A lot of very sensitive and compassionate folks in the USA are in the grieving process that I spoke of in my post here? ( It is a belief that has died though, not a person. )
Denial is the first stage of grief.
- economic inequality. . . which is inherent and genetically based
- unemployment rates of minorities being so low due to their education and behavior
- education inequality as stemming from racial differences in IQ, only. . .as seen in Detroit schools.
- high crime rate, as being because it is just the way the primates and those genetically closest to them are wired to be without altruism. (Making religion, and the golden rule meaningless to the pure blacks. . .)
- high criminal behavior in places like Detroit, Chicago, Miami, LA, Atlanta, DC, etc. being due to more passion, low IQ and high testosterone in Blacks
- high rate of state dependence of those with Sub Saharan African in their genes (per capita), being evidence of their IQ and consequently their parasite nature worldwide
- high rates of minority babies born out of wedlock (70%), due to the differences in IQ and culture
- high abortion rate for minorities being because it is worse for some to live, then to be put out of their misery.
- overpopulation being statistically because of the minorities, who are breeding like rabbits, while expecting the country to foot the bill for them as well as their many children!
This is where most of the people conditioned by cultural Marxism (all Americans who haven't looked into this stuff) seem to stop. (I show the issues with Cultural Marxism, and why it is debunked here.)
If you haven't already started skimming, you will want to shut me down for stating the facts. Here is where you will in your head be calling me names such as "racist", "white supremacist" or "neo Nazi", feeling those terms are on par with "heretic", "Atheist" (if you are Christian) or "murderer". You would no doubt love to see me disciplined, penalized and lose everything dear to me. You may read on, but only in order to discredit me as a crazy person. . .Many might even go so far as to hope to see me jailed or killed! Scientists I quote in my blog who state this info have been demonized too. Many have lost their jobs, families, careers and lives, all while following the evidence they could not in a good conscience ignore. I have gone through a lot myself, even from friends and family, and all because of this part of grief.
Knowing that my family consisted of Missionaries to Africa (before the exodus of whites, and the civil wars that ensued), my mom was born and raised in Liberia west Africa, my goal in life has previously been to be a missionary to Africa (have visited many countries in Sub Sahara Africa on two occasions, as well as other third world countries that come from intermixing with Africans) and at my insistence my husband and I almost adopted a black teenager. . .all showing the illogical claims you may be thinking are wrong. Also, you would think that being a humanist/evolutionist standing on the side of animal rights, pacifism, permaculture, while avoiding hunting and zoos, that I would be the last one to be accused of immoral unfairness! Logic never does come into play when you pull the race card though.
There is little doubt that some blacks have been mistreated, just as some whites will abuse a pet cat. IMO, more problems would come from pretending the lion is a house cat. You can't expect a lion to act like a domesticated house cat! You need to treat them with caution. Likewise, caution and judging (otherwise known as "racial profiling" or "prejudiced") based on knowledge of a race via stats, is not wrong, it is smart.
It is not abuse to "judge" a lion as a lion, or a black as a black. The stereotype is what we base our caution off of, and the majority of blacks at least mostly fit the stereotype. We should know that not all will though, and that is mostly due to a huge influx of mixed marriages in the last 50 years. Before it was legal, the mixed blacks (sometimes looking just as black as those who aren't) were almost unheard of. Thoughts on what the blacks were like was consequently very different in the past, whereas the media shows us mainly the mixed ones now.
I do not advocate real physical abuse like was done to blacks as well as children too in the past. Though no doubt the spankings of children and blacks were similarly justified. . .Those who mistreat someone under them, whether an animal, child or black man, generally shows one of a few things: religious bias, or a lack of compassion. If the latter, they likely have a low IQ, linked to having no gene for altruism, even if they look white. Consequently, I am guessing that being nasty and mean to blacks or minorities in general is actually a sign of a hidden African ancestry. Some of the most outspoken "racist" white supremacists have in fact been DNA tested to be like 14% black!
Rednecks, like that guy looked, are famous for being white supremacists, and violent against blacks.According to DNA studies, my educated guess is that they are rednecks only because they are part black. (Something I discussed in my last post.)
So if you as a white "looking" person going in the violent and hateful direction that rednecks do with the facts I speak of here, or in other places on my blog, you are on risky ground of being called out as a hypocrite.
My posts come out of concern, as a missionary would attempt to moderate and find peaceful solutions to the obvious problems of living with a beloved yet dependent pet of this world. Being in the obvious position of power, we need to be the bigger more tolerant people. We should love every creature as they are, not expect them to love us though. We may love the lion, the gorilla and the needy African, and try to help them, but we can't fix them. They don't need fixing, as they do not have the potential to be like someone who is white. (Unless they are are mixed.) It is like fixing a kid to act like an adult. You shouldn't feel the need to even try.
Like those in Sumerian mythology (Epic of Gilgamesh), that I discuss in my post on the blacks origins. . . I compare blacks (or the wild man Enkidu) to being like a child. The unmixed blacks , according to my estimations -from sources like the Bell Curve- have an IQ of 54-64, and are thus mentally childlike.
When they have a higher IQ, it is like they are mentally a teenager, who arrogantly think they can compete with the adult whites. . . It is ironic that when part whites like Martin Luther King Jr, Malcolm X, Oprah, or others passionately push for equality, it is like the teenager who wants to be treated like an adult. Some do have the IQ as an adult. . .but statistics show it to be very rare. An average white IQ is only shared by about 1 out of 3 blacks. 11% of blacks are above 100, whereas about 50% of whites are above 100. Obama and Neil degrasse Tyson are likely two of the few high IQ blacks around, but there are apparently few to no genius (140 IQ) blacks.
They want acceptance as equals, and they want to be integrated with the whites. . .but it wasn't likely a thought in their minds before they had some white genes, increasing their IQ. The leaders in the black community, now all mixed, are simply like rebellious teenagers leading the unmixed children. . .neither the leader, or the pack they lead are aware of how good they have it to be away from Africa. The black people who would be poor anywhere else in the world, are actually doing well here thanks to whites.
Where you find any minority that is a large part black (all dark races), you will find them demanding not only their "God given rights" (which as I have explained in my posts of the past, were never intended for them) but more even then the whites have!! They actually want and even demand favored treatment!A black person will easily get healthcare, financial aid, college entrance, a job, housing, heating and cooling paid for, foodstamps and lots of other stuff! The democratic party (controlled by a large part minorities -90% of the blacks-now) have passed laws forcing mandatory quotas for minorities, so as to give "equal opportunity". . .whereas a white male will be hard pressed to find help or charity of any kind! This is partly because of an unfair advantage called Affirmative Action, and it is in no way "equal" treatment. Affirmative action, some believe, carries with it a stigma that can create feelings of self-doubt or entitlement in minorities, treated thus like a child that deserves special privileges. Just like a spoiled child, the minorities (but especially the blacks), have consequently grown to feel entitled and equal, while not earning it. The black race has not earned trust or respect (much less all the freebies they get) and yet they are angry that we fear them.
Blacks want us to treat them like a kitten, when they have proven themselves on a whole to be more like a lion. (The exceptions being those who are mixed from North Africa and after mixing with white slave masters here in America.) And if you don't give them what they want, treat them as a white -against all known facts- pacify them, bend over backwards to accommodate them or even admit to their warped view of their history as the founders of civilization, intelligence and everything good, then their anger at you will quickly explode into swearing, threats and accusations of racism and "whitewashing" history. (Sadly for them though, their uninformed and wishful thinking is now debunked by stats, science and DNA! Racism is not the same as facts.)
The scientist who even came up with the "out of Africa theory" (believing all people came out of not just the location of Africa, but the Africans), is even questioning that theory, based on DNA. Though they believe modern man came from Africa, they also admit that modern man might have come as a result of the interbreedings with other species. . . as they moved out of Africa.
Of course bringing up the connection of blacks with the homo erectus, and being closer genetically to the chimp then any other man by far (though this would be obvious if they were the origin of man that evolved from the monkeys), it seems to bring on the wrath of blacks on the internet! (And a lot of people are noticing this. . .)
Bringing up the subject of the average IQ of Africa being 70, and equated with the cut off of mental retardation, is another taboo which while bad enough, knowing that IQ is equated with wage and civilization, as well as behavior, and violence. . .(all evidenced in America by the almost pure black areas like Detroit, and the schools there having test scores as if they were guessing), it becomes obvious that there is a lot of money being wasted on trying to change people that have no potential of being "equal". You can't change the stripes of a tiger, nor can you take out the hormones or change the IQ (more then a few points) of the pure blacks.
While it is obvious whites are trusted, smarter, more peaceful and thus get better treatment and more money from others connected to the blacks genetically, we whites shouldn't be punished or made to feel guilty for being at the top of the pecking order, as we have technically earned it. Blacks have been genetically proven to be the oldest human, so if they have not earned our respect by their intelligence and actions yet, they likely never will. (Instead we see the stereotypical Black as a freeloader, lazy, violent, volatile, angry, entitled, poverty stricken, loud, need I go on. . .many of the intelligent and famous mixed blacks are even embarrassed by the behavior of the black community in general!)
The topic of racial differences, or black history will AMAZINGLY get just as much if not more denial and anger from whites, as from blacks! In fact there is a great video of a speech from a promising columnist fired by the Washington post for exposing some facts about racial differences. The speech is about how whites handle "racial realism". . .it is the best I have seen, and this will show you, that I am not alone in my thoughts.
It may be a crazy theory to many without looking into it, but I believe the genetics points to the origin of whites being in the Neanderthals, and the blacks being in the homo erectus. As different species, we would thus have many obvious differences. Differences ranging from bone composition, head shape/size, hormones, diets, gestation times, maturity, jaws/ teeth, milk, bloodtypes, vitamin D needs, etc.
Mixing is consequently very unhealthy, as well as stupid, but many people don't even know they are a mix, and wonder why we are as a culture so sick! Check out the differences, and why interracial breeding is bad if you wonder. Even the liberals at the NY times are now saying the genetic differences are being spoken of and may make a stir, (and it worries them). They admit though that "It is not necessary. . .to maintain the pretense that inborn racial differences do not exist.“When was the last time a nonblack sprinter won the Olympic 100 meters?”
“To say that such differences [like in IQ or strength] aren’t real . .is to stick your head in the sand and go blah blah blah blah blah until the band marches by.”"
So the next grief stage comes in: Bargaining, with me or others. Making deals and promises. "If you can tell me where this leads. . .I might accept it." "If this doesn't make me justify the Bible's genocides as moral, then I will accept the Sumerian text as the true creation story." "If you can promise other's won't abuse this knowledge. . .then I will spread it." "I would love you to speak on this subject to my group, as long as you don't bring up the race issue it connects with. . ." "If you stop spreading this *hate* I will stay friends with you (i.e accept you.)"
Or the religious folks will pray and ask God to show them the truth of whether or not he was one of the ancient aliens by a sign, or they will keep believing in their magic version of God. Wishful thinking and talking to invisible people though rarely changes anything, except in the mind. . .and yet, because of the hope it offers to the uninformed, unintelligent or superstitious, bargaining to God and being religious in general is the highest in poor and low IQ populations related closely to Sub Saharan Africa.
Many would equate praying in fact with begging, like many of the religious do. . . but it totally depends on how you pray. Praise and thankfulness will naturally come more from those who are doing fine in life, who will naturally be from a white first world country.
While begging in your prayers will likely come from the poor and desperate. . .who happen to be primarily the low IQ minorities, who are consequently struggling to survive.
So you could correlate the begging sort of prayer as coming from the mostly religious, mostly poor minorities (and the ignorant redneck "whites" who are part black as I showed with genetics in my last post here.)
Ever notice how in churches (of the many I have been to) the same people always feel they have to ask for prayer requests, or go up at the "caring and sharing time" of the service? Notice how they seem to be either the social butterflies or the most poor and low IQ ones in the church? Notice how after they have some publicity in front of a large compassionate group it seems "God" always provides that job, or for that bill, or car, or. . .?
The dependent, entitled and desperately poor blacks in America, thanks to many different things have apparently not moved on to the next grief stage: depression. While Anti-depressants are the number one drug in the US, the demographics of those on them are not the very poor and dependent blacks, as some would guess by their often expressionless faces. What we mistake for sadness though is really anger.
Source Source
Having (at very least) 15% higher levels of testosterone (as a very rare college educated black man) the Blacks are prone to having a large ego, and confidence, even about things they have no cause to be confident about. . . like attractiveness. (There are a lot of other not so good things linked to a high testosterone level as well. . . ) So depression is not something Blacks will likely ever have, unless mixed with white genes. This can be both good and bad of course. . .but mostly bad IMO.
People will claim the blacks aren't on antidepressants like the white community is, only because they go untreated, but this is highly unlikely, as they will go to the doctor at the drop of a hat. They are not in any way putting on a tough front as some might want to believe either, as they are more likely then whites to complain about how bad their health is. . .and more likely to be on free state healthcare. On a survey, 66% of Americans said their health was either “excellent” or “very good.” Another 24% said their health was “good,” while 8% described it as “fair” and 2 percent as “poor.” Of those who were self described as "poor" health, they were more likely to be black.
Source
Like the scientists have shown the chimp to be, those who are genetically the closest to them (the blacks) have been proved to be entitled beggars. Consequently, they will ask for everything, and then even abuse the free stuff they are given. . .like Obamacare. According to emergency room nurses, hospital, and social workers blacks will steal everything they can from the taxpayer. They are not concerned about the country, following it's laws or following the golden rule. The minorities in general are no doubt the reason our country could not ever afford to have a truly universal healthcare, like every other flourishing, white first world nation. Yet minorities are likely the only reason that we have Obamacare, and the only reason Mitt Romney believed he lost to Obama.
The fact is, it takes intelligence and morality to be a team player. . .
Africans are not evolved to be a team player, like a herd animal. Nor do they have swarm intelligence, which would be like the networking Neanderthal. Instead, like the homo erectus who they come from, they are simply out for themselves. The closest they get to having swarm intelligence is guerrilla warfare and the rioting mob mentality. Neither of which are smart, organized or peaceful.
When blacks assemble is mass, it is rarely for a humanitarian or political cause, and from what I have seen never leads to good things. This is seen after sporting events dominated by blacks. Anytime the mood of the mob is bad (from not getting their way), watch out as they will riot, loot and vandalize. This rarely hits the news, but it is very common, all down through history. . .Riots are well known to happen after the local's football team looses. It has happened over the death of one thief named Michael Brown who appears to have been the aggressor in a confrontation with a cop acting in self defense. (Who was said to have used excessive force to have shoot him 6 times, none of which according to the autopsy would have been fatal until the last one shot in the head as the crazed Michael Brown was still apparently charging the cop.)
This out of control rioting and angry passion if found most in those of Sub Saharan ancestry. . .who have little to no mixing with the Neanderthal or European in them. The slaves of the world were taken from those areas in Africa in constant civil warfare. The pure Africans are also seen as having no duffy antigen in their blood. North Africans came here apparently to get away from the rest of Africa, and to be in the place of civilization. They paid their own way by being indentured servants for a few years. Those taken away were already enslaved by the blacks in Africa.
Source
Back to the health and mental state of the blacks though. Some think it could just be hypochondria and abuse of the system that sends the Blacks into the emergency so often, but I suspect it is more because of things like 4 out of 5 Black woman being obese. Blacks are just disproportionately more obese then whites or any other race. This likely coming partly from different dietary needs for their bloodtype, and lack of sunlight.
I suspect it is also justified because they are naturally more sickly from an inferior immune system, the less Neanderthal they have in them. Genetics tells us we got our immunity largely due to the interbreeding with the Neanderthal and Denisovan. (The Sub Saharan African, the origin of all blacks, being the only group in the world who has not been blessed by these genes.)
As evidence of this even today, though the Blacks are now 80% mixed with some European, and 58% have 12.8% European or more. . .still, "African Americans bear a disproportionate burden of health problems (DHHS, 2000a). Mortality rates. . . are higher for blacks than for whites (National Center for Health Statistics, 1996). The African American rate of:
- diabetes is more than three times that of whites;
- heart disease is more than 40 percent higher than that of whites;
- prostate cancer due to a high testosterone is more than double that of whites;
- HIV/AIDS is more than seven times that of whites
- breast cancer is higher than it is for whites, (African American women are more likely to receive mammography screening than are white women so likely due to the fact that they get more radiation, and avoid breastfeeding their babies, they asked for this one.
- infant mortality is twice that of whites.
- STD are much higher then for whites!
- parasite infestations of the gut are near universal in Blacks
So frankly, if you are an intelligent and concerned black person, all this would be ample cause for depression, in my book. Yet they are not prone to that, based on their carefree and selfish personality. Something scientists try to debunk, but the worlds highest IQ in Asia mainly all believe in.
Sadly though, the cause of the problems in this country is not simply ill-health of the minorities. As stated in my post: Parasites of dying civilizations, the mostly white tax payers foot the bill for black's education, healthcare, policing, confining/housing, food and welfare, phones, birth control and now abortions. . .freeing them to sit unproductively at home like dependent children, because no one wants to hire them. (And this is nothing to do with "racism" either as I go over there.)
We take care of them like children, while they give us nothing but trouble in return. Considering that blacks are less then 13% of the population, and Hispanics are a little over 16%, with whites basically the rest, it should be shocking to hear that in a 1999 Youth Gang Survey it was found that 47% of the 840,500 US gang members were Hispanic, 31% African American, 13% Caucasian, 7% Asian, and 2% were "Other".
In places like LA and Chicago police have estimated almost HALF of all black men between the ages of 21 and 24 to be gang members!
Minorities fill our jails, costing us up to $45,000 dollars a year to house and feed, when most of them according to my estimations, were previously living on around $10,000 a year. "One in three African American males aged 20–29 are under some form of criminal justice supervision whether imprisoned, jailed, on parole or probation."
"Black males were 6 times and Hispanic males 2.5 times more likely to be imprisoned than white males in 2012. Hispanic males ages 18 to 19 were more than 3 times as likely as white males of the same age to be imprisoned. The rates for black males age 39 or younger were more than 6 times greater than white males of the same age. Male inmates ages 18 to 19 had the largest imprisonment rate disparity between whites and blacks. Black males in this age group were almost 9.5 times more likely than white males to be in prison."
Source
Here is a clear picture of black crime. . . First, see this map showing where the largest group of blacks are around Atlanta, GA? Their population has grown double the rate of other races in the area. 4 years ago Atlanta was said to be home to 1.7 million blacks. (This is still only 34% of the population, as compared to 84% in Detroit.) Now go to this site to see the stats on where all the crime of the area is happening. This place has made the news as of late, you might have heard of the Michael Brown murder. . . Source
Source
That crime all happening in Fulton area ONLY is a coincidence though right? It is likely only because of all the arson and looting and shooting with the riots after the blacks being angry at the unjust killing of that 18 year old right? (Hmm, why don't whites riot when the exact same thing happens to one of them?) Actually, in 2009 this chart was done to show the crime stats in the state. . .
Just in case that isn't clear enough, here's another big city that according to the Black demographic website: "After the riots and Civil Rights movement African Americans began to migrate to the suburbs creating America’s largest Black middle class community in adjacent Prince Georges County MD." If all these are middle class blacks, and much more civilized because of it, no doubt crime is non existent, or at least not justified by poverty. So if high black crime wasn't because of blood, high testosterone and passion, then it would be similar to the surrounding areas. . .take a look. This is everywhere blacks are! The "bad neighborhoods" you can look up, and they always seem to correspond with the census reports of where the minorities reside.
Peaceful blacks certainly exist, but they mix in with whites and are accepted by them, as they act white. . .something that will get them much grief from their own black people! (Being called "sellouts", or accused of just "acting white". Fact is, if you act it, you are it. . .or at least part white.)
Of course unless the cops weren't doing their jobs, many of those crimes would be getting jail time, so the jails would be full of these folks. Keeping in mind though that blacks account for only less then 13% of the population there should be around 6 times as many whites as blacks in jail. . .check out the stats to the right.
Now you can tell me that the high crime and the consequential death of civilization isn't inevitable with the uncontrolled growth of the black community. . .or grow up and start being a "race realist". That would land you at the last step of grieving: Acceptance.
Being a race realist is different then being a "white supremacist", a Neo Nazi, or even a "racist". Back in the day being a race realist was just considered having good old common sense. Such obvious truths like that blacks were generally more violent and less intelligent were not even doubted, let alone challenged and denied! Ask the older and wiser generations if you doubt me! Everyone knew how the stereotypical (read non mixed) black acted like, but now science has explained it. (Low IQ, high testosterone, and even a gene for violence, and a lacking gene for altruism is being spoken of.) As they can't help it, the question is, while accepting the evidence as fact, what do we do with that knowledge?! Other then getting back to sterilization, segregation/ deportation and taking a vote from them (all things we in the past voted down). . .there is no peaceful, good answer. So get ready for the inevitable collapse of civilization in our children's and grandchildren's generations. Something I will speak of more in my next post. Of course you shouldn't speak of this though, so don't even think of commenting or sharing this stuff either. . .
Minorities fill our jails, costing us up to $45,000 dollars a year to house and feed, when most of them according to my estimations, were previously living on around $10,000 a year. "One in three African American males aged 20–29 are under some form of criminal justice supervision whether imprisoned, jailed, on parole or probation."
"Black males were 6 times and Hispanic males 2.5 times more likely to be imprisoned than white males in 2012. Hispanic males ages 18 to 19 were more than 3 times as likely as white males of the same age to be imprisoned. The rates for black males age 39 or younger were more than 6 times greater than white males of the same age. Male inmates ages 18 to 19 had the largest imprisonment rate disparity between whites and blacks. Black males in this age group were almost 9.5 times more likely than white males to be in prison."
Source
Here is a clear picture of black crime. . . First, see this map showing where the largest group of blacks are around Atlanta, GA? Their population has grown double the rate of other races in the area. 4 years ago Atlanta was said to be home to 1.7 million blacks. (This is still only 34% of the population, as compared to 84% in Detroit.) Now go to this site to see the stats on where all the crime of the area is happening. This place has made the news as of late, you might have heard of the Michael Brown murder. . . Source
Source
That crime all happening in Fulton area ONLY is a coincidence though right? It is likely only because of all the arson and looting and shooting with the riots after the blacks being angry at the unjust killing of that 18 year old right? (Hmm, why don't whites riot when the exact same thing happens to one of them?) Actually, in 2009 this chart was done to show the crime stats in the state. . .
Peaceful blacks certainly exist, but they mix in with whites and are accepted by them, as they act white. . .something that will get them much grief from their own black people! (Being called "sellouts", or accused of just "acting white". Fact is, if you act it, you are it. . .or at least part white.)
Of course unless the cops weren't doing their jobs, many of those crimes would be getting jail time, so the jails would be full of these folks. Keeping in mind though that blacks account for only less then 13% of the population there should be around 6 times as many whites as blacks in jail. . .check out the stats to the right.
Now you can tell me that the high crime and the consequential death of civilization isn't inevitable with the uncontrolled growth of the black community. . .or grow up and start being a "race realist". That would land you at the last step of grieving: Acceptance.
Being a race realist is different then being a "white supremacist", a Neo Nazi, or even a "racist". Back in the day being a race realist was just considered having good old common sense. Such obvious truths like that blacks were generally more violent and less intelligent were not even doubted, let alone challenged and denied! Ask the older and wiser generations if you doubt me! Everyone knew how the stereotypical (read non mixed) black acted like, but now science has explained it. (Low IQ, high testosterone, and even a gene for violence, and a lacking gene for altruism is being spoken of.) As they can't help it, the question is, while accepting the evidence as fact, what do we do with that knowledge?! Other then getting back to sterilization, segregation/ deportation and taking a vote from them (all things we in the past voted down). . .there is no peaceful, good answer. So get ready for the inevitable collapse of civilization in our children's and grandchildren's generations. Something I will speak of more in my next post. Of course you shouldn't speak of this though, so don't even think of commenting or sharing this stuff either. . .
The Chris Stringer interview that you linked to was very interesting. He speculated that sub Saharan Africans might have mixed with the African variant of homo heidelbergenis. Recent genetic evidence has proven that some west African populations have an mtDNA that is 300-400 thousand years removed from other modern humans. It could have been heidelbergenis that they mixed with or maybe a species that we don't even know of. Without having the DNA of heidelbergenis for comparison, we can't say for certain.
ReplyDeleteAdmixture with archaic humans is not the main reason for Black behavior, though it probably has some effect. Blacks are the way they are mostly because they didn't go through the selection pressures that living in the northern latitudes brings. Having to plan ahead to survive was a necessity in places outside of the tropics. Those with low impulse control and poor planning ability would get weeded out as humans moved north. Then civilization would push selection further as those who were clever and thrifty would have more children than those that couldn't manage their money and resources.
Black numbers in America have only grown to the extent that they have because they aren't punished reproductively for their poor decision making skills. If lazing about all day meant certain death, then it wouldn't take too many generations for most of the worst Blacks to die off. Instead, the laziest and most violent Blacks are allowed to have multiple children, all fed and cared for by the State. This has had a dysgenic effect, as Blacks are definitely more violent now than they were 100 years ago. The only thing that has kept it from getting worse is the high Black abortion and incarceration rates.
From what I have understood, scientist are calling all those slightly variant species one now, homo erectus. They believe the variety in one cave shows they were all the same. Africans in North Africa have a lot of European in them. So just as Homo erectus/blacks got modern by mixing with Neanderthal/whites, I see blacks as mixing with whites in Africa to be the only modern and smart ones. They with that smarts though are increasingly violent in their quest to prove they are equal and even dominent over everyone. There is little trouble from the pure black for the white man, as they are so far apart in IQ there is a bit of a god-like worshiping complex. The reason blacks in America are increasingly violent is that they are 80% mixed with 20% European genes. It's the difference of a childlike mentality that just follows the leader, and does what they are told, vs. a teenager that thinks they know it all, and only listens to themselves.
ReplyDeleteAs for that evolutionary theory for intelligence, that discounts so much that we know. That is trying to justify a common ancestor. If that were true, all the ancients were wrong. If they were wrong about creation, from the Sumerian origin of all the silly evolved stories, then why is the Sumerian text right about stuff they would have no way of knowing bout as nomad archaic people without aliens or their technology. Why then is the ancient world littered with accounts and pictures of alien visitations, visions, abductions? Why does language confirm that the gods were tall men? Why were the gods described as making a man in their own image, and then all be depicted as blond or redhaired? There is so much more too, that all confirms that the Neanderthal was poorly dated because of a catastrophe that renders carbon dating void and useless past around 6 thousand years ago. All diversity (mixing) started less then 4,000 years ago, the original blond and blue eyed woman was 6,000 or so years ago, while the Y chromosome Adam was the near father of the Eurasian Adam, also known as Noah. There was a bottleneck with a Jew that is European, while the rest are traced to a dark nation that converted to religious Jews. The true Jews are the ones who don't even claim it mostly anymore! Ashkenazi Jews are the true Jews, mostly pure, and the highest IQ in the world. It is them who rule the world to this day, and have been given that right to rule by the god's themselves. The red carpet of the European royalty, the same bloodline, signifies this bloodline with the red carpet they walk on, and are very careful to only marry in their own family, this is because the pure have RH- blood. Though rare in the populous, those with RH- are generally always chosen to lead. Either that or the recessive, O+. The origin of the RH- is the O blood, both of which showed up with the modern man, and the white skin, red/blond hair, and were found in the Neanderthal.
Much as your theory is a good excuse when looking at a small part of the puzzle, from a natural explanation standpoint, as an Atheist, I still can't discount the ancients as stupid, their writings as meaningless, and genes and blood as not pointing to a two species start, one being created, one having slowly evolved. If you haven't read my theory before, you might want more details I realize. Start here:http://passionateproject.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-story-of-creation-as-seen-by.html
There are many niches on the internet that I am familiar with. I frequent a number of blogs that discuss human biological diversity. When I first visited your blog, I thought that you might fall into that category, but now I see that you are coming from a place all your own.
ReplyDeleteSome of the things that you have claimed are not correct e.g., your understanding of homo erectus, the time frame that you gave for human intermixing and your ideas about Ashkenazim being the only true Jews. Some of your assertions seem to be out of left field, but I can't say if you're wrong or right, because I don't know enough about those subjects to make a call. You've piqued my interest though, because I always enjoy exploring new subjects. I'll have to read further and get back to you regarding your claims.
In the meantime, here is a video of an old experiment involving newborn babies from different races. You'll find it interesting.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xz2jjx_cross-cultural-differences-in-newborn-behavior_news#.Ud3JE_msiSp
You claim I am not correct, bu then you mention that you can't say if I am right or wrong. . .what is it? As for my understanding of Homo erectus, I go on DNA and everything we know thus far about him. I am not aware of a single thing I am disagreeing with scientists about him. . .other then he is the originator of blacks. I believe Neanderthal is the originator of whites as well, but I can't prove either completely yet with DNA. we're up to a good 1/5th though now on both though.
ReplyDeleteAs for human diversity, that should correspond with when the species started interbreeding, yet DNA tells us that almost all diversity within humans started only about 5,000 years ago. (I forget the exact number, but around the time we started seeing the Egyptian hieroglyphs of different colored people.
And concerning the Ashkenazi jews being the only pure ones: I would have no leg to stand on if, (1) the entire group was wrong and there was no truth to their Biblical history. (2) The Jews were really just a religion and never were a bloodline. If on the other hand we presumed that the Bible was correct, and the earlier Sumerian text was correct, and all "mankind" was wiped out by a flood. We have to figure out who had a bottleneck at that time. The Sumerian doesn't describe a worldwide flood, and evidence also says it was not worldwide, but local. So if a local flood wiped out all those of that bloodline, we could understand that they were the only ones called human at the time. Genes tell us that the only Jews (still claiming the title) alive today with a founding group of 4 woman, and 1 man, who presumably had 3 son (because 4 couples appeared to start the group) was the Ashkenazi Jews. The rest are the result of the Khazar empire of blacks converting to the religion, and starting it intermarry or rape the rest. So white flight happened and we have those in the area of the children of God, being only the half children of God.
Of course, if you think the ancient texts are all bunk, it is easy to throw it all out, but why do scientists give evidence for this local disaster, and why is there a bottleneck in a group that can be found in most of the people of the world. . .just not Africans?
I think the evidence speaks for itself that the whites are the true children of the gods, and most of the world being related to them is due to captivity and being the lost tribes. We can trace captivities all going to Africans, as they are jealous and violent. So why would their blood have ever done anything but what we see now, and in history? It's really no wonder that in the Bible Sarah and Abraham kicked out the slave and her mixed son. Mixes are generally smart enough to be only angry and trouble, like all the civil rights activists. (I mentioned that here:http://passionateproject.blogspot.com/2014/07/the-origin-of-miscegenation-is-cultural.html) Anyways, keep reading, and you will see that it all fits like a glove.
You claim I am not correct, bu then you mention that you can't say if I am right or wrong. . .what is it?
ReplyDeleteAfter rereading what I wrote, I see that I wasn't clear. Some of your claims are simply incorrect based on the available science. Some of your other claims seem to be wrong, but I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, because I want to try to understand where you are coming from.
As for my understanding of Homo erectus...
We don't have any homo erectus DNA. All the remains of homo erectus are too degraded or contaminated to sequence at this time. That may change in the future when technology improves. There are populations still alive today that likely carry homo erectus DNA, but we can't say for certain because we don't have a fully sequenced homo erectus genome to compare with living humans. We do have this with Neanderthals, so we know now that...
Neanderthals are not the originator of Whites. Neanderthals split from the homo sapien lineage aprox. 400-600 thousand years ago. When the first homo sapiens left Africa, they interbred with Neanderthals somewhere in the Levant. Genetic evidence shows that this was a special event not repeated in pre-history. We know this because every race outside of Africa carries Neanderthal DNA and they all have around the same amount (1-4%). The interesting thing is, different populations carry different parts of the Neanderthal genome due to genetic drift. Europeans, East Asians, Indians and Aussie Aborigines all carry Neanderthal DNA, but have different bits of it. Aborigines and Melanesians also carry DNA from Denisovans (about 6%), who are an unknown species that we only know existed because someone was lucky enough to find some well preserved bone fragments.
As for human diversity, that should correspond with when the species started interbreeding, yet DNA tells us that almost all diversity within humans started only about 5,000 years ago.
I'm not sure where you are getting your info. Genetic evidence has shown that human populations have been mixing for tens of thousands of years and even mixing with other species like Neanderthals and Denisovans. There is good evidence that there are other species that we have mixed with, but those are the only two we know for certain. Blacks from west Africa have about 13 percent of their DNA from some unknown species, maybe homo heidelbergensis, maybe homo erectus, or maybe something that we don't even know about.
And concerning the Ashkenazi jews...
DeleteAshkenazim are a well studied group. There has been a great deal of genetic studies on them. We know that they are mainly a mixture of Middle Eastern Semites and southern Europeans. They had a bottleneck due to a small founding population of around a few hundred. The Khazars don't make up a major portion of their ancestry (and Khazars weren't Black, they were central Asian Turks). There is common ancestry among most Jews except the Ethiopian Jews, who are converts.
Of course, if you think the ancient texts are all bunk...
I've read a few of your other posts and I see that you claim to be an atheist or sometimes a pantheist. This is weird to me as you seem to have faith in the accuracy of certain religious texts. While there may be some grains of truth buried in certain stories, they shouldn't be taken literally. The Sumerians thought we lived on a plain, encased in a dome. Given today's knowledge, that's clearly wrong so I don't get why you seem to think that they had extra terrestrial guidance. They were a fascinating civilization for sure, but they weren't masters of the planet.
You are on the right track regarding certain subjects, but are way off base on others. I've been returning to your blog, because I like the fact that you put your thoughts out there with no worries about what others think. I first came to your blog because of your writings on race in America, but your views are so unconventional with regards to about everything that I've been enjoying trying to figure you out.
Well, I am still learning on all of this with the scientists, but I have read that what we call homo sapiens are possibly only what they are from the start due to interbreedings as they moved out of Africa. Which I would take it as meaning with Neanderthals and Denisovan. The only issue with that is, if you believe Cro magnon was modern man basically, as a pure stock is said to be those of the Canary Island even today, that is a problem. They have lots of evidence of tall white men, europeans, being there, and they look part european. But they also look part black. They also have a lot of RH-, as if they were all mixes with the whites, and never bred back into a black culture. Were they a segregated group I wonder?
ReplyDeleteAs for the homo erectus, Scientists say that Blacks come from an Ancient species of man, and we know it isn't Neanderthal or Denisovan. It seems to not fit cro magnon, and the only one left when you see the rest as variations. . .is homo erectus. I'm not sure why most don't just come out and say it! One guy does though, and it is the only one who apparently has. He is a scientist who has said that the Sub Saharan Blacks have been found to have 17% homo erectus in them. Honestly, I was only told it is in his book, and have not read the whole thing, as I only got the link this week. It has a bunch of science in it though linking the blacks to them. You might want to check it out, it's called erectus walks among us. http://erectuswalksamongst.us/
As far as whether Neanderthal made the white man, I think he IS a white man! Also must have been smart, fits in with the ancient texts, the diversity time frame and everything. . .IF you understand the war of the gods. . .the dating techniques we use these days are dependent on a number of things that presume constant rates of radiation. A nuclear war, as documented in ancient texts, predating the Bible (causing a local tidal wave as well as other things as I recall) would account for the sediment and fossils, seas of glass, radiation and other things around the world, and even around neighboring planets! The world was inhospitable for a time before and after the war, giving rise to the huge underground cities. As for the flat land with a bubble that the Sumerians spoke of, actually, it makes sense that they would have needed to terraform for a while if this happened, so likely that is how they would have described it. I don't know, but it seems way too weird that the ancients constantly spoke of aliens and seemed to have had a ready made civilization in the Mediterranean, just as was said in the ancient texts. If the Sumerian was off a bit, not being written directly by the aliens, maybe it isn't quite right, but it is likely the best we will have for now. I don't worship the writings, but they seem to fit with the facts, if we see the dates as off from the nuclear war. Anyhow, if you haven't read about the war yet in my blog, check it out:http://passionateproject.blogspot.com/2014/04/real-evidence-of-god-part-3.html and follow that series out to hear more about Neanderthal too, which will get into the true Jews.
I've read Erectus Walks Among Us in its entirety and have had some discussion with its author, Richard Fuerle, on other blogs. You should be aware that much of what he proposes is completely speculative. Some of what he has written has been disproved by recent genetic findings, while some of his claims have been strengthened. Even though the book is not that old, it is not up to date with current science. His main idea is that human beings are the result of different ancient lineages. This is partially true. Human beings are more like a mosaic of lineages, with some races having ancestry that other races don't.
DeleteCro-Magnons were the first modern humans of Europe, not Neanderthals. Neanderthals weren't modern in any sense. Neanderthals were likely not what you would identify as White, despite some of the recreations that depict them as looking European. They didn't have blue eyes (that's a recent development in Europeans). They probably didn't have light hair, though genetic evidence shows that some Neanderthals had a reddish hue to their hair. It's unknown if they had light skin. They actually seem to fit the physical description of a troll: short, stocky, very strong, with protruding faces and large noses. They may be the source of troll legends. It seems to be the fashion nowadays to make them look White in recreations, but they probably looked more like this:
http://leseyzies-tourist.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Neanderthal.jpg
Cro-Magnons are interesting because they were more robust and bigger brained than modern Europeans. They are noted for their tall skulls and relatively small faces, with strong square jaws and no prognathism (protruding jaw). They were tall, with some men standing 6'4", which, for that era, was very tall. They were the indigenous Europeans. Northern Europeans have the most Cro-Magnon ancestry while southern Europeans have more ancestry from Middle Eastern farmers. Check out this info from a recent genetic study:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2759684/Europe-s-family-tree-THIRD-branch-Link-genetic-connection-Modern-Europeans-Native-Americans.html
Well I'm glad to be speaking to someone who has heard both sides out there. . .except all of mine yet. I believe I can combine all the DNA and faith based thoughts, as well as the beliefs of some like in that book. As for the belief that we came from two species, I believe he said that as well. Frankly, it seems obvious to me from the distance in genes of the original people (the pure still existing today) that we are still two species. As he points out, the DNA of a child from a mixed marriage is even further apart then the DNA of the same race!
DeleteThat article you linked to also said, "DNA from ancient north Eurasians is present in nearly all modern Europeans, Professor Reich's team did not find it in their ancient hunter-gatherers. . .That means the north Eurasian line of ancestry was introduced into Europe after agriculture had been established. . ."
'We have this amazing observation that only two ancestries are represented among the first farmers, from about 7,000 to 5,000 years ago." This is the exact timing of the biblical narrative!
As for what the Cro magnon looked like, I only know the stuff science has said about the ancestry being like the people still alive in the Canary islands. They spoke of founding godlike white men coming to them. As for what they looked like, we know everything we call modern has Neanderthal in it, so as everyone with Cro magnon also has Neanderthal in them, and looks part black, it seems they are a mix. Neanderthal has been recently admitted to basically be just like us, but body builders. The nose was not bigger, the back not hunched, the only reason they say maybe no blue eyes was that they can trace the first people to have those genes another way, and being more accurate, it is around 6 thousand years ago. Presuming that the Neanderthal wasn't around then, they may think the eyes weren't around then, but those with the genes for white skin, carry the same gene for red/blond hair and blue eyes. Green coming with mixing with darker people. (In a similar way, if you mix a chicken that makes blue eggs, with one that makes brown eggs, you get olive green eggs. FYI)
It's very confusing when you deal with northern european, or middle eastern ancestries, because both areas were originally white genes, but with their slaves eventually mixing in. Now we associate that location with mixed people. Just like Spain, Brazil, Mexico, South Africa, the Mediterranean. . . The Biblical Abraham started the mixing from what I can tell. . .although Cain was also a likely candidate. At the time of the new kingdom of Egypt there was mixing, and that was the first sign of it's downfall, similar to Rome, Babylon and others. Anyhow, check out my blog on Neanderthal to see the stuff on the Neanderthal. There is good reason for them to give him red hair and white skin with blue eyes, even though it is contradictory to what we know of genes. (The dating is simply off due to the nuclear war.)
And yes, I am proud to be a free thinker, and a dreamer/armchair philosopher. No one has figured me out yet, and I was the first to tie this together of any I have read online. I believe it explains everything perfectly, but I must admit, without a lot of pieces from everyone else, I never would have thought up how this all fit together so well. I just knew that I couldn't believe in religion, but I had to believe the evidence of it's origin. And I knew I had to believe the evidence of evolution, which seems unable to answer mans evolution. So this made sense to me. Hope to keep you intrigued. (Better then making you mad, that's for sure.)
ReplyDeleteI've been reading more of your posts and, as I said, some of your views are way out there. I have weird and speculative ideas myself, but I try to be clear about what I know is backed up by solid facts and what is unknown. You seem well read, but I notice that sometimes you take only partial information and then expand from there. I'm not sure if you do this intentionally or if it's just because you do a lot of skimming, because some of your sources contradict what you claim.
DeleteEven though I'm not sold on your alien ancestor theory, I have been spending time doing research about your claims and you have lead me to info that I haven't read before. I'm always open to unconventional concepts, because I've held views that weren't mainstream, like multi-regionalism, and now those same views have been proven true.
Here's another unconventional theory by a geneticist that may fit with yours:
http://www.macroevolution.net/human-origins.html#.VB8BNfldWSo
If by taking partial information you mean I take the science, but leave their conclusion (as their bias often leads them to say something not backed by the rest of the evidence they aren't aware of), then yes I am aware I do that. I won't apologize for stating some things a if they are proven, because the massive evidence I have seen has led me to discount the scientists explanation as myth. I do skim for the evidence, and leave the bias in every source I read, because most people presume a lot of junk.
DeleteI too have always wanted to hear the crazy or unorthodox theories, as I don't feel it is good to come to a solid conclusion on anything without hearing all the alternate explanations and debunking them.It has taken me about 4 and a half years to look into all the ins and outs of the ancient alien theory and connect it to the God of the Bible, as well as all myths pretty much. Then it was another step to find out the RH- blood was alien. Then to realize the Illuminati and all those with the bloodline who rule the world are not out to get me, but they are fighting for the survival of their people. I have heard from a guy high up in the army that he was in on the first, informal meeting of the Illuminati, and he said they need to eliminate the "other species". He asked what that meant, and was told it was past his clearance. . .in other words, if they told him, they'd have to kill him. ;) He said Aids and Ebola, as well as other things have been targeted to wipe out those with black genes. We know the genes from Africa impart a worse immunity, and that we have gotten our good immunity from the Denisovan, and through the Neanderthal who came from them. We believe the Neanderthal is younger then the homo erectus, so if we got a superior immunity from him, that makes no sense. It would have to be that we got a big immunity from a very ancient alien species: the Denisovan. (Whom they can't trace!) The longer you live, the larger exposure you get, and that gets passed down to your children.
The only thing we see passed down from the hoomo erectus are gut parasites that they live symbiotically with. . .unfortunately we don't! Anyhow, it is dishonest to say the science of gut bacteria, blood, DNA and much more doesn't point clearly to a two species origin, and so honest and updated science sites are starting to admit to my basic premises. I expect it may take a few years for people to catch up with all I have found. I have asked numerous scientists to look into this and get back to me, but I haven't heard back for like a year from one. Either they are very slow, or they were close minded. I tend to find college educated people tend not to challenge the norm. They are taught what to think, not how to think. All the political correct crowd comes out of the highly educated bunch, and are generally very liberal. . .just as I use to be. I realized that was cultural Marxism and I wanted no part of it though. I'm in the process of divorcing myself from that cult now, and with luck I will not split my family in doing so. . .it's a real worry though.
What you said doesn't make any sense according to the reality of the world. If the Illuminati had a goal of wiping out Black people, then they wouldn't be sending food aid to Africa or promoting mass immigration into first world countries. They wouldn't champion race mixing or try to make heroes and saints out of Black people in the media. If the Illuminati had the goal of removing Black people from this earth, then they are doing the exact opposite of what they need to be doing.
DeleteAnd your understanding of current science needs much improvement. The Denisovans are not an alien species. They branched off from the Neanderthals 400 thousand years ago. And it makes no sense to imagine that the Denisovans were an advanced species when the people with the largest percentage of Denisovan genes, the Australian aborigines, are some of the most unintelligent and primitive people on the earth.
I appreciate the back and forth that we've had. I hope that you can spend some more time researching genetics and paleo-anthropology to flesh out your understanding of things.
Check out Peter Frost's anthropology blog:
http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/
Look at some of the other sites that he links to in the right column, especially West Hunter and John Hawks. Gregory Cochran is one of the writers for West Hunter. You may have seen him in this documentary about race and intelligence:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOnQPXuU81Q
The comments below are for you too, but I was having issues with the reply button working. Anyhow, thanks for the links, great ones.
DeleteAnd yes that theory does fit, and I used it in part to come to my conclusions, as I read it before, though I may not have referenced it. I do know that many geneticists are saying we do not understand, and the facts don't support a straight forward evolutionary start to man. What non of them have admitted though is that modern man was never called modern without Neanderthal DNA. I think it's kind of obvious that Sub Sahara doesn't have anything modern in it from pure Africans, yet they still insist on calling man homo sapiens, in order to include blacks with man. A simple redefinition of man would help us understand the Bible so much better. Until like 100 years ago it was presumed blacks weren't human. Now we think that is such an insult, but genes tell us we are different species, whatever you call them, they aren't like the rest of us!
ReplyDeleteWhat we think of as primitive people being linked to the Denisovan may according to this article more likely be due to male indiscretion with the native black slave populations, as well as Neanderthal, who came out of them. http://m.livescience.com/22836-genome-extinct-humans-denisovans.html There is a lot of presumption in science, but genes are not saying that the Denisovan are a large group, or that they are from a primate origin. They are found instead to have bred with the Neanderthal and basically Neanderthal is also part Denisovan. We presume both had an origin in connection to the primate line, but that has always been tied back to Africans in Africa. They actually admit that they are mysterious and they do not know where they came from. There is no tie to those in Africa unless mixed with them.
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid that I have seen your arguments before, and found them simply biased to an evolutionary presumption, and wishful thinking. The evidence points strongly to alien seeding on this planet, and the Gods being Denisovan are the most likely candidates if Neanderthal is basically the man who came from them. Otherwise there is no truth in all the ancient texts. . .and that seems illogical with all the evidence.
I will check out those links though.
I'm afraid that I have seen your arguments before, and found them simply biased to an evolutionary presumption, and wishful thinking.
DeleteMy arguments are biased in favor of known facts. Many of your claims are based on speculation and a belief in the infallibility of specific religious texts. And some of your claims stem from a complete misunderstanding of science, such as your repeated statements that Rh positive blood comes from Rhesus monkeys. It doesn't. The name was taken from experiments on Rhesus monkey blood. The protein on human red blood cells that makes a person Rh positive is not the same as the one in Rhesus monkeys. You really should research this.
And Denisovans are a mysterious human species, but as I said before, Melanesians and Australian Aborigines have the most Denisovan DNA, so it makes no sense to say that they were of an advanced alien origin. If they were we should expect australoids to be the most intelligent people in the world, but instead they are some of the least advanced, even less intelligent than Africans.
You are a prolific blogger, but you can't expect people to take your writings seriously when you repeatedly make false scientific claims. I'm saying this as constructive criticism, because it's clear to me that you're an intelligent person that has misunderstandings about certain topics. I hope you spend time looking at those links and engaging some of the writers.
Perhaps it was an over simplification to state that the monkey factor came from one specific monkey, but it is obviously in the primate line. If anything about it's origins show the RH- line to be in primates as well, then it may mean something, but very little. The fact is, those who rule the world are mainly RH-, and the Neanderthal was too.
ReplyDeleteAs for the Denisovan being mostly in primitive cultures, I know Asians have Denisovan, as well as Indians, both from around the time they got Neanderthal intermixing. The difference between some with strong Denisovan genes and others may be earlier or later mixing with homo erectus blood. I don't understand it all, but the largest group, elite Asian tiger nations, have the highest IQ in the world. I have not actually been able to find the studies about primitive people having Denisovan in them, besides native Americans. (Who have an interesting tradition of being blood brothers only with certain tribes, possibly because of the RH-) If we tested people for homo erectus blood that would likely show why some are smart, while others were primitive. So far I don't think they are testing people for those genes. . .or I haven't found the studies.
If you would show me studies tracing those with Denisovan in them (living in primate cultures) back to African blood, while those with high IQ not being part black, that would be proof. I have not found evidence one way or another yet sadly. It is a strong hunch based on historical and archaeological evidence, not evolved religious texts. The Sumerian text is not a religion based on oral tradition that we know of, it is a historical text.
Ironically, I just read that Australian Aborigines are probably some of the brightest people, but it would be almost impossible for a Westerner to devise a test that accurately measures this intelligence! I don't know what made him say that, but he did.
ReplyDeleteWhen Europeans first came to Australia, the aborigines knew how to make fire but didn't understand that they could use fire to cook meat; they still ate meet raw. They didn't comprehend that sex lead to pregnancy. They also ate their own children, in the belief that they would gain strength from doing so. They were and still are some of the dumbest humans on the planet. Their IQs are lower than Black Africans.
DeleteThey do have high visual acuity, which might lead some to think that they are actually intelligent, but they aren't. They have a more developed visual region of the brain, which allows them to distinguish very minute details. They are known to be exceptional trackers.
Look at an Australian aborigine skull next to a European skull:
http://jewamongyou.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/aboriginal-vs-slav.jpg
Aborigines don't have a well developed frontal lobe, yet their occipital bun is more pronounced than any other race. They have the most archaic skull shapes of any group, which probably comes from their high percentage of Denisovan ancestry:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/denisovan-genome/
Denisovans also interbred with ancient modern humans, according to Pääbo and his team. Even though the sole fossil specimen was found in the mountains of Siberia, contemporary humans from Melanesia (a region in the South Pacific) seem to be the most likely to harbor Denisovan DNA. The researchers estimate that some 6 percent of contemporary Papuans' genomes come from Denisovans. Australian aborigines and those from Southeast Asian islands also have traces of Denisovan DNA. This suggests that the two groups might have crossed paths in central Asia and then the modern humans continued on to colonize the islands of Oceania.
Papuans and Australian aborigines are closely related humans, since Papua was once connected to Australia when the oceans were lower. Papuans are also known for their great visual acuity and low IQs,
New studies have shown that some East Asians also have Denisovan genes, but at a much lower rate. Tibetans inherited a specific gene from Denisovans that allows them to live in high altitudes.
I have to admit the part about the Denisovan was based on lacking evidence and guessing, to make it fit with what we knew. The story gets more complex the more info comes out. Either they only trace on side, or a location. Now they are finding out so much more, and that tells me a small part was studied. I just read that "If the Denisova are too closely related to modern humans to be H. erectus, then H. erectus becomes a prime candidate for the 4% undetermined archaic admixture in the Denisova on top of the 17% Neanderthal admixture." http://dispatchesfromturtleisland.blogspot.com/2013/06/a-dialog-on-non-denisovan-archaic.html
DeleteThat being the case, you would get a little color in them, making sense of all those dark people who have a little Denisovan in them. . .and it would throw them out as the alien gods. Also considering some big foot was pure African, it makes me wonder if the largeness of the Denisovan was not so unique back then. As a matter of fact, some believe that the earth had less gravity back then and thus everything was larger long ago. (Though the jury is out on that theory, and it's been a long time since I looked into this.) http://passionateproject.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-bibles-history-of-earth-claims-its.html
The gods as well as the slaves would in that scenario would have likely been large for hundreds of thousands of years, while according to the Sumerian text, they were mining earth's gold. It seems the most likely place to find the gods would be in Africa around ancient mines or Pyramids, unless they simply just didn't die, or went away to space. That was a claim. . . so we may never know. The Neanderthal now seems to not have come from the Denisovan, but has mated with them. So we could be talking about basically a part black, mixed with an Indian, who ended up raping a white woman.
Some believe we were seeded by different aliens, who started different species, others believe the rejects and criminals were put here on what the aliens call the prison planet. I honestly don't read Sumerian, and don't know how much about the ancient writings, as much as the Bible. There are certain parts of my theory, that are just that, theory. I appreciate the correction and back and forth, as most people just get overwhelmed, Are you professionally schooled in this stuff, or just the curious sort like me?
Are you professionally schooled in this stuff, or just the curious sort like me?
DeleteI have a background in engineering, but have been researching paleo-anthropology and human genetics for the past decade. Most of my reading into the subject is just recreational, but I try to stay informed about the latest developments. I used to have an active blog about race and culture, but time constraints lead me to shut it down. I appreciate the amount of dedication that you put into your blog, because I know how time consuming it can be. I'm glad that you are trying to increase your understanding about these subjects.
I figured you were well read, as few to none have been intelligent enough to debate me on a hand full of the topics I deal with in my big picture theory. I try to blog to simplify, and I like to link to the stuff so others don't have to put the time into it that I did. I am very open to correction from scientists, but I have scared them off by getting to deep into racial issues apparently, as no one will respond to my challenges. I contacted a big wig at Liberty, a black scientist, civil rights black woman, a Unitarian Atheist pastor, a humanist group, and all loved my theory until they realized the racial implications. . .
DeleteYou apparently have blogged on race though so you know it is something that needs to be brought out, not hidden. Bringing things into the light only exposes what is already there. I do not want to drum up tensions, I want to clarify who they are with, and why! As you said, blogging is hard in a way, but I feel I have to spread the facts and make some logical sense of them all to tie reality with history, mythology and DNA. Partly for my own sake, and partly to unify my family. We have Fundamental Christians, Atheists and one cultural Marxist in the family. They are all looking at their own evidence and fighting for a different group they perceive to be the right underdogs. I look at the evidence from them all and come up with my own theories. They may be original, but I believe they are solid and yet open minded. I will continue to look for evidence, but for now, I would say there is some guessing, and trust in the ancient texts and the bigger brained people and technology of the past.
What is your argument Angela. Put simply?
DeleteArguments are futile without evidence, and I just like to share the facts. The fact is, this world is selecting for high IQ, and civilization only works if you have one. The blacks unless mixed are primitive to this day, and unfit for society, thus dying out. We either let it happen, or fight it as a humanitarian, and only hurt all society while we do. Similar to fighting for the survival of the wild dog or lion, while surrounded with farming tribes. Yes blacks hurt the civilized people of the world. . .that doesn't mean we hate them. It does mean we should separate them, as we do lions in zoos.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete