Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Tom Swift's avatar

The primary focus of our efforts must remain the complete eradication of tabula rasa from the humanities and social sciences, along with the attendant pseudo-religion that threatens to replace physical anthropology. In order to do so, it is impossible to ignore differences in small human outgroups such as the Aborigines or Bushmen. Given that they pose no threat to our technologically advanced society, I do not believe studying their societies and mental capabilities qualifies as a moral ill. On the contrary, studying such differences would probably serve to justify the value of preserving them. Ignoring them will simply result in their needless destruction by less advanced agricultural societies, as is currently happening to Pygmy populations in the Congo. For these reasons I do not believe there is any moral value to the Straussian approach championed by certain disingenuous Australian intellectuals.

On a different note, I would also venture that recent anthropological and discoveries will probably result in the Church considering Neanderthals and Denisovans theologically human. Given that there are many people alive today who are part Aborigine, part Khoisan and part Pygmy, respectively, it is biologically obvious that mankind is a single species. Seriously, what is the worst we could discover?

Here are two of the most effective defenders of our civilization against the new barbarism.

https://www.palladiummag.com/2025/10/17/the-birth-and-burial-of-evolutionary-science-in-australia/

https://elizabethweiss74.wordpress.com/

Expand full comment
Imonhere's avatar

You bring up this Necronomicon a lot. Is it just the Tibetan or Egyptian Book of the Dead? Is it worth reading? I always just assumed it was religious mumbo jumbo.

Expand full comment
13 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?