Oct 19, 2015

What Is Honor?: How Europe Was Overrun by Christians

via Odinia International

Odinia Int. Editor's Note: It is not well known just how bizarre the foreign religious take-over of Europe really was. The enemies of our people used lies, bribery, torture, book burning, thought control legislation, assassination and many other hateful acts to overturn the rule of honor that Europe had lived by and cherished. In real terms, the forced christianization of Europe was an attempt to accomplish the overthrow of all that that is good and pure. Most of all, freedom of thought was attacked, and nobility targeted. Just as Judaism created Marxism, so did the foreign Judeo-Christian cult enforce and promote Cultural Marxism.

The bravest, who dared to speak out against this tyranny, and against the thought crime laws, were tortured and- or killed, or banished. They also were dispossessed of their land, other property, and power, which was the whole point. King Guthroth, who dared to defy the creeping Semitic plague that was afflicting his people, was ambushed while sleeping, and his tongue cut out by the cowardly Olaf, who was then “sainted”. And so began a process that weeded out those of nobility and character, and promoted collaborators and cowards. 

There are many videos on Youtube showing Nordic people joining Semitic cults, for instance, converting to Islam. Here is just one example.

Although Christianity has taken on some of the trappings of our religion, there is very little difference. A European person converting to any Semitic religion was, and is, an unnatural and degrading spectacle.

Below is an article written by Osred Jameson, whose work I very much admire. I do not think this excellent timeline can be reproduced enough! It is reproduced from: The Odinic Rite of Australia

How Europe was Overrun by Christians”

by Osred Jameson

“Christians complain a lot about the “persecutions” they allegedly suffered in ancient Rome. Given that they were trying to destroy the heathen spiritual values that had made Rome great in the first place, it is not surprising that the heathens tried to defend themselves. The Christian apologists also try to imply that heathenism somehow just melted away before the Christian religion, as if the heathens somehow saw “the error of their ways” and leapt to accept the Christian god as soon as he was offered to them. What the Christians don’t like to remember is the very real persecution they inflicted, as soon as they could, on heathens who chose to retain the faith of their forebears. Here is just a small sample of the atrocities that led to the Christian destruction of heathen Europe:

 Roman Empire:

315 CE. Christianity becomes legal.

From now on Pagan temples are increasingly destroyed by Christian mobs. Some famous temples that are ruined include the Sanctuary of Æsculapius, the Temple of Aphrodite in Lebanon, the Heliopolis, the Temple of Serapis in Egypt, and many others. Christian priests such as Cyril of Heliopolis and Mark of Arethusa become renowned as “temple destroyers” .

Pagan priests are increasingly murdered, together with their heathen congregations.

 356 CE. Pagan services are punishable by death. The Christian Emperor Theodosius even murders children caught playing with the remains of heathen statues.

Pagan philosophers are cruelly murdered. Perhaps the most revered heathen martyr is Hypatia of Alexandria, daughter of Theon the mathematician. Urged on by St Cyril of Alexandria, a mob of Christian fanatics dragged the world-famous philosopher from her chariot, stripped her naked, hauled her to the church, and there murdered her by scraping the flesh from her bones with sharp oyster shells. Her mortal remains were then burned before the screaming Christian hordes.

The Slaughter of the Saxons:

c. 550 CE. Germanic beliefs are outlawed in the Frankish kingdom. All heathen temples and symbols are ordered to be destroyed. Heathen songs, dances and holidays forbidden under pain of extreme punishment.

719 CE. Frankish Christian missionaries ravage Frisia with fire and sword.

January 774 CE. Charlemagne vows to convert the Saxons, or, failing that, to wipe them out.

780 CE. Charlemagne decrees the death penalty for all who fail to be baptised, who fail to keep Christian festivals, who cremate their dead, who are hostile toward Christians, etc etc.

782 CE. 4,500 Saxon nobles are beheaded in one day at Verden on the Aller for refusing to convert.

804 CE. The last heathen resistance in Saxony is put down. In thirty years of genocide, from 774 to 804, two thirds of the Saxons have been killed.

 The British Isles

597 CE. The Augustinian mission arrives in Kent. Its aim is to convert heathen kings, who will then force the new religion on their followers. The situation is confusing, because kings seldom live to a great age, and their successors often repudiate the alien faith.

616 CE. Athelfrith, heathen king of Northumbria, defeats a huge Christian crusade at Chester.

617 CE. Athelfrith slain at battle of River Idle. His neurotic rival Edwin becomes king, and is subsequently converted to Christianity, forcing his subjects to give up their old faith.

653 CE. King Sigibert foists Christianity on heathen Essex.

654 CE. Penda of Mercia, the last great heathen Anglo-Saxon king, is slain by Christians at the battle of Winwæd. Only Sussex and the Isle of Wight hold out (for a short time) against Christianity.

Late 8th century onwards. Heathen Scandinavians settle all parts of British Isles.

1066 CE onwards. William the Conquerer is still passing laws against paganism. Its last redoubt, in practice if not in theory, is the Border counties which form a buffer between England and Scotland.

1603 CE. James VI of Scotland becomes also James I of England. He crushes the Borderers and destroys their separate culture.


994 CE. Olaf Tryggvason adopts Christianity in exchange for accepting a vast amount of protection money from the English. Through a brutal campaign that tolerates no opposition he “converts” Norway to Christianity. With Norway fall Shetland, the Orkneys and the Faroes.

c.1000 CE. Olaf holds prominent Icelandic pagans hostage and demands that Iceland accept the new religion. Iceland falls.

After 1000 CE. On the death of Olaf Norway returns gladly to paganism.

1016 CE. Olaf the Stout, later called St Olaf, seizes the throne of Norway. He murders, blinds and maims heathens. Heathen temples are ruthlessly robbed and destroyed.

Twelfth century CE. The great temple at Uppsala in Sweden is destroyed by Christian fanatics.


It is impossible to estimate the numbers of Eastern Europeans murdered by crusading Christians. The Teutonic Knights, for instance, conquered heathen Prussia in 1226. All Prussians who refused to convert to Christianity were murdered. The Lithuanians were a heathen tribe who were attacked by the Teutonic Knights throughout the 13th century. They held out successfully, with the help of religious refugees from Prussia and Lettonia, until a monarchy emerged. King Mindaugas betrayed the ancestral religion of his subjects in 1251, after which Lithuania was forcibly converted to Christianity.

 It is equally impossible to estimate the numbers of pagans murdered in the New World by Christians. Columbus planted a cross wherever he went, vowing to “do all the mischief that we can” to natives who refused to convert. The Christians brought with them skills of torture that had been refined on their own people in Europe for hundreds of years.

One Indian chief, Hatuey, fled with his people but was captured and burned alive. As “they were tying him to the stake a Franciscan friar urged him to take Jesus to his heart so that his soul might go to heaven, rather than descend into hell. Hatuey replied that if heaven was where the Christians went, he would rather go to hell.” (Source: D. Stannard, American Holocaust, Oxford University Press 1992.)

 That same sentiment must have been expressed time after time in Europe in the period when Odinists were offered a choice between converting to Christianity or being tortured, maimed and killed. The 4,500 Saxon nobles callously slaughtered by the Christian fanatic Charlemagne on one day in 782 must have had similar thoughts. The Norse Sagas record occasions when Christians tortured entire Odinist families in the hope of forcing parents to convert, thereby sparing their children further pain. Sometimes the children were stronger than their parents, urging them not to yield and thereby bring disgrace on their ancestors.


It is clear that Christianity prevailed over European heathenism solely because Christians resorted to torture, murder, and other clear breaches of the law that applied in those times, while the heathens upheld the prevailing “rules of engagement” that they considered to be honourable.”

In addition to the  points raised by Osred above, in order to take us up to our present time, there are a few other important factors that should be raised. One thing I consistently notice is that many European Christians seem to disrespect, or even hate, their own people, history and culture. This is a major reason why they disparage their own native religion in favor of a foreign one. As unnatural as this is, this reaction is not really surprising because they have been brainwashed, from a very early age, to identify with alien Semitic peoples rather than their own.

Semitic Cult Brainwashing of European Children
Semitic Cult Brainwashing of European Children

The picture above was taken of a page found on a Protestant church bulletin board. Such non European materials are often given to small European children to color on the off chance that a child might otherwise actually identify with his own race instead of Hebrews.  Unless one is very strong minded, a helpless European child subjected to this sort of propaganda programme, often endorsed by his or her own parents,  does not have much chance of NOT losing his own unique cultural identity.

People, such as the young European men and boys  in the first video on this page, converting to Islam, are doing so because our folk have been brainwashed for generations and forced not to have our own cultural identity. Human beings who are stripped of their culture, which they need, will even adopt a foreign cult, no matter how ridiculous it is, simply because they innately crave an identity.

Such conversions did not happen voluntarily when we were fully aware of our own great accomplishments as a people, and allowed to practice our own native faith. Instead, all Europeans, especially those of noble ancestry and sacred blood, knew who we were and honored our ancestors, even in some cases keeping masks of the dead. We sought to emulate greatness of our high ones in word and deed. We certainly did not refer to our Gods as comic book characters, or allow others to do so. No normal person of any race, ethnicity or tribe would do so without extreme brain washing.

Scholarship….and the Reverse…

From Ellis-Davidson, "Scandinavian Mythology"
From Ellis-Davidson, “Scandinavian Mythology”

It is astounding that the woman who wrote this, named Ellis- Davidson, whose names  appear to indicate that she is a ethnically Jewish Christian, and not very objective… to the point of telling outrageous lies about history, is generally regarded as an expert “scholar”. It is also very surprizing that she would ever have received any degree or have managed to have a single book of this standard published considering how nonsensical the content is.

Needless to say, Vikings, not to mention ancient Greeks, Celts and other Europeans, have been wearing Thor hammers or other symbols of our faith, and building wooden and stone temples and monuments many THOUSANDS of years before a primitive Jewish cult, recently made up by desert people with no civilization of their own, came to Europe and copied and perverted the meanings of the symbols of our culture to suit their own ends.

In the beginning, before the plague of Christianity first reached Europe’s  shores, it was different. The fact that our own religion was being supplanted by a Semitic cult that was obnoxiously taking our rituals, sacred narratives, and holy sites, and simply copying them for their own use, while stripping them of their true meaning, was abundantly obvious to everyone and there was great resistance. As Osred so wisely noted above, our folk were unprepared for the depth of depravity that Semitic cultural philosophy entailed, nor for the greed and oppression that accompanied it. Having lived in a truly free society which operated on the basis of honor, the insanity of Semitic religion was inconceivable  to them at first.

Imagine what it must have been like for them before that terrible day that those who had been bribed by the foreign cult arrived…a free people actually innately practicing a genuine religion and worshipping our real Gods and our Ancestors rather than being forced to tolerate a false, foreign replacement which could never be anything more than a poor copy of their own religion, with a dash of Cultural Marxism added in to destroy us. Our Nordic soul, our tribal nature, and our REAL selves were repressed in those days and almost died… but we are now being reborn as the unnatural nature of the Jewish cult destroys itself. Let us take make sure that the Nordic soul, and our real religion, are fully restored, alive and unfettered.

A Bold New Strategy

via Radix

Is National Review just trolling us?

The simpler explanation is that articles like this amount to perennial “comfort food” for Republican activists—presented as bold, new strategery, which only a hard-hitting journal like NR would dare publish. 

The article itself is behind a paywall. Its author, Theodore Johnson, who is Black, has also argued that, in lieu of reparations, Black voters should receive five-thirds of a vote (a reversal of the legendary “three-fifths clause” in the Constitution).
Johnson seems to have emerged out one of Rich Lowry’s wet dreams. With a military background and a degree from Harvard in International Relations, he could play the part of a patriotic token in a Tom Clancy thriller (or a Rich Lowry pot boiler). Johnson's personal webpage features a picture of him standing in front of what looks like the Nasdaq stock exchange. On the other hand, he writes the kind of soulful prose that’s reminiscent of a recent MacArther “genius” grant recipient. Here’s a selection from Johnson’s latest article in The Atlantic:
This is what it feels like to be black in America. It sounds like the symphony of locking car doors as I traipse through a grocery store parking lot, armed with kale chips and turkey bacon. It looks like smiling when I don’t feel like it. It’s the instinct to enunciate differently, to use acceptable methods of signaling that I am safe to engage, or at least to disregard. “We wear the mask that grins and lies,” wrote the poet Paul Laurence Dunbar. I feel that mask covering my soul, never allowing me to just freely exist.
As I move around the country, the behavior that greets me is usually more influenced by the black faces that fill crime-ridden local newscasts than the exceptionality of James Baldwin or Thurgood Marshall.
I could argue that any negative reaction to my skin is a problem for others to grapple with and of no concern to me. I’ve tried that approach before; one memorable attempt ended with me being pulled out of my car by two police officers and handcuffed for the felonious infractions of having a blown headlight and insufficient self-abasement. It is an unspoken rule that blackness’ first and most important task is to make everyone feel safe from it. We ignore this mandate at our own peril, realizing that a simple misunderstanding is a life or death proposition.
Jonathan Ferrell ran towards police seeking help after a car accident and was given a hail of bullets for his troubles. Renisha McBride went in search of a Good Samaritan after her accident and a shotgun blast answered her knock. Teenager Trayvon Martin walked home with candy and tea and was greeted by the nervous trigger finger wrapped in an adult’s gun. Jordan Davis sat in a car outside a convenience store listening to music and a man who objected to the volume cut his life short with the boom of a firearm. The principal crime all of them committed, like countless others over the centuries, was being black and not sufficiently prostrating themselves to ensure the comfort of others.
So how long before Ta-Nehisi Coates is penning articles for National Review?

Murdered Ballads: The Hijacking of Traditional Folk Music by The Left

via TradYouth

“Let us pause in life’s pleasures, and count its many tears,
While we all sup sorrow with the poor
There’s a song that will linger forever in our ears
Oh, hard times come again no more.”
When Stephen Foster published this American ballad in New York City in 1854, it swiftly grew in popularity. Today, it is known as one of the most popular American folk songs ever composed, and the same can be said of nearly all of the ballads written by Foster. It has been recorded, rehashed, and revamped a thousand times over from a thousand different singer-songwriters. At the time it was first released, Americans from every corner of the country and of every political persuasion, and even some in Britain, where the song also received national attention, adored the song. There was little, if any inspiration drawn from political doctrine of the times.

“Life’s pleasures” was not a generalised metaphor for economic equality, nor were the “sorrows of the poor” exclusive to some ailing, disenfranchised ethnic minority. The “song that will linger” was not a rallying cry for some radicalised concept of class struggle, and the “hard times” were not begging to be remedied with vague, maniacal notions of equality.

Indeed, the song came from a very honest place, devoid of any corrosive narrative. Traditional music, in its purest form, always has. For when left to his own device and within his own tribe, man, in his rawest form, gravitates towards all of the values, traditions, myths, and wisdom that embody that tribe. For us in the Anglosphere, our traditional music has its roots in the British Isles, and these songs all tell the story of our tribe.

From the dimly lit taverns of old Lancashire to the Highlands of Scotland, from the ancient forests of the Adirondacks to the high lonesome back country of Appalachia, our songs remain with us generation after generation; we need only look for them; they have never left us.

Whether they rang from the old rustic hooleys of southern Ireland or from the modernday bluegrass jams and old-time music festivals all over the American South, these tunes and melodies have, in some ways changed, but their roots are ever firm, for the one thing that remains constant about these songs are their colourful impassivity. There exists in them no agenda, only the tale to be told to all willing to lend an ear. The reason for this is obvious – the people who sang these songs actually lived them. They ate, slept, and breathed the very essence of these songs, and never felt the need to boast this universal truth, it was just life.

These songs were sang at a time when the aim for celebrity in music was non-existent because music was an every day part of the tribe, and it could be heard every day, at any given time, whether from a poorly tuned fiddle or from the mouth of the crooning commoner toiling away on the farm. The music told the story of our people’s existence. There was no crowd to agitate, no collective body to rile up. This is doubtless why all types of music exist in their purest forms when the people who perform it are aware of its actual context, and that is precisely because they are born into it and actually live it.

It cannot be learned, it must be inherited.
Oh, I wish I had someone to love me,
Someone to call me her own.
Oh, I wish I had someone to live with,
Cause I’m tired of living alone.
Oh please, meet me tonight in the moonlight,
Meet me tonight all alone,
For I have a story to tell you–
A story that’s never been told.
I’ll be carried to a new jail tomorrow,
Leaving my poor darling alone,
With the cold prison bars all around me
And my head on a pillow of stone.
Now I have a grand ship on the ocean,
All mounted with silver and gold,
And before my poor darling would suffer,
That ship would be anchored and sold.
Now if I had the wings of an angel,
O’er these prison walls I’d fly,
And I’d fly to the arms of my darling,
And there I’d be willing to die.
This particular ballad, “Wings of an Angel”, can be traced back to at least 17th century England. The song was sang by thousands over countless generations, and those who sang it would have experienced the same emotions as those who heard it. Those who sang were not the messengers, and those who listened were not followers. This is precisely the organic ingredient that makes traditional folk music what it is. In all its traditional glory, it belongs to both the singer and the listener, and its words deal only in the abstract, in the realm of Tradition.

Through song, we are given the knowledge of the value of song; it needn’t be explained, only felt.

After the Great Depression, which crushed the spirits of all Western peoples, the essence of these songs succumbed to heavy politicisation from hardline leftists, mostly radicalised academics, who took advantage of the collective emotional vulnerability of desperate and impoverished whites. Folkies like Peete Seeger and Joan Baez, both raised in upper middle-class families with staunch revolutionary and egalitarian principles (Seeger was raised by Stalinists and Baez by Quaker pacifists) perpetuated this and used their celebrity to further their own personal agendas, which, in Seeger’s case, took the form of open support for communism. Seeger, it should always be remembered, was, in 1955, summoned before Senator Joseph McCarthy’s House UnAmerican Activities Committee. He was sentenced to one year in prison for refusing to list the names of violent communist agitators whom he knew personally.

For Seeger, folk music was a means to an end. The transcendent beauty of traditional music was unimportant. In his eyes, it was a tool, a weapon to be placed into the collective consciousness of the downtrodden and oppressed. Of course, as most left-wing artists and performers always are, Seeger was anything but oppressed, having been born into a family of privilege, and having never experienced the miseries of the poor he so often boasted as championing.

But Seeger was only the beginning, as others, in time, took the cue and followed. The seeds at this time already planted, the folk revival of the 1960s came at the height of the Cold War era, and a whole new generation of young and impressionable singersongwriters were easy targets for Marxist agitators in the West, namely in the Anglosphere.

In the U.S., there was Phil Ochs Joan Baez, and the Weavers, while across the pond in Britain there was A.L. Lloyd, Ewan MacColl, and Ireland’s Luke Kelly, who, before joining the Dubliners, made a name for himself in the London folk scene of the late 1950s and early ’60s, and, just like his aforementioned contemporaries, was a devout and open communist.

There can be no dispute that these young balladeers didn’t possess an immense talent for immortalising the traditional song, but, as one might expect, they were quite selective in which songs they chose for such endeavours, and, indeed, quite protective of the narrative they wanted to convey. I can’t even begin to count how many numerous renditions there are from this era of “Joe Hill” and the hypnotic pro-union ballad, “Which Side Are You On?” As for their own original songs, they didn’t shy away from the message they intended to spread.

Their treasured adage, “folk music is the people’s music” was hardly inclusive of those who didn’t tow the “people’s” line. Phil Ochs makes this clear in his song, “I Ain’t Marching Anymore”.
For I’ve killed my share of Indians
In a thousand different fights
I was there at the Little Big Horn
I heard many men lying, I saw many more dying
But I ain’t marching anymore
It’s always the old to lead us to the war
It’s always the young to fall
Now look at all we’ve won with the saber and the gun
Tell me is it worth it all
For I stole California from the Mexican land
Fought in the bloody Civil War
Yes, I even killed my brothers
And so many others
But I ain’t marching anymore
For the first time ever, folk music was now looked upon as a vehicle for an ugly revolution, cheapened, made earthly, and reduced to a social tool. Their claim was that these songs, this music, our music, was for everyone, ready-made and easily available, like a microwaveable TV dinner.

Of course, that narrative quickly shifted when it came to black folk music, which these universalist boomers also performed for the obvious reason of gaining acceptance from blacks. Now, delta blues, jug band, and black gospel were styles that must be preserved, as long as they were done so within the confines of the white leftist narrative, which meant that they, the “special” whites, the “good” whites, the “enlightened” whites, were the chosen icons who truly understood the black man’s plight, and therefore had every right to perform versions of their cultural ballads.

Suddenly, the black slave ballad, “Follow the Drinking Gourd” was also everybody’s song; people’s music. “Cotton Fields”, a historic ballad which told of the hardships of the black slavery experience, was now also “people’s” music, and studio-polished folk/rock acts like Credence Clearwater Revival didn’t hesitate to popularise the song, bastardising it for blacks and embarrassing future generations of whites in the process.
When I was a little bitty baby
My mama would rock me in the cradle
In them old cotton fields back home
It was down in Louisiana
Just a mile from Texarkana
In them old cotton fields back home
It may sound a little funny
But you didn’t make very much money
In them old cotton fields back home
It may sound a little funny
But you didn’t make very much money
In them old cotton fields back home
Oh when those cotton balls get rotten
You can’t pick you very much cotton
In them old cotton fields back home
People’s music, indeed.

By the time the Vietnam War was already in full swing, traditional Anglocentric folk music had already become a cheap parody of itself, especially in the U.S. Bob Dylan had already gone electric just a few years prior at the Newport Folk Festival, Pete Seeger was an aging hack, and the campus activists had all graduated university and were replaced with the drug-addled burnouts of Woodstock. But Seeger, Baez, and the like continued on with their careers, maintaining a more underground presence similar to the one they began with. But this hideous legacy lived on, so much, in fact, that the entire genre of traditional folk became totally synonymous with all things “left”.

Everyone remembers the anti-war songs of the Vietnam era, like Country Joe MacDonald’s “Fixin’ to Die Rag” and P.F. Slogan’s “Eve of Destruction”, popularised by Barry Maguire. To most in our generation, these songs are instantly recalled the moment the very topic of the general feel of Vietnam War era or the 1960s is brought up. We all grew up learning about the counter-culture in history class, and most of us have seen countless documentaries about hippies, the protests, and the “free love” era. We, at one point, naturally believed what we were told, that this was the way most young people of the time felt, that it was the spirit of the times, but we now know this to be a terrible lie.

The truth is that, in most working-class communities, especially in the inner cities, in an age when white flight had not yet happened and our cities were still mostly white, the hippies were, for the most part, rejected and their values shunned. Anti-war agitators were confined mostly to the university towns and in the more affluent suburbs. Like Seeger, the hippies were neither poor nor downtrodden. They were middle to upper middle-class, and, because of their social status, they were able to avoid the dreaded draft and were afforded the convenience of mocking and criticising the very people who made their condition possible. Because of this, they were also able to gain positions of power once they entered adulthood.

Of course, in reading a contemporary history book about the period, one would never know this. The baby boomers, who would go on to run the country and replace the leaders who fought hard to keep communism and its wretched influence out of our respective nations, revised this history and lied to us. Through music, they were able to achieve this on a mass level for future generations to carry on the false legacy that they so cunningly designed.

A people’s identity is always safeguarded in traditional song. Whether it relays the tales of loss of life or of love, there are literally thousands of songs that tell of hardship, pain, suffering, and toil. They tell our fears, our pains, our anxieties, and our triumphs, and they are ours, and ours alone; they are not inclusive and they are not for sale. They are not “people’s” music, they are our people’s music. They are our complete story, and they are not to be twisted and altered to fit a destructive narrative which takes us away from that story. Traditional music, much like faith, deals in meaning, not instruction. This is what makes traditional music and the energy it produces so transcendent. It doesn’t seek to change, or to win over, but rather, it seeks out what already is, what once was. It is familial, ancestral. It speaks only the language of the dead, not the petty fantasies of the living.

If, then, this is how we define our music that serves as the soundtrack for our traditions and our stories, we must redefine the nature of our approach within the context of that soundtrack, and, in doing so, what we are really doing is reviving the true nature of our past. We must remember that, as whimsical as it may sound, it cannot be denied that traditional folk music, our traditional folk music, must be preserved as the sacred vehicle through which we confirm our existence and convey our collective desires.


via Aryan Skynet

Bernie Sanders, socialist savior
It’s hilarious how Bernie Sanders – a multi-decade Washington insider that has used his position to funnel tax money to the apartheid regime of Jew bigotry in Zionist-occupied Palestine – shows up and makes one speech about Wall Street – even though his actual record is quite Wall Street-friendly – and the “progressive youth” turn into cult followers acting as if the man is some sort of Messiah.

I mean, this is exactly why populist movements like Occupy Wall Street always fail – it’s because the people behind them, you know, “the people” y’all are always going on about – are stupid.


Did anyone ever actually talk to an Occupy Wall Street type? They were idiots – morons – some of the most clueless, naive, and uninformed people you’d ever come across.

But Viacom – you know, Jon Stewart Liebowitz of the Daily Show – told them that they were so much smarter than those Tea Parties, and they knew a lot of gay jokes about “tea-bagging” – so they actually really believed that they were smarter than everyone else.

So, they camped out for weeks in New York City, and around the country, and didn’t shower – you know, to “protest the bankers” – and then were surprised when they didn’t … “win” … whatever it was they were protesting about.

Leftists are stupid and Bernie Sanders fans are dumber than average.

That’s why democracy doesn’t work and why Wall Street runs the country.

Now go the fuck home and take a fucking shower, hippies.

Liberal Bias in Academia: Will Being Self-Conscious About It Help?

via The Occidental Observer

The academic world is a significant source of power in Western societies. Contemporary views on issues like race, gender, immigration, and a host of vital issues originate in the academy, are disseminated throughout the media, and ultimately are consumed by the educated and not-so-educated public. Newspaper articles and television programs on these issues routinely include quotes from academic experts — especially professors from elite institutions, and a lot of media legitimacy derives from the ability to feature op-eds written by professors at Ivy League universities.

But for all its espousal of egalitarianism, the academic world is a top-down system in which the highest levels are rigorously policed to ensure ideological conformity, in part because any leak in the system would mean that non-conformists would benefit from institutional prestige. This, of course, is exactly why John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, authors of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, caused such a panic attack in the ranks of the Israel Lobby. Mearsheimer and Walt weren’t just two easy-to-ignore professors from a third-tier institution; nor they members of an easily marginalized group. They were well-known and academically productive professors from prestigious institutions — the University of Chicago and Harvard respectively. Hence the charges that their book was resurrecting the Protocols.

Quite a few academics like to think of themselves as rebels against a conservative establishment, which is a bit ridiculous given that every elite institution in the West is dominated by people who are entirely on board with the transformation of Western societies into racially egalitarian, harmoniously cooperating Utopias in which Whites no longer have the power to assert their interests. The same goes for the young anti-fas who busy themselves with “anti-racist” activism directed against tiny, marginalized groups while essentially upholding a system backed by the largest media corporations and pretty much all mainstream political figures.

The self-image of being rebels is particularly incongruous among academics because of the stifling conformity of the academic world. To be sure, not a few academics are entirely at home in this atmosphere. Over the last 50 years, whole departments in the social sciences have been built-up and staffed by the ascendant American non-White majority. Legions of administrators have been hired because they are non-White and/or are members of sexual minorities — the coalition of the aggrieved.

So this transformation has huge inertia. And a large part of the inertia is that there are severe penalties for those who transgress the consensus of the left. And that in turn leads to a stifling atmosphere in which any non-conformity is rare indeed.

A very slight bit of good news is that there is beginning to be a literature that emphasizes the severe conformism and liberal biases found among academics. One can hope that perhaps at least there will be more of an awareness that the image of a cowering cuckold is far more appropriate for the vast majority of academics than that of a dashing rebel against the establishment.

An example is Joanna Williams, director of the Centre for the Study of Higher Education at the University of Kent and education editor at spiked. Williams emphasizes the stifling conformity of the academic environment  in her forthcoming book Academic Freedom in an Age of Conformity: Confronting the Fear of Knowledge. From The College Fix:
Academics … are afraid of controversy, attacks from students and negative peer reviews, according to Williams.
‘You don’t stick your neck out and you don’t say anything controversial’
… Because knowledge has been replaced by values such as inclusivity, diversity and sustainability in the university, academics are expected to “adhere to these values, and it creates a very stifling climate where people can’t speak out” ….
Obviously, the values of inclusivity, diversity and sustainability have nothing to do with truth. This is particularly important in departments like education where such values compromise reasonable approaches to teaching children. I have had discussions with academics who are strongly opposed to any discussion of racial, genetically influenced differences in academic ability even though they are quite aware that they exist. In the absence of such a discussion, the public conversation in the media usually reverts to charges that the reason for the racial achievement gap is because of White racism, either directly or indirectly (e.g., by causing Black poverty). And because political/ideological goals are paramount, this result is entirely acceptable to the academic zeitgeist. The point is not to improve student performance, but to adhere to sacred values of inclusivity and diversity, with the ideology that all students have equal potential to learn.
“As academics censor each other, they create a climate of conformity where if you want to get on in an academic career, you don’t stick your neck out and you don’t say anything controversial.”
Students pick up on this and begin to follow suit. Before long, debating, challenging and wrestling with ideas and truth claims becomes obsolete, replaced by a classroom full of silent witnesses who refuse to contest the academics teaching them, Williams said.
“Then there’s no need for external restraints on academic freedom because academics are doing it for themselves – they’re restricting their own academic freedom.”
Students who don’t conform are self-selecting themselves out of university
Professors who argue that this generation of students can’t cope with free speech and controversial ideas should look in the mirror, Williams said.
“These ideas don’t just come out of nowhere,” she said. “It’s not fair for academics to create a climate that justifies this kind of censorship and then wash their hands of it when they don’t like the consequences when students actually act on the ideas that lecturers put forward.”
In other words, university courses, especially in the social sciences and humanities where ideas on race, ethnicity and gender are discussed, are taught by cowering cuckolds and the end product is a cadre of graduating students who are also cowering cuckold zombies who have been taught to suppress any thought that conflicts with what their professors told them.
The long-term consequences are that students begin to leave institutions of higher education because those who conform to the dominant set of views do well in school, and those who don’t conform don’t feel as supported in the classroom, according to Williams.
It’s actually the conformists who fit into academia, while the rest “keep quiet or leave,” she said. “The university becomes completely self-reinforcing, like an echo chamber, where this kind of conformist culture is completely self-perpetuating.”
She’s hopeful her book will shine a light on the problem but laments: “Academia just doesn’t have in it anymore people who have controversial ideas.”
The importance of self-selection has been highlighted by Profs. Neil Gross and Ethan Fosse (“Why are professors liberal?” Theory and Society, 4, 127–168, 2012). Liberal students feel comfortable with the messages they are receiving and regurgitating on exams. Conservatives have to put up with the propaganda as undergrads (and likely quite a few are converted to the left), but certainly few would be so masochistic as to choose a career in such a hostile environment. Being a conservative (or at least the sort who identifies as a White person and thinks Whites have interests) would mean you would have to be a double agent for your entire graduate career and at least until you had tenure. Then if you came out, it would mean the end of promotions and the possibility of going for the big money as an administrator. No more grants or official positions in academic societies — not to mention invitations to parties. As Gross and Fosse note, “when it occasionally happens that conservative students do form the aspiration to become professors, they are likely to run up against barriers involving both self-concept incongruence and negative judgments from peers and occupation members.”

The reason one would need to dissemble is quite simple: Academics are not shy about saying that they would discriminate against people with political views they don’t like, and for the left that means pretty much anyone right of center, including establishment Republicans. In fact, liberal faculty members (and around 90% of social science faculty are self-described liberals) acknowledge being willing to discriminate against conservative job candidates, and that this tendency becomes stronger among the most liberal faculty (Yoel Inbar and Joris Lammers, “Political diversity in social and personality psychology,” Perspectives in Psychological Science, 7(5), 496–503, 2012).

Another important contribution is the work of Jonathan Haidt and colleagues which has been noted several times at TOO. I love his term “tribal moral communities” as describing the academic world because it emphasizes the importance of moral claims (read “diversity” and “inclusiveness” as emphasized by Joanna Williams) over truth, as well as the tribal (ingroup vs. outgroup) nature of the academic world. To identify as a social psychologist (Haidt’s main example) is to think of oneself as an embattled, morally superior minority, fighting the good fight against the bastions of evil in the wider society. Again, these tribal moralists should understand that their tribe is entirely in control of all the elite institutions in the U.S. It is we on the identitarian right that are the truly embattled minority with a moral message that is completely suppressed by the establishment moral ingroups (see “The Morality of Majority Rights and Interests“).

Haidt and colleagues recently published a major review paper on the topic (“Political Diversity Will Improve Social Psychological Science“). From the abstract:
One key type of viewpoint diversity is lacking in academic psychology in general and social psychology in particular: political diversity. This article reviews the available evidence and finds support for four claims: 1) Academic psychology once had considerable political diversity, but has lost nearly all of it in the last 50 years; 2) This lack of political diversity can undermine the validity of social psychological science via mechanisms such as the embedding of liberal values into research questions and methods, steering researchers away from important but politically unpalatable research topics, and producing conclusions that mischaracterize liberals and conservatives alike; 3) Increased political diversity would improve social psychological science by reducing the impact of bias mechanisms such as confirmation bias, and by empowering dissenting minorities to improve the quality of the majority’s thinking; and 4) The underrepresentation of nonliberals in social psychology is most likely due to a combination of self-selection, hostile climate, and discrimination.
Note especially, that political diversity would likely improve the science of social psychology.

I suppose it’s good that academics may become more self-conscious of the consequences of their ideological stances. However, it’s a long road to actually making meaningful change. I suspect that a great many faculty would continue to discriminate, knowing full well that faculty attitudes impede finding out how the world works. The point of Culture of Critique is that truth has never been a concern for the classic Jewish intellectual movements or the left generally. Rather, these movements established ethnically based ingroups that presented themselves to the world as moral communities. As I noted in the chapter on Franz Boas et al., based on Gelya Frank’s American Anthopologist article (Frank, G. (1997). Jews, multiculturalism, and Boasian anthropology. American Anthropologist 99:731–745):
Jewish identifications and the pursuit of perceived Jewish interests, particularly in advocating an ideology of cultural pluralism as a model for Western societies, has been the “invisible subject” of American anthropology—invisible because the ethnic identifications and ethnic interests of its advocates have been masked by a language of science in which such identifications and interests were publicly illegitimate.
These were indeed tribal moral communities at their core, in a Jewish ethnic sense. For the principal players, the pursuit of Jewish ethnic interests was far more important than truth, and collectively they have resulted in marginalizing racial research and pathologizing expressions of ethnic interests for Whites while simultaneously promoting the ethnic interests of all other groups.

Indeed, my view is that the domination of the university by the ethnic/sexual left has ultimately been the result of the rise of Jews as an elite. Although there may be some self-deception going on regarding motives, the burden of The Culture of Critique was to show that the main figures in these movements were quite conscious that they were pursuing Jewish interests. Simply being aware of biases does not imply that the biases and ensuing discrimination will cease. Certainly there has been no visible change in anthropology even after Gelya Frank made clear the motives of the founding fathers of the field as well as the continuing commitment of the field to cultural pluralism.

The Third Reich Offered Britain an Alliance, Permanent Neutrality to France, and Preservation of Western Europe's Empires

via Ur-Fascist Statistics

Ur-Fascist Statistics Editor's Note: The foundation of Hitler's goals was the reunification of the German people and the goal of securing their future existence. Hitler's prewar vision of the future conceived of an alliance with Britain and Italy, a Europe united in peace, and the extension of German living space to the East at the expense of Stalin. An alliance with Germany was near the polestar of his vision. In 1937, Ribbentrop met with Churchill and conveyed Hitler's vision; Germany, he said, was prepared to make far-reaching concessions to realize an alliance.

The polestar of Hitler's foreign policy was the absorption of lost German peoples and lands back into the Reich and the securing of their future existence. To secure their existence, he envisioned the extension of German living space to the East. To secure Germany's place in Europe prior to this goal, Hitler sought key allies in Europe; these allies would be strategic and geopolitically significant. After World War I, Hitler formed definite ideas about different nations. In Mein Kampf, he concluded that Britain and Italy were ideal allies:
On soberest and coldest reflection, it is today primarily these two states, England and Italy, whose most natural selfish interests are not, in the most essential points at least, opposed to the German nation's requirements for existence, and are, indeed, to a certain extent, identified with them. [1]
Hitler's desire for an alliance with Italy was principally political and cultural: Hitler admired Mussolini's Fascist regime, and in time would come to develop a sense of loyalty to the Duce that would not dissipate even at the height of war. Mussolini's ambitions, moreover, were not a threat or nuisance to Hitler's real ambitions. Mussolini's conception of Italian "vital space" (spazio vitale) would be extended principally to nations and peoples within the Mediterranean. Hitler and Mussolini were also united in their anti-Bolshevism.

Hitler's desire for an alliance with Britain was racial, cultural, and ideological. In 1940, after Hitler had occupied France and the Low Countries, all that was left of British forces had fled to Dunkirk. Hitler had to decide between capturing these forces and using them to negotiate with Britain or else allowing them to escape and be rescued. Hitler was determined to persuade Britain to see that Germany had no vital interest in humiliating or subduing Britain, and so he allowed the forces to escape. Hitler would explain to Frau Troost that:

The blood of every single Englishman is too valuable to shed. Our two people belong together, racially and traditionally. That is and always has been my aim, even if our generals can't grasp it. [2]
Hitler respected the British people and viewed a war between Britain and Germany as a "crime against the race." Moreover, he viewed the Empire that the British had built as a force for stability in the world. The power of the British Empire was commercial, naval, and colonial and was concentrated in the seas of the world. However, the German people were a land power, with aims and vital interests that were continental in scope. Hitler looked East, away from the British Empire, whose vital interests were scattered in the world.

Hitler viewed the world in terms of a natural constellation vital interests: The United States as handmaiden of the Americas, the British Empire as master of the seas, the Empires of Western Europe as overseer of Africa, Central Asia, and the Far East, and the German people as steward of Eastern Europe and Eurasia. From 1933, Hitler's efforts with Britain were directed at the creation of an Anglo-German alliance. In general, the peace offers and proposals made by Hitler throughout the 1930s were thorough and extensive.

In 1937, Ribbentrop, still German Ambassador to Britain, asked to meet with Churchill, who was influential in Parliament but not yet Prime Minister. Ribbentrop would later remark on this meeting at Nuremberg. In The Gathering Storm, Churchill recalls their meeting, stating that Ribbentrop told him that Hitler was prepared to make far-reaching concessions:

The gist of his statement to me was that Germany had sought the friendship of England. On the Continent we are still often called England. He said he could have been Foreign Minister of Germany, but he had asked Hitler to let him come over to London in order to make the full case for Anglo-German entente, or even alliance. Germany would stand guard for the British Empire with all its greatness and extent. They might ask for the return of the German colonies, but this was evidently not cardinal. What was required was that Britain should give Germany a free hand in the East of Europe. She must have her Lebensraum, or living space, for her increasing population. Therefore, Poland and the Danzig Corridor must be absorbed. White Russia and the Ukraine were indispensable to the future life of the German Reich, of more than seventy million souls.
Behind Ribbentrop's informal proposal was a serious conviction on Hitler's part that Britain and Germany belonged together. Hitler believed that British difficulties with Germany arose not from any real conflict of interest, but from discord created by Jewish influence and both Zionist and American meddling. Among the several points Ribbentrop raised, he said:
  1. Germany sought at least the friendly neutrality of Britain.
  2. Germany sought at most a formal alliance with Britain.
  3. Germany recognized the existence of the British Empire, and whether in an entente or alliance, was prepared to use its own resources to preserve it.
  4. Germany sought to extend its influence and presence in the East at the expense of the Soviet Union; all it asked of Britain was noninterference.
In the early 1950s, Churchill recorded an audio version of The Gathering Storm. Here is the segment pertaining to the above passage from his postwar book:

US neoconservatives claim that Churchill had some sort of special insight into Hitler's actual intentions; for example, that Hitler was bent on war, despite a stated desire for peace. Such claims twist the facts. They appear credible, because they are partially factual: Hitler was indeed bent on war, but the war he ultimately wanted was against Stalin's regime. Churchill knew this, both from his meeting with Ribbentrop and via his own understanding of Hitler in his writings and speeches. It was Churchill's choice to lie so he could get his war.

Churchill also knew that Hitler had preferred an alliance with Poland to war. Polish Marshal Rydz-Smigly, who had been supported by Poland's Jews in his promotion to his post, once remarked that "Poland wants war with Germany and Germany will not be able to avoid it even if she wants to." Churchill was aware a British war guarantee to Poland would compel Hitler to use force if he wanted to regain Danzig and make a thrust toward the Soviet Union. For Churchill and world Jewry, the British war guarantee was meant to ensure war.
"There is only one power which really counts. The power of political pressure. We Jews are the most powerful people on earth, because we have this power, and we know how to apply it." - Vladimir Jabotinsky, Jewish Daily Bulletin, 27 July, 1935

"When the National-Socialists and their friends cry or whisper that this [World War II] is brought about by Jews, they are perfectly right." - Jewish magazine, Sentinel of Chicago, 8 October, 1940

"Germany’s most unforgivable crime before the Second World War was her attempt to extricate her economic power from the world’s trading system and to create her own exchange mechanism which would deny world finance its opportunity to profit." - Winston Churchill, to Lord Robert Boothby, quoted in Sidney Rogerson, Propaganda in the Next War, Foreword to 2nd Ed., 2001
World Jewry wanted a war of retribution against Hitler and an opportunity to use historical victimization as a weapon to bludgeon nations into funding their Israeli State. Both Jewish and Anglo-American financiers wanted to bring Germany back to heel under world finance and have unlimited opportunities to exploit her resources. Hitler had wanted a Germany with sufficient living space to secure autarky for the German people. His vision was a threat to the order that world Jewry wanted to impose on Europe and the entire world.

After the war, a victorious Soviet Union betrayed a resentment over what it claimed was the efforts of the British government to conspire with Hitler to give him a free hand in the East in exchange for an alliance; Soviet intelligence had it backwards, as it was Hitler that sought a union with Britain, but it is telling that they were aware of this fatal contingency.

The specter of this contingency raises questions about the outcomes of an Anglo-German alliance, or even a minimal assumption of British neutrality: There would have been no war guarantee to Poland and no war in the West; an agreement over Danzig would likely have been followed by a German-Polish alliance; a war against the U.S.S.R. may have occurred in early 1940, and with the Red Army reeling from Stalin's Great Purge in the late 1930s, it would likely have been defeated. Communism may have collapsed in 1940.

The Empires of Western Europe, including the French Empire, the Dutch Empire, and the Belgian Empire, would have endured, and Europe would have remained central in world affairs with few, if any, assailants. Hitler would have used Germany's position to block competition, including from Japan, to Europe's cornering of markets. There would have been no racial decline, and no crisis of mass immigration to Europe and America, and the nations of the West would likely have undergone a scientific and cultural renaissance.

[1] Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 2, Ch. 13.
[2] Quoted in John Toland, Adolf Hitler, Doubleday & Company, New York, 1976, p. 706.

Deletion of Australian Pygmies from History an Example of Judeo-Globalists' Attack on Whites and on Science

via DavidDuke.com

DavidDuke.com Editor's Note: In America any archeological, anthropological, or biological evidence indicating that anyone other than the Siberians that form the main ancestral stock of todays American Indian tribes might have settled in the New World during prehistoric times is repressed. The following article shows the extreme to which this Zio political correctness has suppressed science in Australia. Australian pygmies, whose villages were frequented by anthropologists during the mid-Twentieth Century, have been expunged from the historical record — simply because their existence is inconvenient to the narrative that only Europeans are conquerors and displacers.

The extinction of the Australian pygmies


From the 1940s until the 1960s, it was fairly widely known there were pygmies in Australia. They lived in North Queensland and had come in from the wild of the tropical rainforests to live on missions in the region.

From the 1940s until the 1960s, it was fairly widely known there were pygmies in Australia. They lived in North Queensland and had come in from the wild of the tropical rainforests to live on missions in the region. This was a fact recorded at the time not only in anthropological textbooks and articles but also in popular books about the Australian Aborigines. There was even an award-winning children’s book tracing their origins. The more famous photographs of the Australian pygmies were reproduced in both the academic and the popular literature.

At the time, there was controversy about their origins but not over the fact of their existence. In 1962, the first volume of Manning Clark’s History of Australia recorded their presence on its first two pages and repeated the then influential anthropological theory about their origins and their place in the waves of migration of hunter-gatherer peoples from Asia who populated the Australian continent in the millennia before the British arrived in 1788.

Yet, since then, the Australian pygmies have been totally obliterated from public memory. To test just how complete this process has been, over recent months we have questioned a wide range of friends and acquaintances. Although most were well-educated and well-read people, none had ever heard of the pygmies, not even when we used some of their other, once-familiar alternative names such as “Negritos” and “Barrineans”. A few friends scoffed at the notion and demanded some evidence. They wouldn’t believe us until we emailed them the photographs.

The Encyclopedia of Aboriginal Australia (1994), published by the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, today does its best to disguise these people. It lists some of their tribes, including the Djabuganjdji, Mbarbaram (Barbaram) and Yidinjdji (Indindji), but does not mention a word about their stature. Only its entry “Rainforest Region” records the existence of “small, curly-haired people with languages which have distinctive features”, but the accompanying photograph of Yidinjdji tribesmen taken in 1893 does not give any scale or point of comparison to show that these adult males were only about 140 centimeters (four feet six inches) tall.

Birdsell & Pygmy
Joseph Birdsell, height 186 centimetres (six feet one inch), with twenty-four-year-old male of the Kongkandji tribe, height 140 centimetres (four feet six inches). The photograph was taken at Mona Mona Mission, near Kuranda, North Queensland, in 1938.

Both the major introductory textbooks to Australian prehistory, Josephine Flood’s Archaeology of the Dreamtime, and John Mulvaney’s and Johan Kamminga’s Prehistory of Australia, still provide brief discussions of the academic debate about these people’s origins. Both describe them, respectively, as having “small stature and spirally curled hair” and as a “short, slightly-built people with dark skin and woolly hair”, but both decline to include photographs like those published here, which immediately convey just how dramatically different from other Aborigines they are. Similarly, the latest edition of Ronald and Catherine Berndt’s standard text in anthropology, The World of the First Australians, briefly discusses people from northeast Queensland who “might have negrito affinities” but does not mention their height. They dismiss any question of their difference as “purely statistical”.

No one today with a lay interest in Aboriginal anthropology, and few of those doing introductory courses in the subject, would ever find out that Australia had a pygmy people. What, then, has been going on? Why would these people have been expunged from popular memory? How did the Australian pygmies become extinct within the public consciousness?

There have been two main reasons. We explain them in detail below but, briefly, they were: first, a vitriolic debate within the academic discipline of anthropology in which the view prevailed that there was nothing remarkable about these people; second, the emergence in the 1960s of the radical Aboriginal political movement, which found the existence of a pygmy people an inconvenient counter-example to one of its central doctrines. As a result, these indigenous Australians have been subject to an airbrushing from history that makes even that of the old Bolshevik leadership of the USSR in the 1930s look mild by comparison.

Aboriginal encampment in rainforest behind Cairns, 1890. This is the photograph (attributed to A. Atkinson) found by Norman Tindale in 1938, which sent him and Joseph Birdsell in search of the people depicted. He identified the location by the wild banana leaves on the roof of the hut.

The first extended contact between Europeans and Australian pygmies occurred in the 1890s at Yarrabah, an Anglican church mission to Aborigines established in 1892 at Cape Grafton, just south of Cairns. The three main tribes in the region were the Kongkandji (Gungganydji), Indindji and Barbaram, whose territories covered, respectively, the coastal area around Cape Grafton, the eastern slopes of the Atherton Tableland from Lake Barrine south to Gordonvale, and the Great Dividing Range behind Cairns. All of them shared the same very short physical stature, as well as similar languages and culture.

In the mission’s first five years, about 150 Kongkandji periodically visited to receive rations but only a small number remained there permanently. After the Queensland Government passed its Aboriginal Protection Act in 1897, which forced Aborigines to be legally confined to reserves and missions, Yarrabah grew to a settlement of 150 residents drawn not only from the three local tribes but also from people all over North Queensland who bore no physical or cultural resemblance to the Cape Grafton Aborigines. Outside the mission, however, no one paid these people any special attention until an Adelaide researcher came across them in the late 1930s.

In 1938, Norman Tindale, an entomologist and anthropologist at the South Australian Museum, was going through a package of old photographs of Aborigines from the Warburton Mission sent him by a friend in Western Australia. One of the photographs of a group of men and women was labeled “Aborigines of north-west Australia”. The Warburton Mission was on the edge of the Gibson Desert, but the background of the photograph was clearly tropical jungle. It showed a wet weather hut thatched with what Tindale, a keen naturalist, recognized as the broad leaves of the wild banana tree. He could also tell that, if these were banana leaves, the people by comparison were very small. He made some enquiries and soon found that the only remaining stands of this plant were in the tropical rainforests on the eastern slopes of the Atherton Tableland in North Queensland.

At the time, Tindale and the American academic, Joseph Birdsell, were engaged in the most extensive project ever mounted in Australian physical anthropology to measure a large sample of Aborigines according to their weight, stature and a number of other bodily characteristics. They found the prospect of discovering a group in the Queensland rainforests so at variance with the norm, irresistible.

They also knew that, since the nineteenth century, there had been a number of theories about the origins of the Aborigines and the migration of ancient peoples to the Australian continent. In 1927, in his book, Environment and Race, the controversial Sydney geographer, Griffith Taylor, had speculated that several waves of Aboriginal migrants had swept before them an even older “Negrito” race. Maybe these rainforest people held the key to the story.

As soon as they could, Tindale and Birdsell drove from Adelaide to Cairns in search of the people in the photograph. They eventually found six hundred of them from twelve different tribal groups living on and around two missions, Yarrabah at Cape Grafton and Mona Mona at Kuranda on the Atherton Tableland. Some of them had only come in from the rainforest within the previous six years and spoke only their native tongue. They said there was still one family living a completely nomadic, hunter-gatherer life in the mountains behind Cardwell.

Tindale and Birdsell examined and measured 52 adults and children at Cape Grafton and 95 at Kuranda. Most adult males were between 140 and 150 centimeters tall (four feet six inches to five feet). The women were shorter by 15 to 30 centimeters (six to twelve inches). Tindale and Birdsell concluded they were not just small but were radically unlike any other Aborigines in Australia. They named them Barrineans, after nearby Lake Barrine. Tindale later said:

Their small size, tightly curled hair, child-like faces, peculiarities in their tooth dimensions and their blood groupings showed that they were different from other Australian Aborigines and had a strong strain of Negrito in them. Their faces bore unmistakable resemblances to those of the now extinct Tasmanians, as shown by photographs and plaster casts of the last of those people.

By 1963, when Tindale wrote these words in his book, Aboriginal Australians, the Barrinean pygmies were no longer an unknown people consigned to the oblivion of distant mission stations. Nor were they mere physical curiosities. They had become the centerpiece of what was then a widely influential explanation of the origins of human settlement on this continent. Their existence was offered as powerful confirmation of what was known as the “trihybrid theory” of hunter-gatherer migration to Australia. This theory had been primarily developed by Birdsell, who came to do fieldwork in Australia for a PhD in anthropology at Harvard University. He originally announced it in 1941 in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology. Over subsequent decades, both he and Tindale worked on the theory, drawing connections between the Australian Aborigines’ physical differences and a growing body of evidence about Pleistocene era hunter-gatherer migrations across Asia, archaeological findings of skulls and stone tools in Australia, and data about Aboriginal genes and blood types. The trihybrid theory that eventually emerged went as follows.

There were three major waves of migration of quite different ancient people who came to the Australian continent from southeast Asia. More than 40,000 years ago, when sea levels were much lower and Australia, New Guinea and Tasmania comprised one landmass, called Sahul, the first to arrive were a slightly-built people of pygmoid stature with dark skin and very frizzy hair. They were Negritos (named after the Spanish “little negro”), and they provided the initial population for the whole of this Greater Australia. About 20,000 years ago, a second type of people arrived from Asia. These newcomers, called Murrayians, were comparatively lightly skinned, wavy-haired, stocky in build, with a lot of body hair. They drove the Negritos before them until the latter retreated to the highlands of New Guinea, the rainforests of North Queensland and to then ice-capped Tasmania. The Murrayians became the dominant population on the east coast of Australia, and the open grasslands and parklands of the south and west of the continent. Then, about 15,000 years ago, a third wave of hunter-gatherers arrived. They were comparatively tall, straight-haired and dark skinned, with very little body hair. Named Carpentarians, they colonised northern and central Australia.

Now, anyone who even casually dips into the literature on Aboriginal prehistory will find it a field where the evidence is thin on the ground but the air is thick with speculation. The trihybrid theory, however, was a comparative exception to this rule. Its authors found they could deploy a wide body of evidence in its support. They offered four different kinds of confirmation.

The first was their own project in physical anthropology. In two ventures into the field in 1938-39 and 1952-54, Tindale and Birdsell conducted by far the biggest survey of Aboriginal physiological characteristics ever undertaken, then or since. In their first expedition, sponsored by Harvard and Adelaide universities and the Carnegie Corporation of New York, they took measurements, blood samples and interviews with about 900 full-blood and 1500 mixed-blood Aborigines. With their wives as secretaries and research assistants, they drove to almost every Aboriginal settlement, reserve, mission and camp in eastern, southern and south-western Australia. In the second expedition, the same team surveyed another 2000 people in north-western Western Australia and the Northern Territory.

They constructed a database of multiple variables, including weight, stature, sitting height, shoulder breadth, tooth form and size, skin colour, and details such as baldness and beard abundance at certain ages. They compared variables among regional groups and found there were statistically significant measurements confirming their three different physiological types.

Both authors also published separate genetic studies of the Aborigines, based on blood types and family genealogies. This material was collected before the discovery of DNA and so retains the limitations of its time, being confined to an analysis of the O, A, B blood groups, the M, N blood types and the Rh series.

Their second type of support came from the remnant populations from whom the three Australian types were supposedly derived. Birdsell argued that, between the Bay of Bengal and the Melanesian islands, there was an arc of isolated peoples still in existence who all shared Negrito characteristics. They included the pygmy peoples of the Andaman Islands off the west coast of Burma, the Semang of the central mountains of the Malay Peninsula, the Aeta of the rainforests of several of the larger Philippine islands, a number of Negrito tribes, including the Tapiro and the Timorini, in the New Guinea highlands, the people of the Varzimberg Mountains of the Gazelle Peninsula of New Britain, and some tribes in the interior of northern New Caledonia.

These were all remnants, Birdsell argued, of a chain of migration by ancient Negritos across south Asia to the Pacific. He speculated that the chain had begun in Africa with an ancestral population of Negrito pygmies but the only connection he could make between the African and Oceanic Negritos was a propensity for women to develop steatopygia, a genetic condition that causes an excess of fat deposits on the buttocks and upper thighs. The second and third waves of migrant people, the authors argued, were also connected to remnants of ancient populations still living in Asia. The Murrayians, Birdsell said, had come from an Asian people whose other vestiges were the Ainu of Hokkaido in northern Japan and Sakhalin Island. Similarly, the Carpentarians bore similar physical characteristics to the Vedda people of south India and Sri Lanka.

The third type of evidence they offered was archaeological. Tindale and Birdsell claimed that excavations of ancient skulls and stone tools confirmed their thesis. They said the bones from Australia’s two most famous ancient burial sites, Lake Mungo and Kow Swamp, supported their ideas. Most archaeologists who support a “one people” model of Aboriginal origins find it hard to explain how the more “gracile” people found at Lake Mungo are much older (more than 25,000 years old) than the more “robust” skulls found at Kow Swamp (10,000-13,000 years old). Theories about evolution within the one population would expect the reverse. Tindale and Birdsell, however, said this pattern not only showed that Australia was populated by more than one type of people but it also fitted their particular thesis. The gracile or small-boned skeletons were probably those of the smaller, more slender Negritos, while the robust skulls were most likely Murrayian people. These claims, however, were no more than speculation since neither author ever made a study of the excavations from either site.

Their observations about stone tools, however, were a different matter. Tindale collected hand axes, cutting and chopping tools, spear points and other stone flakes from a number of sites in South Australia, New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia and classified them according to time (he was one of the first in Australia to see the potential of carbon dating), place and culture. He classified large ancient stone tools from some sites as part of “Kartan Culture”. Similar-sized but slightly younger tools, which were more finely worked and sharper, he labeled “Tartangan Culture”. He argued both Kartan and Tartangan tools were produced by Negritos and were evidence of at least two distinct waves of Negrito migration to Australia.

The Murrayians, Tindale claimed, had a culture that developed much finer stone tools. In fact, he said the evidence indicated there were three separate types of Murrayian culture, which he named Pirrian, Mudukian and Murundian. All three phases were reflected by innovations in their stone implements. The Carpentarians, in turn, had their own distinctive culture, which was reflected in much more sophisticated stone tools and far more deadly stone and wooden weapons. In short, the three different types of ancient migrants had not only distinct physiologies but also their own identifiable cultures.

The fourth support for the trihybrid thesis was invoked by Birdsell in the way the whole case fitted the ideas of Sewall Wright, one of the major figures in twentieth century neo-Darwinian biology. Birdsell regarded his own academic field less as anthropology and more as the study of “microevolution”, or how genetic change at the level of the small group affected larger populations or species. The main point of his Australian fieldwork was to provide empirical confirmation for Wright’s “shifting balance” theory of evolution, first proposed in 1931.

Wright argued that random genetic mutations could often have permanent effects on populations even though they might not offer any adaptive advantage for the population as a whole. Once they became established within a small group, random genetic novelties could eventually be transmitted to a much larger parent population through small but persistent degrees of interbreeding. Hence evolutionary change could occur in ways other than the Darwinian process of natural selection. There had been some experimental laboratory support among insect populations to show that this was one successful path to evolutionary change but Birdsell thought his empirical data from the Aborigines confirmed it too.

Birdsell not only sought to establish that three distinct groups of hunter-gathers had populated Australia but also wanted to study their subsequent pattern of evolution, which he thought his anatomical measurements could detect. He believed he had corroborated Wright’s theory and that it, in turn, substantiated his own work. In 1978, in his massive work, Evolution and Genetics of Populations, Wright himself concurred with Birdsell’s conclusion.

The “one people” thesis of Aboriginal origins

In the nineteenth century, most Europeans who looked at the Australian Aborigines thought they were a homogenous people, except for the Tasmanians, who were regarded by most who saw them as distinctly Melanesian in appearance. Until Tindale and Birdsell’s trihybrid theory came along, most twentieth century academic anthropologists accepted a largely homogenous model on the mainland too. In particular, a group of anthropologists and anatomists at the University of Sydney espoused this position and defended it strongly.

The principal advocates of the Sydney position were Stan Larnach and N. W. G. Macintosh, both of the university’s Department of Anatomy. They believed that all the Aborigines who occupied Greater Australia came from a small single breeding unit. “Three women and two or three men may have initiated the peopling of Australia,” Larnach wrote in 1974 in an oft-cited paper. They probably arrived here by chance after being blown off course, he said, or they may have been seeking refuge. He acknowledged that additional small landings of the same people may have boosted the population but insisted that only one group was sufficient to fully populate the empty continent within two or three thousand years of their first arrival. Hence, he argued, all modern Aborigines were descendants of this original group.

When Tindale told the Sydney anthropologists in the late 1930s that he had found pygmy people in North Queensland, they dismissed his speculations about their separate origins as nothing but a particular, local evolution. Tindale and Birdsell, as representatives of a minor museum in Adelaide, found themselves treated as outsiders tilting at an academic establishment that would not budge. One of their collaborators, John Greenway, called the Sydney school “the tail that wags the anthropology dog in Australia”, for Tindale soon found that its rejection of his ideas determined the academic consensus around the country.

Beyond university anthropologists, however, the trihybrid thesis was much better accepted, as Manning Clark demonstrated when he used it to open his historical magnum opus in 1962. “Before the work of Tindale,” Clark wrote, “writers attempting to explain origins were forced back on intelligent guesses.”

In the 1950s and 60s, the authors were sought out by publishers to write some of the first books about Aborigines for popular audiences. One of these works, Aboriginal Australians, was written by Tindale and H. A. Lindsay in 1963. Tindale also produced two books for schoolchildren. In 1955, he and Lindsay wrote The First Walkabout, a story about a family of Negrito pygmies migrating to Australia, which won the award as best Australian book of the year for children in 1956. In a glossary at the end of the book, the authors informed their readers: “A few survivors of these tribes live near Kuranda today.” Later, in 1971, Tindale and his daughter Beryl wrote an illustrated children’s book,The Australian Aborigines, which also incorporated their ideas.

At the same time, however, a political movement was gathering force that would later swamp the trihybrid thesis and dissuade any converts it had won. In the late 1960s, Aboriginal activists and their white supporters began to build a political movement among all Australian Aboriginal people. Previous attempts to achieve this had failed because Aborigines were divided by geography, culture and, in some places, by language, and few felt they had much in common.

The Sixties movement adopted the anti-imperialist rhetoric then prevalent in southeast Asia and Africa. British colonialism had caused indigenous oppression and dispossession, they argued, so all Aborigines should come together to reject the hegemony of white Australia. Although this was primarily a movement of radical urban blacks trying to create a constituency among dispersed Aborigines in rural areas, the appeal galvanized considerable support, especially among white sympathizers.

Their appeal to pan-Aboriginalism, the notion that all Australian indigenous people had a common political interest, was always dependent on the idea that they were one people. (The only exception allowed was that of the Torres Strait Islanders, who were later defined as a separate entity.) Their politics were based on the claim that they were the original owners of the continent who had been dispossessed by the British. They did not want to allow there might be a hierarchy of claims for arrival, and thus ownership, among Aborigines themselves. So anyone who argued against the “one people” thesis would be seen as betraying the pan-Aboriginal movement and undermining Aboriginal political aspirations.

Moreover, the moral appeal of the activists’ case would have been weakened by the notion that there had been several waves of Aboriginal migrants, each of whom had violently dispossessed the other. Rather than a story of aggressive white imperialists disrupting an arcadian Aboriginal people living in harmony with one another and their environment, the long term history of Australian habitation would have resembled more that of humanity at large where the stronger have pushed aside the weaker, irrespective of the colour of either side. Hence, instead of a simple moral tale of goodies and baddies, the history of this continent would have reflected more the hard reality of the human condition everywhere.

For the past thirty years, there have been few in mainstream political or intellectual life with the stomach to make these points. As a result, the activists’ case about Aboriginal origins has been accepted, largely without dissent. Few authors, and certainly none writing for schoolchildren, have dared to even suggest that Aborigines had anything but one common source. This is why today the educated but non-specialist public has no inkling that there were ever pygmies in Australia. Knowledge of their existence would pose an obvious question mark over the central doctrine of Aboriginal politics. Hence, for public consumption, politics have made the topic taboo.

Among academic anthropologists and prehistorians, there has been a consensus since the Sixties that has largely agreed with this view. Over this period, the trihybrid thesis has still been discussed in the major anthropological textbooks, but only to be dismissed. Josephine Flood’s Archaeology of the Dreamtime devotes two paragraphs Birdsell’s ideas and announces: “There is no evidence to support the identification of a Negritic element in Australia.” Hence, among anthropologists, she says: “There has been a general rejection of the three-wave theory.” John Mulvaney and Johan Kamminga, in Prehistory of Australia, take an even stronger line. There is little evidence, they say, to support Birdsell’s theories, which are “in any case irrelevant to present-day issues in recent human evolution”. They warn off non-specialists from even discussing the notion. “It is unfortunate that general authors still recount the tri-hybrid racial theory despite the evidence to the contrary.”

Even though we have suggested there are political reasons why Aboriginal activists and their supporters would not want this thesis accepted, we want to emphasise that we are not saying that this is the only reason, or even the principal reason, why academic anthropologists have followed suit. The history of the academic debate quite clearly shows that many anthropologists believed in the homogeneity of Aboriginal origins from the 1930s to the 1950s, that is, long before the political movement arose in the Sixties. A number of them simply continued to stick to their guns on this issue, irrespective of the political debate. Rather, our case is that the rise of Aboriginal political activism cast the trihybrid thesis into a particular political corner. It appeared a thesis that would give support to anyone opposed to pan-Aboriginalism and could thus be used against Aboriginal political aspirations. This added one more reason why those engaged in Aboriginal studies felt it should be buried.

The real problem with the mainstream anthropological case is not so much that it is political but that it is so dubious. For despite the self-assured tones in which Flood, Mulvaney and Kamminga write off Tindale and Birdsell, the evidence they and their colleagues cite hardly warrants such a confident dismissal. They make their case with four types of evidence:

Craniology: The measurement and comparison of both fossil and more recent skulls undermines the trihybrid thesis, Mulvaney and Kamminga claim. They cite the Sydney anatomists Macintosh and Larnach who in the 1970s made craniometric measurements of eastern Australian skulls, including some from the Cairns rainforest people, but could not distinguish the latter from other Aborigines. Josephine Flood cites the same studies: “Analysis of recent skeletal material from northern Queensland did not produce any evidence of a Negritic component among the rainforest Aborigines.” In Tasmania, Flood observes, skeletal remains from King Island, West Point and Mount Cameron West show no differences between prehistoric Tasmanian Aborigines and contemporary mainlanders.

Not only is there no evidence of distinct Negrito crania, but even the apparent dissimilarities between the gracile skulls found at Lake Mungo and the robust variety found at Kow Swamp turn out to be not so different after all. Phillip Habgood of the Department of Anthropology at the University of Sydney claimed in an influential 1986 article that Australian fossil skulls display an “Australianness” that is unique to them. That is, “the ‘gracile’ and robust’ groups are more similar to each other, overall, than they are to any other anatomically modern Homo Sapiens crania from around the world.”

Genetics: Mulvaney and Kamminga argue that neither Birdsell nor his opponents can use genetic evidence as supports for their thesis because it is inconclusive. “Fifty years of blood genetic research,” they argue, “has failed to provide any clue to Aboriginal origins.” Josephine Flood, however, is more certain that genetic research actually counts against the trihybrid thesis. “Recent genetic studies,” she writes, “have shown that pygmy groups are not racially distinct, but simply represent local modification in physique in relation to their neighbours.”

Linguistics: According to Mulvaney and Kamminga, there are not only no craniometric differences between Tindale and Birdsell’s Negritos and other Aborigines but nor has any linguistic evidence for their separate origin ever been found. “Apart from Torres Strait languages,” they report, “no ancestral links with languages overseas have been demonstrated.”

Human evolution: The critics argue that the small stature, the frizzy hair and other apparent Negrito characteristics that Tindale and Birdsell observed in North Queensland can be readily explained not by separate origins but by local evolution. Although Josephine Flood admits that Australian Aborigines are among the world’s most physically varying population, this is not evidence of multiple origins, she says. Instead, she endorses Phillip Habgood’s explanation that: “Morphological variation displayed by the late Pleistocene skeletal material developed as a result of mutation, genetic selection and drift (the accidental loss of lineages) as the first migrants moved out into a diversity of environments and climates.” That is, the Australian Aborigines had one common origin but evolved differently when separated from other, larger populations. Flood makes a similar point about Tasmania: “The differences observed between Tasmanian and mainland Aborigines in historic times are now considered to result from genetic change in a small, isolated population.”

In other words, the Tasmanians didn’t have their frizzy hair and Melanesian looks when they arrived there, but these features evolved during the eight-to-ten thousand years that Tasmania has been separated from the mainland. Similarly, the tribes around Cairns were not short, slender, frizzy-haired and of Negrito appearance when they first came to the district. These characteristics evolved naturally over the period they lived in the rainforests.

Before discussing these points, we should point out that the trihybrid theory does not claim its three waves of immigrants always remained separate peoples. As the ‘hybrid’ of its title was designed to emphasise, there was a good deal of interbreeding over the millennia. In Tasmania, before the sea rose to cut it off from the mainland, the theory holds that the Negritos and the Murrayians interbred fairly extensively. Birdsell wrote:

The Tasmanians represent a dihybrid race whose predominant genetic element is not Negrito, but on the contrary represents the Murrayian Australian type from the south-eastern portion of that continent. The Oceanic Negritic element is clearly present but … a comparison with the Andamanese indicates that the Negritic element in the Tasmanians must have been the minority contribution.

On the other hand, he did believe that, while there had also been interbreeding in North Queensland, the Aborigines he found in the Cairns district were relatively more authentic examples of the original Negrito people. This means that any debate about morphological differences, or outward appearance, should be in terms of statistical tendencies rather than clear-cut distinctions. With this in mind, let us put some objections to the case outlined above.

Problems for the orthodox position

Craniology: The research that is most widely regarded as having demolished the idea that the rainforest people from Cairns are Negritos was published in 1970 by Larnach and Macintosh. It was a study of 116 skulls of Queensland Aborigines held by the Australian Museum. Twelve of them came from the Cairns districts where Birdsell had found the pygmy people. The anatomists listed all the characteristics of these skulls and then performed a number of statistical tests on the results. They found they could not distinguish the skulls from Cairns from those of Aborigines from elsewhere in Queensland. They concluded:

On the basis of craniology alone, it does seem that the very existence of Negritos in Australia is, to say the least, open to very serious doubt, and so far no prehistoric skulls have been discovered that would qualify this statement … These results fail to support Birdsell’s theory of the trihybrid origin of Australian Aborigines.

While it is certainly true that their results fail to support Birdsell’s theory, it is equally true, however, that they do little to actually refute it. Given that this is a debate about statistical tendencies, a comparison of 12 skulls within a total population of 116 is hardly a major study and goes nowhere near matching the sample size from which Birdsell drew. His data included not only thirteen skulls from the Cairns district but also live measurements from 147 Aborigines there. As well as thirty head and face measurements, Tindale and Birdsell’s studies in 1938-39 and 1952-54 included weight, stature and twenty other body indices and metrics. The total population to which he compared this data comprised 3008 full-blooded Aborigines from all major regions of Australia.

Birdsell maintained right up to his last book in 1993, Microevolutionary Patterns in Aboriginal Australia, that his own analysis of these measurements confirmed his thesis. It is only by pretending this huge amount of data does not exist, and by confining their evidence to their own measurements, that Larnach and Macintosh can be thought to have decided the issue.

In any case, skull measurement is not exactly a precise science. It involves a high degree of interpretation. Over the years, people looking at the same sets of skulls have often interpreted them in accordance with the latest anthropological fashions. Macintosh admitted he had done this himself. In the 1960s, he said none of Australia’s fossil skulls showed any Tasmanian traits and none of the Tasmanian skulls had any connection with Melanesia. In the 1970s, however, after two other researchers argued that Tasmanian skulls were closer to those of the Tolai people of New Britain than they were to mainland Aborigines, Macintosh changed his mind and agreed with them. At the same time, he acknowledged that the Keilor skull from Victoria showed some particular Tasmanian characteristics.

Despite these uncertainties, by the mid-1970s, skull measurements were being used even more confidently to support the “one people” thesis. Its supporters argued that, despite the great variations in Australian fossil skulls, they could all be interpreted within the one framework. The gracile and robust skulls from Lake Mungo and Kow Swamp, they claimed, should not be regarded as evidence of two different types of people but rather as different points on one broad scale of difference within a single population. This was a remarkable conclusion, since there have been some dissenting anthropologists who have argued the Kow Swamp skulls are so radically different from the Australian norm that they are less like Homo sapiens and actually more like the earlier hominid, Homo erectus.

The “one people” theorists, however, have no trouble in accommodating such extremes within their own model. Macintosh and Larnach told an Australian Institute of Aboriginal studies symposium in 1974:

How should we interpret this mélange of gracile, intermediate and rugged items? To us, there is only one answer: a practically unchanging population over a period of 25,000 years and exhibiting a wide range of variability.

This approach, it is worth noting, makes the “one people” thesis virtually unfalsifiable, since it permits no evidence, no matter how disparate, to challenge itself. In real science, of course, unfalsifiable hypotheses should be ruled out of court immediately.

Genetics: The Sydney school has long been convinced that genetic studies also support the notion of an homogenous population. Larnach wrote in 1974 that, as a result of new genetic research: “We therefore have no hesitation in omitting Negritos as ancestors of the Australian Aborigines.” The work he cited was a then new study of Aboriginal blood groups by R. T. Simmons of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. Simmons had reviewed various surveys of blood samples taken from Aborigines on Cape York, the Gulf of Carpentaria and Arnhem Land between 1926 and 1971 and compared their gene frequencies. Among these surveys were those done by Tindale and Birdsell at the Yarrabah and Mona Mona missions in 1938-39.

Simmons found there were some blood group gene frequency patterns at certain Cape York localities that were unique. However, rather than use these as evidence of a unique population history, he said they could all be explained by known factors such as admixture with other races and by breeding from very small gene pools. Otherwise: “Our findings do not suggest that the Aborigines of the Cape York area are basically different from those found in other parts of Australia, but are more admixed.” Simmons added that his findings supported the “one people” model. “In three decades of blood group research, we have found no blood group genetic evidence which would suggest that the unmixed Aborigines are not a homogenous people.”

For good measure, he paid particular attention to the question of any possible Australian connections to Africa. Repudiating the “Out of Africa” theory of human origins, Simmons said he thought that the Australian data indicated that the Aborigines actually evolved earlier than African Negroes. There was no blood group evidence, he said, to indicate the African Negroes or Negritos had any connection to the Australian Aborigines.

May I state here and now that our extensive blood grouping surveys conducted in Australia, Indonesia, Melanesia, Micronesia and Polynesia over three decades have produced no genetic evidence that the Negro ever entered the Pacific. The term Oceanic Negro in relation to Melanesians is then purely descriptive … The extensive data now available on blood group gene frequencies make it appear unlikely that African, Asian and Oceanic pygmy groups are related. Blood group studies indicate that Papuan pygmies or Negritos differ widely from pygmy groups in other parts of the world, but that they are closely akin to neighbouring Papuans. Similar relationships have been found for other Negrito populations and their taller neighbours. The so-called Negrito or pygmy peoples outside Africa should then be called pygmy, and not Negrito as a descriptive term.

Despite the confidence of his tone, however, Simmons’s conclusions were not as definitive as he thought, especially in the light of new genetic research. Simmons was writing in the period before mitochondrial DNA studies arose in the 1980s to revolutionise the field. Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is claimed by those who use it to provide a far more illuminating means of tracing human evolution than older and cruder methods used by researchers such as Simmons.

One of the major mtDNA studies was done in 1989 on the populations of the Pacific region. It was made by two of the leading pioneers of DNA research, Mark Stoneking and Allan Wilson, then of the University of California, Berkeley, who were the authors of the now famous study that found our oldest modern human ancestor, the 200,000 year-old African woman, “Mitochondrial Eve”. Their Pacific study included data from 21 Aboriginal Australians from four regions: Alice Springs, Darwin, Perth and the Broome-Derby area. It found that mtDNA types were not shared between different regions of Australia and that the distribution of mtDNA types in Australia was diverse, just like on other continents. The most likely explanation, Stoneking and Wilson argued, was that “the populations that colonized each continent (including Australia) consisted of more than one mtDNA type.” In other words, the Aboriginal population was not homogenous.

In fact, Stoneking and Wilson said their work showed that at least 15 different mtDNA lineages colonized Australia. They said this confirmed an earlier study of Aboriginal Australians done in 1987 with a smaller sample, which found seven different mtDNA lineages. The authors acknowledged the smallness of their sample but argued that a bigger size would only increase the number of different lineages to be found. “Probably the most important insight to date,” they summarized, “is that relatively many females were involved in the colonization of Australia and Papua New Guinea.” Stoneking and Wilson were heavily sarcastic about the “one people” thesis:

It has been proposed that Australia may have been colonized by a very small number of females, perhaps even by a single pregnant female who floated to Australia on a log. The mtDNA results contradict this assertion; there must have been at least 15 pregnant females that floated across!

In his last book in 1993, Birdsell predicted that a crucial test of his theory would be a comparison of the mitochondrial lineages of the populations of New Guinea and Aboriginal Australia, especially if descendants of the Cairns rainforest people and Tasmanians were included. While there has not been research that has specifically included these last two groups, there was a study in 1999 that went some of the way towards testing the hypothesis. It was conducted by Mark Stoneking, now at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology at Leipzig, and Alan Redd, an anthropologist from Pensylvania State University.

This time, their mtDNA analysis was done on a larger population of 319. Samples were taken from Australian Aborigines and people from the highlands and coastal regions of Papua New Guinea. The Aborigines comprised 105 individuals from northwest Australia (Great Sandy Desert and Kimberley regions) and 95 from Arnhem Land.

The study found there was a great evolutionary gap between the Aborigines and the New Guinea highlanders. It showed that the Aborigines of the north and northwest were comparatively recent arrivals and derived from the same ancestral population as the people of southern India. The New Guinea highlanders, however, had a completely different and much older ancestry. The highlanders, in fact, still retained some genetic links direct with Africa. Stoneking and Redd went out of their way to point out that this pattern fitted the mode of settlement of ancient Australia proposed by Tindale and Birdsell:

These findings are somewhat consistent with Birdsell’s trihybrid model for the peopling ofSahul [ancient Greater Australia], a model that is based on morphological variation . Birdsell hypothesized that Oceanic “Negritos” first populated Sahul, but that two later migrations replaced most of them in Australia but not in the Cairns area of northeast Queensland or in Tasmania and New Guinea… The gene tree in the present study shows that the PNG3 cluster shares sites with African sequences, a finding that may be consistent with Birdsell’s first-migration hypothesis. Our results also suggest that there may have been a migration(s) from an Indian source that reached Australia but not PNG.

However, they went on to argue that, while these findings were consistent with the Negrito hypothesis, they could not find two separate migratory groups that would confirm the distinction between the Murrayians and Carpentarians. Although their study again found multiple migrations in the peopling of Sahul, there was no mtDNA distinction between the Aborigines they tested from northwest Australia and those from Arnhem Land. Rather, both types showed an ancestry that, although from substantially mixed populations, had links with the Hindu castes of southern India. Nonetheless, this research still left much of Tindale and Birdsell’s original theory intact. It found some correlation between their morphological observations and the genetic evidence. There was a strong connection between the people of India and northern Australia and there was still the possibility of an ancient Negrito migration all the way from Africa to Tasmania.

In 1974, when Lanarch and Macintosh announced that their craniological study had concluded the Cairns rainforest people were no different to those of other Queensland Aborigines, they emphasized their interpretation was not biased by any prejudice against the Tindale and Birdsell theory. “If we had found negrito evidence in the Cairns rainforest crania,” they said, “it would have been shouted from the housetops.” Given the propensity of Australian prehistorians to attract considerable media attention to their major discoveries, such as the skeletons at Lake Mungo, we do not doubt them.

This is in stark contrast, however, to the response over the past decade to the findings of Mark Stoneking and his colleagues. Here we have had one of the world’s leading geneticists announcing results that have dispelled a number of hypotheses about Australian origins and partly endorsed one of the most intriguing of them. Yet, this time, no one has been shouting from the housetops. Indeed, as far as we are aware, the academics of our anthropological community have not, in public, made even a murmur.

Linguistics: The field of linguistics is far from being as blank a slate as the major Australian anthropological textbooks would have us believe. The question of whether the Cairns rainforest people spoke a unique Negrito language was thought to have been decided in the 1960s and 70s when Arthur Capell and R. M. W. Dixon argued that they shared speech characteristics with other non-pygmoid Queensland Aboriginal languages. However, processes of language flow and language replacement mean even comparatively isolated peoples eventually merge some of their speech with geographic neighbours, so a lack of linguistic uniqueness need not decide the issue. Moreover, there are some internationally recognized linguists who have since proposed classifications that give some support to the Tindale and Birdsell thesis.

One of these was Joseph Greenberg of Stanford University who, until his death last year, was one of the best-known scholars in the field. In 1971 he proposed his “Indo-Pacific Hypothesis” in which he argued that there was a linguistic trail that followed the route that Tindale and Birdsell thought the Negritos had originally taken from the Andaman Islands, through New Guinea, to Tasmania. He acknowledged that the Tasmanian linguistic data was incomplete because, while it included vocabulary, it provided little grammatical information. Nonetheless his broad classification of world languages held that, apart from those of the mainland Australian Aborigines and the more recent “Austronesian” languages of Southeast Asia and the Pacific, there was a correlation between linguistic patterns and Negrito migration. Greenberg wrote:

The evidence presented here is intended to demonstrate that the bulk of non-Austronesian languages of Oceania from the Andaman Islands on the west in the Bay of Bengal to Tasmania in the southeast forms a single group of genetically related languages for which the name Indo-Pacific is proposed.

Unfortunately, Greenberg did not have any evidence before him about the rainforest people, so he could not comment on whether they fitted into his Indo-Pacific Hypothesis or not.

In 1987, Greenberg’s Stanford colleague, Merritt Ruhlen, classified Australian mainland Aboriginal languages in a way that bore some similarities to a different aspect of the trihybrid theory. In his massive, three-volume study, A Guide to the World’s Languages, Ruhlen made a broad division between the Pama-Nyungan subgroup, which is found in the east, south and west of the Australian mainland, and the non-Pama-Nyungan languages of northern and northwestern Australia. At least two reviews of the literature in the past decade have observed that this partition corresponds, very roughly, to Tindale and Birdsell’s division between the more recently arrived northerners, the Carpentarians, and the older indigenous people, the Murrayians.

Moreover, one of these reviews by Peter Bellwood of the Australian National University points out that there is a correlation between this linguistic divide and a “veritable efflorescence” of innovative stone tool technology in the north of the continent about 6000 years ago. The dingo, originally a hunting dog, appears to have arrived at about the same time. Bellwood comments:

There are both linguistic and biological data which could indicate the arrival of new populations in Australia during the Holocene [the last 10,000 years], and the evidence of these microlithic tools in Australia may point towards the same conclusion.
In other words, the evidence connecting linguistics, stone tools and migration provides some circumstantial support to the trihybrid thesis.

On its own, however, the field of linguistics is unlikely to shed a great deal of light on this issue. One of the leading paleo-linguists, Johanna Nichols, says language relationships are difficult to trace beyond 8000 years of separate evolution. Since habitation and population divergence in Australia long precedes this date, linguistic evidence is unlikely to resolve the problem of Australian origins either way.

Human evolution: As we have noted, the supporters of the “one people” thesis characteristically explain away any differences found within the Aboriginal population in terms of local evolution. For instance, the Tasmanians had frizzy hair rather than the wavy variety that prevailed on the mainland, so this must have evolved locally after the Tasmanians were separated from the rest of the population when Bass Strait formed about 8000 years ago. The most commonly advocated mechanisms through which this evolution might have occurred are “founder effect” and “genetic drift”. This means that, if a group of people becomes isolated from the rest of the population, the particular genetic characteristics of these founders will become dominant in their offspring. Random genetic change, which occurs all the time, will thus operate on this group differently to the wider population, which has the numbers and enough diversity to smooth out fluctuations of this kind.

Though plausible in explaining, in general, how evolutionary change can occur in isolated groups, this approach has some very big problems when it tries to account for the emergence of Negrito features. As we noted earlier, Tindale and Birdsell identified Negrito characteristics in at least seven different populations inhabiting a geographic arc from the Bay of Bengal to the eastern islands of Melanesia. They explained these populations as remnants of an ancient migration, an account that has all the virtues of Occam’s Razor. In contrast, the proponents of founder effect and genetic drift have to argue that each of these isolated populations, completely independently and quite coincidentally, developed the very same features of small stature, slender build, frizzy hair, and half a dozen other morphological similarities such as skin and hair colour, teeth patterns and the like. This is a highly implausible scenario.

To many lay observers, one obvious evolutionary influence could appear to be the environment. Because these people inhabited dense tropical rainforests, there might be the same processes of selection and adaptation at work as those that produced not only pygmy humans in the African Congo but also pygmy elephants and pygmy deer. The problem with this argument in the Australian context is that only one particular region of tropical jungle produced human pygmies. The Aborigines of the equally-dense Daintree rainforest to the north of Cairns, for instance, are not especially short in stature but have a similar range of height to those in the rest of Australia. The same is true of people from other Australian rainforest regions. If most rainforests did not produce pygmies, an environmental explanation is hard to sustain.

Moreover, the environment cannot account for the Tasmanians. Their ecosystem was not tropical jungle but, since the end of the last ice age, a temperate maritime environment. Apart from the west coast, Tasmania has one of the most people-friendly climates in the world. Yet this environment, too, harboured people with some Negrito morphological features. Even in the Congo, recent research suggests an environmental account is unlikely since the original ancestral homeland of the African pygmies, the Bambuti, now appears to have been not jungle but mixed forest and savanna, from which they were forced by the expansion of neighbouring Bantu people.

Although Tindale and Birdsell were, for the most part, well mannered towards their critics, Birdsell was not averse to taking them on. He was especially miffed when the Australian Institute for Aboriginal Studies sponsored a conference in 1974 on “The Origin of the Australians”, which he felt was set up to bury him and his ideas. This conference, he later objected, “made no real contribution to the topic in spite of the presence of 26 researchers of international stature using a wide variety of techniques and data”.

In his last book, Microevolutionary Patterns in Aboriginal Australia, published in 1993 when he was 85, he poured scorn on those physical anthropologists who ventured into evolutionary theory without any background in the field. When they invoked evolutionary explanations like founder effect and genetic drift against him, he regarded them as blundering into his own territory where they were out of their depth.

Genetic drift, in fact, had originally been named the “Sewall Wright effect” after its originator, who was Birdsell’s principal theoretical mentor. Birdsell maintained his critics did not understand how to apply the concept. None of their claims about local evolution were based on calculations of how much time was required for genetic drift to produce evolutionary change. In Australia, there had been insufficient time, he argued, for genetic drift to produce the degree of morphological diversity observed within the Aboriginal population. His critics were simply sweeping everything under one convenient theoretical carpet:

Their intellectual bulwark consists of an elastic and untestable hypothesis. They presume that the microevolutionary forces of selection, mutation and stochastic processes of intergenerational drift and founder effect suffice in the time available to produce all of the regional variation now evident in the Aborigines. This view is held by archaeologists as a group, and by anatomists and craniologists. Numerically, this consensus is impressive. But none of the advocates are in a position to contribute substantively to testing the action of any of the various microevolutionary forces invoked… None are equipped to judge microevolutionary processes or the implications of regional variations.

In short, none of the explanations advanced by Tindale and Birdsell’s opponents provide a credible account of the evolutionary processes that produced indigenous Australians with pygmoid status and Negrito features. Nor can they even begin to explain the physical similarities between them and people in South East Asia and Melanesia. Obviously, this is not proof that the trihybrid theory is right but it does mean its major rival is, on yet another score, seriously flawed.

Overall, it is hard not to be skeptical about the “one people” hypothesis. It is disputed by recent genetic studies, by the inadequacies of both its craniological measurements and its evolutionary theory, and by its inherent implausibility.

As recently as the 1950s, the anthropological community thought that Australia had only been occupied for about 8000 years, a belief that gave the hypothesis some credibility. Now, however, we have evidence of human habitation extending for more than 40,000 years. For at least 30,000 of these years, recurring ice ages raised and lowered the sea levels between Australia and Asia, eliminating the Arafura Sea and Torres Strait more than once and reducing the furthest distance needed to cross deep water between Asia and either northwest Australia or western New Guinea to less than 100 kilometres.

If one group of hunter-gatherers could make this journey early in the piece, it beggars all belief that none others could do the same over the subsequent 30,000 years. Indeed, as the evidence of the arrival of the dingo and the introduction of a whole new technology of stone tools 6000 years ago would suggest, hunter-gatherer peoples could make the crossing even when sea levels were not much lower than they are today.

In the process of establishing a better account of the origins of the first Australians, we would hope to see scholarship in the future eschewing political connections and proceeding unconstrained by the ideology of the current generation of radical Aboriginal activists. No scholar should be party to the cover-up that has prevailed for the past thirty years about the people of the North Queensland rainforests. Even though, as we have acknowledged, academic anthropologists arrived at their own theory of homogeneity before any political pressures emerged, the fact that the Australian pygmies have today been so thoroughly expunged from public memory suggests an indecent concurrence between scholarly and political interests.

The story of human habitation of this continent is not the exclusive property of anyone. It should be the concern of all of us, black and white, to ensure it is told as openly and as truthfully as possible.

Postscript: What eventually happened to the Cairns rainforest people? The settlement at Yarrabah still exists at Cape Grafton. After 1897 it was not confined to the local people but accommodated Aborigines from all over North Queensland. The missionaries deliberately disrupted traditional tribal betrothals so that a fair amount of inter-marriage took place. It ceased to be a mission in 1960 when it was taken over by the Queensland Government. In 1986 it became a self-governing Aboriginal community but by then a large number of residents had left.

Mona Mona mission continued until 1962 when it was closed down. Its residents were dispersed to other Aboriginal reserves and into the general population. Some former residents now living at Kuranda want the original mission land returned to them.

Today, there are 14,700 Aboriginal people living in the Cairns region. We presume a good proportion of them must be descendants of the original Kongkandji, Barbaram, Indindji and Djabuganjdji tribes. For those who want to pursue the question, Norman Tindale’s genealogical records can now be consulted in a special indigenous family history section at the South Australian Museum.