It’s always encouraging when scientific discoveries confirm what people have always known. This is especially the case today when observation and common sense is suppressed and science confirms it anyway—which can be a revolutionary act. In the past 15 years, geneticists have been struggling with the idea of early human “introgression” with archaic hominid populations. Through introgression, members of two disparate populations mate and produce hybrid individuals, which then mate with members of either parent population. The resulting population’s DNA can retain traces of introgression to the point where it becomes possible to estimate when and to what extent this hybridization took place. For example, researchers have known for some time that all non-African populations display signs of interbreeding with Neanderthals, whose genes make up around 2 percent of the non-African genome. Further research has shown that Oceanic and Australian aboriginal populations inherited an additional 4 or 5 percent of their genome from an archaic population known as the Denisovans.
Researchers have also known that the genomes of sub-Saharan African populations do not display evidence of introgression with either of these groups. Yet they do show evidence of introgression with a “ghost population,” which took place some time in the last half million years. The genetic artifacts of this mysterious population are known as “Putative Ghost Haplotypes” and point to what many geneticists believe is an archaic branch of humanity now long extinct.
According to subspecieist.com, in 2019,
Arun Durvasula and Sriram Sankararaman from the University of California in Los Angeles confirmed up to 19% archaic Hominid DNA in modern Africans. They have described the ancestor as a “ghost species” or quite possibly Homo naledi a “small-brained hominin” on the “African plains 250,000 years ago.”
Other researchers point to Australopithecines, or Homo ergaster as possible suspects. Regardless, the implications should be crystal clear: After the Homo sapiens exodus from Africa many tens of thousands of years ago, sub-Saharan black populations continued to introgress (or interbreed) with less-developed archaic hominid populations, which had split with modern humans before the advent of the Neanderthals.
As if “small-brained hominin” hadn’t been stated bluntly enough, the Subspecieist article above announces at its very beginning that Africans are “genetically closer to primitive hominins or chimpanzees” according to geneticist Shi Huang. In a tweet from 2020, Shi Huang elaborated:
That Africans carry more ancestral alleles (=archaic or apes) has been well demonstrated by the rooting of phylogenetic trees in Africa for both autosomes and uniparental DNAs by using the outgroup rooting method. Biological significance of this? Eerie silence.
Of course, we all know what this eerie silence entails—educated people once again confronting their reflexively liberal worldview with stubborn and uncomfortable facts. If black Africans interbred with more primitive humans after Homo sapiens departed from Africa, then that explains much, doesn’t it? It explains the relative low intelligence among sub-Saharan blacks as well as their violent tendencies and general lack of impulse control—which is, frankly, chimp-like. Sub-Saharan blacks are effectively a sub-species of Homo sapiens, and a more primitive one at that. The elegance of this explanation—in its simplicity, brevity, and harmony with obvious facts—should be lost on no one, including honest blacks themselves. But falling sway to this elegance comes at a political price, which is to vindicate the traditionalist, segregationist Right. Those who cling to liberal egalitarian principals are loath to do this, and thus dig their heels into race denialism—or squirm in “eerie silence,” hoping the issue will go away.
The problem is that it doesn’t go away. With more black people in our midst, the problems only increase as does the evidence of our obvious differences. It may sound like basic bitch at this point (for those readers familiar with my writing), but the crime, violence, poverty, chaos, corruption, and drug abuse black Africans bring with them everywhere they go becomes a serious burden for any nation of non-blacks which takes them in. Edwin Rubenstein’s Color of Crime is a great place to start with the details. Since its publication in 2016, things haven’t gotten any better. In 2024, blacks, despite being approximately 13 percent of the US population, murdered 475 whites and made up 58 percent of the interracial murder suspects. In 2023, those numbers were 603 and 62, respectively.
How many more white people are we willing to sacrifice to prop up the demonstrably false and unscientific notion of racial equality?
What makes these recent discoveries of archaic human introgression so remarkable, however, is that they provide a reason for sub-Saharan African inferiority. Previously, the best all our neuroscientific and psychometric data could tell us was that they were inferior, but not why. Now we know why. 19 percent of black African DNA tells us they interbred at a greater rate with more primitive subspecies of archaic humans than did those Homo sapiens who left Africa.
All that, and Bob’s your uncle. And if you’re a sub-Saharan African, then this Bob is likely to have been one of the “small brained,” chimp-like hominids running around the Serengeti hundreds of thousands of years ago. Denying this would be denying science, which, as Al Gore likes to tell us, is settled.
If this pithy and splendidly written essay isn’t enough to sell you on the racial inegalitarian perspective, you are free to peruse the findings of noted Nazi eugenicists and KKK Grand Wizards Arun Durvasula and Sriram Sankararaman here. If you disagree you could challenge their data with some of your own. Here is what they say about their methods:
We leveraged whole-genome sequence data from present-day West African populations and archaic hominins to compute statistics that are sensitive to introgression in the history of these populations. Specifically, we tabulated the distribution of the frequencies of derived alleles (where a derived allele is determined relative to an inferred human ancestor) in the analyzed African populations at single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) for which a randomly sampled allele from an archaic individual was observed to also be derived.
And this is what they conclude:
Our analyses provide support for a contribution to the genetic ancestry of present-day West African populations from an archaic ghost population whose divergence from the ancestors of modern humans predates the split of Neanderthals and modern humans.
Alternatively, you could look up the infamous white supremacist Shi Huang on X and DM him for his take. But be careful, please. In the face of all this science, you just might turn into a white supremacist yourself.
