"Variety is the spice of life" part 1

I have been doing some research into our family tree. This might very much interest you if you are a blond or red head like my family, but even just if some of your family originally can be traced to somewhere in  Europe. This series will simply share with my readers as usual, what facts I've just learned myself. I will mostly quote others first, (some technical stuff of which I admit, I don't fully understand), leaving my remarks and any personal biases to the last. So hold on through the dry stuff, or you will need to come back to understand the next posts. I will underline anything of particularly note. So here goes!

Let me tell you a little about Albinos first.

Red and violet

"Red" albino eyes

The eyes of people with severe forms of albinism may appear red under certain lighting conditions owing to the extremely low quantities of melanin, allowing the blood vessels to show through. (An organism or person with complete absence of melanin is called an albino an organism or human with only a diminished amount of melanin is described as albinoid.) In addition, flash photography can sometimes cause a "red-eye effect", in which the very bright light from a flash reflects off the retina, which is abundantly vascular, causing the pupil to appear red in the photograph. Although the deep blue eyes of some people such as Elizabeth Taylor can appear violet at certain times, "true" violet-colored eyes occur only due to albinism.

"The gene OCA2  that causes the pink eye color and hypopigmentation common in Albinos, is also strongly associated with blue and green eyes. . .. The appearance of blue, green, as well as hazel eyes results from the Rayleigh scattering of light in the stroma, a phenomenon similar to that which accounts for the blueness of the sky. Neither blue nor green pigments are ever present in the human iris or ocular fluid. Eye color [of all but brown eyes] thus varies depending on the lighting conditions. . . Those who have albinism in a less severe form have the lightest blue eyes with no melanin on the front of the iris at all, but they have dark brown coloration on the back of it, to prevent light from scattering around inside the eye.

Most babies who have European ancestry have light-colored eyes [at least] before the age of one. As the child develops, melanocytes . . . slowly begin to produce melanin. Most eye changes happen when the infant is around one year old, although it can happen up to three years of age. Observing the iris of an infant from the side using only transmitted light with no reflection from the back of the iris, it is possible to detect the presence or absence of low levels of melanin.
" A genetic mutation leads to blue eyes. . .Originally, we all had brown eyes."
Source

                                          Distribution of light-eyed people in Europe.

As you can see, it seems that the gene for blue eyes had an origin and got diluted from there to the rest of Europe.

Though the people with blue eyes in America came from European descent, "the melting pot of the world", time and interbreeding has made the gene mutation less and less common with only 16.6% of the total population, and 22.3% of the white population having blue eyes.

  In those with milder forms of albinism, the color of the iris is typically blue but can vary. Source

Like blue eyes, gray eyes have  a relatively clear stroma.
One possible explanation for the difference in the appearance of gray and blue eyes is that gray eyes differ in the concentration of melanin at the front of the stroma. Gray eyes are also most common in Northern and Eastern Europe. . . Under magnification, gray eyes exhibit small amounts of yellow and brown color in the iris. 

1. Green is the least common eye color and as in the case of blue and grey eyes, the color of green eyes does not result simply from the pigmentation of the iris. Rather, their appearance is caused by the combination of an amber or light brown pigmentation of the stroma, given by a low or moderate concentration of melanin, with the blue tone imparted by the Rayleigh scattering of the reflected light.

    Green eyes are most common in Northern and Central Europe. They can also be found in Southern Europe. . .

   Hazel

   Hazel eyes are due to a combination of Rayleigh scattering and a moderate amount of melanin in the iris.
   
   

Source

 In a study published in Human Genetics  it was shown that a mutation of the HERC2 gene,  is hypothesized to interact with the OCA2 gene. . .  This genetic mutation in our chromosomes resulted in the creation of a 'switch,' which literally 'turned off' the ability to produce brown eyes." The genetic switch is located in the gene adjacent to OCA2 and rather than actually completely turning off the gene, the switch merely  limits its action. Reducing the production of melanin in the iris. In effect, the turned-down switch diluted brown eyes to blue. If the OCA2 gene had been completely shut down, our hair, eyes and skin would be melanin-less, a condition known as albinism.

In humans, there are two principal types of albinism, oculocutaneous, affecting the eyes, skin and hair, and ocular affecting the eyes only.

Types of Albinism

While most people with albinism have very light skin and hair, not all do. Oculocutaneous (pronounced ock-you-low-kew-TAIN-ee-us) albinism (OCA) involves the eyes, hair and skin. Ocular albinism (OA), which is much less common, involves primarily the eyes, while skin and hair may appear similar or slightly lighter than that of other family members.

Over the years, researchers have used various systems for classifying oculocutaneous albinism. In general, these systems contrasted types of albinism having almost no pigmentation with types having slight pigmentation. In less pigmented types of albinism, hair and skin are cream-colored and vision is often in the range of 20/200. In types with slight pigmentation, hair appears more yellow or red-tinged and vision may be better. [I.e, the less albinisim the better the eyes are.]

Source

Recent research has used analysis of DNA, the chemical that encodes genetic information, to arrive at a more precise classification system for albinism. Four forms of OCA are now recognized – OCA1, OCA2, OCA3 and OCA4; some are further divided into subtypes.

• Oculocutaneous albinism type 1 (OCA1 or tyrosinase-related albinism) results from a genetic defect in an enzyme called tyrosinase (hence ‘ty’ above). This enzyme helps the body to change the amino acid tyrosine into pigment. (An amino acid is a “building block” of protein.) There are two subtypes of OCA1. In OCA1A, the enzyme is inactive and no melanin is produced, leading to white hair and very light skin. In OCA1B, the enzyme is minimally active and a small amount of melanin is produced, leading to hair that may darken to blond, yellow/orange or even light brown, as well as slightly more pigment in the skin.
• Oculocutaneous albinism type 2 (OCA2 or P gene albinism) results from a genetic defect in the P protein that helps the tyrosinase enzyme to function. Individuals with OCA2 make a minimal amount of melanin pigment and can have hair color ranging from very light blond to brown.
• Oculocutaneous albinism type 3 (OCA3) is rarely described and results from a genetic defect in TYRP1, a protein related to tyrosinase. Individuals with OCA3 can have substantial pigment.
• Oculocutaneous albinism type 4 (OCA4) results from a genetic defect in the SLC45A2 protein that helps the tyrosinase enzyme to function. Individuals with OCA4 make a minimal amount of melanin pigment similar to persons with OCA2.

Something that is common to albinos are eye issues, resulting from abnormal development of the eye because of lack of pigment. These include one or more of these:

• legal blindness
• age related macular degeneration
• increased risk of uveal melanoma
•  horizontal back and forth movement of the eyes
•  muscle imbalance of the eyes, “crossed eyes” or “lazy eye”. 
•  sensitivity to bright light and glare
•  far-sighted or near-sighted 
•  have a stigmatism
• the retina does not develop normally before birth and in infancy
• Optic nerve misrouting: the nerve signals from the retina to the brain do not follow the usual nerve routes

Now look at this chart from the 2010 USA stats of eye problems by race. (Keeping in mind the albino genes seem to be one with the genes of the white race. . .and that the albino gene is often a recessive gene in other races in the USA.)

  The leading cause of blindness among white persons was age-related macular degeneration (54.4% of the cases), while among black persons, cataract and glaucoma accounted for more than 60%of blindness.   

Cataracts are often an effect of eye injuries and diabetes. . . African Americans, Hispanic/Latino Americans, American Indians, and some Asian Americans and Native Hawaiians or other Pacific Islander Americans are at particularly high risk for type 2 diabetes. Basically, "minorities have a higher prevalence of type 2 diabetes than whites." (Curable by a good diet BTW)

Some of the causes of glaucoma (that lead to most of the rest of the eye problems in minorities)  include: an injury to the eye, severe eye infection, inflammatory conditions of the eye, and occasionally eye surgery to correct another condition. (Like cataracts.)

Considering the high rate of minorities with type 2 diabetes, and also the high rate of minorities in sports or rough jobs, as well as in gangs, it seems likely that the vast majority of eye problems of minorities in the USA are lifestyle induced, as opposed to the genetic issues facing the person with light eyes.

Well, we can see the fascinating difference in the eyes of the albino. . . leading me to say that an albinoid is basically a person with light eyes. . . but what about their hair? What does a person with very low levels of melanin in their hair look like? Here's what I learned:

"Hair color is the pigmentation of hair follicles due to two types of melanin: Phaeomelanin, and Eumelanin. Eumelanin is the dark pigment which is predominate in black hair. Phaeomelanin is a lighter pigment, which is found in red and blond hair. Many people's hair contains a mixture of the two: the more eumelanin there is in the mixture, the darker is the hair. 

Blond hair can have almost any proportion of pheomelanin and eumelanin . . . More pheomelanin creates a more golden blond color, and more eumelanin creates an ash blond. 

 Natural blond hair is rare in adulthood, with some reports that only about 2% of the world's population is naturally blond. Blond hair is most commonly found in Northern and Eastern Europeans and their descendants [in America], but can be found spread around most of Europe.

 Blond hair is exceptionally rare among those without European heritage. . . Sub-saharan African has the lowest [rate of blond hair]. . . 

Auburn hair

The chemicals which cause auburn hair are eumelanin (brown) and pheomelanin (red), with a higher proportion of red-causing pheomelanin than what is found in average brown hair. It is most commonly found in individuals of Northern and Western European descent.

Chestnut hair

Chestnut hair is a hair color which is a reddish shade of brown hair. In contrast to auburn hair, the reddish shade of chestnut is darker. Chestnut hair is common among the native peoples of Northern, Central, Western, and Eastern Europe.

Red hair

Red hair ranges from light strawberry blond shades to titian, copper and less commonly "true" red. It is caused by a variation in the Mc1r gene and is recessive. Red hair has the highest amounts of pheomelanin, around 67%, and usually low levels of eumelanin. At 1-2% of the population, it is the least common hair color in the world. . .

For the majority of us, each individual hair strand has three layers. The layers (starting from the outside) are the cuticle, cortex, and medulla. Fine texture hair usually associated with Europeans, Australians, and Americans, typically only has two layers. The inside of the hair, the medulla, is often missing, so hair can be limp and look thin naturally.

Medium texture hair is thinner than coarse hair but not as thin as fine hair. Medium is in between the two. Medium is also the most common type of hair texture.

Hair that is very thick or wiry in texture is referred to as coarse hair. Coarse hair is strong and may be ultra straight or ultra curly.

Now let's talk about what that Melanin (or lack of it) does to the skin: Melanin in the skin controls the amount of ultraviolet (UV) radiation from the sun that penetrates by absorption. UV radiation can then assist in the production of vitamin D.

There are two types of melanin. The most common form of biological melanin is eumelanin. Eumelanin is found in hair, areola, and skin, and the hair colors grey, black, yellow, and brown. In humans, it is more abundant in people with dark skin.

The genes responsible for the variations in coloring (melanin)

 between the albino skin, hair, and eyes, and the black skin, 

hair and eyes, are these:

SLC24A5

"Solute carrier family 24 member 5 (SLC24A5) regulates calcium in melanocytes and is important in the process of melanogenesis. TheThr111Ala allele (rs1426654) has been shown to be a major factor in the light skin tone of Europeans in a number of studies. The Ala111Thr or rs1426654 polymorphism in the coding region of the SLC24A5 gene is frequent in and mainly restricted to populations in Europe, North Africa, the Horn of Africa, West Asia, Central Asia and South Asia. It is believed to represent some 25–40% of the difference in skin tone between Europeans and Sub-Saharan Africans, and appears to have arisen as recently as within the last 10,000 years.

[edit]SLC45A2

Solute carrier family 45 member 2 (SLC45A2 or MATP) aids in the transport and processing of tyrosine, a precursor to melanin. It has also been shown to be a major factor in the skin color of modern Europeans through its Phe374Leu (rs16891982) variation. Like SLC24A5 it is ubiquitous in European populations but extremely rare elsewhere.

[edit]TYR

The TYR gene encodes the enzyme tyrosinase, which is involved in the production of melanin from tyrosine. It has an allele, Ser192Tyr(rs1042602), found solely in 40–50% of Europeans and linked to light-colored skin in studies of mixed-race South Asian^] and African-American populations.

[edit]OCA2 

Oculocutaneous albinism II (OCA2) assists in the regulation of pH in melanocytes. The His615Arg (rs1800414) allele has been shown to account for about 8% of the skin tone difference between African and East Asian populations. It is found in 85% of East Asian samples and is non-existent in European and African samples.

MC1R

The gene MC1R is primarily responsible for determining whether pheomelanin and eumelanin are produced in humans. Mutations of this very polymorphic gene have been shown to cause red hair and pale skin that does not tan in a small percentage of the human population. Although these alleles have differing frequencies across African, European and Asian populations, there is no evidence of positive selection for them and they do not appear to be associated with the evolution of lighter skin in Eurasian populations."

 Source

 "Dark skin with large concentrations of melanin protects against exposure to ultraviolet light and skin cancers; and light-skinned people have about a tenfold greater risk of skin cancer, compared with dark-skinned persons, under equal sunlight exposure.  Excessive solar radiation causes direct and indirect DNA damage to the skin.  It would have, on the other hand, represented a health benefit to have light skin in reduced sunlight,  [Like humans living in caves, or underground or where the light source was further away. . .]  as it maximizes the synthesis of vitamin D."

The leading hypothesis for the evolution of human skin color proposes that:

1. From ~1.2 million years ago to 10,000 years ago, the ancestors of all people alive were dark-skinned Africans.
2. As populations began to migrate out of Africa, sometime around 10,000 years ago, the evolutionary constraint keeping skin dark dark, proportionally to the distance North a population migrated, resulting in a range of skin tones within northern populations.
3. At some point, northern populations experienced positive selection for lighter skin due (presumably) to the increased production of vitamin D from sunlight and the genes for darker skin disappeared from these populations.

A number of researchers disagree with this and suggest that the northern latitudes permitted enough synthesis of vitamin D [for even a black person] combined with food sources from hunting to keep populations healthy, and only when agriculture was adopted was there a need for lighter skin to maximize the synthesis of vitamin D. . .This theory is supported by a study into the SLC24A5 gene which found that the allelle associated with light skin in Europe may have originated as recently as 6,000–10,000 years ago which is in line with the earliest evidence of farming."
Source


"Scientists conclude that the mutation [that leads to the light skin, as well as the blue eyes and the red and blond hair] may have arisen in a single [or a few] individual(s), probably living in the northwestern part of the Black Sea region [of Europe] . . . 6,000–10,000 years ago during the Neolithic revolution." [the transition of human culture from a lifestyle of animal like hunting and gathering to one of agriculture and settlement.]
Source

To be continued in

"Racism and the RH factor Part 2"

Are you falling for an offshoot of religion?

So I was thinking about the whole medical system, and the mindset of those in it. . . Some think that the people rebelling against it are in a cult because the "rebels" are always the free thinkers of society, not being controlled by money or their propaganda, which could be said of extremists in any religion.  Often the strong willed ones with principles and intelligence enough to not just go along with the crowd in other ways, whether they be an Atheist, or sincerely religious, would likely be an independent rebel, not following the medical authorities, and going to their doctor for every sniffle.

After all, the basic concept of the medical model of care is totally against stats and true science, not to mention against nature and common sense! If a doctor diagnoses a problem in you, he is only seeing part of the problem. . .As if the body part was placed magically and separately inside the body, by a divine creator. So they chop it out. Or they put another piece in.

I went to a doctor with a list of complaints years ago, (which I found out later were all connected) and when I showed it to him, he got overwhelmed and said, "Let's just start from the top, and give you a drug for this, put you in the hospital for a test for that, send you home with a monitor for that, and just watch to see how bad that gets."

Besides a lot of painful tests, that if you're lucky don't have a 50/50 rate of accuracy, doctor's main methods of care are symptom control and pain management, neither of which can be had without more risks to your health.

 Doctors look at us like a giant puzzle that can be assembled and reassembled; or as a puppet that can be manipulated with surgery and controlled by drugs. The doctor is of course the puppeteer, and has a god-like role in all of that. It is thus almost inevitable that the doctor gets a god-like complex when they are allowed such a role.

 From a purely scientific aspect we also see an evolutionary and emotional connection and reaction with everything around us. The medical model should show this knowledge of a holistic world and body , but they turn a blind eye to this information, and treat the body as a physical bunch of parts that God put together. . .because that was the mindset of those who started it, and it has changed little over the years.


The mindset of religion is strong in the medical system, but still the opposers of it are accused of being the religious ones, because those people who dare dabble in the unknown of the scientific world and look into things like: reflexology, kineseology, accupuncture, cranialsacro therapy, etc, find a mystical or energetic side of the body that has to be taken on faith and personal experience. While some therapies may make no sense, we realize they have a long history of working. I feel that with little or no side effects, I have little to lose from going that way for my health. Plus, the alternative health practitioners main goal is to put themselves out of a job. (Which is the opposite goal of doctors I've seen.)

The healthcare system realizes their shortcomings though, and are starting to change a little, or at least branch off and specialize. These changes we see are all off shoots of the medical system, just as denominations are offshoots of the original cults. Some common off shoots of the medical religion can be seen in separate healthcare professions all condoned by doctors. Some I have experience with are the chiropractor, naturopath and nurse Midwives.

 Now here I will be loosing a lot of you I know,but let me explain; I've had a lot of experience with them, and while having a lot of good in what they do differently then doctors, they have remnants of that old medical model of care, that I see as useless at best and harmful at worst.

MOST chiropractors work COMPLETELY with your bones, and don't even recommend you to a massage therapist when they find eventually that they aren't helping you. (hundreds or thousands of dollars later. . .)  That is just like the doctor who works on you, focusing on one part, as if you are just a bunch of separate parts that God put magically together. The chiropractor typically just looks at you as a pile of bones. Believing that everything is wrong is because your back is out, and if you can just get it to stay in, it will be fixed! The problem is, because of muscular or even emotional issues causing tension around the bones, the chiropractic adjustment sometimes only lasts minutes!

Naturopaths typically use homeopathics, which have a track record of a placebo or worse. It is the same concept used by doctors to push vaccines, and it doesn't work in either case, so you look pretty hypocritical or just plain ignorant to vaccinators if you do homiopathics instead, IMO. (At least the homeopathics are harmless sugar pills. . .as opposed to the vaccines with harmful stabilizers and not so small amounts of sometimes live diseases!)

The Naturopath also treat the body as a puzzle by singling out hormones or specialized supplements for certain parts. In my research and experience I've found that the body will regulate all that and more if you give it the right nutrition, and or help it with dealing with stress or environmental toxins and parasites by regular detoxing. So, to me the many expensive supplements are a waste of money.  Plus, people testing for allergies have told me that supplements and single vitamins and nutrients are commonly what people become allergic to. That's presuming that they are quality enough to even digest, and not end up in the septic system like most of them.

As for the nurse Midwives, though I know there are exceptions to the rule, (when the training is taken after being a lay Midwife, or after training under a homebirth Midwife (CPM) for instance) I found the same mindset from the nurse Midwives, as from Doctors. The ones I've had experience with watched me like a time bomb waiting to go off, instead of getting ready for a natural birth. . .making me very nervous.

Like doctors, the Nurse Midwives training in the abnormal, led them to try to diagnose me as a worst case scenario,threatening constantly to hand me over to a specialist and call me high risk! They had the prenatals in a sterile looking office, where they tested, probed and accused me of doing everything wrong. . .I can't blame them too much though as I do have a rare disorder called an "irritable uterus", and as well have huge babies. (Gaining a healthy 50% increase in body weight by the end of the pregnancy!) As a general rule, with the Nurse Midwives, classically many woman's testimonies confirm that birth with them feels like a step closer to natural, but still a lurking crisis or an accident waiting to happen. . .

For me that was true even with the Nurse Midwife who helped me with a home birth! She was ridiculously paranoid of even my own families germs, requiring me to put toilet paper in the oven to sanitize it for after birth! She made me put a strong medical powder on the babies cord stump with every diaper change. . .which caused a very long healing time.

It may be a personality or a generalization with them all, but I've noticed something about all these off shoots, and more: like religious leaders in their old fashioned, or fancy garb, you can tell those with the remnants of this medical model mindset; they are the ones in the scrubs, and with a plain, and sterile office.

They are thankfully not all that way though.  Years ago I actually decided to replace a never visited family doctor, with a holistic chiropractor, (Like the ones who employ the Brimhall method) and my family as well as many others I know, have been quite satisfied.

Unlike those in a cult who refuse care from doctors or hospitals no matter the emergency, I would use the hospital's emergency room in true emergency situations. Overall though, I see no use for a doctor for regular care. Their mindset is outdated, far from holistic, based on a religious view of the body, IMO. Furthermore, their methods just plain old don't work. Plus, most of their diagnostic ability is inferior to muscle testing, reflexology, or what you can find out online yourself! (And man is it expensive and more painful!)

So, while some people stress out about having no healthcare coverage for doctors and hospitals, I have little concern for something I would likely never use. We will unfortunately continue to pay out of pocket for a few (not 3 times a week, indefinitely, like some chiropractors demand) visits a year to a chiropractor like ours, (when we have a little accident,) or go to a massage therapist here and there, when we strain a muscle. For the most part though, I've learned to avoid and treat all the basic sicknesses and infections with safe remedies or healthy food. As Hippocrates, the father of real medicine said, "Let food be thine medicine." How is it that doctors claim him as their inspiration, but know nothing of nutrition, or how it fixes just about everything they waste their time patching up?! I think that the sincere doctors who are smart may have to do as the extreme religious folks, and get back to their roots. . .do I hear an "Amen"?

Is having a very religious background possibly a good thing. . .?

Let's just presume for a minute that you are actually reading this, as an enlightened first world reader. (If you didn't know it already, the 1st world is obviously much more Atheistic and generally enlightened, as I show stats for in my post called Will science be the death of religion?)  Let's then just skip over the obvious issues with religion, and presume you are no longer a theist or a Deist. Does this mean that you won't now fall prey to the infiltration of religious thought in our American culture, because being aware of it, you know how to avoid it's pitfalls? I think those coming from mainstream religion will still need to be aware of the tendency to fall into a religious mentality, or sheep-like mode, not only because we have likely done it in the past, but because it's human nature for the religious, and nonreligious alike.

That said, those who are the intellectuals of our time, but have never been raised in extreme religion like me, have a big disadvantage, IMO. Not having experienced the personal blinders of religion, they for one thing, don't see where it can take them, and so are less cautious. An experience in religion leads a person to certain sensitivities, because of hurt and/or bitterness that serve a very practical purpose, of not likely repeating your foolish mistakes.

This is why when you've gone to the extreme edge of religion, you don't generally ever carelessly go back into any form of religion. . . As you will have had your eyes enlightened by facts, and your heart matured and made skeptical of being suckered again.

While that experience of rejecting what has been your passion and life does mature you fast,  giving you wisdom in dealing wisely with other propaganda and conditioning in life, Agnostics and Atheists are not the only intelligent and wise people out there, by all means! I find some wise and intelligent people in religion too! Believe it or not, I even find that most people I like most, are from, or still in, a similar background as me. While a lot of them are seriously questioning their background and doctrine, like me, the good people who have a head on their shoulders yet are strangely still stanch in their beliefs, have a pretty logical reason for being behind the times, read on to find my guess as to why. . .

 From my experience, the few both decent and smart people still in religion, are the passionate, compassionate, outspoken and stubborn religious extremists. They are usually so busy in their missionary efforts and ministries, that they feel little motivation (and have little time), to look into or consider changing what they fight so hard to teach because it's still working for them and paying the bills. Likely (unless they already feel the disconnect with their crowd), they're scared to look into the options with an open mind, fearing they could be humiliated, lose their job, their hard earned respect from their circle of friends, and fall into a life of depression as a hermit. So they close their mind, and try to stay blissfully ignorant.

This blissfully ignorant passion that gets focused toward ministry is not without it's negative consequences though. Passionate people often neglect something in their life to make room for their passions. As with me and my blog now, so this was definitely the case in my own family growing up. My parents were so involved in ministry as evangelists, that they sadly neglected a decent education for me . . . I won't speak for the rest. Homeschooling, while successful for many families, was such a low priority with them, that such basics as spelling, math, critical thinking, a second language and reading was neglected. I felt at such a disadvantage in a Bible college setting! I was accepted mainly because I was an evangelists kid. I was even given a "ministry scholarship".

But back to the type of people I believe are descent and smart, while ironically still being religious; there are second plus generation religious people as well.  These are often neither as passionate as their parents, nor are they leaders in the church . . .unless they inherited the reins, or have the passionate personality their parents had. (And it wasn't beat out of them as a child, being called a "strong will" or "rebellion".) They are probably very nice, and try not to be disagreeable.

 They likely claim the near exact beliefs of their parents (having the life-goal of filling their parents shoes or making them proud), and are also likely a first born of their sex in the family (or took over the firstborn birth order role). These people are mostly found in cults, and would be a wreck if they ever left them alone, as they are not likely to be leaders or strong personalities.

Often, both of these personalities (which I am a little of each) are on the fringes of mainstream society, and have little influence from or to "the world", enjoying instead their exclusive, old fashioned circle of friends. They are both standing on the somewhat historical, and literal reading of their holy book to defend most of their lifestyle and beliefs, yet the lifestyle would be quite fine and accepted without that justification . . .

Fearing the accountability and positive peer pressure found in mainstream culture though (calling it "persecution"), they avoid any confrontation about their lifestyle or beliefs with Atheists or people of different religions. Ignorantly judging the other groups they often know little of, they create a small circle of like-minded friends to bolster their faith. Then often with a simple or natural lifestyle, they homeschool their children and work at home, which is ideally away from a big city.

They control their lives closely, fearing the influence of "the world" will come in and pull them and their children away from "the truth." If they even allow themselves "the dangers of technology", they have very narrow choices of websites that they frequent . . .TV programs, movies, radio programs or stations as well as CD's and books are also very limited.

Honestly, because of an education in something, common sense or just a preference, this can be something said of my family even today! I see so much of that past lifestyle as not religiously motivated (as religious people claim it is) as much as just what conservative personalities and/or intelligent people do. Other then not feeling that I have to shun 'bad people", technology or other previously "bad" stuff anymore, I still don't prefer to be around them/it.

Those like-minded intelligent people in extreme religious circles, are like me and other ex-religious, free thinking people, in that we are all very wary of any sheep-like thinking.  We have grown up that way, or we wouldn't have avoided the inconsistencies and idiocies of the mainstream religions, and mainstream thinking in general. The extremely religious minorities, like the ex-religious minorities are skeptical of anything said by the people in power.

Sadly though, there is a whole group of non-religious people, who have never been on the extreme side of religion like me, who will naturally discount all skepticism of mainstream thinking, still believing that there is safety in numbers. I think this could be because they have never fully believed in religion as a thinking adult, and don't know the power of a crowd and conditioning as a child. They have consequently never developed a distrust of their authorities, or they never veered far from mainstream thoughts of religion, to become a mainstream Agnostic skeptic.

Because of this background, these non-religious believe these ex-ultra religious extremists to be predisposed to religious thoughts and are just rebounding back into it if they look into, adopt or start standing up for another uncommon practice or new theory. Simply because a person has a mindset that is not mainstream, doesn't mean they are religious though. .in fact, in many cases, it just shows that like they were a free thinker and smarter then the average person in religion, they carried that over to their unbelief, and are still, "Smarter then the average bear." (As I talk more about here.)

Update on my blog, for my faithful supporters.

For those of you curious about my blog. I am not going to tell you that I've written a blog that's gone exactly viral or something, but as I am nearing my 10,000th pageview, it seems a good time as any to give a little bragging update.

While my friends on Facebook have accounted for about a measly 450 of those views, the vast majority of those views have come from those who are just randomly searching Google. Proof to me that those who are curious, and looking, are usually the only ones who will find answers.

From May 1st of 2012, to now, I have seen my blog appreciated by those around the world. These are the stats broken down by countries.
 United States

6131

United Kingdom

568

Canada

423

Australia

258

Russia

242

Philippines

220

India

140

Germany

135

France

92

Indonesia

59

Of course, a lot of that can be explained by Wikipedia's Demographics of atheism  Which makes a very interesting read!

I would be curious just how many reading this are Atheists or Agnostics already though. . .or if they became one after reading my blog. I know of at least one who left a life deeply entrenched in his cult-like upbringing, partially because of my influence. . . but I'd hope there were more. I've heard of so many stories where the more educated one got, the more they ran from religion. (At least organized religion. . which another few of my friends have confessed to me.)

 I don't claim to be a smart professor in college or something, but I hope nonetheless that by quoting some smart people and info from them,  I can challenge your mind to question things that you were always so sure about, and  get your mind thinking about life in a deeper, more skeptical way. (And sorry if that traumatizes you first before enlightening you. . .maybe I should blog on the best tricks to help your health in a stressful time.)

I hope you faithful readers, not brave enough yet to subscribe, will feel free to at least comment, so we can get together on Facebook or something. (I'd love to hear how my blog has influenced your life.) I will even erase your comment if you ask me to, for added anonymity.

 I'm sorry that my blog is slow as of late, but I have some huge and touchy posts I'm working on right now. . .instead of the book I was toying with writing, trying to actually make some money on my writing for a change. The world needs more free info I figure, not trees cut for paper books.

 So thanks to my readers, and all the encouragement their numbers are to me. Thanks to my church friends for their support. (At the Unitarian Universalist church in my area.) Thanks for my family for giving up the time with me, and freeing me up at many times so that I could change the world. This Thanksgiving, I have a lot to be thankful for! Peace to all.