living in a synagogue. I know the rules, though each family observes them differently. For now, I’ll focus on the separation between milk and meat, which extends to utensils and (sometimes) surfaces. Passover adds another level of complexity, which I won’t get into here – and don’t worry; this isn’t going to be a lesson on the laws of kosher.
It was a bar mitzvah, and there were a few non-Jews in attendance. For reasons that will remain private, I chose to congratulate a fine-looking young Jewish couple on finding each other, and how fortunate they are to be part of a Jewish community. I told them how great it is to be part of a tribe, and to cherish this, because this sense of belonging is more valuable than Earthly possessions.
I was approached later by a relative. I was told that since there were non-Jews present, this was inappropriate, that I might have offended them. As it so happens, I’m rather fond of those non-Jews; they’re good, God-fearing red-blooded White Americans. A bit later, I sat with them and we had some drinks. I hung out with them a bit, and announced, rather loudly so that everybody could hear: It’s OKAY to be White!. The relative who rebuked me earlier didn’t seem happy about this. I didn’t care. We separate between milk and meat, not because one is necessarily better than the other, but because separations are an integral part of Judaism. We even have a ritual called “Separation,” which we perform at the end of the Sabbath. Sabbath is separate from the other days. Here’s the crucial text:
Blessed are You, Lord Our God, King of the universe, who has made a distinction between the holy and the ordinary, between light and darkness, between the people of Israel and the heathens, between the seventh day and the six ordinary days of the week. Blessed are You O Lord, who has made a distinction between the holy and the ordinary.
… except that My Jewish Learning mistranslated part of it. The Hebrew text says nothing about “heathens;” It says, “between the people of Israel and the other nations…” So maybe I was too hasty in implying that Jews are no better than non-Jews – but EVERY NATION should think this way about itself. I’ve written about this previously.
We make distinctions because we all must do so to survive. All animals must do so. As we advanced from beasts to savages to civilized humans, our distinctions became more refined.
When I arrived at my “secular” family’s house, distinctions were just as important; I had to remember which refuse goes into the compost, which goes into recycling and which into landfill trash. At the grocery store, the big distinctions are between organic and non-organic, free-range and not free-range. My “secular” family is every bit as strict about these things as my religious family is about milk and meat.
My “secular” family does not make broad distinctions when it comes to humanity; they live in an area that’s well over 90% White. They don’t have to.
To end on a positive note, I got to hold my newest grandson, and he was the source of much joy for me during that visit.
In case anybody submits a comment while I’m gone, don’t be disheartened if it takes a while to approve. I’ll do so upon my return. In the meantime, wish me luck on my travels!
To my Christian readers, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
I’m not a scientist, but I do observe the world around me, and I’ve noticed something about the street dogs and cats in my area:
They tend to come in sibling pairs. I’ve seen generations of sibling pair cats grow up, hang out at specific restaurants, where they’re adopted by customers, and sometimes by owners. They’re fun to watch as they play. sometimes, they’ll sleep on customers’ laps. They’re always begging for food. They don’t go hungry. Eventually, they grow up and leave, or they’re adopted or they get run over by cars, eaten by dogs or God know what else.
As a rule, and I’ve observed this many times, one sibling will be very affectionate toward humans while the other is shy and stays away, venturing close only for scraps.
I’ve seen pairs of dogs like this too. One such pair consists of average sized white siblings. The friendly one is named Blanca. Gringos love her, and they constantly give her treats and affection. Both are receptive to human affection, but only Blanca is comfortable with it without prodding. Typically, the other one, whose name I don’t know, will keep her distance until Blanca affirms that the human in question is friendly. Only then with the second one come forward, cautiously, for a few pets and maybe a treat.
I think this is an evolutionary survival strategy. Humans are an unknown; we can be friendly, or we can be foes. Best to diversify. The dog and cat genes somehow know to diversify, to prepare for each eventuality.
The second potential topic of research has to do with tropical peoples and their apparent aptitude for languages. We all know that tropical peoples, especially African blacks and Australian Aborigines, have a low average IQ – but this doesn’t mean that they’re stupid across the board. It doesn’t mean that they couldn’t have evolved some mental tools that are superior to those of their Northern counterparts.
Because there are more resources in tropical areas, less area is needed to maintain a bribe. Hence, tribal/language density is greater in the tropics than in temperate zones. Obviously, knowing a second or third language has great survival benefits in the tropics as compared to other areas. Europe also has a fairly dense language map, and it would be interesting to compare the two.
These are only preliminary thoughts. I’m not making any conclusions, just suggesting that those smarter than me, or with more resources, might consider looking into these topics.
Years ago, I commented on this leftist meme which, though it doesn’t involve skulls, does illustrate my point here:
Shifting back to reality, here’s an actual comparison between an Australian Aboriginal skull and a European skull:
The leftist layman’s position is that racial differences do not extend beyond skin color, hair texture, lip thickness etc. When pressed, or when confronting a more educated leftist, he’ll admit that there are a few deeper differences, such as in bone structure or disease resistance. If you press him to entertain the possibility that some of those differences might extend to the brain, the conversation will be over; you’ve ventured into forbidden territory.
The vast majority of leftists are laymen; they don’t even realize that there are skeletal differences between the races – yet it never occurs to them to challenge claims such as the Beachy Head Woman:
Beachy Head Woman, a Roman-era skeleton once hailed as the earliest known black Briton and who scientists later speculated could be of Cypriot descent, has now been shown to have originated from southern England.
The mystery of the skeleton’s shifting identity was finally resolved after advances in DNA sequencing produced a high-quality genetic readout from the remains.
Previously, forensic anthropologists had suggested that the woman may have been of sub-Saharan Africa origin based on an analysis of the skull and, in 2016, a plaque was erected to “to commemorate the first black Briton”.
I’ll let History Debunked tell the sage of this leftist misadventure:
Reading the reactions of yesterday’s horrific Islamic massacre of Jews in Australia, I’m shocked at how low Australia’s leadership has sunk. Verily, I’m at a loss for words.
I asked Grok if there’s an English word that describes extreme evil and stupidity at the same time. Here’s it’s answer:
No, there isn’t a single, commonly used English word that precisely captures the simultaneous presence of stupidity (lack of intelligence or foresight) and evil (malicious intent or moral wickedness).
The closest concept appears in fiction and role-playing games (like Dungeons & Dragons), where “Stupid Evil” describes villains who commit harmful acts not just out of malice, but in ways that are self-defeating or pointlessly destructive due to poor judgment. This trope highlights characters who indulge in evil even when it’s counterproductive, combining cruelty with a lack of wisdom or planning.
I then asked Grok to invent such a word, and it gave me a list. I’ll go with “Malid:”
Malid (from malice + idiot) Pronunciation: /ˈmælɪd/ (MAL-id) Definition: Behavior or character marked by both vicious intent and profound stupidity. Example: “Vandalizing a hospital during a pandemic is peak malid—cruel and utterly brainless.”
Australia’s government has reached a point of peak malidity; it is extremely malid. Why do I condemn them so? Behold, an article from the Wall Street Journal, which has become increasingly malid in recent years, republished by MSN, which has been peak malid for a long time. As for the author, it’s hard to tell if she’s a cat or Chinese. Maybe both. Her name is Hannah Miao. She might be a communist Chinese cat. Without ever explicitly assigning any blame to the ideology of Islam, she writes:
The father and son accused in Australia’s deadliest mass shooting in nearly 30 years used licensed firearms in the attack, police said Monday, as new details about the two men spurred calls to strengthen the country’s gun laws…
Albanese called for tougher gun laws, saying that leaders would discuss limits on the number of guns that can be licensed and a review of licenses over time.
Translation: We encouraged the import of hostile savages into our country, who then proceeded to massacre innocent people. In response, we’ll use this as an excuse to further curtail the rights of White/Christian Australians.
Authorities said the younger suspect is an Australian-born citizen, while the older suspect arrived in 1998 on a student visa and received a spouse visa in 2001.
Obviously, Australia’s immigration laws need to be changed – but we don’t see Albanese calling for any such change.
One brave man put his own life in danger in order to neutralize one of the Muslim attackers. The brave man happens to also be Muslim. Looking over the various news articles, and even a speech by Israel’s president, it appears that it’s perfectly acceptable to draw attention to the fact that the hero is Muslim, but NOT OKAY to point out that the attackers are Muslim:
In a televised address on Israel’s state tv, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused the Australian government of fueling antisemitism, linking its inaction to Sunday’s deadly shooting at a Hanukkah event on Sydney’s Bondi Beach that killed at least 11 people. Netanyahu said he… pic.twitter.com/lThVk8Psj0
Those of us who are not malid would like to pose a question:
Are we willing to give up our civilizations, and our freedoms, to Islam because SOME Muslims are good people? Does the fact that the hero, in this case, is Muslim justify turning a blind eye to the fact that it was Muslims who carried out the attack in the first place?
It’s a rhetorical question. Of course not. The correct course of action is to deport ALL Muslims from Western lands and encourage the eradication of Islam in Muslim lands as well. As for the good people who happen to be Muslim, they also need to be deported – but with consideration. If they’ve proven themselves worthy, they need to be deported with respect, compensation (as appropriate on a case-by-case basis) and safeguards.
Since one of the victims is said to be a Holocaust survivor (though she was, reportedly, born in 1944), I’ll adhere to Godwin’s Law here. There were good people who were Nazis.
I asked Grok about good people who were members of the Nazi party. It had to think about it for a while, and came up with this:
I followed up with this question:
Had the Nazis won the war, and Nazism had become the default ideology in the Western world, would we then have a scenario where very many, even MOST, “Nazis” were good people? After all, it would be the dominant ideology.
Grok’s answer is long, but here is its conclusion:
In conclusion, yes, in this hypothetical world, very many—even most—”Nazis” would likely be “good people” in the everyday sense: decent, law-abiding folks conforming to the dominant ideology for survival and normalcy. However, that doesn’t redeem the ideology or absolve collective responsibility; it highlights how evil can become banal when it goes unchallenged. This thought experiment reminds us why resisting toxic ideologies early is crucial—once they become default, “goodness” gets redefined in their image. What do you think—does this shift your view on historical “what ifs”?
Our conversation became drawn out, so I won’t burden y’all with the rest of it. Bottom line, the fact that some, even most, adherents to an ideology are good people doesn’t mean we should ignore the long-term dangers. We don’t know how Nazism might have evolved over time, or how Nazi societies would have fared over the centuries – but we certainly DO KNOW how Islamic societies have fared.
Is this the future we want for our children and grandchildren? Apparently, this is what malid people, such as Albanese, want.
When I heard about Return To The Land, I got excited and gave it my full support. I’m an obscure character, so this doesn’t objectively mean much – but it is meaningful to me, so here we are. I visited their GiveSendGo page and donated a small sum. I followed their official X page and its founder, Eric Orwoll.
I posted several comments of encouragement… and was met with deafening silence, even on tweets with only a handful of responses. I asked Orwoll about his position on pro-White Jews, and got no response. It became more and more obvious that Orwoll does not like Jews, regardless of our politics or attitudes toward Whites.
Don’t get me wrong. I fully support his cause, but it bothers me that he’s injected needless toxicity into a movement that should be completely positive.
I get it that Jews have been at the forefront in attacking him, that the ADL considers Return To The Land to be a hate group. Many conservative and pro-White Jews consider the ADL to be a hate group. How about some acknowledgment about that?
If Orwoll hates Jews, let him be honest about it. Instead, we get lies from him, as in this media interview:
Orwoll’s views on race, Jews
…While he insists he is not antisemitic, NewsChannel 5 discovered that, after the UK’s Daily Mail revealed that Orwoll and his ex-wife had once starred in a series of livestreamed porn videos, he seemed to think one of the reporters’ ethnic backgrounds had something to do with it.
NewsChannel 5 Investigates noted, “You kept referring to it as the Jewish reporter, the Jewish journalist and I wasn’t sure why.”
“Well, they were Jewish,” Orwoll answered.
What did that have to do with the story about his controversial history?
“Well, the fact is that gentile journalists weren’t coming after me for having a White neighborhood—Jewish journalists were,” he continued.
Then, there was a post where another person on X wrote, “I do not blame all the Jews for everything. Don’t hate Jews for being Jews.”
Orwoll responded, “Have you considered that you might not know enough about Jews yet?”
Lying publicly is not a good look, especially when you’re bad at it. Praising Hitler is also not a good look; it’s hard to see how this could help in creating a larger, positive, pro-White movement.
I’ve been critical toward blacks, and I’ll continue to do so (as appropriate), however, I long ago made the decision to condemn evil and support good. I’ll support good people regardless of their race. Individual blacks, who are good people, deserve our support and encouragement. Is it too much to ask the same for individual Jews? We can recognize demographic truths while continuing to treat individuals according to their own merit.
Like me, Jared Taylor also got excited about Return To The Land. In fact, Eric Orwoll even spoke at this year’s American Renaissance conference. He wasn’t the only Jew-hater to speak at this conference, and this makes me worry about the future of American Renaissance. Is it becoming Stormfront Lite? Have the neo-Nazis finally conquered one of the last pro-White organizations that welcomes pro-Whites of all backgrounds? I hope not.
It appears that it’s human nature to drift toward extremism. Back when I was an Orthodox Jew, I saw people, especially women, compete with each other for who can be the most frum. The result is a ratcheting up of religious strictness, which is not healthy at all. Muslims become more and more fanatical, leftists become more and more radical and pro-Whites become more and more hateful toward the enemies of White people, real or imagined. Since neo-Nazism is often viewed as an extreme form of pro-Whitism (in fact, it’s not), many frustrated and angry Whites will gravitate toward it.
It’s possible that it’s not possible to win without extremism, and the willingness to resort to extreme measures. This is how the Bolsheviks won. This is how the Left won: “By any means necessary.” Of course, when such extremism takes us in the wrong direction, it’s fair to ask what the point of “victory” would be.
Note: Due to technical issues with this blog, I lost the original post and had to rewrite the last part. I know the original post made some other important points. If/when they come back to me, I’ll update this post accordingly.
In yet another example of MSN’s antiwhite bias, the story of a black mother who murdered her daughter by placing her in a microwave is accompanied by a stock photo of a White woman with a microwave. Dagens.com, where the story is sourced from, also features this stock photo:
Shame on Dagens.com for publishing this antiwhite propaganda, and shame on MSN for reproducing it. Neither story includes a photo of the actual murderess, so here she is:
I was in line at the grocery store in Portland. A very large Somali woman was at the register. Almost ALL the Somali women in that area were fat, and they all had a lot of kids. As far as I could tell, they all used EBT and WIC.
When the cashier scanned her very large bag of bulk rice, the Somali woman changed her mind and said, “I don’t want it.”
The cashier, looking concerned, said, “Are you sure? It will have to be thrown away.”
The cashier seemed to assume that the waste of so much food would bother the large Somali woman, just as it did her. She was wrong.
The Somali woman wasn’t even the slightest bit concerned about the waste. She apathetically shrugged her shoulders and repeated, “I don’t want it.”
Incidentally, it was because of the Somalis, and their kids, that I stopped buying anything bulk at that store; I’d seen how they stick their hands into the food, return food to the bin and sneeze over the food.
