The Indigenous Europeans Consisted of Three Distinct White Population Movements: Chapter 1 of Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition

Editor’s note: Prof. Ricardo Duchesne has written a series of articles on my book Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition, originally posted at These essays are not only informative on the contents of the book, but also contain incisive commentary. Well worth reading!

General Remarks

Kevin MacDonald’s Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition: Evolutionary Origins, History, and Prospects For the Future (2019) is the first book that employs an evolutionary psychological approach to explain the rise of the West — actually, it is the first book that aims to comprehend the dynamics of the entire history of the West from prehistoric to current times to explain as well the decline of the West, the ways in which the “egalitarian individualism” originated by northwest Europeans in hunting and gathering times planted the seeds of the West’s current decision to destroy its genetic heritage through the importation of masses of immigrants.

Difficult as this task may seem, MacDonald performs it extremely well. In a normal academic world in which criticism of immigration was permissible, MacDonald’s book would have been the subject of immediate debate rather than complete silence. The books currently dominating the “rise of the West” tend to downplay any substantial differences between the West and other civilizations. They talk about “surprising similarities” between the major civilizations as late as the 1750s, and argue that the West diverged only with the spread of the Industrial Revolution. Some books go back in time to the family structure of medieval northwest Europe, or to the enforcement of monogamy by the Catholic Church, or to the rise of modern science in the seventeenth century. While MacDonald makes effective use of earlier arguments on Western uniqueness, including my own argument about the importance of the “aristocratic egalitarianism” of prehistoric Indo-Europeans, he believes that the starting point must be “the genetic history of the West”.

For MacDonald, the most unique trait of Europeans is their individualism, a trait manifested in two different forms, in the aristocratic individualism of Indo-European cultures, and in the hunter-gatherer egalitarian individualism of northwestern Europe. There is a genetic basis for these two forms of individualism. To understand their origins it is necessary to document how these two forms were naturally selected within populations living in particular environmental settings, as well as within the novel cultural-environmental settings they created. The egalitarian form of individualism, in MacDonald’s estimation, was the form that eventually came to dominate European culture. While the aristocratic individualism of Indo-Europeans predominated in ancient Greece and Rome, the trend in European history was for the accentuation of egalitarian individualism, with the Church playing a critical role, and then the Puritan revolution with its “moralistic Utopianism” gradually spreading in the United States.

The Jews did not invent this egalitarian individualism. They interpreted this egalitarianism into a call for a plurality of cultures and races inside the West — the “ethnic dissolution of non-Jews” — while protecting Jewish in-group solidarity and ethnocentrism. They insisted that the egalitarian values of Europeans required them to abolish their exclusive and unequal ethnic-based concept of citizenship for the sake of a truly egalitarian multiracial concept  open to the arrival of millions of immigrants.

MacDonald’s emphasis on the “primordial” foundations of the egalitarian individualism of northwest hunter gatherers should not be confused with the standard observation that hunters and gatherers across the world were egalitarian. His focus throughout the book is on kinship systems, whether lines of descent were bilateral or patricentric, whether marriages were exogamous or endogamous, monogamous or polygamous, whether families were nuclear or extended, whether there was individual choice in marriage or arranged marriages, and whether individuals were inclined to establish relations outside their kinship group, with relatively weak ethnocentric tendencies, or whether they were seen as embedded to their kinship group, with relatively strong levels of ethnocentrism. His central argument is that already among northwest European hunter gatherers we can detect relatively weaker collective kinship systems, which gave room for more individual initiative and relationships outside extended families and blood lines, with individuals forming associations outside kinship relationships, as if they were in a state of equality rather than in a state of inequality between ingroups and outgroups.

It is this focus on the individualistic family systems of the West that allows MacDonald to offer a comprehensive explanation of both the rise and the decline of the West.  Most scholars writing about the rise of the West today are concerned to answer why the Industrial Revolution occurred in eighteenth century England/Europe. Some emphasize the unique family structure of northwest Europe, but they trace this family structure to the Middle Ages, and none of them go back to the evolution of genetic dispositions among northwest hunter-gatherers to explain the rise of the West. I am not aware of any scholar who focuses so consistently on the weak ethnocentric tendencies of Europeans to explain both the rise and decline of the West. If meeting the scientific criteria for parsimony is valuable to you, then reading MacDonald’s book will be very illuminating indeed.

What follows is the first of nine or ten commentaries I will be writing about Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition

Three Foundational Genetic Populations of Europe

Chapter One brings up the latest research on population movements into prehistoric Europe to argue that three distinct populations came to constitute the genetic foundations of this continent:
  1. A “primordial population” arriving in Europe about 45,000 years ago, which he calls “Western hunter-gatherers (WHGs),” and which developed a unique culture of egalitarian individualism in the northwest areas of Europe.
  2. Early Farmers arriving from Anatolia about 8000 years ago, bringing agriculture and having the greatest genetic effect on the WHG population in the southern areas of Europe.
  3. Indo-Europeans migrating from the Pontic-Steppes beginning around 4500 years ago, starting with the Yamnaya peoples and later associated with the Corded Ware culture. The greatest genetic impact of the Yamnaya and Corded Ware peoples was on central Europe and some regions in the north, with less impact in the east and south.

This first chapter, the shortest at 25 pages, may be the most tricky for readers to digest; and I fear that, if not read carefully, it may create the impression that MacDonald is arguing that Europe’s population was formed by non-white genetic groups coming from the outside, “mysterious” Yamnaya peoples coming from “the steppes”, as they were described in the mainstream media, and by farmers from the Near East. Because MacDonald presents this argument in a scholarly and judicious manner, using the geographical and ethnic terminology of the literature, and avoiding descriptions about the “white race” until the last pages, it may lead some readers to infer that only the WHGs in the northwest were white and native to the continent.

Up until about page 13, MacDonald describes (correctly) the EFs as a people from “Anatolia”. He describes the I-Es as an “amalgam of Armenian-like Near Eastern people,” Caucasus hunter-gatherers, Siberian North Eurasians (“related to North American Indians”), and Eastern Hunter-Gatherers. I have no dispute with this terminology, except that it may lend itself to manipulation by the mainstream media — into the notion that only one genetic population, WHGs (in the north) was white. This seems to be the impression of Morris V. de Camp, the reviewer of Individualism and the Liberal Tradition at Counter Currentswhen he writes that “Western Hunter Gatherers are Europe’s indigenous population” while describing the other two populations using the ethnic-geographical terms MacDonald uses, without adding that these two other populations were also white, or undergoing selection for white skin, brown eyes and tallness.

Readers may underestimate the subsequent points MacDonald develops in the closing pages of this chapter where he states with definiteness that the EFs who entered Europe from Anatolia had “white skin and brown eyes” and that they actually eliminated “the dark-skinned WHGs in the south of Europe” (24). While “proto-Indo-European genes for light skin pigmentation were relatively infrequent…compared to contemporary Ukrainians,” there was selection for white skin and other European physical traits as the I-Es “spread north”. He describes the I-Es from the Pontic Steppes that migrated into Europe 4000 years ago as “white-skinned, brown eyed peoples”.

Making  white skin or eye color the defining traits of Western Civilization is not the point. I am in agreement with MacDonald that “individualism” is the best word that defines and allows us to understand the unique trajectory of Europeans. But we must be upfront about the racial identity of Europeans in light of the extremely deceitful way in which the mainstream media and academics are using these recent findings on the population genetics of Europeans to argue that Europe was not the “ancestral home of white people”, but was from the beginning  a continent populated by “diverse immigrants” from external regions.

The current promoters of mass immigration want us to believe that Europe’s original populations were already diverse and that whites were not the original population, even though these findings actually demonstrate that evolution, or genetic differentiation along different racial paths, occurred in different regions of the world, including Europe, after homo sapiens migrated out of Africa some 60 or 50 thousand years ago. The media, and the scientists themselves, are deceitfully speaking about the “mysterious” Yamnaya and the Anatolian farmers as evidence that Europe was a “melting pot” of “immigrants” from “diverse” racial groupings arriving from “Eurasia” and the “Near East”. Indeed, since the WHGs themselves were descendants of African migrants, the media has been contriving headlines and arguments about how Europeans were an amalgam of “Africans,” “Near Eastern migrants,” and “mysterious” Yamnaya people who “shared distant kinship with Native Americans”.

Many reacted with disbelief at the African look of the “first European” Dr. Richard Neave created from fragments of fossils of a 35,000 years old skull found in Europe, with Lawrence Auster calling it an “undisguised fraud“. But why should we expect the first generations of homo sapiens in Europe to have evolved “white” traits not long after they entered this continent? The research that is coming out suggests that today’s races are very young (outside Africa), and did not appear until about 12,000 to 10,000 years ago; and it may be that the European race is the youngest race, the last evolutionary stage of homo sapiens.

The WHGs were not intially European but evolved into Europeans thousands of years after they had inhabited the northwest regions of Europe. From a Darwinian perspective, the question that should matter is when and how the inhabitants of Europe became European. According to Sandra Wilde et. al. “strong selection favoring lighter skin, hair, and eye has been operating in European populations over the last 5000 years“.  In terms of these physical markers, Europeans are a very young race emerging in the course of centuries from a preceding people that were not European. This evolution, of course, was not merely about the evolution of “white” physical traits, though we should not underestimate the importance of these traits. It stands to reason that there were other key traits, including behavioral traits, which did not emerge at once but through time, which means that it is difficult to state with any definiteness when the inhabitants of Europe became “European”.

This argument is implicit in MacDonald’s observation that new evolutionary pressures in the natural environment of Europe, including in the “novel environments” created by farmers and by Indo-European horse riders, selected for different mutations and eventually different traits, including lighter skin and eyes combined with individualist behaviors. He uses the phrase “selection in situ” to refer to how the environment of Europe selected for new mutations among the EFs and I-Es, or for physical and psychological predispositions, making them more pronounced. Genes for lighter skin and eyes likely become more pronounced as I-Es and EFs spread into the northwest. MacDonald writes, “the larger point is that…selection for lighter eye, hair, and skin pigmentation occurred within Europe after the EFs and I-Es migrations”.

We need to think of Europeans as a race that evolved through thousands of years inside Europe, not always gradually, but at an accelerated pace from about 10,000 years ago, in response both to the unique ecology of Europe and to their own unique cultural activities. The upper Paleolithic peoples who first inhabited Europe, coming from Africa via the Near East, were not Europeans but a people closely descended from the homo sapiens who left Africa some 50,000 (or 60,000 years ago), carrying in their genes only a fraction of the African genetic diversity, which set them on a different evolutionary trajectory as they inhabited and reproduced under very different environmental pressures, relatively isolated from other evolving/isolated races.

Anthropologist Alice Roberts: I look at that face and think “I’m actually looking at the face of [my ancestors] from 40,000 years ago.”

The genetic history of Europeans has been totally politicized. The media used the African-like reconstructions of the “first Europeans” to put Africans at the center of European ancestry, with the British anthropologist Dr. Alice Roberts gushing over the reconstruction, and going to Africa to trace her ancestral roots, for a BBC documentary called “The Incredible Journey”, which aired in 2009.

The fact that this early Upper Paleolithic inhabitant of Europe was dark, and that lighter skin, eyes, and hair were later evolutionary acquisitions, supports our side of the debate. The cultural Marxist view that human genetic evolution somehow came to a halt after homo sapiens migrated out of Africa, as Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin argued, and as the entire establishment today continues to insist, has been falsified.

Population Movements into Europe after Origins of European Race

We don’t know exactly when other racial traits and differences may have evolved in Europe, such as rate of physical maturation, gestation period, details about body built, blood types, resistance and susceptibility to various diseases, and brain size. But we know that Europeans were a race that evolved certain anatomical and behavioral traits by reason of breeding for thousands of years within a geographical area we call Europe. The I-Es were not a “mysterious” people who came from outside Europe but a people native to this continent. The official geographical definition of the “continent of Europe” is consistent with the cultural history of this continent in comprising “European Russia”, the Pontic Steppes located north of the Black and Caspian seas, present day Ukraine, the original homelands of the I-Es.

Other than the EFs who came from Anatolia, who already had genes for white skin, and then evolved into Europeans in Europe, there is strong genetic evidence showing that once a European race emerged out of the three populations MacDonald highlights, Europe did not experience any major genetic mixing from non-European immigrant races.

We learn this from Jean Manco’s Ancestral Journeys: The Peopling of Europe from the First Venturers to the Vikings (2013). This book draws on recent ability of geneticists to trace ancestry and human migrations by studying two types of DNA, mtDNA, which traces direct chains of descent from mother to maternal grandmother, and Y-DNA, which traces descent from father to paternal grandfather. Using this technique it investigates the “peopling” of Europe from the “first Europeans” all the way to the Viking era. Even as Manco plays up politically correct tropes about multiple “migrants” moving into Europe, most of the “invaders” and “migrants” she mentions came from within Europe’s boundaries, and the ones coming from outside barely had any genetic impact, which is why she can’t help saying there is a “high degree of genetic similarity among Europeans”.

Manco shows that the Angles and Saxons who colonized Britain around AD 400-600 came from the Proto-Germanic Corded Ware and Bell-Beaker cultures that had melded during the Nordic Bronze Age (1730-760 BC) in Jutland, or what is present day Denmark. After connecting the Mycenaeans to the Indo-Europeans, she writes that the Classical Greeks “came to think of themselves as European” (177). She refers to Rome as a “melting pot”, but then adds that those contemporaneous Roman authors, in the first centuries AD, who “railed against the level of immigration” for diluting the Roman character, were “rather short-sighted” since the Italian-born, she estimates, made up about 95% of its inhabitants (199). She writes about the “great wandering” of the Germanic peoples who overran the Roman empire, the Goths, Gepids, Vandals, Burgundians, Angles, Saxons, in favor of her ‘migrationist’ thesis, but not only were these movements strictly intra-European affairs, but, as she observes, “we should not expect much, if any, genetic distinction between these peoples. They were of the same stock” (213).

She writes about the Slavic expansion and movements between 300-700 AD in-through what we today consider to be Slavic countries, yet goes on to emphasize “the striking genetic similarity of Slavic speakers…Slavic populations are more similar across national boundaries than non-Slavic nations.” (224). She describes the movements of Bulgars and Magyars in the seventh century AD, two mobile peoples from the Asian side of the steppes, connected to the Turkic-Mongoloid in race. But she then informs us that, while the Bulgars gave their name to Bulgaria, the Bulgarians of today are genetically similar to Slavic speakers, with genes distinctive for Asian Turkic speakers occurring in only 1.5 percent of Bulgarians. While the Magyars gave their Ugric language to Hungary, “modern Hungarians appear genetically much like their Slavic neighbors”, for even though Magyars imposed their rule upon a Slavic population, subsequent migrations from Slavs diluted the Magyar input to Hungary (235-40).

Europeans evolved in the course of time inside Europe and have remained European through almost their entire history until mass immigration came to be promoted in the last three decades. In our examination of chapters 2 and 3 of MacDonald’s book we will go over his crucial argument that Europeans were selected for egalitarian individualism as well as aristocratic elite social ties “where kinship was deemphasized, and individual talents and accomplishment valued”. How important these two behavioral traits were in determining the unique historical trajectory of Europeans?

18 replies
  1. SS
    SS says:

    Are the skeletons of these three populations all modern human/Caucasian? I think we have been around for 40,000 years.

  2. Eric
    Eric says:

    What I am about to say will be considered provocative by many.

    Provocative to those who despise Christianity. Provocative to those — more knowledgeable than myself — who will want to correct the mistakes I make.

    I don’t find explanations of race based on evolution convincing. It’s that old problem of the “missing link” (or rather “links) that have yet to be found in the fossil record. It’s the problem of the first man and woman appearing, meeting, having babies, and taking care of those babies. How did that happen? Did the first man and woman suddenly appear fully grown and mature? If not, how did they survive as babies?

    I am inclined to favor a Biblical view: God created the world. Able to create anything he wanted, he created a “past” to go along with that world, and a universe to contain it.

    As we progress through the Old Testament, we come to ancient Babylon. The first “globalist” ruler appears, along with multiculturalism and a materialistic outlook that challenges God’s authority.

    We read about the building of the Tower of Babel, which was to rise to the heavens and challenge God in heaven. God makes his position clear: He rejects the mixing of the different races he created. He rejects multiculturalism and internationalism. He rejects humanism. He confounds those things by making people speak in different tongues so that they cannot understand each other.

    So the world becomes what it has been from the beginnings of written history to what it has turned into today. For almost all of that history, the different races have been separated from each other.

    Then we see the emergence, over the last 70 years or so, of a new Babylon, a new Tower of Babel. It, too, is multicultural and internationalist (globalist) in nature. It, too, is an attempt to blend and eliminate God’s creation — the different races and peoples and their unique cultures. It, too, is the work of Satan. It, too, must and shall be destroyed by God.

    The difference between the new and old Babylons is Jewish influence. When the Jews rejected Jesus, they rejected God. When they called for the death of Jesus, they sided with Satan. They thereupon became the machinery of Satanism, and thus, the machinery of the New Babylon.

    If you favor the evolutionary materialist view, you have little reason to be optimistic about the future of white people. They will most likely be swallowed up by the non-white, and that will be that. If you favor the Christian point of view, you have a reason to be hopeful and even optimistic.

    As I said in an earlier comment, the evils that have befallen whites appear to have been in direct proportion to the secularization (turning away from God) of white people and the increasing influence of Jews in Western nations. This is not to say that things were easy when whites believed in God. Just consider the Black Death that killed off a third of Europeans. But now we face, not a temporary fall in numbers, but a permanent genocide and disappearance of our race altogether.

    We allowed this to happen. What could have “possessed” us to allow it to happen? Could it be anything other than the Evil One who “possesses” people — the Devil?

    On our own, we were never inclined to do it. But it happened anyway. We lost control of our destiny. We lost our common sense. We threw open the gates of the City to the Trojan Horse — the Jew — and followed the path of Satan. We worshiped science instead of God. We became materialists and forgot the spiritual. We worshiped ourselves and our limited capabilities instead of God. But history is not in our hands. It never was. It is in God’s hands. God cannot be defeated. Those who follow him will not be defeated.

    Instead off despairing, I find this to be an exciting time. I seek guidance from Christians who are openly and publicly wise to the Jews. I do not see non-whites as my enemies. I see the Tower of Babel — globalism, multiculturalism — as all of our enemies. I take my cues from such Christians as Rick Wiles (, E. Michael Jones (, the recently-deceased Texe Marrs (, and Pastor Chuck Baldwin. While I have reservations about the Christian Identity movement, I have learned a lot from the lectures/sermons of Bertrand L. Comparet.


  3. William Westerman
    William Westerman says:

    There was a recent study that proved that africans ḿixed with some type of pre-neaderthal (hominidid or whatever they are called) long ago on africa.

    It may have been some kind of smallbrained type that has been found is south africa.

    On averege they are 8 % this type of pre neandertal (more primitive than neanderthals, before them), it seems to vary between 1 % and 16 %. This was new reseaarch this year by some east indian scientists in the USA.

    This may to some degree explain the primitive nature of africans and their IQ levels. Another factor besides evolution. It may also explain why many blacks look monkey like in features.

    Couldn’t find the articles on it now.

    Have a nice day everyone.

  4. Charles Frey
    Charles Frey says:

    I can predict more than one descriptive for my comment !

    But, within the current, insidious, agreed-upon battle-field situation we find ourselves in, this article, as well as the previous one, can, at best, be classified as ” unexploded ordinance “.

      • Pierre de Craon
        Pierre de Craon says:

        The Grammar Monster is one of a hundred or so sites on the Web that has set itself up to correct the errors that people less careful—and not infrequently less smug—than its moderators make. Its advice might go down more smoothly with sympathetic and indifferent observers alike if those responsible for differentiating “ordnance” and “ordinance” showed a modicum of awareness that this or a similar instance of mistaken or confused spelling is an error not of grammar but of mechanics. Even viewed from the perspective of a hypothetical observer misled by the mistake in the complained-of locution, the error is still not one of grammar but one of usage. Nor is the differentiation of the three categories a mere semantic triviality.

  5. Tom
    Tom says:

    Of course, we can easily understand why modern globalists wish to favorably compare current non-European immigration into Europe with past incursions of various Caucasian groups. It’s the same thing, they argue. So why should we contemplate prohibiting current incursions when past incursions made Europe into what it is now? In the end, it’s subtly suggested, all will turn out well with the new incursions since the old incursions gave us everything that we now value about European civilization.
    But like all Leftist attempts to introduce equality where none is to be objectively had, this one fails as well because the Left wants to criminalize, and is criminalizing, opposition to present incursions whereas past incursions were freely opposed, with or without violence, by the original inhabitants of specific European territories. That’s obviously why Europe evolved into a host of different nations based on distinctions of blood, language, appearance, and folkways. However, globalism today tolerates no opposition to the leftist desire to force upon Europeans new genetic strains simply as a result of its fanciful whim to have present-day Europeans commingle with alien characters not of their choosing. And that is the crucial difference.

  6. Peter
    Peter says:

    “the EFs who entered Europe from Anatolia had “white skin and brown eyes” and that they actually eliminated “the dark-skinned WHGs in the south of Europe”” I still remember a comment a Chinese friend of mine made several decades ago. He said that Chinese favor light skinned Chinese over darker skin and this comment was made while discussing women. Even though “blondes” “had” long been presented as the ideal in the west, I never took it seriously with common statements “blondes have more fun” and “dumb blonde” and never thought about it much. I don’t know, but I have a feeling the Chinese preference for light skin was developed on their own and has nothing to do with Europeans. .

    • Dave J
      Dave J says:

      Not sure if it’s true, but once I heard that the ‘dumb blonde’ stereotype originated with dyed blonde women. Apparently lot of dumb women think that dyeing their hair blonde will make them look better, even if it doesn’t, hence the disproportionate amount of dumb girls with blonde hair.

    • Frau HausMaus
      Frau HausMaus says:

      Yes, I completed scholarly study of ancient Chinese literature, back more than 500 years and this preference for fair skin has always been present. It has no relationship to Europeans. I really think that if you apply Occam’s Razor, or study theories of beauty from Classical Antiquity, Greco-Roman, it is a universal reality that fair skin is perceived naturally, even by infants of all races, as more attractive. Reality is objective and not egalitarian. Whites will deny this from guilt, empathy, sympathy, and altruism. Non Whites, except Asians, will deny it from envy, jealousy, pride, and embarrassment. This is why we need segregation. It is the superior that are most at risk for persecution. You see this in every modern day genocide.

    • Eric
      Eric says:

      In Latin America and the Caribbean, I understand that mixed race people with lighter skin have a higher social status than mixed race people with a darker skin.

      Racism is not going to go away even if multiculturalism and miscegenation triumph in our Western nations.

      The elites must know that, so their stated opposition to racism has been insincere. Their true agenda is to get rid of white people.

      • Eric
        Eric says:

        Addendum to the above:

        The SJWs have even come up with a special word for this — “colorism.”

        So once the white race is gone (or mixed with the non-white), the issue of racism will disappear and be replaced by the issue of “colorism.” There will still be complaining, recriminations, rioting, etc.

  7. Dave J
    Dave J says:

    The “Magyar” population was also White. They were related to today’s Finns and some populations of the Baltics.

    There are many non-White populations today, who have White ancestors, and that includes Turkey. Another example is Kyrgyzstan: Chinese chronicles say they have red and blonde hair, yet today they’re non-White. These are simply a case of Whites mixing themselves away into non-White populations, much like the Jews want us to do now. (Or in the case of Hungary, White Magyars mixing themselves away with other White populations, similar to what happened in France or America.)
    Of course, the best example of this are our very oppressors: every Semitic nation mixed themselves away with non-Whites, except… you know who.

  8. Invictus
    Invictus says:

    I’m not sure that these Indo-Europeans do sound entirely White; especially the “Siberian North Eurasians (“related to North American Indians”)”.

    I wonder whether the egalitarian individualism and the aristocratic individualism might be the same inclination expressed differently in different cultural and economic contexts.

    This looks like a very interesting book, and series of articles.

  9. Andrew Chesterfield II
    Andrew Chesterfield II says:

    I thought the I-E’s were 100 % white had no clue they mixed with northern asians.

    Regarding people being darkskinned in Europe this seems to be debated. The genetics often associated with lighter skin colour seems to have come later with I-E’s and EF’s. But the japanese don’t have these genes associated with fair skin color, yet they are often very fairly skinned. So it is quite possible lighter skin appeared a lot earlier in Europe.

    The EF’s are not like the turks the turkmenstanians or whatever later invaded the area, and they were also from south eastern europe a lot from what I read.

    Humans moved out of Africa like 500’000 years ago or millions years ago, or humans originated separately at different continents, or in Europe:

    Scientists now think humans developed in Europe not in Africa:

    And now they have found 850’000 year old footprints of humans in the UK:

    Now they found 5,7 million old footprints on a greek island:

    I think certainly Mr. Kevin McDonald could revise or add to his book discussed and presented here, these new exiting findings. It seems vital to give a full perspective.

  10. Andrew Chesterfield II
    Andrew Chesterfield II says:

    Also the arabs and turks and muslims became heavily inbred through cousin marriages and the like for generations. It is very different.

  11. A. McCormack
    A. McCormack says:

    Also the W-H-G’s in northern europe had genetics that is associated with light skin colour.

    Another article on the origin of humans:

    And another good one:

    It is also possible that white skin colour originated in africa. Some think the early apes or hominidi (or whatever) had lighter skin under their fur and when they entered the steppes and lost their fur they may have changed skin color in order to deal with all the sunlight. It is also possible white humans evolved in Europe then some might have moved from there to africa and or some hominid or something and there developed the dark skon color. Or it was always different skin colors between Europe and africa:

    One can certainly ignore the pc anti white comments at the end of one of the articles, given they have no scientific bearing on the matter.

    I mean there were also whiteish kind in Egypt (8 % negro on average at least later though):

Comments are closed.