Justin Thyme - Out of Asia

OUT

OF

ASIA

JUSTIN THYME

AuthorHouse UK

1663 Liberty Drive

Bloomington, IN 47403 USA

www.authorhouse.co.uk

Phone: 0800.197.4150

2015 Ian E. Moreton. All rights reserved.

No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted by any means without the written permission of the author.

Published by AuthorHouse 01/23/2015

ISBN: 978-1-5049-3480-0 (sc)

ISBN: 978-1-5049-3479-4 (hc)

ISBN: 978-1-5049-3481-7 (e)

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Thinkstock are models, and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery Thinkstock.

Because of the dynamic nature of the Internet, any web addresses or links contained in this book may have changed since publication and may no longer be valid. The views expressed in this work are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher, and the publisher hereby disclaims any responsibility for them.

Contents

Preface

The contents of this book is about an alternative point of view about human evolution of which you may not have heard elsewhere. Also it tries to explain why the races of mankind are different in the way that they are, also the reasons for racism and why it is so prevalent amongst those that live the closest to the minority group. It will also try to explain why countries with a certain racial balance do not do so well economical, or have the same economic equality of other countries that have a different racial balance. This may have nothing to do with intelligence.

This book does not set out to justify racism in any victimising sense, but only to explain why social preferences may exist.

The political correct will always give explanations that demean the racist, since this is the easy way out and fits in with their left wing views.

Understanding the Anthropologist

I would point out first that professional anthropologists rely on university grants to fund their work, as anthropology has little value in the commercial world. This means that the universities are reliant upon government funds. Even during the best of times, an anthropologist may find his or her grant curtailed because the university finds other priorities to fund. However, any anthropologist making waves and becoming too controversial finds him- or herself in the vulnerable position of losing grant monies and finding the rug being pulled from under his or her feet. A universitys excuse for withdrawing funding is sometimes expenditure problems, i.e. the government pulls the strings and determines where the money goes. Because of this, one must not be surprised by professional anthropologists shouting, No proof! after hearing any controversial statement.

NB: Absence of Evidence Is Not Evidence of Absence

There are two types of anthropologists: the stone and bone anthropologist and the hunter-gatherer anthropologist. Stone-and-bone anthropologists appear to love the dramatic. One of this type is Robert Ardrey, a writer and dramatist who believes that humans are killer apes. Ardrey sees a human being on a hilltop, pointing his or her weapon to the sky, as the lord of creation, which is how we sometimes see ourselves that is, until some natural catastrophe puts us in our place. I must confess that I, like Robert Ardrey, do like the dramatic. Therefore, I warn the reader that I may have a bias for the more carnivorous way.

The hunter-gatherer anthropologists see a human being as a kindly, happy-go-lucky ape wandering around the earth eating mangoes and nuts, hunting for the fun of it, and keeping busy while evolving a large brain by sitting around camp fires talking about and contemplating their nuts. It is, generally speaking, people on the left wing of politics (or people who support womens liberation) who tend to believe that a human being is a more passive hunter and gatherer. Espousing this image of humankind implies that hunting is less important than food gathering. Also, since hunting is something that women find difficult to do (although not, I would say, impossible, since some Australian women are known to do some hunting, e.g. fishing with spears. This, however, is not very dangerous and hardly requires high vascular activity), the conclusion can be reached that men are not very important and that women could do without them. Some primitive cultures retain a hunting-and-gathering way of life. I wonder why they are still primitive cultures, ones that remain technologically behind European Neolithic man, as he was twenty thousand years ago. I personally believe that humankind evolved as killer apes but that there were offshoot tribes or clans that may have been vegetarians. Anthropologists may disagree on this point. Those who lean to the left believe that humankind has evolved to be good, kind, and nice. They also hold that we are all born equal and that our differences developed in light of environmental or educational circumstances. (Perhaps humankind evolved into its present perfect state, in Gods perfect image, of course, and then God put the mockers into our gene pool to stop us from evolving [or devolving] any further.)

Right-leaning anthropologists believe that human beings have evolved to be warriors, hunters, and killers. They espouse the idea that people are the way they are because they were born to be that way and one cannot make a silk purse out of a sows ear. Perhaps the whole truth is somewhere in between. Todays prevalent opinion, one held especially by left-wing, or politically correct, anthropologists, is that people are born with an innate goodness but have fallen from grace. In other words, a human being is a fallen angel. The opposing argument maintains that a person is born a hunter, a killer ape a creature primed for war and conflict. In other words, a human being is a risen killer ape. The normal left-wing response to this assertion is, You dont think very highly of yourself, do you, when you say that you are no more than a killer ape?.

If human beings are born angels, then what are our achievements? Music, compassion, peace treaties? Well, no, those things are not achievements for an angel, any more than feathers are an achievement for a bird, since there is no free choice involved. It is only what one would expect of an angel, one who is born with such goodness. Humankinds only achievements are waging wars, committing atrocities, sending others to the gas chamber, and committing inhumanities against other human beings.

If humankind consists of risen killer apes, what, then, are its achievements? If you say wars and atrocities, then you point to what can only be expected of a killer ape, No, humankinds achievements are music, poems, peace treaties (no matter how many times they may be broken), technology, and his flight to the stars. I would rather be a risen killer ape thats on the way up than a fallen angel thats on the way down..

I am not suggesting that people are naturally evil and that we should give up the ghost and cease expecting good, civilised behaviour of one another. On the contrary, I am saying that humankind is more than the sum of its genes. Human beings, I believe, have free choice and may choose options which contradict their impulses, but this does not mean that every individual will automatically do so. We are all vulnerable and make choices in light of the behaviour of others who are part of the society in which we live.

The purpose of this book is not to explain every aspect of human evolution. That said, I do hope to fill in a few gaps and provide information that I have not found written elsewhere. I do not write this book with the intention of carving its ideas in stone. Rather, I simply offer a point of view backed up with a variety of facts, circumstantial evidence, and a bit of guesswork. At times, I use a bit of tongue in cheek. I do not believe that anyone should take him- or herself too seriously. Instead, one should see facts in their context and try not to think that all statements are a personal attack upon oneself. After expressing my evolutionary ideas, I will delve into race, economics, politics and philosophy. None of these things is very far removed from the others.