Tuesday, November 26, 2013

Sapiens, Master of Genocide and Slander

Saps Scienmagists found some of the earliest bones of Neanderthals cannibalized outside of a Homo Sapiens campfire and conclude that this is proof that Neanderthals were cannibals.

What ugly slander of the dead, who cannot defend themselves and seem to be replaced by the very creatures who seem most motivated to malign their memory.

Oh, wait, has anybody ever told you that wherever the bones of a cannibalized Neanderthal have been found they were usually right in the middle of a confirmed Sapiens campsite, usually right in the fire? No? I wonder why not. Twenty seven confirmed kills in Europe alone and not one mention on public television or those cable documentaries? Wow, that is a very big omission. I wonder what the motive could be for covering all those vicious murders up in the ancient past? It paints a very bad picture of Homo Sapiens, that's why. It makes him look like a savage beast in the shape of a man who terrorized the real humans of Europe when he began his campaign of genocide in the south.

How would you feel tomorrow if you read in the paper that a couple million spear-chucking cannibal savages had appeared in the south of your country and were marching north, killing and raping and eating everything in their path, regimented like zombies, attacking by ambush in overwhelming hordes? You'd probably read about national guardsmen and heavily armed policemen overwhelmed and killed by the sheer numbers of these monsters. What would you do? Probably try to move to some remote caves high in the mountains where these creatures lack the endurance and toughness to reach. That's exactly what Neanderthals did.

They found an entire family that had been eaten right at the start of the "kill zone" (49,000+ years) and since these bones were in a cave at El Sidron, not a confirmed Sapiens site, all of a sudden it is in every newspaper on the planet as of today. An entire family eaten. The horror. So, who ate who? Read the article carefully. It looks like the entire family was eaten, so perhaps the remainder ate themselves when they finished off the others.

People who inhabit cold climates, like the Eskimos, have the strongest taboos against cannibalism you can imagine, much stronger than those of "civilized" people. Eskimos will starve before they will eat one another. Who was more likely to be the cannibal, the paleskins from the north or the new dark invaders from the south? Think about it.

There was an article in the paper today in Australia where the journalist who got this press release took wild liberties and concocted a fantastic narrative of a wild story about a family eating it's own members over a feud and added all kinds of rich details that are nowhere to be found in the original press release. Hey, who is going to fact-check this stuff? These people have been extinct for a long time and are not around to correct anyone, right? We could say they flew around on vampire wings and bayed at the moons like dogs and who would be the wiser? After all, it is in the newspaper.

Read carefully. See the little bit about the last ones making their final stand on the Iberian Peninsula? I was planning on saving these little details for my book when I write it, THE THIRD HOMINID. Back to the sea, they probably fought to the last breath to stop the Sapiens zombie onslaught. One man killed a hundred by himself and three hundred more of the devils were right behind him. Neanderthals tried to match the spears filling their air with his superior bows and it was likely hopeless. For every arrow he could fire back, fifty spears were thrown at him. The greatest archer in the world could probably not survive long under such an attack. They fell, were eaten after the battle and their surviving women and children were taken into captivity.

Everything ... and I mean everything you think you know is wrong. Can you think of any other truth that could be a bigger threat to political correctness than the one I have just described? I can't. It overturns the foundations of all modern claims by the race that genocided these wonderful people. Their illusions about themselves cannot be sustained as more of the evidence emerges.


olebob said...

The Knockout Game: Why Now?

Some dude said...

But according to you, those people are US. No matter who is left, you yourself state that we all share the blood of these cannibals. Which means if they are suspect, we are all suspect. Is that what you are trying to say? That we refuse to look at this history because the implications would force us to stop acting according to this darker nature?

Btw, I'm not saying I'm convinced of anything, although I do believe you have found something important, and you are definitely onto something with your analysis of why this is buried.

Some dude said...

Anyway, I think what you have found could be part of the reason why G-d decided to nuke the planet in the time of Noah.

Perhaps there was a war, perhaps not all the sapiens were a part of it.

There is an old tradition that in pre flood times a righteous man could not be defeated, which is one of the reasons why Noah was criticized for not taking a bigger stand. This would fit with your theories on Neanderthals.

But my idea doesn't fit with what you've said, because that view implies the reverse, that it was a that male who survived the flood.

But what if not all the saps were wiped out? If a thal male and his three sons survived the flood, but there were still enough of a fast breeding saps here and there, then we would end up with the current situation of mostly sap planet and a few thals with capability.

Well, I probably sound like a moron to you. So I'll leave off.

Texas Arcane said...

@Some Dude

Homo Sapiens cannibalised that entire family.

Anybody who knows anything about Neanderthals knows they never harmed women and children.

They found some bones clearly cannibalised of Neanderthals. This one time they were not in a Sapiens campfire so they insisted this must have been Neanderthals cannibalising other 'Thals.

No way. I suspect the crime never occurred amongst Neanderthals. The evidence shows they valued each other too much.

tenor_general said...

Tex, I've been interested in paleoarchaeology for some time, and though I am quite young in comparison to you, as I read over your blog posts about Neanderthals I realized we have both come to similar conclusions about several... tricky aspects of the official narrative of Neanderthals, H. Sap, and early human prehistory.

We share views for example, in the hypotheses that dogs were likely not domesticated by Sapiens in Europe, since Saps weren't in Europe when dogs were domesticated, the idea that Neanderthals were herders and excellent at animal husbandry, among others.

I have noticed that you tend to allude to a very large repository of information in your possession, and I was wondering if you would be willing to share such sources with me so I can further delve into human and Neanderthal prehistory, working it out more than I have been able to with my current sources. I would also enjoy having a dialogue about other hypotheses and theories I have on the subject if you are willing to discuss them.

Cheers, and keep up the great blog posts,


Max said...

Hello Tex!
You mention the use of bows and arrows by the Neanderthals, something I also believe is true and have thought about recently. However, until now I thought that you was of the view that Neanderthals only used close quarter fighting, hunting and wrestling and that long range attacks was "cowardly".

There are som interesting implications of Neanderthal bowmen which supports a theory that some central asian nomadic, shamanistic peoples are among the ones that preserved the most of Neanderthal heritage into historical times, they also rank among the highest in genetic testing for Neanderthal genes.

Texas Arcane said...


The only part of the narrative spun by Homo Sapiens is that Neanderthals couldn't throw anything like his competitors. His spears were even of superior design but he did not have the extremely dense neuron bundles in his brain needed to hurl projectiles accurately for long distances and it has been suggested by many people including me that this part of his brain was already filled with cerebral tissue when Saps appeared. Neanderthals never learned to attack well at long distance with weapons although he made excellent bows with great accuracy. Scholars have pointed out that it usually takes three arrows to do the damage one correctly hurled spear does if it hits.

So Linus Pauling might be ten times brighter than a zulu but put both of them in a football stadium and it is likely the zulu would win easily from a distance by simply hurling a spear at him. Linus Pauling with a build like Arnold would still stand little chance because the battle would be settled at 10 meters before they even closed. Arnold against ten zulus would not fare well at all. Against 100 of them he would be doomed.

samhuih said...

Speaking of the glories of Africa.

Africa Addio "Farewell Africa" (English Subtitles)

tenor_general said...

Another issue faced by Neanderthal archers would be their inability, due to small numbers, to saturate an oncoming horde of saps with enough arrows to get them shaken enough to the point where closing to melee would be possible.

It's the same problem faced by small, well-armed groups of warriors against hordes throughout history. No matter how superior your weaponry (lances, bows, cavalry abilities), your defenses (more robust musculature, indications that their off hands were not used in spear thrusting, pointing possibly to shields [which go back about as old as material can survive in Europe]*), and your tactics (you don't hunt dire wolves by yourself, especially not successfully) are, you'll get swallowed by the horde once they get to a range at which they have advantage either in numbers, ranged weaponry or both.

Actually, this may be amongst the origins of the extremely European idea of small heroic groups of mounted warriors fighting against hopeless odds*

* I have absolutely no proof for these, but they seem to me to be only a few intuitive steps from the present evidence.

Texas Arcane said...


All evidence of internecine warfare amongst Neanderthals demonstrates two points:

1. They fought over ridiculous reasons, like access to blue paint

2. They never ambushed and appeared to square off face-to-face and do their fighting hand-to-hand or with blunt clubs. In one place a bow is found outside the quarry where they fought, making it seem as though they dropped it before approaching their opponents. Considered a coward's tool over a dispute?

Texas Arcane said...


... incidentally, one has to ask : where did the scots acquire their habit of stripping naked and covering their bodies with blue paint before a battle?

tenor_general said...

@ Tex

Of course, when fighting an invading horde of zombie spear chuckers, you'd be a fool to face them with honor (after the first few times of realizing they're there to kill and eat your entire people).

The idea of Neanderthals having a set of rules for internecine fighting makes sense, as you don't want to practice total war with such small populations, K-selected mating strategies and harsh climate. So that makes sense to me. Though I don't think that necessarily leads to the bow being a coward's tool for a dispute, but rather, there is so little purpose in killing another of your kind when you can solve the problem via a somewhat subdued, less lethal show of force and prowess.

Food for thought perhaps.

Jack Black said...

>>2. They never ambushed and appeared to square off face-to-face and do their fighting hand-to-hand or with blunt clubs. In one place a bow is found outside the quarry where they fought, making it seem as though they dropped it before approaching their opponents. Considered a coward's tool over a dispute?

Tex, that's very interesting. Something I've observed from history is the civilized people tend to prefer face to face fights with short range weapons even when such tactics leave them at a disadvantage and hunter gathers always fight with ambush, ranged weapons, and without supporting each other. I had wondered where the the instincts that civilized people use to fight came from. After what you said, I bet you it's from the neanderthals.

Jack Black said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Max said...

All disputes should be solved honorably, also if fighting, and that means you have to get close to your opponent to be able to respect him.

The bow would be seen not so much as a weapon for warfare as a ritualistic tool with magic properties. The Neanderthals might have developed the very masterfully crafted hornbows used while riding. They were probably used in games, ceremonies, and target shooting, maybe hunting too.

Another old tradition with possible neanderthal connection is the widespread mythology of the apple and closely related, the nectar of the gods, drink of immortality and so on. Apples are also enjoyed by livestock and wild animals, the trees tend to grow naturally and be favored in settlements and grazed land. And nothing goes so well with a good cheese as an apple cider because they belong together!

The old folk sees the world symbolically, everything has a meaning. Colours have meaning, to paint the body is to express and make those symbols alive inside yourself. The Apple represents the possibilites lived to the end, "the fruit" of the labour, hence supreme knowledge but also a "fall" from the initial stage and an imminent end of the cycle/year. The tree as a whole is the world developing organically.

Texas Arcane said...


Somebody else (I always try to give credit and not take credit for ideas I didn't produce originally) has suggested that when your hibernation cycle can require years underground during the Ice Age, the ability to paint the ceiling of your cave blue like the sky could preserve your sanity and keep your surroundings much more liveable. Once they secured a source of blue powder to use in paints it might be worth dying to them over to keep for their tribes only. By contrast, it looks like they never fought other tribes over hunting or fishing rights anywhere.

tenor_general said...

I'm not sure why the bow would be an item with religious qualities. I could see them being used for games, and target shooting, but to develop something very well-crafted and venerated, it usually has some degree of helpfulness in your survival. With that end, I find it hard to agree that bows were only possibly used in hunting and that they weren't used in warfare (against the out-group only of course, since they are already dishonorable and when it comes to treating man-apes with honor and dying, or killing as many as possible to hold them off so your family can escape... I know I would do whatever I could to get my family away from a horde of zombie spear chuckers bent on eating us.

I should also point out that acting honorably is usually only something within the in-group, as it's a form of mutual trust.

Some dude said...


No, no. I never said they cannibalized anyone! My idea was that perhaps there were some who managed to escape, and that this might have been Noah.