White Lactose Tolerance leads to Infantilism
A theory to explain lactose tolerance in Whites and link it to retention of childlike traits of sexually mature adults of the White race.
by Dan Bullard
11/4/2006
Updated 12/9/2007

Infantilism refers to an inherited trait that allows some creatures (humans included) to retain juvenile features into and beyond sexual maturity through evolutionary pressures. In the case of the domestic dog, the huge variation in breeds which are still of the same species (and thus can interbreed easily) is a result of artificial selection on the part of humans to coerce the dog’s genes to retain “puppy-like” features into sexual maturity, so that they don’t become vicious predators like their ancestors. Selecting takes the form of breeding those dogs which have the characteristics you want and destroying those with traits you don’t want. A good example is the Pit bull. While these dogs were bred for fighting (through artificial selection) in the modern world they turn out to be so vicious that they are unfit as a family dog and thus are routinely put down at animal shelters who cannot hold them indefinitely. Collies, setters, poodles and other more civilized breeds are rarely put down, and are bred by fanciers for even more desirable traits. Selection, whether artificial or natural can transform a race of beings in a very short time. Dogs have only lived with humans for tens of thousands of years, and yet the poodle is so vastly different from its predecessor it’s hard to imagine that the two are even related.

Long ago in our race’s past, the more Northern peoples of Europe learned to farm, and then later to keep animals. It is an interesting fact that keeping animals is a very advanced skill as it requires you to not only grow enough food for your family, but also for your herd as well. You must be an extraordinary farmer to keep animals, because if you fail to feed them for even a short period of time, they will die off, especially in Northern climates. But the advantage of keeping animals is huge, although animals consume a large amount of low quality vegetable matter, they convert it into very high quality protein which can be harvested directly (through slaughtering) or indirectly (through produce such as eggs and milk). Cows also provide muscle for plowing, transportation (made more effective by the wheel) timber harvesting and quarrying (required for building anything more than rudimentary structures). But cows milk is of little use to a race of weaned adults. It is likely that cows milk was seen as a byproduct for use with babies and young children, but once the child was weaned, lactose intolerance would naturally set in and the child would be incapable of digesting milk, just as the majority of the world’s population is today. Here is where selection kicks in. Those children who were able to retain lactose tolerance later in life had an additional food source that those who became lactose intolerant did not. If a family had six children and two could consume milk when there was nothing else to eat, those two would thrive, where the other four would wither and possibly die over the long cold winter. Those families that had no lactose tolerant children would either have to let them starve, or slaughter the animals at a faster rate to keep the family fed, potentially devastating the herd, so that next year would be even leaner. It’s important to note that lactating cows produce milk as long as they are milked, and in fact must be milked or come into great distress from extended udders. The milk is available year round as long as the cows can be fed, and will go to waste if it cannot be consumed.
Thus, the humans that retained lactose tolerance would have had a better chance of survival, and those that became lactose intolerant would be less fit, less able to survive and thus would over time become fewer in number. If lactose tolerance were able to be retained into adulthood (which is the case with most Northern Europeans today) the family can survive a winter on only the high quality, protein rich produce from the herd, while the herd consumes feeds that are only suitable to herbivores (grasses and left over vegetable matter stockpiled during the summer). The level of direct perdition (slaughtering) on the herd can be kept low while the herd is selected for greater and greater milk production.
While Southern Europeans (including Persians and Arabs) raised goats and sheep, goat milk does not contain lactose, thus does not require the infantile trait of lactose tolerance to digest. The Northern Europeans reliance on the bovine for labor and sustenance furthered the need to retain lactose tolerance well into adulthood.
Now, it is very doubtful that lactose tolerance is controlled by a single gene. What is more likely is that lactose tolerance goes along with infantilism, that is the retaining of childlike traits (pupply-like in the case of dogs above). These traits are curiosity, a thirst for knowledge, a need for play and language learning. If these traits traveled in the being along with lactose tolerance, that is if lactose tolerance is part of a set of polymorphic genes, then these traits might be selected for by accident with the lactose tolerance trait as the main evolutionary driver. However, the traits enumerated above also have their own evolutionary advantage, they would help those beings to continue learning, to become even better farmers and herders. Their extended childhood would allow them to learn more over a longer period, to stay curious, to accept new ideas throughout their lives, and be better farmers, better herdsmen, better providers, and thus propagate their offspring more successfully than their neighbors. Extended language learning becomes literacy, as writing permeates the culture. Those that can read and write have an advantage over those who can’t, and thus the evolutionary forces that started with lactose tolerance further propel the genes of those who use the extended language learning trait to become literate.

Table 1: Lactose Intolerance by race¹

The ability to digest cows milk gives another benefit, it provides a source of Vitamin D₃ also known as cholecalciferol. Humans need this vitamin to help regulate levels of calcium and phosphorus in the body and raise immunity to prevent disease and cancers. There are two sources of vitamin D available to humans, one is through exposure to the sun on the skin (actually UVB rays), the other is from cows milk. In equatorial locations exposure to the sun is easy to come by and therefore the problem is not getting enough sun to create a good supply of vitamin D, the problem is getting getting too much. Melanin (the dark coloring of most people on earth) regulates vitamin D production by reducing the amount of UVB rays falling on the inner layers of the skin. That is why equatorial peoples are the darkest humans, with daily full solar exposure the melanin filters the UVB so that just enough vitamin D is produced. However, in higher latitudes, humans evolved lighter skin to get more vitamin D from the less than ample sunlight. At very high latitudes it becomes difficult to get enough sun to generate the required amount of vitamin D, especially because skin without melanin burns easily, so on those occasions when the sun is available for harvest by Northern “sun-worshipers” the result is a nasty sunburn. This means that cows milk allows Northern people to continue to move North, without suffering the effects of vitamin D deficiency. Therefore, it becomes clear that drinking cows milk actually allows people to become whiter over time. In other words, whiteness comes from living in high latitudes which is made possible by drinking milk. Eskimos are not white because they do not drink cows milk and have not been in the North as long as whites who evolved to live there in a somewhat symbiotic relationship with cows. The cows made it possible for white people to live in the North, and therefore to become white skinned.
Once whites had evolved lactose tolerance they had more options than other peoples of the world. With an independent (non-solar) resource of vitamin D, they can begin to do things that limit solar exposure, such as wear clothes and live “indoors”. Most people of the world did not wear clothes, because of the climate, or even despite it, they did not learn to cover their naked skin. Darwin noted during his voyage aboard the Beagle that natives of South America near Cape Horn did not wear clothes despite the subfreezing weather. He was aghast as he watched naked infants breast-feeding from their naked mothers while the snow fell on them both, the mother making no effort to shield the infant from the snow.
With whites free to cover as much skin as desired thanks to cows milk providing an independent source of vitamin D they could adopt behaviors that limit solar exposure with no negative consequences. The manufacture of cloth and clothes became an industry of some importance, and eventually evolved from a device to stay warm into it’s current purpose of self adornment. Without clothes, people of other areas such as the Maori of New Zealand used tattoos for self adornment, and the peoples of Africa are well known for various forms of bodily mutilation for self adornment such as lip, earlobe and neck elongation, face painting, scarring, etc. Northern white people could simply don a new blouse, which allows them to show off their wealth and suddenly the practice of making or buying new clothes evolves into the fashion industry. This may have even led to consumerism and the practice of using belongings to establish social status.
Again with the need for solar exposure removed, white people could begin building more elaborate homes, which even further limit solar exposure, provide protection from the elements and display to the community the social status and wealth of the owner. Now with a substantial amount of time and effort invested in the family home, property rights must be established and mutually respected, otherwise all the hard work would be for naught. They could begin living primarily indoors, with solar exposure almost completely eliminated except during work periods. Some people could even work inside, as cloth making and other indoor industries provided more and more “jobs”, a new concept at the time. In other words, with these new industries, workplaces had to be built where people could spin, weave and sew without exposure to the wind, sun and rain, hence the factory was invented. Peoples who rely on solar exposure for their supply of vitamin D don’t need clothes, therefore they created no industries, no factories, no elaborate homes, no property rights and thus had only rudimentary civilizations.
This also raises an important observation, other lactose intolerant peoples that also became infantilized likely did so through a completely different path. For example, compared to Negroids, Mongoloids (Asians) became even more infantilized than Whites while still weaning on time. Asians have less body and facial hair, mature sexually later and retain more childlike features than Whites. Asians appear to be more infantilized than Whites, and yet it is quite likely that the path is different, that Asians are not a branch off the White race, but a separately infantilized race split off the original African hominid line in their own unique, but yet unexplained evolutionary metamorphosis. That virtually all Mongoloids are lactose intolerant while almost all Europeans (except those of the Southern Europe) are lactose tolerant throughout their lifetimes hints that the infantilism path is different for Asians than for Whites. Lactose tolerance has such benefits in Northern climates (where Asians also live, but more recently migrated there) it should not have been given up, while the other infant traits have been retained. However, if the infantilism path had a different driver than that of Northern Europeans, they may well have never become lactose tolerant in the change from African to Asian, and yet somehow retained other childlike traits that are associated with Asians of today. That few Amerinds herded animals, but instead predated (hunted) directly hints that Mongoloids never did herd animals in their evolutionary past. It also hints that animal herding was not well developed in Asia 10,000 years ago, when Mongoloids made their move the the Americas, otherwise they would have brought this behavior with their culture and reestablished it in the new world, even if it wasn’t possible to bring the actual animals.
It is also not just a coincidence that Amerinds are virtually 100% lactose intolerant. Note that Han Asians (Chinese) keep chickens and pigs but rarely use cattle except as draft animals. Since no humans harvest milk from pigs, this version of animal keeping did not result in the same version of infantilism of the Northern Europeans.
This makes the argument that Asians are just a more advanced branch off the White race very unlikely. What is more likely is that Whites and Asians made separate journeys to the same end, and infantilized adulthood which includes the same traits, save one, lactose tolerance.

¹ Table compiled by Kent DeLong, M.D.