Skip to content


Ianuarie 2, 2011


They went out for their evening walk on the seashore just after midnight – a few hours later than usual – because he had wanted to work more, having felt inspired.

They lay on the sand, which was still radiating the day’s heat in the chilly night. Suddenly, he abandoned the course of their ordinary conversation and told her, in a hesitant voice that, although he had not put anything down on paper, that evening he had finally managed to find a perfected version of the unified field theory that surpassed all the contradictions so far unresolved. He also told her that he was planning on presenting his theory instead of his regular speech in two weeks time, at the Nobel awards.

She pressed against him as she laid her head on his chest, thinking that she was the one to have the most intelligent man on the planet and that she was the one to bear his offspring. She only shared the second part of this thought with him. She told him that she had done a pregnancy test that evening, which had been positive.

They began the mating ritual on the deserted beach, the same as they had done a year before, when they had met for the first time. She had come here for a chess tournament and he for a physics convention.

All of a sudden, they were interrupted by the five. He died due to the punches, the kicks and the stabbings. She fell unconscious and almost lifeless following the beating and the rape. This is the way they were found at dawn by the garbage collectors cleaning that distant, isolated beach.

The five were caught and sentenced to life imprisonment.

He was mourned and buried, just like any other dead man.

She went through a terrible time and found the only comfort in the fact that she was bearing his child in her womb. She decided to stay alive only so that she could give birth to this child and raise it.

She gave birth to it. She was raising it. The child looked nothing like the father; on the contrary, as time passed, she could see clearer and clearer  on the child’s face one of the five’s features. She ordered a paternity test. The child belonged to the murderer, not the murdered. She repeated the DNA test twice, always with the same result. The fake positive test had been the pregnancy test, years ago, the evening when the physicist had delayed the evening walk due to the theory he had found but never got to write down.

The woman could not help but notice that, after falling victim to the horror on the beach, she had become an accomplice to this second horror, which could have been prevented. For a while, everything became terrible for her again. But the murderer’s son disappeared after some time, leaving behind her own son. She was raising it. She loved it. It was hers.

It seems like the history of a few people, be it real or not. But it is more than that. It is a summary of the history of human kind. It is the history, past and future, of the inevitable journey of human kind back to ape. It is what Darwin has hidden. By the end of this book, the truth of these statements will seem obvious. And it will also seem beyond dispute that Darwin must have known it.


Irrespective of the criteria various authors establish in order to define the ‘humanising’ process, there is one phenomenon that cannot be separated from the emergence and the evolution of human kind: the explosive growth of the human brain during certain periods. From the Australopithecus to the Sapiens, the brain has expanded over three times in volume.

As such, we cannot imagine a reverse process – of dehumanisation’ – divorced from a decrease in the size of the brain. As this book will show, namely that we are in the process of dehumanisation and that we are heading towards a less evolved ape (meaning less evolved than man), we shall also have to bring into discussion this morphological argument relating to the size of the brain. However, we will hardly support our demonstration on this argument.

All recent studies show a decrease in the size of the human brain throughout the last tens of thousands of years. The Neanderthal, a species closely related to the Sapiens, had a brain 15-20% larger than the latter. The Cro-Magnon, our direct ancestor, also had the brain 15% larger. Our ancestors 5000 years ago also had brains 10% larger than ours.

Again, it must be said that the argument relating to the decrease in the size of the brain will not be invoked in order to demonstrate the anthropolysis we are witnessing, although an increasing number of studies show the existence of a strong correlation between the size of the brain and the level of intelligence. Nonetheless, it must be taken into account at least as an argument for the stopping of genetic evolution in terms of intelligence growth, of the continuous humanizing process. It would be outrageous to believe that the human is still in a process of evolution, happening at the same time as a decrease in brain size, meaning the opposite of what has happened for millions of years.

Blinded by technological progress, our fellow humans imagine an increasingly intelligent human of the future, with an ever growing head and atrophied body. The scientific truth is however contrary to this image, as the above mentioned data about the human brain shows. The reason why human kind is heading towards ape, as this book will show, is precisely the technological progress (which does not refer exclusively to the current state of things). Dehumanisation, the involution of mankind, is a phenomenon perhaps tens of thousands of years old. It looks like a paradox: a superior intelligence creates technology, and in turn technology undermines the intelligence that has created it. Nonetheless, it is not a paradox, but the paradigm of mankind’s history.

As part of the illusion created by technological progress, today’s human feels superior to the primitive human, at least as far as intelligence is concerned. Unfortunately, today’s human is inferior. Superiority complexes should be born towards humans of the future but, as we have seen, the latter is imagined in a completely unrealistic manner. This book will capsize this false perception and will consciously establish the truth: human kind has been on the downward slope of its evolution for a long time. We should bear inferiority complexes towards those that have been before us, towards those primitives who, only out of ignorance, do we disregard. Human intelligence is, essentially, subject to the same phenomenon that modified the stature of reptiles; our mind’s path is somewhat similar to that leading from dinosaur to lizard. And, as was the case for reptiles, the cause is also a change in the environment: technology.


At the time of its advent, the boomerang has represented an undeniable technological progress. But the first boomerang, thrown at least 30,000 years ago, in an age when the Neanderthal was ebbing and the Cro-Magnon rising, did not only hit the prey of that intelligent hunter who had invented it, but it also hit, and is still hitting, all subsequent generations. This was the same result of any technological progress.

Let us evaluate for a moment the consequences this invention had for the hunter and his family.

He could hunt more, thus he could better feed his women, who in turn gave birth to not only more but also healthier babies; and with the excess of meat could better feed these babies.

He could hunt without wasting as much energy and time. This energy and time have been used, partly, to perfect the weapon that he had invented, which led to greater efficiency during the hunt. This allowed him to feed an increasing number of descendants.

He could hunt with fewer risks for his own safety, as he was no longer compelled to approach the prey unless it was already wounded. This kept him in good health for a longer period and allowed him to enjoy a longer life. Therefore, this gave him the time to procreate and raise more children.

In short term, it seems (and it really is) a mechanism of natural selection. This intelligent male is ensuring a numerous pedigree as compared to the less intelligent males in other groups that do not benefit from the invention of the boomerang. In the long term, however, the result is a process of natural anti-selection. Firstly, even among his offspring, some, which would not have managed to survive in the precarious conditions before the invention of the boomerang, will live. Thus, the average intelligence of his descendants is lower than it would have been had the invention not been used. Secondly, males from other groups, although not sufficiently intelligent to invent a boomerang, are intelligent enough to understand the functioning and the advantages of a boomerang and intelligent enough to copy it. These males too, although less intelligent than our hunter, will be able to breed and raise more children, whose average intelligence will be lower than it would have been had the boomerang not been invented.

This is how, already from the first generation, the average intelligence of the survivors from all human groups using the boomerang is lower than it would have been had the boomerang never been used.

Of course, we have oversimplified the issue significantly regarding the chance of survival. We have not taken into account anything else besides the intelligence of an individual. On individual cases or small groups, this is not true. But when applied to the entirety of the human population at that time, this is how things stand: only the smartest have survived and have procreated. This is how human kind has been formed. The human being never excelled through stature, force, speed, claws or sharp teeth. It was not the evolution of the aforementioned qualities that allowed our ancestors to bring down mammoths or to paint them on dark cave walls. It was intelligence that allowed all of this. In the evolution of human kind, intelligence was the criterion on which natural selection was based. And the tougher life was, the greater the pressure of natural selection based on intelligence was.

But any technological progress made life easier, diminishing the pressure of selection. This is a lot more obvious today, when technology has made life so easy that almost anyone can survive and breed. In technologically advanced parts of the world, there is no more pressure of natural selection operating on the genetic background of humankind. Nowadays, it’s raining boomerangs. A deluge.


Let us leave the human being aside for a while and focus our attention on a more distant relative of his, whose living conditions have changed significantly over the last hundreds of years.

For this, let us visit Ireland. If we are not mistaken, it is the first place in Europe where great predators, the bear and the wolf, have gone extinct. This fact is mostly due to a technological product of man, a less common one indeed, as it is a breathing and living product: the Irish wolfhound.

On the one hand, introduced as a selection factor for bears and wolves, this dog has represented such a great pressure that it has exterminated them. On the other hand, simultaneously, the bear and the wolf have exerted a pressure of selection on the dog. The dog was also used as a fighter in wars. Therefore, the selection pressure exerted on this dog was represented by the fiercest predators at that time: the bear, the wolf and the human warrior. It is easy to imagine that in such conditions only the dogs that were fittest for battle have managed to breed. One of the qualities required in battle was size, which we shall trace over time because it is easier to measure than other qualities. In those times, the average height of a wolfhound was 120 cm.

Today, the average height is 90 cm. It has lost a fourth of its height and perhaps over a third of its weight. The fact is due to the weakening of the pressure exerted on the dog. The bear, the wolf and the human warrior have all disappeared from the dog’s life, which has been used increasingly for more peaceful activities (nowadays even as a pet). Under the new conditions, more dogs unfit for battle have survived and bred, including those of a smaller size. Today there are probably more Irish wolfhounds than a few hundreds of years ago but they are no longer as fit for battle. The weakening of the pressure always leads to a rise in quantity in the detriment of quality.

Let us return to the human being. As the human is a physical body obeying the laws of physics, the same rule applies when we say that the human is a biological organism, who cannot escape the laws of biology, including the one establishing the relationship between quality, quantity and the pressure of selection.

Of course that prehistoric man’s survival was also due to certain physical characteristics that we no longer have. All research shows that even the most physically gifted and trained human beings today, namely athlete champions, cannot perform as well as our average ancestor. This means that, on a genetic level, we have already lost these somatic characteristics. And if this is the way things are physically, why would this not be the case on a psychic level? We must emphasize that man’s supremacy in the animal kingdom has been gained precisely with the power of his mind. It was not with claws, muscles or teeth that humans managed to hunt down mammoths or to tame the elephant.

On Europe’s territory in prehistoric times there were only a few tens of thousands of humans who today have hundreds of millions of descendants. The quantitative explosion could have only happened in an environment with weakening pressure of selection and with the corresponding loss in quality. Probably any Cro-Magnon born today would easily face life under the current conditions. Probably very few of the Europeans born today would have faced life in a Cro-Magnon group, had they been born at that time. Just as few of today’s wolfhounds would have faced life if they had fought bears, wolves and warriors. But any of the wolfhounds born a few hundreds of years ago could not only live today, but they would also be a champion of their race.


A chicken hatching from an egg starts to peck (i.e. to feed). The chicken already knows how to do this from the moment it comes into the world. It does not learn from the hen, and we know this because any chicken can peck, even those hatching in an incubator.

A lion cub, on the other hand, does not start hunting as soon as it is born. It hunts only later on, after having gone through a learning process, which takes place within the lion family. A lion born and raised in captivity, if freed in the savannah, will quickly die of starvation as it would be incapable of hunting.

What do these two examples illustrate? That feeding in a chicken’s case is part of its genetic heritage, just as breathing. Feeding in a lion’s case is part of its extra-genetic heritage, of what we may call, without being mistaken, the civilization and culture of the lion family. What is indeed part of the lion’s genetic heritage is the ability to learn how to hunt. But part of a lion’s genetic heritage is also the ability to learn how to perform circus tricks.

However, let us approach the human’s case and study the example of his nearest relative, the chimpanzee, whose genes differ from ours only by 1-2%. The ability to use, if taught by humans, a few hundred words and understand thousands is part of a chimpanzee’s genetic heritage. But this is not part of a wild chimpanzee’s culture; it is not part of their extra-genetic heritage. Neither is the mirror, although their genetic heritage allows them to recognize themselves in the mirror, which is not accessible to lions or chickens, irrespective of the education they receive from a human being.

What conclusion do we draw from these examples? The more intelligent an animal is, the greater the part of its behaviour escaping direct genetic codification and conditioning is and becomes modeled by the education the animal receives within the culture where it is brought up. In other words, the survival of an animal is increasingly dependent on the extra-genetic heritage as we go up the evolution ladder. A lion born with an exceptional genetic heritage but brought up in captivity would never survive in the savannah precisely because it would lack the extra-genetic heritage of wild lions. A less endowed lion, but brought up among wild lions, would survive. Moreover, a disabled lion cub, that couldn’t have survived in the savannah, can live and age in a cage, where neither the genetic nor the extra-genetic heritage plays a major role. People in technologically developed countries today, where there is almost no demand for survival skills, are in a situation very similar to this disabled lion.

If we had the choice of where to live, what would we choose? The prehistoric period or the contemporary period? It is the same type of dilemma as choosing between a beautiful girl and a girl with dowry. The dowry makes life easier. But beauty makes life more beautiful. Beauty is part of the genetic heritage and man’s genetic heritage was greater in prehistory.

Leaving aside this purely theoretical dilemma, let us remember that Dostoyevsky was convinced that beauty would save the world. We should be convinced that the world will not be able to save beauty. For tens of thousands of years, the world is chasing the dowry: technology.


In pre-historic human groups, altruism was, although it may seem like a paradox, an advantage in the battle for survival. When conditions allowed a food surplus, it was advantageous to tolerate weaker human specimens in the group, who only consumed and could not benefit the community. In at least two situations, these specimens could become useful to the group. In case of a predator attack, including another group of humans, the weaker specimen was left behind as a prey, which could save the others. And in case of a period of starvation, the weaker one could be eaten by the stronger ones, thus saving them from death. Therefore, the food surplus offered during prosperous periods to maintaining the weak proved to be a good investment for the survival of the stronger and, implicitly, for ensuring their lineage. Of course that altruism was not back then, as it is neither today, the result of calculations, but the result of certain feelings. Groups that had such feelings had an advantage over those that did not have them and that, in life and death situations, were forced to sacrifice strong members of the community.

The other form of altruism, the extreme one, heroism, brought survival advantages to descendants. The sacrifice, during a fight with animals or with other human groups, of some strong men could still assure survival of their own offspring, of their genes.

If altruism meant an advantage for the strong and their descendants in small groups, in large groups the advantages of perpetuating the weaker genes cease to be visible. Let us see what advantages are created for their own genetic lineage by the great modern altruists: the hero, the saint and the genius.

The saint, a state associated with sexual abstinence and withdrawal from the world, simply interrupts his own lineage, leaving this task to humans inferior to him.

The hero sacrifices his life, leaving his descendants in a state of inferiority compared to the descendants of the living cowards. The hero disfavours his own lineage and favours that of others, favours the perpetuation of others’ genes, not of his own.

The genius places his invention at everyone’s disposal, without favouring his own descendants in any way. As any invention is prosthesis, it favours the weakest most. And, statistically at least, the descendants of a genius are not among the weakest.

After having seen how the great altruists of modernity basically sabotage their own genes in competition with others, let us see what happens in modern societies with the other type of altruism, manifested towards the weaker. In the most technologically advanced and wealthy societies, even though the weaker are not precisely equal to the stronger, survival and breeding are ensured. The reproduction rate is actually higher than average in the weaker individual’s case. His biological success is greater than the stronger individual’s. Today, the latter’s success is social, which is completely divorced from biological success.

Here is how today’s altruism towards the weak, which in the case of humans is manifested by the intelligent, inevitably leads to a decrease in the proportion of intelligence in the world. The price for self-esteem that altruism gives one is paid by one’s descendants. Most of these descendants pay with their own lives. The lives that they will never have…


In the last chapter we have mentioned, in passing, that any invention is a prosthesis which favours the weak most. The boomerang is prosthesis of the arm, making it a hundred times longer. The stone axe is prosthesis of the fist, making it ten times heavier and harder. The automobile is prosthesis of the legs, making them ten times faster and infinitely stronger.

If, in prehistoric times, most prostheses were destined to substitute or amplify physical characteristics of the human body, in the modern world prostheses are increasingly meant to substitute or amplify mental characteristics. Just as the automobile wipes away almost all differences in terms of locomotion between a paralytic and a marathon champion, Google partially cancels the differences between a human with exceptional culture and memory and an uneducated oblivious one.

The moment these differences stop playing any role in the process of natural selection – meaning survival and breeding – the less endowed will cease being eliminated from the world and their genes will perpetuate in the same way as those of the more physically and mentally endowed. This is exactly what has been happening with the human race for tens of thousands of years and the process is growing in size as we get nearer to present day. In the future, the phenomenon will gain in proportion.

One might object to the precision of these statements through two arguments: the increase in size and in the IQ of the most recent generations of humans. However, both arguments only confirm our propositions. This is how: both the increase in size and the increase of the IQ are only the result of prosthesis, the prosthesis of a better alimentation of the most recent generations. It is enough to invoke the fact that the IQ of Africans born in the USA is significantly higher than the IQ of Africans born in Africa. This can be explained through the fact that on the one hand, although phenotipically black, a lot of Africans in the USA have a significant proportion of white genes, while on the other, Africans in the USA benefit from a better nutrition than those in Africa. As both groups have the same genetic background, the inherited intelligence (genotypic) can only be the same, and the difference in the level of manifested intelligence (phenotypic) is strictly linked to the malnutrition of those individuals in Africa. But, although they benefit from the same nutrition, Africans in the USA have a lower IQ than white Americans. This can only be due to a genetic heritage. Africans have always lived in a paradise, where even chimpanzees survive. The white population has lived in the temperate climate purgatory and the Ice Age hell, where no other primate could have survived. This has created a stronger pressure of selection. This is the reason why their IQ is higher. But this will not last for long, because the white population has created a technological paradise for itself, which makes their life easier than in Africa and, on the long term, this can only lead to a decrease in the IQ below that of the Africans.

This is therefore how the prosthesis formed by a quantitatively and qualitatively superior nutrition can substitute and camouflage a genetic degradation at both the physical and mental level.

Another – less obvious –type of prosthesis is the division of labour; an aspect in particular. The employment of the more intelligent in places where intelligence is required substitutes and masks the overall genetic degradation. In societies where this phenomenon does not take place, the society in its entirety seems less intelligent; and it actually is, in a way, as it lacks a certain form of intelligence.


As the human has never been a solitary animal, he survived only insofar as the group to which he belonged survived. Besides the intelligence of its members, any human group is also characterized by another type of intelligence, which ensures the collaboration between its members and the optimization of the cooperation with a view to reach the purposes of the entire group. The better developed this type of intelligence was in a group, the greater the chances of survival and breeding were for that group, especially in the tough conditions in prehistory.

This type of intelligence is essentially the intelligence of obeying the most intelligent – the alpha male. A mammoth hunt or a life and death war with another human group were more likely to succeed when all members followed the strategy and the tactics established by the most intelligent among them. And, in general, all activities went better when coordinated by the alpha male.

Of course it was possible and even probable for some groups to have their alpha male killed by beta males or even omegas or women, in some sort of riots. But by doing so, the group was lowering its chances of survival. Even more so if, after the murder of the alpha, those arguing for his role got lost in struggles for power. Large losses compromised the entire group’s viability.

In the time when man was a hunter, in the tough competition for survival, probably only those groups obeying the alpha male have survived. Those who killed their alpha males perished eventually; the same as any wolf pack killing their alpha wolf would perish. The other members of the pack would just lose themselves in endless battles for the leading role.

Nonetheless, the removal of the alpha male from his role has become possible, without immediate risks for human groups, only later on, due to a technological progress so great that one may talk of a technological revolution. In our opinion, this has been the greatest technological revolution, far more important than the industrial one: the Neolithic revolution. Agriculture, raising animals and the formation of the first villages have all led to the most significant changes in the life of humans, by lowering the pressure of selection significantly and allowing the accelerated growth of the human population (a quantitative growth which took place on the basis of a qualitative decrease).

This qualitative decrease begins with the murder of the alpha male by other united males, maybe even with the participation of some women. As they depended on agriculture and raising animals, and no longer on hunting, as they grew in number and were better protected inside the village by nature’s threats, the alpha male was no longer indispensable to the tribe, aside from periods of war. In times of peace he could be murdered, without having this fact threatening the life of the community in the immediate future. Humans had reached the stage where they could afford to abandon the intelligence of accepting the rule of the most intelligent. And they did abandon it…


Even to this day there is a collective imaginary projecting certain ideals on prehistoric times. Of all the false representations about society before the Neolithic revolution, the most naive but also the most widespread are matriarchy and communism.

It would be ridiculous to believe that in a world as tough as Europe during the Ice Ages, the female was able to choose her sexual partners and also rule a large human group which lived primarily off hunting (i.e. the performance of males subject to an extraordinary pressure of selection). A matriarchy could have existed only in a tropical paradise and only in the case of a population of gatherers where the male and the female had similar activities. But not even in Africa, where such conditions could be met, there are no human matriarchies. Only in the case of a close relative, the bonobo, an ape that allegedly is more alike to us than the chimpanzee. The bonobo leads such an easy life that it affords to spend most of its energy and time on sex. The bonobo mates almost twice an hour, although it gives birth only once every five years. Sexual intercourse takes place in all positions and crosses all types: hetero-, homo- and paedophile. Only the incest between mother and offspring is a taboo, everything else is allowed and practised. A matriarchic paradise.

But let us return to humans… Females’ status before the Neolithic revolution could have only been inferior to that of the stronger males and perhaps equal to that of the inferior males. The first emancipation of women has taken place with the shift from hunting to agriculture and animal raising, more peaceful activities where the woman could have a contribution more similar to that of the man. It was perhaps during the Neolithic revolution that the first democratization of the human society took place, after the dictatorship represented by the alpha male, possibly in association with the few beta males of the Palaeolithic hunting group.

Just as ridiculous as believing in a matriarchy would be to think that the hunters lived in some sort of communism, where everyone had equal rights and duties, where everyone produced and consumed equally, where everything was divided equally between everyone. On the contrary, in a world so rough, where survival was so difficult and humans only seldom lived to the age of 30, only a dictatorship could function, controlled by the alpha male, who ensured the strict hierarchy of the other members beneath him. Surely, the food was not divided equally between all members, but according to the place in the hierarchy. And women were not accessible to all men, but only to the alphas and perhaps some betas (i.e. only the best hunters). Even in the case of chimpanzees, there is a ritual of offering food in return for sex, meaning a male has access to breeding only if it offers food to the female. A similar phenomenon has been observed in the case of certain isolated human tribes, who live in prehistoric conditions, where the best hunters have the widest access to females. A Palaeolithic group that did not function this way would not have stood too great a chance of survival.

The Neolithic revolution has relaxed the pressure of selection to such an extent that it led to more democratic forms in the organisation of the state. Only at this point have the diminution in the powers of the alpha male and even his physical suppression become possible. In addition, this is the moment when perhaps a sexual liberation has taken place, which consisted of the access of a larger number of men to women. This is probably the period when the germs of sexual democracy emerge, a phenomenon that would eventually lead to monogamy – which, from the point of view of genetic selection, represents a calamity that can cause even by itself the relatively fast degeneration of a species. And it keeps causing it, as the sexual liberation over the past few decades is completely divorced from reproduction, therefore not repairing in any way the genetic disaster caused by monogamy in a few thousands of years.


If the Palaeolithic has represented taming the mineral kingdom – the rock which under the human arm and mind had become a tool and a weapon – the Neolithic revolution has meant taming the vegetal and animal kingdoms. The abundance of food which resulted from the cultivation of plants and raising of animals re-creates, to some extent, the tropical paradise with its infinite food reserves. Nonetheless, as opposed to this paradise, the new technological paradise is inhabited solely by man, who no longer finds rivals in his competition for food, nor predators to threaten his life.

The moment humans have tamed the exterior nature, by transforming its hell into a paradise that only benefits them, the fiercest enemy that threatens humans as a species becomes their own nature, what we call the human nature. This is what seems to be the essence of the Neolithic revolution: the transgression of the human being from the hell outside the species to the one inside the species, a hell we inhabit to this day and which we shall only escape under the form of a different species, which shall have to fall in the hell of the exterior nature, where it shall once again face jaws that will create the pressure of selection which we have avoided for a few millennia.

Firstly, following the taming of the mineral, vegetal and animal kingdoms and alongside their expansion, it was imminent for humans to try taming other humans. Slavery was unavoidable, a fascinating phenomenon, if we think that among carnivores, only the dog can be forced to labour. Even herbivore males refuse to labour unless they are castrated. On the other hand, the descendants of the mammoth hunters have accepted slavery and labour in captivity. And they have bred in captivity too.

Secondly, by not having to fight so much against a brutal nature, an increasing part of humans’ energy was spent on struggles for social ascension and power within the Neolithic village. It was probably during such fights that the taboo of killing the alpha male by members of his own group has been breached, something unheard of in the case of any other species.

Thirdly, the rapid breeding within the Neolithic village has led very large human groups. Human beings were not genetically equipped to manage the new relationships; a consequence of overcrowding. On all levels, a type of promiscuity emerges which foreshadows the later urban agglomerations.

Fourthly, the demographic growth generates a pressure which leads to conflicts for resources between different tribes. A growing share of human energy is invested into war.

Briefly, once the exterior nature relaxes its pressure, the pressure is now exerted by human nature, the nature within the human. There begins a period characterized by overcrowding, promiscuity and conflicts, which man is not genetically prepared to handle. Even to this day, human kind has not managed to come up with an acceptable technology of human relationships. And today, technological progress ameliorates an increasingly precarious life in terms of relationships. The entire lifestyle, from Neolithic to this day, is one that increasingly divorces social success from the biological one (i.e. reproduction). It is a life where natural selection is completely absent and whose consequence can only be an accelerated genetic deterioration.

It is perhaps not a coincidence, as I have said, that the brain of a modern age human is 10% smaller than the brain of a Neolithic human, and 15% smaller than a Cro-Magnon’s.


Although human agglomeration has obviously determined the deterioration of genetic heritage, it has also led to an explosive growth of extra-genetic heritage, due to the trend towards labour division.

In a hunter group, extra-genetic heritage was approximately the same for everyone; everyone learned to use the same tools and weapons, everyone had the same knowledge and beliefs about the world, everyone learned the same rules of conduct, etc. The Neolithic revolution, splitting humans into cultivators and shepherds, already creates the premises of a differentiation regarding extra-genetic heritage between the two occupational areas. Later urban agglomerations will lead to even more occupations, with various heritages. With the industrial revolution, there begins an explosion of the differentiation of extra-genetic heritage, a consequence of the job and specialization explosion.

Under such conditions, the extra-genetic heritage of human kind has grown infinitely in comparison to that of the Palaeolithic society, even though the average extra-genetic heritage of a human being has decreased through the diminution in intelligence and the ability to learn, following the decrease in the genetic heritage, following the weakening of the pressure of selection.

From a species with apter individuals than today, but with a life expectancy of 20-30 years, from a species that has been more than once on the verge of extinction, the human has managed (although with less genetically endowed specimens) to colonize the entire Earth and to breed at an incredible speed, reaching a population of 7 billion people. This performance is due exclusively to the explosive growth of the total extra-genetic heritage of human kind. This helps both the genetic deterioration of the average human and its consequence, the decrease in the individual extra-genetic heritage, go unnoticed.

For a population as numerous as today’s, with a distribution of intelligence in accordance with Gauss’s curve, there are today a lot more brilliant minds than the entire prehistoric population. Also, there are too many intelligent minds than it would be necessary to sustain an explosive development of science and technology, a true industry of prostheses for under-developed humans.

To think that a gorilla, with a brain of only 500 cm³, almost three times smaller than ours, is able to do so many things and can also learn to use a few hundred words and understand a few thousand words, should not worry us at all. In spite of their decrease and their becoming less intelligent, our brains will be assisted by the increasingly effective technology.

But we cannot abstain from making the bitter remark that, while people are less and less intelligent, objects are more and more intelligent and easier to use. This should not surprise us, as objects incorporate the intelligence of those who invented and perfected them, an intelligence quite distant from today’s average of the human species.


Why centres and not the centre? Because there are always two.

Let us imagine a map of the world indicating the level of technology for every area, meaning the extra-genetic heritage of the population there. On today’s map, the centre of the world is North America. On yesterday’s map, the centre would have been Western Europe. On tomorrow’s map, we believe the centre will be East Asia. The day after tomorrow, we do not dare to say who will be – not even who will not be – the centre. In any case, the day after tomorrow’s centre will be someone who will have a poor quality of life tomorrow.

Let us imagine a map of the world indicating the genetic heritage specific for each area. If we made a correction depending on nutrition, the IQ distribution map would approximate the genetic heritage one fairly well. Today’s centre of the world is East Asia. Yesterday’s centre would have been North America and the one before yesterday, Western Europe. We do not predict who will be tomorrow in the centre of this map, but, the day after tomorrow, that part of the world will be in the centre of the map regarding the extra-genetic heritage, technology.

Why is the centre of the world not always the same? Why does it periodically move around the Earth? What is the law defining this phenomenon?

In our opinion, this is how it all happens.

A technologically advanced civilization ensures an easier life to its population, therefore a smaller pressure of selection and a faster genetic degradation. A technologically retarded population exerts a less weak pressure of selection than an advanced one, so the genetic degeneration will be slower. In spite of the advanced civilization’s stronger genetic heritage, which is the reason why it is ahead, taking into account the different paces of degeneration, at a certain point the technologically retarded population will reach first place in terms of genetic heritage. Following the contact between these two populations, after a while, the one coming from behind (i.e. the one degrading slower) will manage to absorb the other population’s technology. When the technologies are equal – i.e. the same extra-genetic heritage – it will be the genetic heritage that decides who will be supreme. Thus, it is the initially technologically underdeveloped civilization (so involving at a slower pace) that becomes the new centre of the world. We must repeat, involution is happening and has been happening everywhere for thousands of years.

The centre of the world has always changed in the manner described above. This is how the transfer of power from the Romans to the barbarians in Western Europe has occurred. The latter were genetically less degraded because they had been living in harsher conditions (on the one hand, the climate, and on the other, the technological retardation). These Western barbarians have, in turn, created the industrial revolution, which made them the centre of the world. The same, North America has become the centre after Europe. Emigrated Europeans to America have been subjected to a tougher pressure of selection compared to the Europeans in Europe; therefore the genetic difference suddenly grew in favour of the colonists. As they already had the European technology, in only a matter of hundreds of years, the Americans moved the centre of the world to the Northern Continent. And in order to keep it, Americans are to this day the greatest importer of brains ever to exist in the world.

However, on an IQ map, East Asia is the centre of the world, already overtaking North America. It is only a matter of time seeing the technological centre of the world move there.


Starting with the Renaissance and perhaps even earlier than that, there is a ghost restlessly haunting the entire world. This ghost seems to us to be the very essence of modernity. This ghost is the belief, mystical in fact, although always disguised behind the appearance of rationality, that the human is some sort of god in the making; a perfectible god which education, civilization and culture continuously improve.

We do not deny that in the case of certain individuals, the situation is exactly this. However, on the overall population of a society and over the span of several generations, the situation is exactly the opposite in our opinion.

As a matter of fact, if education, civilization and culture created an increasingly advanced society, then the centre of the world would never change, because a technologically advanced country, which always has a better society, would also have a better human and it would be unsurpassable by any other, with a less advanced technology. In that case, the difference between the centre of the world and all other civilizations should be growing. Nonetheless, our theory on the one hand and practice on the other show us precisely the contrary: the difference is decreasing, it is disappearing and, finally, another population becomes the centre, a population which had neither the technology, nor the education of the population now defeated.

Let us now identify some of the mechanisms through which civilization and culture accelerate the genetic degeneration of a population. Coupled with technology, these mechanisms generate an emancipation of the population, a growth in terms of claims of a society’s members.

Firstly, a process of ‘infantilisation takes place, an increase in the period dedicated to the education and formation of an individual. This leads to a delay in terms of the age dedicated to procreation. Especially in the case of women, this exposes the offspring to more genetic risks, which represents a genetic degeneration of the overall population.

In second place, the section most affected by emancipation is represented by the most intelligent. Precisely, the most intelligent are the ones to procreate at a later time during their lives or never to procreate at all. Those less intelligent finish their education quicker and procreate earlier. Thus, it is the most valuable genetic heritage that is exposed to degeneration the most. The phenomenon is a sort of genetic democratization.

In third place, the emancipation of women, brought about by civilization, is represented by their desire to be equal to men, especially their men. This means women, especially those more intelligent and more emancipated, will settle down and have families with weaker men, unable to dominate them. Although alpha males have wider access to women than weaker males, their access to reproduction is decreasing, as civilization separates sexuality from procreation. Limiting the alpha males and extending reproduction to weaker males accelerates, in its turn, the degeneration of the species.

This is how the entire modern scaffolding, founded on the illusion that man is becoming better through civilization, crumbles like a castle made of playing cards. An entire culture – including all sciences about the human being – proves to have false premises. And this culture and, in particular, this science, will have to be rewritten and indeed will be, under the pressure of biology and genetics; because the 21st century will belong to genetics, just as the 20th belonged to physics and cosmology.


Let us move away from the human for a moment – but not for long – and focus on his closest relative, besides the bonobo and the chimpanzee: the gorilla. The genetic difference between us and gorillas is of only 2%. Let us study what happens with an individual from this species that reaches the peak of social success, namely becomes an alpha male.

After defeating the previous alpha male of the group, the new alpha has access to all the females, who will now ensure his lineage. Not only that all cubs born from now on will be his, but the new alpha male will also kill the cubs belonging to the previous alpha male. Thus, on the one hand, a new alpha eliminates the previous alpha’s descendants, and on the other, females that had cubs become fertile quicker and can start giving birth to the new alpha’s descendants. We therefore see how the gorilla that reaches the maximum level of social success also reaches the equivalent in terms of biological success. And the moment an alpha male loses his leader quality, he also loses the biological success along with the social one, by ceding breeding rights to the new leader.

We imagine this was the situation for humans as well during the period preceding the Neolithic revolution. Even if the alpha male did not have exclusive access to the females in the group and there may have been a few betas that had access, the alpha had nonetheless the greatest access. This is how the best genes of the group were perpetuated, meaning, in this case, the most intelligent, with an increasingly large brain. Neither the transformation into a more evolved species, nor the preservation of the qualities, and in particular intelligence, within the same species can be imagined outside this mechanism, where a maximum level of social success is coupled with a maximum of biological success, characterized by a larger number of descendants belonging to the best equipped individual.

And now let us turn to present day and see how things have changed. Let us take, to begin with, two examples of men whose alpha status has never been contested: Genghis Khan and Napoleon Bonaparte. And we shall only observe the extent to which their social success has been coupled with their biological success.

Genghis Khan has lived in a society of warriors, more similar in its social structure to that of Palaeolithic hunters than to the one Napoleon lived in. Genetic studies show that in today’s Mongolian population, 800 years after his death, there are a few hundreds of thousands of his direct descendants, amounting to almost 10% of Mongolian population. If we also take into account Mongolia’s huge surface, it is an immense biological success, proportional to this brilliant political and military leader’s social success.

The same genius has been shared by Napoleon and he has had the same social success as the Mongolian. But if one looked for his direct descendants living today in France, one would only find a few tens or hundreds. And this means nothing compared to the population of France. The explanation for Napoleon’s not having any biological success, in spite of his huge social success, resides in the fact that he has lived in a far more civilized world than that of the Mongolian ruler; a world where the social and biological success were almost completely divorced.

In today’s world, a biological success similar to that of the boomerang inventor or even to that of Genghis Khan is unimaginable. Even if someone did have very many descendants, it would still amount to nothing, compared to the 7 billion people inhabiting the planet at the moment.


Although the proportion of intelligent individuals is declining, they are however too many in the light of the need to technologically sustain and develop today’s society.

It was not necessary for all people to invent the bicycle, but only for one to do it. Also, it was not necessary for all people to manufacture bicycles, but only for a tiny fraction. And what is valid for the bicycle is valid for anything that becomes part and stays a part of the human’s extra-genetic heritage.

And as society becomes more complex, especially as a consequence of labour division, another parallel phenomenon takes place: an ever decreasing percentage of people are responsible with the growth and the preservation of the extra-genetic heritage of the entire human population. And, obviously, most humans are in charge with activities predominantly simple, codified, easy to execute – physically and mentally. These many are only the beneficiaries of the technological paradise, without having any contribution to its creation or even preservation. More people end up living a life similar to our close fruit-eating relative, the bonobo, harvesting from paradise what they did not sow.

Similarly, most people living in an area where the technological paradise is invented and manufactured can, at a glance, notice that they are in no way taking part in the creation of this paradise, but only in its distribution. Just the same as the bonobos, who are consumers in a paradise in whose invention they played no part.

In the case of less endowed humans, the finding of the fact that they are only paradise’s beneficiaries cannot displease them; they could not have contributed to its creation anyway. They can only take pleasure in the profit.

However, the intelligent individuals left outside or at the borders of the invention and manufacturing of this Paradise have all the reasons not to feel well in this world which, on the one hand has too few intelligent people to make the infernal side of the world (social life) bearable, and on the other hand, has too many intelligent people compared to the necessary number to enrich the paradisiacal side of the world (technology).

As a matter of fact, technology is the most certain road to human happiness. It does not only create the conditions of an easier life, but indirectly, by suppressing the pressure of selection, it also lowers the expectation threshold regarding happiness of most individuals. Technology ensures an ever widening foundation of the potentially happy: the half-wits.


This saying is valid for more recent times and the more we approach the present, the more valid it becomes. In the times of the Palaeolithic hunter, however, the most intelligent never gave way. The alpha male was the alpha, precisely because he never gave way. Today, however, he cannot help to act differently. Technology, which alpha males have created and developed, as well as agglomeration, rendered possible due to the Neolithic technological revolution (reaching inhuman proportions today), make the alpha male powerless.

The alpha male is the loser of human history. And he has lost precisely because of the product of his intelligence: technology. The boomerang invented by the alpha some tens of thousands of years ago is giving a deadly blow to another alpha. The intelligence of the alpha male has created a world that he can no longer control. The alpha has built his hell, while building paradise for the others.

Indeed, for the alpha, today’s world is the worst of all existing ones. But for all others, it is the best one yet. Omega males have equal access to breeding as the alpha. Women can choose their sexual partners as they please, without feeling compelled to give birth to the alpha’s descendants, without feeling compelled to give birth to so many offspring and affording to live next to omega males, which they can dominate. The offspring, most of them to become omega adults, are at the centre of attention and get the best of everything.

It is enough to look carefully at all the movements for minority rights and one shall see that most of these actually consist of the majority of females and omega males and are constantly directed against the alpha, indirectly at least. The word minority is used, most often, only as a camouflage, to raise sympathy, as is the case whenever a smaller group is oppressed by a larger one.

In the Palaeolithic society, the alpha was not only a minority, but singular. Yet he did not demand rights on the basis of this argument; he took them by himself. During slavery, slave owners were a minority compared to the slaves. In the middle ages, the feudal lords were a minority, as opposed to the serfs. But all of these strong minorities took what they could; they did not try in any way to rely on anyone’s compassion. In any case, it is not the fact of being a minority that which gives one weakness or power. Yesterday, the alpha males were a minority, but they had the power. Today, still a minority, they are powerless. Today, the overall population has an overwhelming majority, the majority of those sharing the characteristic of not being an alpha. The fact that the members of this majority present themselves as being a sum of minorities is only the result of their need to feel special; chosen. And their claims are simply a way of imposing power they already have.

The true minority in today’s world is the alpha. But you will never see the alphas forming an official minority and demanding their right. They do not do it precisely because they know that they have no chance of getting it. Because their right is everything. As a matter of fact, nothing or everything. They know they will never have anything again, that they have lost everything forever… Out of intelligence, they ask for nothing. The most intelligent gives way… The alpha males are retiring, gradually and discretely, from the world. The alpha males know that they are a species on the verge of extinction. Or even a living fossil…

Nevertheless, the alpha male is dying out with the conscience of an accomplished duty: he has offered survival and well-being to all the others. He has offered them paradise, as legacy.


Obama seems black but he is not. At least, he is not any more black than he is white. Obama’s genotype is not that of a black person’s. Only his phenotype is. In the same way as Obama is not, but only seems black, an alpha male today just looks like an alpha, but he is not.

In the time of the invention of the boomerang, an alpha male did not only have alpha qualities, but he also had an alpha genetic purity. He was the son of an alpha and of a female who was the daughter of an alpha. Throughout the entire family tree of an alpha male, one could find only alpha males or, possibly, some beta males, as omega males had not had access to reproduction until after the Neolithic revolution, when the agglomeration had made possible the emergence of sexual promiscuity. Although the term may displease some, I attach no moral meaning to it, just as nothing in this book has any connection to morals. It is simply a paper with the goal of following how certain natural laws act upon the human being. From a species perspective, sexual promiscuity means omega males’ access to breeding, a process whereby genes of a lower quality are passed down to the next generation, the key-link in the process of genetic degradation of the species. From this point of view, in today’s civilized world, sexual promiscuity is absolute, as access to breeding for omega males is equal to that of alphas.

It is this sexual promiscuity – stretching over the course of tens of thousands of years – that has made today’s alpha only a phenotypic alpha, not also genotypic. A present day alpha surely has, throughout his family history, a never ending chain of omegas. As such, an alpha today does not present the same potential in terms of reproduction as a Palaeolithic one. Even the alpha hunter had omega offspring sometimes, with all the pressure exerted until then for millions of years throughout the formation of the human being. The same, the daughter of an alpha today does not present potential in term of reproduction either, compared to a Palaeolithic daughter, for the same reasons. One would have to breed an alpha with an alpha daughter for many generations to obtain alpha genotypes, not only phenotypes. This is why the assumption that a more evolved (i.e. more intelligent) species could arise from humanity is ridiculous. There would be nobody to give birth to such a species. Even if some of us look like alphas, they are alphas only in terms of their aspect. On the inside, all alphas today are altered, rotten. It is the result of sexual promiscuity. Therefore, these alphas cannot give birth to something superior to today’s human being. Like the omega, today’s alpha cannot do anything but provide predecessors for tomorrow’s ape.

For man will return, at a certain point, into the ape. As a matter of fact, he will not even return. Man’s journey is from a wild ape to a domestic ape, namely to one that has also lost physical qualities. A domestic ape, one as different from the wild ape, as the goat from a deer.

Actually, one of the despising names we use to label that ancient hunter, superior to us on all levels, is the ‚savage’. But we are involuntarily right. We are the domestic man. The step preceding the domestic ape.

Countless domestic apes wander, on a fleet of icebergs of lucidity melting away in the technological ocean… This is how I see the final picture… What it has in common with other pictures of the apocalypse, such as the nuclear war or the green-house effect, is the fact that what led to humanity’s extinction is its own intelligence. The difference is that I do not see a violent end, but a slow one. It is the distinction between burning on the stake or being torn to pieces in an explosion and a death in the final stages of Alzheimer. Although it is a less painful death, it is a sadder one. Sadder for those contemplating it today, not for those that will live it. Those living it will not be contemporaneous with contemplation…


Eugenics, this perpetuum nobile, cannot be desirable or undesirable, for the sole reason that it is impossible. Just as we cannot desire a perpetuum mobile, because we know it is impossible. We will prove in the following passages that eugenics is a form of utopia of the same kind.

Eugenics is a topic which has become taboo throughout the past decades, because of the Nazis, who have used it as a pretext for exterminations, especially for that of the Jews. As an irony of fate, the inventors of the atomic bomb have been some individuals belonging to this Jewish ‚inferior race’. This device could have wiped off the surface of the Earth the ‚Aryans’ who had not been able to invent it.

In great conflicts that involve masses, there will always be some sort of resort to an ideology that does not address reason, but primary affects, the only ones capable of inspiring the crowds. In all cases of this type, the propagandists of one side depict the other side as being, more or less, inferior, undeveloped, degenerated, and all of this in order to justify murdering people and dispossessing them of their goods. In all these cases, propaganda has to find a criterion so that the masses that are being manipulated easily identify the enemy: race, religion, language, social class. Eugenics, more or less disguised, developed by such ideologists or propagandists, has no scientific basis.

A population technologically underdeveloped at a certain moment can subsequently surpass a more developed one. Two millennia ago, the Romans had a society clearly superior to that of the populations living then in Western Europe. Yet it would not be the Romans, but these Western populations, that would accomplish the Industrial Revolution, the second largest technological revolution in human history. The technological supremacy and the genetic supremacy (reflected by a higher genotypic intelligence) of a population is a temporary matter, as we have shown in some of the previous chapters (and in particular in the one dedicated to the centres of the world and their movement throughout history). Therefore, eugenics through suppression of certain population and their enslavement is just an ideological facade, dirty and precarious, invoked as a pretext only to mask pillaging and crimes. The genetic degeneration and the decrease in intelligence are happening everywhere, even though not everywhere and anytime at the same speed.

The extermination of a social class by another is still a type of ‚eugenics’ that implies that all burdens accumulate only in a certain area of the population, this time defined in a socio-economic manner. The same error occurs when one assumes that individuals of a certain religion are inferior to others holding another religion. ‚Eugenics’, more or less explicit, from the ideology underlying wars such as the Crusades or the Jihad, would be founded only if God or Allah had set different biological laws and, especially, genetic laws for different populations, laws that could be modified for each person individually, if one were to choose converting.

And those supporting the fact that eugenics is realised through any type of war, that war is some sort of natural selection, are even further from the truth. Wars, including internal ones called revolutions, kill irrespectively the bad and the good, the smart and the stupid, and so do not assure any selection. Wars kill in the same way as natural disasters do. When the Vesuvius erupted, it killed all inhabitants that were in the way of lava, not only the weak, just as any volcano’s eruption kills an entire pack of wolves happening to be nearby, not only the omegas. A higher IQ is not a bullet-proof helmet.

Another type of eugenics is worth considering: the one regarding the elimination (physical or only from the breeding process) of the most disabled, of those suffering from serious mental disease. But all these individuals represent a very small proportion in society and even a smaller proportion in the process of genetic degradation. Their removal would have no perceptible effect on this degeneration, which takes place through the activity of all individuals that breed today, not only those oppressed by fate.

The only imaginable eugenics is one that exerts a pressure of selection, at least in terms of reproduction, on all humans, from all over the world, in such a way so as to ensure that only alpha seeming males have offspring. But this pressure of selection cannot be exerted from inside the species; it would be the same as trying to lift oneself off the ground by pulling one’s own hair.

Humans will never deteriorate today’s living conditions only for the sake of future generations. Can you imagine, for instance, modern women abandoning biological sexual promiscuity and giving up, simply for the sake of genetically endowing their children, procreating with omega males, who are such comfortable and advantageous partners? Whoever is imagining this is imagining that la donna e nobile, when as a matter of fact, la donna e mobile… perpetuum.

One may get the impression that we consider the woman to be somehow inferior to the man. But it is not so. Today’s woman is at least equal to the man, in a world where omega males are the overwhelming majority. And tomorrow’s woman will be superior to the man. This is the way things are because the man has degenerated more and faster than the woman. It was only natural for dehumanisation to occur genetically through men, since the entire humanisation process had also taken place genetically through men; the alpha males. Certainly, it was the alpha males who have initiated the dehumanization process, through the technological progress they created. Everything good and bad in today’s world is their work.

What we are stating is that men in the past were superior to women, and even more so to today’s women, who are inferior to the few alpha men today. And I would like to take an example from an area that measures intelligence quite accurately, in all of its complexity: chess. When among the first 100 chess players in the world there will be at least 25 women, these issues may be brought into discussion once again. But for now, there are only one or maybe two women…


Let us summarise…

Any species can either maintain its qualities or amplify them, by transforming into a superior species, only if it is permanently subjected to a pressure of selection. Otherwise, the species genetically deteriorates and loses its qualities with time.

Natural selection means: many are born, few survive (only the aptest) to maturity and even fewer (only the strongest) breed and have offspring.

In human’s evolution the main quality, although not the only one, subject to natural selection has been intelligence, closely linked to the volume of the brain.

The human being has evolved primarily through the sexual selection of the male, whose criterion has been, before all, intelligence.

The alpha male has become so intelligent that it invented technology which, in essence, is prosthesis and has led to an ever increasing fostering of survival and breeding, meaning a suppression of the pressure of selection within the species.

After the Palaeolithic age, which symbolised the taming of the mineral kingdom, the Neolithic technological revolution has achieved the taming of the vegetal and the animal kingdoms and created the premises of the domestication of the human being, especially by creating the first human agglomeration – the Neolithic village.

The Neolithic technological revolution and the agglomeration of the Neolithic village have started the reduction in the importance and the power of the alpha male and have formed the germs of promiscuity (sexual democratisation), a key-link in the genetic deterioration as a consequence of omega males’ access to breeding.

Technological development and life in ever growing agglomerations have led, throughout history, to a separation between the social and the biological success and a divorce between individual characteristics and social success. The result today is an absolute democracy in terms of breeding, namely an equal access to breeding between alphas and omegas.

Apart from technology and agglomeration, education, civilization and culture have become factors that have caused and accelerated the genetic degradation, by deepening the chasm between social success and biological success (breeding).

Today, due to the diminution and cessation of natural selection over hundreds of generations, there are no more genotypic but only phenotypic alpha males.

Eugenics is a utopia because there can never exist a pressure of selection from within a species, only from without and only in the conditions of a pressure that would stop the genetic deterioration of the human being.

Starting from the Cro-Magnon, man has suffered an inevitable and irreversible involution of both physical and mental qualities, which will transform him into a helpless domestic ape, lost in a jungle of technology.

The book could be over here. We would urge the reader to take a fresh look at the first chapter and to check whether that history actually summarizes the history of human kind and seizes its essence. We would also encourage the reader to reflect on the fact that Darwin did not describe human kind’s history, past and future, as a species escaping natural selection (through technological advancement, agglomeration and democratization of the breeding process).

However, we will not stop here, as we suggest following other aspects of human’s degradation today – other than the genetic one. We will try to identify what exactly is dragging the human being below the level allowed by his current genetic heritage, not yet very precarious.


After having seen in previous chapters what the human is heading towards, it seems to us that a more appropriate attitude for human kind would be one of humility, similar to medieval piety, rather than modern infatuation, that rests solely on the illusion that, having created and ameliorated a technologic paradise, it can also manage to perfect everything about its life, including itself.

Human imperfections have been and are still seen by many simply as products of imperfections in different societies. All sorts of utopias have and are still being conceived and advanced in order to ameliorate society – which, by becoming perfect at some point, would supposedly run itself automatically – and fulfil individuals – what is termed the ‚new man’; a human superior to all others that have existed previously. Let us remember Marx, who saw man (in communism, of course) labouring in the morning and reading the ancient philosophers in the evening. Or let us remember Maslow, who saw humans (having reached the social model that could meet their basic needs) rushing to satisfy their new spiritual, metaphysical needs…

In the meantime, a few nearly communist societies and a few societies that can meet all the basic needs of their members have come into existence. But there was no record of the new man’s rush towards superior activities. On the contrary, the classes that should have formed the elites of these societies have been those to become contaminated by popular taste and have abandoned the strata at the top of Maslow’s pyramid for the lower ones. If yesterday’s elites kept Bach, Goya or a theatre group in their service, today’s patrons own television channels for the masses, tabloid newspapers and football teams. Neither democracy nor prosperity has led to a significant elevation of the masses. On the contrary, the result has been lowering the standards of the elites.

General knowledge is the field where elites with different specializations meet; it is the area where everyone having knowledge or opinions can share them. If yesterdays general knowledge comprised historic, philosophical, literary, musical or art works belonging to classics and moderns on their way to becoming classics, today the area of general knowledge of the elites is increasingly populated by pop or film stars, television celebrities, sportsmen, journalists, politicians and businessmen, in the detriment of classic values. A general knowledge of the difficult and long-lasting is replaced by one of the facile and ephemeral.

A paradox of the current age, keeping in mind that we are witnessing an explosion of technology, is the decreasing presence within the general knowledge sphere of relatively recent scientific information, especially of those belonging to physics and cosmology (the sciences that have dominated the 20th century and its technology) and of those belonging to genetics and biology (the sciences that will dominate the 21st century).

And if we refer to a general knowledge of the masses, we notice the fact that all ages and parts of the world seem to co-exist simultaneously. There are European states where, even after half a century of general secondary education, those believing that the Sun revolves around the Earth threaten to become a majority. In addition, the belief in all sorts of superstitions, from horoscopes to witchcraft, is just as widespread in the Western world as it was in the Middle Ages. Today’s satisfied masses and democratic societies are miles away from Marx’s or Maslow’s utopian forecasts regarding the quality of the human being. They saw the flaws of the humans living in the same age as them but, out of love for them, they found excuses in the imperfect social model. Blind love…

And yet, the man Marx had dreamt of has existed, in the distant past, in the Palaeolithic age. This man was hunting mammoths, painting the walls of dark caves and saving his fellow hunter from death by trepanning his skull… and it is very likely that the Palaeolithic human did all of these without having satisfied his basic needs at the bottom of Maslow’s pyramid.


Let us take a look at Maslow’s pyramid. The inferior levels are represented by the natural. The superior levels are the spiritual. The intermediate levels are social.

Let us analyse what it is that our contemporaries living in a civilized and wealthy world such as today’s Western world desire. If we were to summarize, almost all want to be part of the crowd and not to be part of the crowd, at the same time. This means they do not want to be excluded from society but to be more visible. In essence, they want social success.

For the many, nature is downsized to landscape, going out in nature means strictly the landscape. The expression is not ‘going in’ but ‘going out’. Going out of what? Out of the social… Natural food and therapies are the metabolic alternative to going out in nature, which is the visual alternative. For some, nudism is another step towards the natural. And copulation at random, in a crowd, is for some the supreme step in the search for nature.

Are all of these part of nature? Human nature (since we are talking about humans)? In a few tens of thousands of years, man did not have time to genetically adapt to the new life conditions that continuously change, but only degrade, that is, lose his adaptability to his old environment. The only natural life structure for the human has always been (and it is for today’s human too) the Palaeolithic tribe. But it is not this meaning that modern man gives to a natural life. What nature means to man today is what he has been taught in all sorts of schools – formal or informal. It is the result of a social dressage.

Regarding the spiritual, humans today see it as something supernatural, namely an escape into a ‘superior’ nature, which one can access through some sort of occult revelation or initiation. Today there are far more people who know about Nostradamus than those that have heard about Niels Bohr. Far more know about Maya legends forecasting the end of the world than about the Big Bang. Numerology is more popular than arithmetic, and astrology comes before astronomy. This is essentially a denial of the spiritual, of the same type as the denial of the natural. It is a type of regimentation in the social. You are interesting if you believe in things that have not been and cannot be verified, that have not been and cannot be proven. In astrology, you are equal to Einstein. Regarding the end of the world, you are in no way inferior to the entire Copenhagen school, even if you have never heard of it. You are shaped by today’s schools, not only by those that award you diplomas, but the unofficial ones too: the mass media, family, friends, etc. All, dressage schools. You are trained to place the social before all things, a tendency that emerged with the Neolithic state, when the natural order characterized by the alpha’s supremacy has been capsized; when the spiritual order characterized by the same alpha’s supremacy has been capsized; when everyone felt they may escape the crowd and become visible but still be part of the crowd; when everyone felt that, without being an alpha, they could have a bit of his place.

Material goods are not desired today in order to satisfy needs. An old automobile does not make you happier because you can travel faster than you could on foot, faster than Genghis Khan or Napoleon on horseback; it makes you unhappy because others have new automobiles. A lover does not make you happy insofar as s/he offers you physical sensations or insofar as you can share something spiritual with him/her, but insofar as it makes others envy you. You do not take pleasure in knowing something more than Plato – about the big bang, the origin of the species, relativity, quantum mechanics and genetics – and you never regret not knowing more; instead, you regret being a part-time lecturer and not a full-time one. It does not matter what you really are, what it is that you do and what it is that you have, but what the others think you are, you do or you have. This is the result of the dressage that takes place in schools; all schools. Any school is a dressage school. No matter what school you graduate from, you will be trained to think that the most important thing in your life is the social. And any dressage functions exclusively by relying on conditioned, Pavlovian reflexes. The social rewards you, the social punishes you. You can only advance through the social. The natural and the spiritual exist only insofar as they are socially acceptable. Is it natural to have sex more often but have fewer children? Is it spiritual to believe in spiritualism sessions rather than in heredity?

In today’s world, there is such formidable pressure exerted by the social that our life is not what you would expect to see in the case of an ape somewhat less intelligent than the Cro-Magnon; it is more similar to the life of insects in a hive. This can only be the result of dressage. Genetically, we are not built for this, just as the lion at the circus is not born to perform tricks.

Under the conditions of technological advancement, agglomeration and sexual democratization, once the needs at the bottom of Maslow’s pyramid are satisfied, needs at the top of the pyramid seem inexistent because, regarding social needs at the middle of the pyramid, the ‘new man’ seems insatiable… Aurea mediocritas…


All those preaching man’s return to nature should not overlook one thing. In his natural environment, in the Palaeolithic tribe, man did not live over the age of 30. As such, those of us over that age can only live unnaturally. They have already lived their natural lives and are now living the bonus of years offered by the technological paradise. People today live over two times longer than their ancestors who lived in nature, just as animals at the zoo live over 2-3 times longer than their wild relatives. The reasons for this increase in life span are the same: like the animal at the zoo, today’s human is protected from danger, is well-fed, is less physically and mentally stressed, is treated when he is ill.

It is beyond doubt that, for the person living it, it is better to have a longer life and a more comfortable living. But for society as a whole these significantly and unnaturally prolonged lives only add the burden of years to the burden of millennia of genetic degeneration. They add a physical and mental weakness of the individuals. And we are not referring solely to octogenarians or centenarians, but to all those that have lived longer than their natural life – 30 years.

Physical performance as well as mental performance reaches a maximum around the age of 25, followed by decline. Regarding physical qualities, it is enough to study the careers of sportsmen, who seldom carry over the age of 30-35. Regarding mental qualities, we can see that almost all chess world champions in the last half a century have won their title between the age of 20 and 35, most of them under the age of 30. And, in any field where access to excellence is not bureaucratically controlled, the maximum is reached by people around the age of 25. We will offer only one example: Albert Einstein. He illustrates the genius, so well-known that it would not be inaccurate to say he is now a part of folklore and mythology. But the images associated to Einstein are those published by the media, when he was already of old age. Einstein has culminated at the age of 26, when he conceived and published several works, among which we find the special theory of relativity and the theory of the photoelectric effect. It is for this latter theory that he has received the Nobel Prize at the age of 42. He published the general theory of relativity at the age of 36. Thus, we should associate the genius of Einstein to his earlier pictures. It would be in the spirit of truth, something the brilliant physician has loved so much.

If, aside from the physical and the spirit, we also accept the soul as an area of autonomous values, then we see that young people have excelled in this area as well. As proof, we have the great poets of the world, those that have managed to express the maximum of depth and intensity.

In today’s society however, access to most areas of excellence is conditioned by the passage through bureaucratic filters, controlled especially by people over the age of 40. And valuable youths are forced to waste a great share of their energy and (most importantly) time by fighting with this Kafkaesque/Orwellian bureaucracy. And after managing to overcome this democracy, they usually find that they are no longer young and that they no longer have the age to reach maximum performance. And our aged youths become, in turn, a bureaucratic filter for future generations. Thus, society loses the maximum potential of its most endowed members. This is the price we pay for the surplus in terms of life and comfort.

Let us think about the political and military achievements of Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan and Napoleon Bonaparte. Could such achievements be re-enacted today by people their age?

And then let us ponder on the fact that a Cro-Magnon had only 30 years to achieve all that he had to achieve in his life. And he actually managed, during these 30 years, to take over power from the previous alpha, to ensure survival and breeding for his tribe, to invent a weapon or a tool, to hunt mammoths, to immortalize them in cave paintings, to trephinate the skulls of his ill fellow tribesmen. As a matter of fact, he did all of this in only 15 years, throughout his years of adolescence, adulthood and old-age, put together.

Today, our life is over twice as long. And our adult life is four times longer than that of a Cro-Magnon. But how many among us manage to do in a life-time as much as he did?


Human agglomerations certainly bring a series of advantages for the individual. Essentially, these amount to a longer, wealthier and safer life. As we have mentioned, agglomeration represents, along with technology and sexual democratization, one of the fundamental elements of the paradise that modern man inhabits.

Aside from its effect on genetic degeneration, which we have analysed in previous chapters, agglomeration is not a boomerang striking only future generations, but present ones too, as it also degrades the life of those living in agglomerations.

We must remind the reader, in passing, that all studies and experiments show that animals living in agglomerations (groups more numerous than those in nature, for which they are genetically equipped) become restless, irascible and aggressive. There is no reason things should be any different in humans’ case.

Seen from an objective perspective, a big city is very much like a hive. Every individual is following a certain daily route and is performing certain daily activities, with a rigour that can be encountered only in insects. Like an insect, the human individual does not have a view of the whole, but only of his daily pattern, for which he is socially programmed by all formal and informal schools (which, as we have shown, are nothing more than schools of dressage). But this social determination cannot cancel the genetic determination of the human being, born to live in the Palaeolithic tribe. Insects are genetically programmed to live in a hive, unlike the human. The constant tension between the requirements of the social programming and those of the genetic programming can only lead to neurosis. And, leaving aside what psychiatry manuals are stating, all humans living in urban agglomerations suffer from neurosis.

Beyond the unjustifiable slogans about work, advanced by all sorts of philosophies, ideologies, morals and books on good manners, the human cannot – naturally and without conflicting with his own nature – perform tasks that are not similar to those that he is genetically programmed for: hunting. This is so because in the human’s case (just as the dog’s), domestication cannot completely extinguish the hunter’s instincts. Nor can it create new instincts. However, in a human agglomeration, there are hardly any jobs that can somewhat resemble hunting. Any other type of work, irrespective of its level of difficulty, can only generate a conflict between what biology requires and what the social requires, a conflict that will always lead to neurosis. Let us remind the reader that even herbivore males have to be castrated in order to labour. The social pressure exerted on the human being is so great that it amounts to a psychological castration. It is a pressure of the same type as the one exerted by the tamer on a circus lion in order to make it perform tricks or actions that go against its genetic programming. The human is born today in the largest dressage school that has ever existed: the urban agglomeration. An enormous dressage, made in the image of technology.

The only mechanism man can use in order to adapt is neurosis. All human sciences should unite into one single pathology of agglomeration. For the moment, the only non-fabricated science about the human being is zoology.


A surgeon in New York has a monthly salary of 100,000 dollars. For the same work, a surgeon in Berlin has a salary of 10,000 dollars and a surgeon in Ulan Bator, 100 dollars. In these circumstances, what is money? What does it represent?

In today’s world, where people are living with prostheses on all levels, money is the prosthesis of all prostheses, it is the panacea in terms of prostheses; therefore, it is the most desired phenotypic extension of man. Money is the religion with the most adepts, although none of them realizes that it is a religion (not even those practising it in the extreme form of fanaticism called corruption). If the adepts of Christ admire his power to turn water into wine, money’s adepts know their god is far stronger, because money can turn itself not only into wine, but into almost anything else, including more money.

We imagine that money has appeared as a relationship of trust, as in the following scenario. A shepherd and a peasant have been exchanging goods for a long time: the shepherd trades the peasant goat skins in return for wheat. Seeing that one year the crops are out of heart, the peasant gives the shepherd three units of wheat less, with the promise that he would give him these three units with the next harvest. As they know and trust each other, the shepherd gives him all the goat skins he has brought with himself. The peasant also gives him, besides the wheat, three pebbles which represent the three wheat units which he owes him. These pebbles are the first money ever.

There is a long way between these pebbles and today’s money which we shall not try to reiterate here. The essential difference however is that, for the peasant and the shepherd in our scenario, money was just a means, not a purpose in itself, as it is for modern man. Our shepherd did not want the pebbles, but the three units of wheat. Today, almost all civilised people build their lives around money. There is basically no area of life where decisions are made without a close reference to money. The German surgeon who has a salary of 10,000 dollars would never think of moving to Ulan Bator, where he would make 100 times less money. But he would move to the USA for 100,000 dollars.

Today, all migrations occur under the attraction of this universal magnet represented by money. No other god has ever called up so many pilgrims. To no other god have so many people bowed their heads and no other god has played such great a role in people’s choices.

For minds already altered by the genetic degradation and suffering from neurosis caused by life in agglomerations, the fact of wanting something as abstract as money, the fact of creating a religion based on money, can only have a nefarious effect. Man does not directly obtain anything, aside from money. Anything else, he obtains through the medium of money. The universal prosthesis, money, mediates all relationships – those with other humans as well as those with other prostheses.

Any type of fortune is a phenotypic extension of its owner and has always been desired by humans. But there is a huge difference between a nobleman wanting a castle, a domain with numerous subjects and a financial speculator. The former wanted a visible, concrete, material phenotypic extension. The latter wants an abstraction, even if this abstraction can materialize into any concrete form, including a castle and a domain with paid subjects. The former also wants things that cannot be bought, the latter want only things that can be bought.

This is what the alteration of the human today consists of: he dares less and less to desire things that cannot be bought.

The mammoth hunter has become the hunter of the prosthesis that can replace any prosthesis.


Pompously entitled ‘the culture of image’, this culture bears no connection to the static images such as photographs and paintings or the dynamic images we see from an automobile, train or plane. It refers exclusively to the non-physiological images of cinema and television which eliminate from the electro-encephalogram all waves characterizing the wake state and replace them with waves characterizing sleep. It is the eyes’ and brain’s answer to a psycho-visual action which we are genetically unequipped to handle.

If on short-term, watching television puts us in a type of wide-eyed sleep, on long-term the effect is the decline of all mental activities (there is not one that remains untouched). The longer the exposure and the earlier the age it begins, the more severe are the effects.

Cinema and television are one of the strongest drugs in today’s world. If the former has a correspondent in pub alcoholism, the latter has one in solitary alcoholism. Like alcohol, television is consumed as an unconscious self-treatment for neurosis and alienation, in a world where humans are not genetically capable of adapting.

As a treatment, television also has poisonous effects. By causing the decline of mental qualities and because of the large number of consumers, it probably has a mental degeneration effect on the overall population greater than all other drugs put together. And this is the conclusion if we take into account only the human reception mechanisms for television’s non-physiological images. However, if we take into account the quality of most TV programmes (i.e. the content of the messages that bombard a psychic brought into a sleeping state) then we can say, without any fear of being wrong, that television can alter the brain in only a few years more than have managed to do it thousands of years of genetic degradation as a result of the suppression of natural selection.

If today there is an increasing number of individuals who, although having finished school, cannot master a vocabulary richer than that of an educated chimpanzee, with a brain four times smaller than the human’s, this is only slightly due to the genetic degeneration. It is not the genotypic intelligence that is responsible for this crash in mental performance, but the phenotypic one, the one influenced by the environment. And in our environment, television is the only factor sufficiently harmful to reduce the mental qualities of a human under those of a chimpanzee (even if television is not an isolated factor, but acts in conjunction with all the other factors discussed in this book).

Unlike the majority of technological products, television is not a boomerang striking only descendants, but a boomerang that heavily strikes the one using it. However, society does not have the necessary means to defend against such a thing. It is not even able to measure the disaster and its dimensions. It is ludicrous that society is creating rules and restrictions regarding the content of television programmes, when it is precisely the deeply non-physiological form of the images that has the most damaging effect on the minds of the consumers.

For the moment, television makes us happy. On the long term, half-witted… Meaning even apter for happiness. And this is what modern day human is looking for before anything: happiness. And, in terms of achieving happiness, television is one of the most efficient instruments in the technological paradise we inhabit.


Today’s human is searching happiness. The natural bio-chemical substratum of happiness is the release of endorphins, substances released by the brain that have similar effects to those of morphine but tens of times stronger than the latter. Naturally, releases of endorphins are triggered by large physical traumas or extreme physical exhaustion, and also by caresses and sex. The permanent pursuit of happiness is making today’s human look as if he was the bearer of a chronic pain, which he would like to relieve with the help of his own endorphins or even drugs outside his body.

But be it the case of endorphins, of illegal drugs or legal drugs (such as alcohol and light drugs) or of recommended drugs such as psychotropic drugs, today’s human benefits from more happiness than the Palaeolithic human. Besides happiness-inducing substances, today’s human is also abusing neuro-psychic excitants (such as coffee and tobacco – among the legal ones – or amphetamines – among illegal ones). In addition, humans are also abusing what we call extreme sensations, characterized by releases of adrenaline and noradrenalin in dangerous situations.

Besides the fact that all these abuses, practised on long-term, deteriorate all mental functions, the modern human is behaving as if he is always struggling to psychologically adapt to his current life and this struggle necessitates an increasing amount of support from outside, an ever growing prosthesis. Brutally torn away from his natural environment – the Palaeolithic tribe – man seems to feel like a stranger in the life he now has, which he can bear only under the shape of happiness. Such a human cannot take an interest in the afterlife, which is that of future generations…

The genetic deterioration will continue, like all other degradations, transmissible to future generations only as extra-genetic heritage. Irreversibly. But fortunately this does not bother anyone, as we are absorbed by a present which is beyond our grasp, which we cannot administrate. We are fully dedicated to this life and, even if someone took an interest in the afterlife, that of our descendants, we still would not be able to do anything. As a matter of fact, the human intelligence has never controlled anything else besides technological progress. The rest just followed by itself. And it still does. And it will keep on doing it. From the wild ape to the domestic ape.


As we have said before, we are convinced that this century will belong to genetics and biology, just as the last century belonged to physics and cosmology.

I would like this century’s science and technology to achieve, besides other things, cloning a Palaeolithic hunter, maybe even a Cro-Magnon – his revival. Evaluating the qualities of that living human would be a practical confirmation of the ideas stated and demonstrated in this book.

One may argue that there would be no need for such a thing, that it would be enough to evaluate a contemporary human living in one of the tribes leading a life similar to the Cro-Magnon’s. Such an argument would prove a total failure to understand this book.

All tribes that lead a primitive life – such as hunters or gatherers – are found in tropical/equatorial, paradisiacal areas, areas where other apes besides the human manage to survive.

On the one hand, the pressure of selection in such areas is infinitely weaker than the pressure in temperate-climate Europe, especially during the Ice Ages. Thus, the product of selection will be of a lower quality. The difference between a tribal member today and a Cro-Magnon should be of the same nature as the one between a pet Irish wolfhound and one living in the time when the formidable pressure of selection exerted on this animal was represented by the wolf, bear and human warrior, the strongest predators at that time.

On the other hand, the abundance of tropical/equatorial paradisiacal areas allows the formation of more numerous human groups, with thousands of members, a fact which already creates the premises for genetic degeneration (through agglomeration and sexual promiscuity). In the time of the Cro-Magnon, the European climate did not allow the existence of groups larger than a few tens of members, due to the sparseness of food. In these small groups there were no conditions for the genetic degeneration, whose premises would occur only later on, in the Neolithic village.

Therefore, we cannot have an image of the Palaeolithic hunter by looking at a tribal today. I wish to see the Cro-Magnon revived, the man who has been at the summit of human kind.


Until a Palaeolithic hunter is cloned, we can only imagine one…

And we can imagine one more easily by following the parallel destiny of the creature who has become his best friend: the wolf. Once tamed, the wolf began living to some extent under the same conditions as the human. In the Palaeolithic, they were hunting together – man had invented a living weapon. In the Neolithic, the wolf-dog was guarding shepherds’ flocks and farmers’ goods. Later, as was the case for humans, ‘division of labour’ became more apparent for dogs as well. They became working dogs, pets or even stray dogs.

The dog has closely followed both the geographic and the demographic human expansion. Man has taken the dog with him almost everywhere. And today there are at least a few hundred million dogs in the world – a number far greater than that of wolves some time ago, not to mention that of wolves today.

Today’s dog is the result of the accumulation of mutations in the wolf’s genome, permitted by a lower pressure of selection, as was the case after taming. For the current example we only consider the common dog. In the case of pedigree dogs, man has exerted on them a pressure of selection much higher than the one exerted by nature on wolves. The wolf which can be found in nature has not changed throughout the past tens of thousands of years. The tamed wolf has changed visibly, it has become a dog.

As such, the difference between the wolf and the dog can suggest to us the difference between Cro-Magnon and modern man. Just as mutations have not been eliminated from the tamed wolf’s genome (which has become a dog), various mutations have been preserved in the human genome, which a weaker pressure of selection has not been able to eliminate. This fact is confirmed by research on the human genome, which estimates that in the last 10,000 years there have been more mutations than in the previous one million years. Some see this, optimistically, as a proof of a positive and ‘explosive’ evolution of human kind. However, from a realistic point of view, it is nothing more than the explosion that has led from wolf to dog, namely an ample genetic degradation.

The degradation is also clear regarding the level of intelligence. Although it is more difficult to train, the wolf has a higher intelligence than the dog. The fact is beyond dispute.

Also, the evolution of the tamed wolf’s brain capacity is parallel to that of the human’s evolution of brain capacity. A dog the size of a wolf has a skull 20% smaller than that of the latter. Only very big dogs, weighing 50-100% more than a wolf, have a larger skull. But, even in the case of these giant dogs, the size of the brain is 10% smaller than that of the wolf.

Let us remember that the Cro-Magnon also had a brain 15-20% larger than today’s human. The human living 5,000 years ago had a brain 10% larger than ours.

As we have said at the beginning of the book, our demonstration does not rely on this morphological argument. However, as the entire anthropogenesis occurs in correlation with the growth of the brain, we could have invoked the decrease in the size of the brain as evidence for the existence of anthropolysis and its placement in the Palaeolithic, not in the industrial era, as all other supporters of human genetic degradation argue.

We have chosen to support our demonstration of anthropolysis based on only two principles: any decrease in the pressure of selection leads to the genetic degradation of a population ; the lower the pressure of selection, the greater the degeneration; technological progress, even that of the Stone Age, inevitably and irreversably leads to the decrease and even the removal of any pressure of selection.

The data which we have presented in this book is in accordance with our thesis. But there has been absolutely no reliance on it in the course of our demonstration. We have decided instead to use a method which had been available to Darwin, who did not dispose of all the data we have today. We have seeked to prove that, even in Darwin’s time, the inevitable route towards the domestic ape could have been discovered…


From → Uncategorized

Lasă un comentariu

Lasă un răspuns

Completează mai jos detaliile tale sau dă clic pe un icon pentru a te autentifica:


Comentezi folosind contul tău Dezautentificare / Schimbă )

Poză Twitter

Comentezi folosind contul tău Twitter. Dezautentificare / Schimbă )

Fotografie Facebook

Comentezi folosind contul tău Facebook. Dezautentificare / Schimbă )

Fotografie Google+

Comentezi folosind contul tău Google+. Dezautentificare / Schimbă )

Conectare la %s

%d blogeri au apreciat asta: