Before you can understand anything that we talk about on Excavating Eden, you need to know the basics. What’s Edenism? Who are the melonheads? Why isn’t this all a load of insane bullshit?
Therefore, I’ve written this series to give you a crash course in this crazy little world.
Here are the basic principles underlying Edenism, backed up with factual evidence.
1. Evolution is driven by attrition, not optimization.
The popular Darwinist conception of evolution is that lifeforms become stronger, smarter or what have you over time as a response to environmental pressures, and that lifeforms that survive are somehow superior to ones that don’t. This idea falls apart under the slightest scrutiny. The reality is that survival of the fittest does not necessarily guarantee that the “fittest” will be smarter, stronger or otherwise objectively superior, unless the environment selects for those traits.
The biggest example of this is the decline in the mean global I.Q. over the last fifty years. Common sense would dictate that being intelligent would grant you an advantage over those dumber than you, yet since the end of World War II, the highest-IQ nations (the West and East Asia) have been progressively outbred by poorer, stupider Third Worlders. This is due to technological advances that have reduced infant mortality, the declining economic and social situation in the West (feminism and cultural Marxism making it more difficult for intelligent people to have children), and the artificial subsidy of fecundity in the Third World by foreign aid from wealthier countries.
Another example of how evolution is driven by attrition is how women as a whole are becoming shorter and fatter. Historically, humans have gotten taller and thinner with each generation due to improved nutrition and exercise. Much in the same way that poorer, dumber people are outbreeding the intelligent, lower-class women (who are more likely to be overweight/obese and be shorter) are outbreeding healthier middle- and upper-class women, who are deferring childbirth into their thirties and forties.
2. Brain size and shape determines a person’s intelligence and personality.
The belief that brain size and intelligence are not correlated has been debunked. Study after study has consistently shown that blacks have smaller brains and lower IQs on average than whites, who in turn have smaller brains and lower IQs than Asians, and that a sizable reason these differences exist is due to genetics. The human brain’s size has been shrinking for the past 20,000 years, meaning that mankind is collectively becoming dumber.
3. Ancient myths are heavily corrupted retellings of human history.
Mythological documents like the Bible and the Epic of Gilgamesh, dismissed as “fairy tales” by atheists, have a basis in fact. Several stories from the Bible, including the tale of Noah’s Ark and the Tower of Babel, have been proven by scientists to have actually happened.
4. Mankind is descended not from a common ancestor, but from a multitude of different hominids who interbred tens of thousands of years ago, each with wildly differing psychologies, capabilities and origins.
The longstanding idea that mankind came out of Africa is flimsy and has very little evidence to support it. A far more coherent and logical theory is that modern Homo sapiens is the result of interbreeding between four (known) hominids: Cro-Magnons, Neanderthals, melonheads, and starchildren. These hominids evolved in different locations and have deep psychological and physical differences as a result.
Basically, if Chris Stringer’s statement that a [Neanderthal's] inner ear bones differ from a Sapiens is correct, then no further proof is required that Neanderthal and Sapiens have no relation. The implications of which are of course Pretty Big in that the entire of liberal “we’re all Africans” egalitarianism and materialist rationalism are undone in a masterstroke. It re-opens the creation debate entirely, and when further material is accounted for that I won’t discuss here, it’s both intellectually affirming and theologically terrifying.
5a. Despite massive interbreeding, genes from those progenitor species are still distinct enough that they determine not only our personalities and mental capabilities, but even our physical appearances, particularly the shape of our heads.
5b. The size and shape of a person’s eyes determines their personality and emotional state, and the shape of their braincase determines their spiritual drive and long-term desires.
This follows from points 2 and 4; human beings still possess physical characteristics inherited from the hominids that preceded us. We can tell this by comparing the skull shapes of modern humans to that of ancient skulls that have been recovered by archaeologists. Not only that, the idea that certain physical attributes are associated with psychological ones has long been part of the popular consciousness. We use these stereotypes to make snap judgments about the people we meet in our day-to-day lives.
For example, going by your gut reaction, which one of these two women do you think is more trustworthy? More innocent? More feminine?
Without taking a poll, I know for a fact that the majority of you picked the woman on the right. It’s in the eyes: eye size has long been used as a proxy for trustworthiness. People with larger eyes are generally perceived as reliable and childlike, while smaller, “beady” eyes are associated with backstabbing and criminal behavior. There’s a reason for this: large eyes were a Neanderthal trait, and Neanderthals were (relative to the other hominids) generally honest and dependable.
Despite what your parents told you, you can judge a book by its cover.
Keep in mind that we’re talking about averages here. Men may not be infinitely malleable, but they are still malleable, and there are a multitude of factors that influence an individual’s personality and behavior. Still, exceptions to the rules don’t disprove the rules. If you rely on your gut to judge people by their physical appearance, you’ll be vindicated 90 percent of the time.
Edenism, at its core, is about codifying and explaining knowledge that human beings have held since time immemorial.
This article covers the basic concepts of Edenism. The differing psychologies of the hominids that comprise modern man, the specifics of phrenology and face reading, and an explanation as to how this crap all came about will be covered in detail in future installments.
Read Next: Edenism 101, Part Two: Cro-Magnons, Neanderthals, Melonheads and Starchildren
***
Excavating Eden is a reader-supported site. If you enjoy what we do, click here to make a donation.
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
Good and interesting sum-up. Edenism explains a lot, especially when you look at it from a Thal point of view.
A write up of personalities associated with each hybrid would be useful and interesting. For example, I think you said in an earlier post that most alt righters might be MTs, but I’m a TT with a giant football shaped head and de big occipital bun on the back. Walk around the stem part of a university campus and most of the people there will be TT or MT to an extreme degree. This shit, despite the fact that I find it hard to read faces, does work, even if something else is going on altogether.
Francis: Hybridization is still something of a mystery. We know a lot about MTs mainly because most of the big people involved in Koanic Soul are MTs (myself, Koanic, Bill Powell, Aurini, Alpha Unit and her husband etc.). TMs are more difficult to pin down. I have my own theories on various Cro-Mag hybrids, but not enough data to back them up comfortably.
Nice introduction; I’m glad to see you’ve started working on this again. I hope you’ll be talking about how to figure out one’s types at some point. I’ve looked at the examples at Koanic Soul, but I have a hard time picturing anyone with a skull as elongated as the typical Thals’, for instance. They all look like Marge Simpson to me. Plus, there’s the difficulty of being objective when gauging yourself, especially on personality traits. It’d be nice to have some way to measure the eye socket depth or maybe the ratio of different diameters, and have some actual numbers to compare.
Maybe we need an Edenic forum where people can post mug-shots of themselves for others to classify as M, T, or whatever.
Star children are optional. And by optional, I mean kind of dumb. Melonheads, Thals and Sapiens are similar variations on a theme, there is every reason to imagine that they could and did interbreed. But the Star child skull is extremely different from humans. For example, it has a bone plate behind it’s eyes, so they didn’t function the same way ours did. And its bones are not made of the same material as ours.
Would hybridization have been possible? Dunno. But if it was, I’d expect that Star Children hybrids would stand out more. They’d have been a big deal. We don’t have any evidence of them, just the one Star Child skull.
More likely the Star Child is just an alien (or a deformed human if Pye is fibbing) and the people Koanic identifies as Star Children hybrids (Gingrich, Orson Scott Card) are actually just Sapiens with fat heads. Card looks noticeably less Star Child-y in the pictures where he has lost some weight.
Otherwise, looking good.
Cail: A guide to face reading will be part of the Edenism 101 series. As for the forum, we had the Neander Hall for that, but Koanic’s placed new applicants on hold while he reorganizes the site.
Tom: I’m not 100% convinced of the starchildren, but I think it’s worth bringing them up at the moment.
@Cail:
One of the tell-tales of an occipital bun (besides seeing it in profile) is a pronounced bone ridge along the lamboidal suture; it’s pretty easy to feel the back of your head to find it.
@Francis:
People with an occipital bun and deep sockets do occasionally have some melony heritage. Looking at a picture in profile usually shows it best, but a relatively narrow forehead and face is a good way to tell from the front.
Tom: Agreed that we may be erroneously categorizing some high brain volume Cro Mags as Starchildren and that the Starchild is perhaps the most speculative part of Edenism. That said, there is a certain type face and skull you come across from time to time that merits taking a closer look at these guys. I saw a guy yesterday who looked like a Starchild/negro crossbreed.
{ 1 trackback }