Now, I plan on further blowing your minds in this post, so I must warn you how important it is to go back to the start of this series if you haven't already, in order to more properly understand what I am referring to. Also, this post is not for the faint hearted, or children, as some of it is a little crude, as well as a mature theme. . .
So as a reminder or to sum up: first in On the question of slavery or rights? Part 1 I discuss some deep questions of morality to do with slavery and who the United States constitution says has rights. All "men" were said to be equal, but the very people that penned that had black slaves?!!Why? Is it hypocritical? Not technically, because whether we like it or not, they did not call blacks man!
My next post called: Real evidence of God, part 3 deals with the real definition of "God" in history, and where we can find him in archaeology, even though the dates have been confusing because of carbon dating and a major unnatural disaster. This, and other discrepancies with the fossil record has led scientists astray into believing that the legends in the Sumerian text, the first writing (from the start of civilization) were not real, but myth. Science now tells us the Sumerian, and later evolved Biblical creation tale (the Hebrew language being the shorthand of, and originating in the Sumerian text), are true! Only, we need to then redefine God in our minds to be physical, and from another planet. Many angles of evidence are used to prove God was as real as St Nick. As evidenced by resent cargo cults, we see that to a primitive man, all highly advanced people look as gods. And we see how with time, oral stories evolve and get exaggerated.
Most importantly, in "Proof that we did not just evolve naturally, but that "man" was intelligently designed! Part 4" we use the same evidence even young earth Creationists use, saying that the blood that started civilization was of course the family of Adam: that of the Neanderthal. This blood we can trace to starting with one man, y chromosome Adam, who can be traced on the fathers side from the redefined "God" of the last post, the Denisovan. The mother's side of the Neanderthal is the primate line. . .only, the blood doesn't match up with the primate line, showing that the mother was an egg, unnaturally fertilized and placed in the womb of a Denisovan/God. . .otherwise known as an alien.
The next post called: All about the hybrid Neanderthal named Adam. part 5 shows the bloodline of the Neanderthal and the traits he had, that could pass down to his kin. Concluding that the Biblical version may not be too far off the Sumerian story of creation, but that we can't define all as from the Adamic race, as genes prove the original indigenous race was here before Adam, and not related. Meaning, we may need to use new terms in classifying different races.
As it is clear that the blood runs from the newly found (giant) Denisovan, through to the Neanderthal, the Europeans, the original pure Ashkenzi Jews who is equivalent to the Sumerians who started humanity and civilization, we would have to conclude that the Sumerian text was more accurate then the Bible, and speaking of their own history.
In this post I will show for any doubters, the evidence that the evolution of the first indigenous "man" was indeed out of Africa, as all the evidence points to, but not from the biblical "Adam". Thus creation and evolution are both right.
If the Neanderthal was made in the image of "God" as defined correctly, as an alien to the planet, and the Neanderthal got their blood and looks from "God", then we have to conclude that anything before the Neanderthal was the earthly or "wild" version of man. So not surprisingly, this was mentioned in The Epic of Gilgamesh, the oldest known written literature and an epic poem from Sumer. The epic speaks in detail about the king and his friend/servant, Enkidu, a wild man domesticated both by a woman and by the gods. He was, according to the text, not of the alien or kingly blood of the gods, but instead the bloodline of the oldest primate. (Yet he became adopted like a pet by them.)
Some would say that this man was all by himself somehow in the wilderness, but he had a race of people who apparently were not allowed with civilized Sumerians. (Similarly, there was a people around Egypt that the Egyptians didn't allow in. . .even the later Pharaohs who were a mix of them and the kingly line, made the decree that only for trade would they be allowed in.) In the Epic of Gilgamesh, the wild man as he is dying yet ungratefully curses the woman who took him in and tamed him, and also says, "I too once in the wilderness with my wife had all the treasure I wished."
This was of course spoken of in bitterness (and in reality very unlikely to be true, as he ate mostly grass, or what he could find, had no home, and lived like an animal) and ungratefulness for what domestication gave him. So in the story the god said to him: 'Enkidu, why are you cursing the woman, the mistress who taught you to eat bread fit for gods and drink wine of kings? She who put upon you a 'magnificent garment, did she not give you glorious Gilgamesh for your companion, and has not Gilgamesh, your own (adopted) brother, made you rest on a 'royal bed and recline on a couch at his left hand? He has made the princes of the earth kiss your feet, and now all the people of Uruk lament and wail over you. When you are dead he will let his hair grow long for your sake, he will wear a lion's pelt and wander through the desert.' (Mourning customs.)
When Enkidu heard glorious Shamash [the god] his angry heart grew quiet, he called back the curse and said, 'Woman, I promise you another destiny. The mouth which cursed you shall bless you!"
Source
So nice ending to the story, but what is the point of it? Well, could Enkidu be the original full blooded primate race that the gods used the female's egg from to make the new man, Neanderthal, or Adam? Would he have been seen in the fossil record as a "transitional species" from monkey to man? Perhaps the homo erectus?
Was homo Erectus really a link between ape and modern man, but only through the egg (as it was in the womb of a goddess they said in the Sumerian text) and not the blood or looks?
Was there any sign of macro evolution before the Neanderthal? Did homo erectus evolve quickly from other homo species? Is the evolutionary progression as typically shown accurate at all?
Scientists say macro evolution is getting more questionable as the days go on actually: "Over decades excavating sites in Africa, researchers have named half a dozen different species of early human ancestor, but most, if not all, are now on shaky ground."
"This was because of much variation of the sculls found in a single cave. They said that we are using five or six names such as H rudolfensis, H gautengensis,H ergaster, H. antecessor and H habilis, but they could all be from one lineage; homo Erectus. They all have similar tools, family groups, brain capacities, diets, teeth eruption pattern, short monkey-like stature, low foreheads. . . If the scientists are right, it would trim the base of the human evolutionary tree, just leaving the plain old primitive Homo Erectus . . . While some would like to add another species in between the homo Erectus and Neanderthal, they know that there is too little time for it to have been natural. . .
Source
Source
“Although creationists are adamant that none of these are transitional and all are either apes or humans, they are not able to agree on which are which. . .On the whole, this entire matter of the status of H. erectus has been rather embarrassing to creationists".
Furthermore, to complicate matters more, the scientific community are confused as well, and are starting to say that everything we had previously deemed to be a variant species in the homo line, is now all just homo Erectus!
And what does the Smithsonian consider the Homo Erectus? Basically, he was a baboon.
The ironic thing to me is that Creationists believe not just that the homo erectus was a non-human, but that the Neanderthal was basically Adam, "Neandertal and modern humans came from "one blood," ultimately from Adam."
Well, we are obviously a pretty mixed up bunch now no doubt, and we do all come from the same woman from that egg implanted in the goddess, we call the egg "Mitochondrial Eve", though she shouldn't be connected to the creation story of Eve at all, as she can be traced much farther back to the primate/homo erectus line.
Why the confusion, and why based on this kind of DNA have we believed that we weren't even related to the Neanderthal?
According to scientists:
"Mitochondrial DNA results in the past have pointed scholars in errant directions; for example, some early studies suggested that humans and Neanderthals did not share any common ancestry.
Mitochondrial DNA is a small part of the human genome that is generally transmitted only through the female line, from mothers to offspring. This has important implications for the study of past events. For instance, ancient interspecies breeding events might not be picked up by mitochondrial DNA."
Source
Source
Source
Let me tell you about someone else special though, his name is Y chromosome Adam.
Of course, science would never admit that this was the real Adam, but ironically it is the common paternal ancestor of nearly everyone they have tested on earth. . .except this little group called Sub Saharan Africans. (The one's who, because of their long evolution and many mutations -as traced through the fossil record and blood-are confirmed to be the oldest people alive on earth. . .they also are the only ones who have no Neanderthal in them.)
The small group of Sub Saharan Africans tested, confirmed what another study had, that they came from a whole other line then modern man. . .traced from before civilization of any kind, just like the Eve I mentioned! Thus debunking the creation story of mankind all starting from one man. . .and concluding that the creation story was only about the alien hybrid white man, a NEW man, the Neanderthal. Ironically Neanderthal means "new man".
The small group of Sub Saharan Africans tested, confirmed what another study had, that they came from a whole other line then modern man. . .traced from before civilization of any kind, just like the Eve I mentioned! Thus debunking the creation story of mankind all starting from one man. . .and concluding that the creation story was only about the alien hybrid white man, a NEW man, the Neanderthal. Ironically Neanderthal means "new man".
As Sub Saharan Africans are the only one's in the world with no Neanderthal, AND the only one's who's father's side is not traced back to a time of civilization, or what we could call "man" today. . .(instead they hail from deep Africa, where the African's live almost like, dare I say, slightly evolved Baboons. . .) it seems the obvious conclusion would be that Africans came from the species of wild man in the Sumerian text, while the white men were traced from Adam/ the Neanderthal to the Sumerian kings. Thus creation of man only meant a white race, and the Sumerians were only speaking about their own history.
Is this shocking or being racist?
If you think so, you have a distorted view of racism. If you see any two animals that are different, and you admit to those differences, that simply makes you honest, not racist. What you do with that knowledge is up to you.
Yes, there are religious people who advocate for total supremacy of the whites, they are still called the "Ku Klux Klan".
Source
There are those who take white supremacy into the political arena, but their racist views are also generally tied to their religious worldview. I am an evolutionist that believes we all evolved (even if on different timelines, and on different planets) and that no animal deserves cruel treatment, even if we fit in different places in the food chain or pecking order. I am most importantly NOT religious, yet I do believe in physical beings like us being called gods in the past. So bare that in mind, while I continue to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the Blacks were originally a different species.
The origins of blacks can be traced from before the biblical timeline, even by the bugs in their guts, that have been slowly evolving and cohabiting with their hosts for a very long time!!Approximately two-thirds of the world’s population is now infected with a gut parasite (the H. pylori.) that in the United States, is said to be more prevalent among African Americans, Hispanics, and lower
socioeconomic groups. [all related to blacks] Genetic studies suggest it came into being in Africa. . .
"In Africa, where infection with H. pylori is near-universal, the incidence of stomach cancer [one of the things it causes] is low. Which suggests that African H. sap and African H. pylori have had plenty of time to evolve a kind of truce over the hundred thousand years of their mutual living arrangements."
Source
Can diseases and gut problems in the white man be traced to this very common bug infestation, originating in the black man? Apparently yes! Check out this link on what to do about the parasite you likely have.
Source
You might be wondering as I was, whether the whole primate line has this same bug? While it may not have been tested for in all primates, the same monkey that showed a connection with Blacks by having the RH+ blood (the rhesus monkey) was indeed tested to have this bug.
Source
Blacks are also not susceptible to the parasite malaria because they have a genetically built in resistance to it from their evolution from apes in Africa. On the other hand, anyone with the Neanderthal gene will be sickened and possible killed by this African bred parasite that goes after an antigen in the blood, that pure blacks don't have, as it appears to be an antigen in response to the homo erectus egg the gods started the Neanderthal with.Malaria, a white man's disease, was the reason for the death of a man said to be the last great pharaoh, King Tut, and the reason white missionaries and tourists so classically get it. Malaria immunity, as well as no ill effects of the other parasite H. pylori, seems to be the only advantages of the Duffy bloodgroup of the Sub Saharan Africans. Mostly it is said to be a bloodtype that the rest of the world rejects in transfusions. Whatever the case, it speaks of the origin of a species when you see what parasites they can co-exist with. Anyone down the line from them should have the same immunity to them as well, but whites do not. . .
Generally speaking, instead of increased immunity, that you would expect of the oldest population, those from the Denisovan/Neanderthal bloodline are said to have the best immunity. Furthermore, the sexual and sanitary practices of rural Africans to this day show why Africans are not only less immune, but a very sickly bunch! Africa was/is the cesspool that started numerous diseases, sexual and otherwise. If you have the stomach for learning about the practices that encourage disease, as well as seeing the culture and family values Blacks (even in this country) seem to stand for. . .check out this VERY racist perspective in the below link. (I do not recommend it, but the info is good nonetheless.)
Source
The homo Erectus or wild man of the Sumerian text were no doubt from the race of the original gold digging slaves of the Annunaki/gods. A heritage still found in the name Nubia a land famous for it's gold mines and the land of possibly one of the original tribes of dark skinned slaves, the Biblical Nubians. Source Source
This race of wild men have been indigenous (seemingly) not just to Africa, but to every continent, though they may have been taken there by the gods. First we have the indiginous black aboriginals of Australia, The Original Black Cultures of Eastern Europe, the original blacks of china, and everyone knows about the Native Indians who were in America, and they had blood from the indigenous blacks of Africa as well!
There is so much debunking to do with color because of so much Afrocentrism or Black supremacy out there in America though, that I need to go on:
It speaks of your origin being Africa, when your bloodline needs what Africa provides: lots of sun. Blacks need supplemental Vitamin D when living in cooler places, showing they need to be in sunny places.
We know all colors can come from mixed blacks, something black Afrocentrists believe proves they were the origin of all (even pure white) people. . .saying we whites were a defect or mutation. (An Albino.)
Yet white, pure white shown not just by color, but looks, build, blood, DNA, etc. has never come from a black. . .and no pure dark Sub Saharan person can come from pure white people either.
As we know that pure dark was the original skin color in Africa (and for that matter, on other continents) it seems illogical for white people to be there, and yet we have DNA proof that there were some original whites who started all civilizations of the world; King Tut, and the original Egyptian royals are prime examples. There are redheaded royal mummies all over the world though!
Source
Scientist do claim that the white skin was a mutation, saying that white skin evolved to be more suited for getting more Vitamin D in colder climates, and consequently better suited to the cold then Africans. While our skin does make better use of the Sun's rays for getting vitamin D, there are a lot of problems with that theory. At the same time that "modern man" [Neanderthal/white man] moved out of Africa, he covered up his skin with clothes. So why did we get away from the sun's rays in every way we could at the same time that this white gene came in, not long after moving into the cold? Was it really evolution, that happened out of necessity for survival because we needed to move? Evidence I've read said the area the Neanderthal moved from was lush, not over crowded or barren of food. Did Neanderthals need to move to Europe quickly just because an already white people couldn't handle the sun on their skin?
Yet white, pure white shown not just by color, but looks, build, blood, DNA, etc. has never come from a black. . .and no pure dark Sub Saharan person can come from pure white people either.
As we know that pure dark was the original skin color in Africa (and for that matter, on other continents) it seems illogical for white people to be there, and yet we have DNA proof that there were some original whites who started all civilizations of the world; King Tut, and the original Egyptian royals are prime examples. There are redheaded royal mummies all over the world though!
Source
Scientist do claim that the white skin was a mutation, saying that white skin evolved to be more suited for getting more Vitamin D in colder climates, and consequently better suited to the cold then Africans. While our skin does make better use of the Sun's rays for getting vitamin D, there are a lot of problems with that theory. At the same time that "modern man" [Neanderthal/white man] moved out of Africa, he covered up his skin with clothes. So why did we get away from the sun's rays in every way we could at the same time that this white gene came in, not long after moving into the cold? Was it really evolution, that happened out of necessity for survival because we needed to move? Evidence I've read said the area the Neanderthal moved from was lush, not over crowded or barren of food. Did Neanderthals need to move to Europe quickly just because an already white people couldn't handle the sun on their skin?
What is the evolutionary reason white skin would evolve, if not in Africa? If white man had evolved in less sun, like in space, a planet further away from the Sun or in a cave, he would need less sun to get all the vit. D he needed.
Just like this Mexican Tetra, which is a cave dweller.
Or this cave salamander.
If a short move to Europe changed the African's skin, then it should still be happening to them that came to America, nothing to do with interbreeding with Europeans.
If a short move to Europe changed the African's skin, then it should still be happening to them that came to America, nothing to do with interbreeding with Europeans.
While in fact, Africans living in western countries are hugely deficient of Vit. D when they moved to Europe or the States! Evolution still hasn't changed them white. Furthermore, Eskimos should be the whitest people on earth if evolution worked that fast and that way! Instead the pure Eskimos are as dark as an Arab or darker! And he too is part Neanderthal.
I have concluded, that based on the evidence using DNA now, skin only lightens up for blacks with interbreeding with the whites. The differences in skin only show we were obviously evolved for a different climate, and for our own good both blacks and whites should be where our skin dictates.
So when did all these colors (of us mixing) show up?
".. .racial differentiation can be traced back to at least 3,000 B.C., as evidenced in Egyptian records, particularly the artistic representations."
So when did all these colors (of us mixing) show up?
".. .racial differentiation can be traced back to at least 3,000 B.C., as evidenced in Egyptian records, particularly the artistic representations."
So only around 1,000 years after creation was suppose to have happened, we see all these different colors, at the same time the Bible accounts for the patriarchs interbreeding with their slaves. (And also Cain going to a different nation. . .)
If you want to know who is a pure descendant of Adam and the patriarchs, who is a pure Jew, a "child of God" (child of the ancient aliens more like it), then look into the beginnings of the red heads (Adam means "red" BTW). For a science explanation of the redheads and where they have been, check out here.
Then there is the O blood, "The deletion responsible for converting an A allele to an O allele is not present in chimpanzees, and sequence comparisons between humans and chimps indicate this allele is unique to the human lineage, further complicating an evolutionary scenario for the origin of blood type O".
The B blood was the first bloodtype to been around, and it would thus be clearly linked to the Homo Erectus. The Chineese long ago came up with personalities for the bloodtypes, and in fact will chose partners based on it they are so convinced about the truth of it. They say that a B blooded individual will be hard pressed to find a mate in China. Why? Look at these traits.
General personality of people who have type B blood
—Like to go their own way
—Do what they want without considering other people’s feelings, rules and customs
—Happy-go-lucky and masters of breaking rules
—Optimistic
—Friendly and open their heart to anybody
—Not pretentious
—Afraid of being alone
—Pragmatists
—Don’t chase a dream much
—Like to play
—Love festivals and parties
—Have been in love many times
—Don’t get heart-broken over lost love
—Do what they want without considering other people’s feelings, rules and customs
—Happy-go-lucky and masters of breaking rules
—Optimistic
—Friendly and open their heart to anybody
—Not pretentious
—Afraid of being alone
—Pragmatists
—Don’t chase a dream much
—Like to play
—Love festivals and parties
—Have been in love many times
—Don’t get heart-broken over lost love
Compare that to the personality of a person who is mixed with Neanderthal blood, thus has O blood.
—Realistic
—Good at developing economic concepts
—Vigorous at earning a living
—Strong in face of adversity
—Romanticists
—Dream of getting rich quick, but actually take a steady approach
—Ambitious
—Go straight toward their goal
—Have leadership ability and often take care of younger people and people below them
—Very cautious
—Don’t care about small things, taking a wider perspective instead
—Devoted, but with a strong desire to monopolize
Source—Good at developing economic concepts
—Vigorous at earning a living
—Strong in face of adversity
—Romanticists
—Dream of getting rich quick, but actually take a steady approach
—Ambitious
—Go straight toward their goal
—Have leadership ability and often take care of younger people and people below them
—Very cautious
—Don’t care about small things, taking a wider perspective instead
—Devoted, but with a strong desire to monopolize
Then there is the RH- blood is said to be "alien to the planet", and like O blood, originating in the O- blood (in the Neanderthal).
Most scientists disregard the RH- and the RH+ blood as being incompatible now, as we can treat it (by basically taking an antihistamine) but it is not natural for one bloodline to go sterile because of interbreeding with another bloodline of the same species. It is the definition of species that are different to not be able to interbreed in fact.
From all this, and the start of civilization, matching up with the timing of the blue eyed common ancestor on the mtDNA, and the link with the Y chromosome Adam, that is the father of the pure Eurasian Adam/Noah (who would consequently be Eurasian) on the fathers side, whether you are religious, or not, it is pretty obvious that the original Sumerian text creation story is true. As is mostly the biblical story that stemmed from it, tracing the Jews as the created bloodline. Consequently Ashkenzi Jews are the only true Jews then, as they were the start of the European countries.
Some Blacks say that the Ashkenzi Jews were the real gentiles from the Khazar people, who converted religiously to Judaism and according to Paul in Romans 11, they were "grafted in". There is no indication of Khazar genetic ancestry though among Ashkenazi Jews. Instead, they are genetically related to the other indigenous and "wild" black race, those from Sub Sahara Africa.
As the pure Ashkenzi Jews started from 4 founding european woman, and can be traced back to 1 european founding man (who likely had 3 sons that then looked just like him), a black and cursed Ham is a debunked myth. We now know that a family with both of those colors would have been impossible unless Noah (pure in his generations) had a black wife.
The myth that Noah cursed his son Ham to have black skin was actually started by King James, as he saw the Blacks seemed to be cursed in comparison to whites, and saw a verse about Noah cursing his Grandson, so he put two and two together, and said that Noah's sons must have all been a different color, to account for all the races.
Genetics shows the same bloodline from Adam, paternally at least, can be traced from the Neanderthal, to the White pharaohs (the original ones like the family of King Tut, who were obviously and DNA tested to be white, whether or not they dyed their hair in their old age). As the Sumerians creation story could only be speaking of a new man, that came into being at that exact time, it would have to be the start of the European race. Thus the Sumerian kings list would actually be traced back to the Neanderthals. Not surprisingly the Neanderthals are now believed to be 1/5th of the European genome. . . they will figure it out eventually that whites are Neanderthals, but give them time.
So, as the Neanderthals were the ones who originated the whites, and were thought to be Adam, they would be both the Sumerian kings, and the biblical patriarchs. (Thus, the originators of the only pure jews, Ashkenzi Jews would be Noah's family.) So predictably, if this were true, and the Sumerian text is the original Creation story, the Sumerian kings list would have to equate with the patriarchs in the Bible. The ages, when translated right, do line up!
When did the white Jews lose the term Jew or Hebrew?
When they were taken captive. The Israelite nation in captivity was classified as being of another nationality. The Jews who were "scattered abroad" and carried captive into Assyria, were known to be called the "white Assyrians", and were descendants of the "lost" tribes of Israel. These captives, were an offshoot of the Sumerian rulers. Which may be why after the fall of the Northern Kingdom, and when they returned home they called their new city Samaria. (Meaning "guarded by God" . ..or as we know now, "guarded by tall men".) Those who originated in Samaria have a high percentage of RH negative blood to this day.
"The difference isn't always noted with the Rh-, as it can be recessive, but the general DNA and looks has gotten a lot of attention from scientists today. More Israeli Jews are of African descent than of European descent."
"1,142 samples from 14 different non-Ashkenazi Jewish communities were analyzed. A list of complete mtDNA sequences was established for all variants present at high frequency in the communities studied, along with high-resolution genotyping of all samples. Unlike the previously reported pattern observed among Ashkenazi Jews, the numerically major portion of the non-Ashkenazi Jews, currently estimated at 5 million people and comprised of the Moroccan, Iraqi, Iranian and Iberian Exile Jewish communities showed no evidence for a narrow founder effect. . ." [4 couples, as in Noah's family.]
Source
Source"It appears from the Assyrian inscriptions that the number [of true Jews] carried away was 27,290. The number afterward deported from Judah was 200,000, and then the poorest [the mixed slaves, like the black one mentioned in Song of Solomon] of the land were left to be vinedressers and husbandmen (2 Kings 25:12). 27,290 could certainly not include the whole population of the cities and the country. But it would include the higher classes, [whites] and especially the priests. . . The population therefore after the conquest contained a large proportion of Israelites. These people, left without their religious guides, mingled with the heathen." [Blacks or mixed blacks/Samaritans.]
Source
Whether you put stock in the Bible, the Sumerian text, or neither, the bloodline I am speaking of, stemming from the O- blood has ruled the world from the beginning of civilization until now. President Bush [as well as other whites] has traced his family back to Sumer. . .and not surprisingly so, as anyone with Neanderthal in them should also be able to do so on at least the fathers Y chromosome side as well. In fact, All with Neanderthal blood, including about 80% of the blacks now are one blood, and related to every king, pharaoh, emperor or ruler. More on this in my post: Are you a child of "God"? Part 5 The origin of the Aryan race. Part 6
Whether a creationist or evolutionist, it has now been agreed on that all in the homo line before Neanderthal were a "transitional form".
Amazingly creationists deny anything before Neanderthal as man at all. (Not even just modern man, because they don't believe in transitional primates!) And yet they often won't even admit Neanderthal was Adam, but a brake off from babel and from an older connected lineage. Problem is, other then the Denisovan, there is no connection with the Neanderthal in blood or looks to the older transitional forms. And the only one before the Neanderthal now is Homo Erectus. . .
"Christians have both historically and when believing the scientific timeline, would say that any human-type skeletons “dated” earlier than a few tens of thousands of years ago have to be written off as pre-Adamic “soulless” ,"quasihumans."
"Evolutionists. . . have found that H. erectus and various other homo species had quite a different kind of tooth development than modern humans and Neanderthals; they consider this significant, stating that “Brain size, age at first reproduction, lifespan and other life-history traits correlate tightly with dental development.” This supports [the] view that H. erectus and Neanderthal fall into different categories." [presumably to creationists, Ape and man, but he's right, they do need to be termed differently, and so do blacks and whites! Check out this showing the pure genetics!]
What we have in homo Erectus is what can easily be mistaken for an ape. . .but is in fact nearly identical to a Sub Saharan black man! The creationists, unknowingly made a pretty good argument for calling those who came directly from the homo Erectus line in Africa, apes.
Besides the obvious ethical problems with calling blacks primates, there are a few problems with this theory of there being "quasihuman" primates before man. . . there was a lot of amazing civilizations, (as seen in my post: Real evidence for God, part 3) for hundreds of thousands of years, even before the Neanderthals! This was The gods doing, but there were always lots of gold digging slaves around.
While the A and B blood had been around in the primates from the start, the blood of the Neanderthal had no A or B alleles (called "impurities" from the original O blood we associate with being modern man) or the "monkey gene" (RH+) in it, which was in it's supposed predecessors. Sub Saharan Africans, have the monkey gene on both sides, AND no O blood! In fact, people have identified another oddity in their blood! The Duffy antigen is a deep allergic reaction that all those on earth except the Sub Saharan Africans seem to have. Those with Neanderthal blood, actually before even trying to interbreed with the Sub Saharan blacks, have an allergy to them!
Unlike the RH- blood that only rejects the baby that comes from their union, or the A, B or AB blood being incompatible with the O in a transfusion or organ donation, it's almost as if there was a reaction to the original homo erectus egg in the hybrid Neanderthal. . . causing a rejection of the homo Erectus species on a cellular level. (Similar to the RH+ baby in the womb of the RH- mother.) And yes, this allergic reaction is admitted to by science.
"No essential difference has been suggested between transfusion reactions due to the Duffy factor and those due to Rh or ABO incompatibilities." A hemolytic, or basically allergic reaction of the pure black man's blood occurs in every case. Yet I am not aware of a single problem of pure blacks taking O blood (called a universal donor) or having a RH- child if you are RH+, or having the duffy antigen hurt Sub Saharan blacks in small doses. . .it seems it mostly only hurts the whites to mix organs or blood, as only Neanderthal blood rejects the earthly primate species as a foreign body. (As a body would a sliver.)
Source
What needs to be understood here though is that I am not advocating for the bad treatment of those with any color to their skin, even though it does mean they have SOME or even all of the wild man/homo erectus in them. After all, more than 50 million whites have at least one black ancestor. Or to put it another way, another site says that 5% of "white" looking Americans have a Black skeleton in the closet. Something that comes as a shock to many white supremacists.On the other hand, African Americans on average are around 80% black and 20% European.
Source
Even though dark is dominant, color is an unreliable measure of the amount of African you have in you. From mixed parents, you could get twins with this much variation!
Is this interbreeding of species without concern though? I guess that depends on your perspective, but I would say it has a lot of concerns! I can see marrying for love, but there are lots of reasons to not have kids together!
For one thing, melanin in the skin is unpredictable, and though generally dominant it can pop up in a recessive way. You risk something like Vitilgo with having mixed kids.
"Vitilgo is a condition characterized by smooth, depigmented white spots on the skin. It affects almost 2% of the population and is more evident in people with dark coloured skin. Some researches believe it to be an auto immune disorder. Others associate it with Addison’s disease and hyperthyroidism."
Source
Generally those with lots of freckles look obviously part black in nose or hair as well. People generally associate homely redheads with freckles, and very attractive ones with none, that is because of genetics, white people do not find blacks as attractive, even when it is recessive and hidden to their mind! There have been scientific studies on this, but they were pulled as racist. It is not racist, it is normal to be drawn to your own species. . .you could call it "specieist" though if you feel the need.
Then there's albinism (or being an albino) which is said to be most prevalent in Africans, but not Sub Sahara Africans. . .some studies show that albinism in Africa is more common in urban areas than in rural areas. . .not surprisingly, as that would be where the mixing would inevitably happen, or where a somewhat educated black/white mutant would inevitably end up.
So other then the recessive light skin or a the black person being cursed with horrible looking Vitilgo or completely white skin (with black features), you don't know just by color when a black person has "white" European blood. I find that it is mainly a dark person's build, face, actions, culture, intelligence, walk and talk that speak more of their ancestry, then does their shade of color. If you are black and are actually reading this and honestly studying your bloodline, you probably are part white. You may fit in with the white crowd better then the black, and wonder why. . . Now you know, you are a hybrid of a hybrid!
With ancient texts, bloodlines, allergic factors like RH- and Duffy antigens all showing pretty clear evidence of two origins, there is more! You don't need to just take my word for it, here are some scientists take on the issue of race.
"If two animals cannot interbreed they are always classified as different species. But if two animals can interbreed, they may or may not be classified as different species. . .Taxonomists should not apply one criterion of speculation to animals other than man, and a different criterion to man himself. Ample evidence is provided. . . to support the conclusion that race is real, not a delusion concocted by evil racists. But that same evidence raises another question: Is there evidence adequate to classify Africans not just as a different race, but as a different species, Homo africanus? Until recently, species were classified based on their morphology, i.e., their form and appearance. In classifying humans using morphology, were the taxonomists objective and unbiased and did they apply the same standards to humans that they applied when classifying other species? Well, not exactly."
"The differences in morphology (cranial and facial features) between human races are typically around ten times the corresponding differences between the sexes within a given race, larger even than the comparable differences taxonomists use to distinguish the two chimpanzee species from each other. To the best of our knowledge, human racial differences exceed those for any other non-domesticated species. One must look to the breeds of dogs to find a comparable degree of within-species differences in morphology.” We no longer need to rely on morphology, however, to distinguish between different species. DNA analyses can be used to determine the genetic difference between populations."
"The genetic distance between Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis (<0.08%) is less than the genetic distance between the two chimpanzee species (0.103). Today, Neanderthals are classified as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, a sub-species of our species, while we are another sub-species, Homo sapiens sapiens. The genetic distance between (sub-Saharan) Africans and Eurasians (0.2%) is more than twice the genetic distance between living humans and Neanderthals (0.08%) so, at the very least, Africans should be classified as a sub-species, Homo sapiens africanus and Eurasians as another sub-species, Homo sapiens eurasianensis."
"The genetic distance between Homo sapiens and Homo erectus is estimated as 0.170, about the same as the genetic distance between the Bantu Africans and the Eskimos, but the genetic distance between living Africans and Eurasians is 0.23. Thus, Homo sapiens is more closely related to Homo erectus than Eurasians are to sub-Saharan Africans. Either erectus should be reclassified as Homo sapiens erectus or sub-Saharan Africans should be reclassified as Homo africanus."
Source
Furthermore, predictably, mothers milk always vary between species. So although when studying general mixed races scientists claimed that "Race, age, parity, or diet do not greatly affect milk composition" , in studies of Sub Saharan African's milk . . .there was a much higher Medium-chain saturated fatty acid and lower mono-unsaturated fatty acid contents, compared to other races of women. As would be expected in a different species who has not interbred with the Neanderthal.
Source Source
So clearly the Sub Saharan African, and the homo Erectus should be considered a different species then the Eurasian, or the original Neanderthal , or the Denisovans/ God who made them.
So if those aren't distinct differences enough, we can see that not only did they not come from Adam. . . .shown by the y chromosome DNA of the Sub Saharan African being different then the rest of humanity, and much before. . . but I'm not through yet! Two species is further evidenced in those who came from the interbreeding of Neanderthal and homo Erectus: modern man, or Cro Magnon.
Source Source Source
"The Guanches of the Canary Islands, are thought to represent a relatively pure Cro-Magnon stock" as after being visited by "red haired gods" (statues of whom are still on their island) they were isolated. So if my theory is right, they should be a good example of what a half Neanderthal/ half homo Erectus looks like.
Science tells us basically what the Homo Erectus looked like,
And to the right is what they say the Neanderthal basically looked like.
and now we see what the hybrid of him with the Neanderthal looked like. . .
They had brown complexion skin, blue or gray eyes, and blondish hair."
If a white man and a black woman had kids, this is Cro Magnon. The only difference in the original Cro Magnon/ those from Canary Island and the average modern man they say, is the high rate of RH-.
What does that mean? As it is recessive, for the high RH- rate to be there, both parents had to have it strong. In other words, none or few of these hybrids for thousands of years would have mated with any of their mothers pure Homo Erectus side. And as genetics tells us, whether it was only because of the rh-, or because only Neanderthal men were tempted to go outside of their species for "sexual relations", babies only happened through the homo Erectus female, not the Neanderthal female. To put it mildly, "European colonization of the Canary Islands changed the local gene-pool most dramatically in the male line." Source Source
For only hybrids of the Neanderthal hybrids ( those with RH- in their blood) to have bred together though, was highly improbable. . .unless there were quite a few. It was almost as if a bunch of Neanderthals put a few of their slave off springs on an island to start a new race, or they marooned them there as reject Neanderthals. . .with apparently little to no intervention or influence from the fathers culture. (Something that happened to the great leader of the mongols, Genghis Khan and his black mother.)
They do bury their dead like the fathers side, but other then that, there is no sign of a change in culture from what their mothers side would have raised them like. Is this the Neanderthals method of settling custody disputes and their solution for their illegitimate kids not fitting in with either of their parents cultures I wonder? Everywhere you find the Neanderthal, and their slave race, the homo erectus, you find the hybrid, Cro magnon, who generally became competition. In fact, as in Ganghis Khan, many of them became violent opressors of the whites, apparently not appreciating being treated as a monkey, with the blood of civilization in them. Like a child who is just smart enough to be sassy and angry totheir parent, the mongols and barbarian elite were angry and spent all their time fighting those who gave them life.
"Some scientists have suggested that modern humans [or Cro magnon] outcompeted or outright killed the Neanderthals. But the new genetic evidence provides support for another theory: Perhaps our ancestors made love, not war, with their European cousins, and the Neanderthal lineage disappeared because it was absorbed into the much larger [black] population."
"Those not ’contaminated’ with the Neanderthal genes, are the ’pure’ Sapiens [or homo Erectus] that only live in Sub-Saharan Africa now."
As Christians would state though: "To say that there was an earlier race of hominids living and dying before Adam's creation attacks the redemptive work of the Second Adam [Jesus]. This is because Scripture ties the first and the Second Adams together. If an earlier race existed, so did death, and so did sin. If Scripture is wrong on the source of sin and its result in death, how do we know it is right in the other things it says about our salvation?"
Well that is kind of my point as an Atheist, the Bible is messed up! Blacks (the pure of whom are the most religious on the planet) need to stop following a mistranslated, superstitious and ignorant ancient book of white man's history! As blacks are generally the least advanced or educated though, worship of those who are perceived as higher up would be what you would expect. As is evidenced by the formation of the resent cargo cults as well, the naive natives will automatically worship the advanced and smart white men who come in airplanes. In fact, my Grandpa who flew a plane into the deep African jungle saw this worship every time he flew in. He used it to teach them about the white man's God, who was ironically just like him, but bigger!
The whole Christian "religion" is based upon plagiarized Sumerian material that has been twisted, warped and distorted to manipulate, confuse and incite fear into the gullible and uneducated, who don't even look into it's origins. (Something that if you are curious about, you can check out this site, even if the parts about the Devil and Satan aren't completely accurate. For some more research about the history of Gods names, check out here, and here.)
I hate to bring it up, but consider for a moment the incredible racism found in the Bible. When you understand that all the true Israelites were white, you will also note that their main goal in the Old Testament was to wipe out the "ungodly"(one's who didn't look or act like the alien "God") dark nations. (Deut. 20:16-17) They had no apparent remorse, and slaughtered them like cattle for God. Something that (all in the name of religion) many white, or part white nations have done for thousands of years.
Moses had a black wife (and no this is not up for debate) and 2 kids while away in the black region, Midian. Upon rejoining his people Israel, she was rejected and whispered about until he finally "sent them away" to live again with the wife's black family.
Then later in the Bible we hear about how Solomon wrote of the Black ("but comely") woman who was sent off to work in the vineyard by her fathers sons. (Presumably even a half white Samaritan was a slave to the full white ones.)
The Bible is generally very racist if you understand the Jews (like Solomon and David) of the priestly and kingly line at very least were white, and the gentiles were dark. . .but there is a big part of the Bible that tried to sanitized all that. All written by Paul.
St. Paul, mostly writing to the "scattered tribes" of white Jews, never having even met Jesus, basically started a new religion. He started teaching things that no other disciple had. One of which was that "Salvation" was for the mixed grafted in Gentiles. . .
In Romans 11:13 he said, "Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry 14 in order somehow to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them. . . and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree [bloodline], 18 do not be arrogant toward the branches." [True white Jews]
In Acts 8 Paul the missionary to the gentile blacks made great strides in showing how intelligent some of the mixed gentiles had become by telling of the Ethiopian eunuch reading! (Even if he had no clue what he was reading about.)
How did Jesus feel about the gentiles though?
Though Jesus tried to show fairness in saying that Samaritans (the mixed Jews) were sometimes kind (as in the good Samaritan story), he also called the gentiles dogs! He made it clear that he came to the house of Israel, not the gentiles. (Mat. 10:6 and Mat.15: 24)
Considering Jesus only came to save his people, and he was likely a genetically pure, son of God or starchild, implanted into Mary by an alien in a spaceship, (thus the "star" that hovered over the house to watch) . . .what could the "second Adam" have came to redeem man from, while starting a new kingdom that was not of this world?. . . Could it be the original sin of interbreeding and becoming impure with A ad B blooded and RH+ wild Duffy blooded earthlings?
If so. . .Jesus then must have came to start what some call the holy grail bloodline. Thankfully, yes it is pretty evident, that he didn't die on a cross, and instead married Mary Magdalene, had some kids and moved to Europe. . .probably Spain, to start a group with high RH-. The original name of Ireland and Spain was "Land of Hebrews". "Iberia" (Spain is still called this) is Hebrew; it means, "Land of Hebrews". Strangely, the anarchist and revolutionary Jesus unintentionally started more then a pure people, through his uneducated choice of followers he started another religion. . .one that has little in common with the principles he held dear.
Jesus defended the Old testament, which would have been mainly defining "sin" as intermingling with the gentiles. "Sin" thus defined as mixed marriages makes perfect sense, as it was not only considered a horrible sin but enough to bring a curse on a white. (in the Old testament those who did this with "ungodly" nations of gentiles were one time even told to kill the wives and the kids from them in mass, to purify the camp! From that parasite I wonder?)
Was the curse a parasite, or a worse immunity. . .? Scientists say most of us can literally thank God, or the Denisovan for our good health, and consequently, the primates had a much worse immunity. Interbreeding our two species not only brought on a weaker immunity to disease then we would have had as a pure Neanderthal, but in Bible days it may have been thought to have brought on literal death, because the earthling primates had a much shorter lifespan then the gods, or the Sumerian kings or the Israelite patriarchs. In fact scientists can't explain the sharp increase in grandparents in the fossil record that happened at the same time as modern behavior. Some articles have made guesses that people lived 4 generations together! With the longer maturing, and healthier bodies, that may all tie in. . .
Source
Though everything dies eventually, we whites were apparently not made to die so young. This long lifespan of the Sumerian kings, and patriarchs was part translation error and part reality, but also tie into the very old Neanderthal. There is also confusion with the Y chromosome Adam being older then the woman who started the blue eyes. The Blue eyed woman is in harmony with the biblical timeline of the Matriarchs. (6-10,000 years), but the Y chromosome Adam is dated by "comparing human DNA sequences with those of a [presumably] closely related species, a non-human primate such as chimpanzees and gorillas." This gets them to anywhere from 120,000 years, to 306,000 years. . .not very accurate even with a wrong presumption of the short generations of non-humans. Adam and his kin had their first child past 100 years old! So those generations were going to throw things way off!
Amid these huge health differences, mixed marriage between species has slowly gained acceptance, over the years, but honestly, it is not about hate that would condemn the mixing originally, it is about being too different. Different species!
We have lost the divisions, and the knowledge through interbreeding, but it still makes recessive problems, which I will get into in another post.I stated many important differences between the races in my most popular post called: "The difference in our blood and what it means" and while many people didn't like to hear the truth about blacks (especially compassionate whites), some understood the intention was not racism, but education. This commentator on that post hit the nail on the head with his statement:
"I'm an African American male, I don't know my blood type but I suspect I may be Rh positive anyway. I read your blog and I don't think it's racist, this coming from a guy like myself who grew up in orange county ca during the eighties when it was really racist. Anyhow, I'm trying to learn and find out some information and educate myself. Yes, your blog would appear to be racist and if I had read it 10 or more years ago, I probably would have thought it was racist too. But now that I'm older, more mature, and wiser, I look at it as information. Thanks."
Source
When you understand the actual roots of the origin of the African people though, you can understand and maybe even excuse the mentality the Annunaki (and their bloodline) has historically had with them. They no doubt saw the ape/men as strong, dangerous, stupid animals who were not "humans" with the blood of the "gods".
These are harsh racist, or at least "specieist" judgments to our equality loving minds now. . .but even thousands of years later, with interbreeding in most of the globe now, we see that the Annunaki's apparent "judgement" and "racism" was based on knowledge of their breeding stock!
Stats on who is in our jails, rape stats, domestic abuse, marriage and divorce, babies out of wedlock, religion rates, IQ differences and much more are unfortunately very telling of a more violent species . . .this is because dark skin is associated with high levels of testosterone. And according to Psychology today:
"High-T dominance and competitiveness can involve brute force, violence, and fighting behavior of all kinds. Their more tender feelings literally "blunted" by elevated testosterone levels, they tend not to be particularly concerned about--or, for that matter, interested in--the feelings of others. And unmoderated feelings such as lust, resentment, and rage can easily preempt the softer feelings of love, compassion, or forgiveness."
(This high testosterone contributes to sexual predatory actions very young in Blacks, as this video shows.)
"Sadly, there's seems to be something about high testosterone levels that contributes to an almost predatory frame of mind, at least for those not reared very caringly in childhood. (And since T-levels are typically seen as heritable, the risk of their being subject to such unsympathetic parenting is a clear possibility.) [Those with high testosterone are] ". . . naturally at risk of abusing this energy in potentially dangerous ways. As one study has noted, "those with higher levels of testosterone are more inclined to smoke, drink alcohol excessively and indulge in risky behavior that leads to injury."". . . high-testosterone males have difficulty treating the opposite sex with the consideration and respect they deserve. Insufficiently sensitive to a girl's or woman's feelings, they also struggle with simply appreciating these feelings. And so, among other things, they typically don't function particularly well in marriages. In fact, the statistics available on this topic indicate that they're more likely to divorce and--indeed--less likely to marry in the first place." [What stats could they possibly be looking at. . .?] "High-T males, with their propensity to dominate (and even pick fights--whether they be for fun or blood), hardly fit the picture of Gottman's ideal husband, ready and willing to share power and control."
"By nature leaning--competitively or confrontationally--toward raucous or rugged physical activities, they frequently don't perform well academically." "And given the greater impulsivity of males with high-T--and the impaired judgment linked to such not-well-contemplated behavior--they're obviously in greater danger of veering toward the dark side."
Source
Speaking of "the dark side", "High testosterone shows itself in strong jawbones, darker coloring, and hollower cheekbones." They would say that high testosterone shapes and colors the face to be what it is, as if it is a testosterone imbalance to be dark or have a bigger jaw, when in fact, it just shows you are from an ancestry that has a naturally high testosterone level. The test for this of course would be shooting up whites with testosterone and seeing if they turn black and get a bigger jaw. . .ha ha!
"Other high-testosterone features: slightly smaller eyes, larger noses, and broader cheekbones." [If you still wondered whether blacks are predisposed to these things, those are pretty obvious black features as well.]
Source
Furthermore, more testosterone, bigger muscles as well as other things. . . are clearly associated with Sub Saharan blacks. . .but I suppose it could just be caused by eating the collard greens and fried chicken of the south, as some have said on body building forums. Even those who are obvious mixes, and are blending in with whites in college, have a 15% increase in testosterone, adding apparently to a big difference in risk for prostate cancer.
Source Source
Yet the testosterone rate in America is lower then the blacks would have in their natural habitat in Africa, because vitamin D increases testosterone, and blacks (even in the South of America) are generally deficient in Vitamin D.
Also, with extreme poverty, as well as other issues surrounding them, blacks have a lot of stress. According to Dr. Mercola, "When you're under a lot of stress, your body releases high levels of the stress hormone cortisol. This hormone actually blocks the effects of testosterone. . ." Sugar also decreases testosterone, and the typical diet of the poor black in America is full of it.
Source
Weak correlation to them being more violent you think? How about this?! Scientists have found a gene that is in the most violent offenders. They are basically mostly considered black.
" I am sensitive to the fact that this line of research could reinforce unfair judgments that all black men are dangerous, but the 2-repeat allele of MAOA illustrates that a gene might contribute to a racial disparity in violent behavior even though most black men do not have said allele. If it is an important violence gene, then maybe targeted treatments can be created that will be more likely to help African-American men and bring American society closer to equality."
Source
So yes, there is a clear link to the primate lineage in the actions of the blacks, as well as their biology, but it is not fair to judge them as "inferior" because of those things, any more then we can say a turtle is inferior for not running as fast as a hare.
Is a Silver back male Gorilla wrong to treat his harem roughly? The primates of Africa, and the descendants closest to them live nearly the same today in their natural habitat, as they have for hundreds of thousands of years or more! . . .
The problem is when we expect blacks to act white. While no one should judge a person solely on their skin color, those with high testosterone inside cannot hide it for long. (As will likely be evidenced in the comment section.) My thought is, if a black acts as a monkey, treat him like one. . .until then, hope for the best, and treat him as you would want to be.
Although I'm all for acceptance of differences in looks, and fair treatment of all life, I'm afraid that this generations belief in us all coming from the same roots, brings with it false expectations of acceptable, smart and "civilized" behavior for all people. Primate behavior like loud yelling, incest, violence, gang behavior, rampant rape, and polygamy, has rarely to never been couth in white "civilized" culture. And highly respected behavior among whites, like getting an education, sitting still, being soft spoken, networking, being a picky eater etc. are mocked by the blacks as "acting white". Clearly our cultures and species do not mix well.
So consequently the white "children of god" the Jews (the lost tribes, not the dark interbred ones we think of as Jews today) have always followed in the footsteps of the gods in segregating from the "Negros"or "barbarian" nations. (Which was a word only used by the whites about the blacks down through the ages.)
To admit to this difference is really no different then to admit that men and woman are also different. There should be no judgement involved with differences, just understanding. While I know there are some exceptions of men, that are frankly crossovers, I would generally treat a man with a certain understanding of how he is driven by his hormones and will act thus certain ways. When I see different actions though, I know that the man is not as his sex, and will start to treat him more like a woman. In the same way, I presume that a black who has no give away signs of being part white, may be a bad mix with me. So when I see a short, flat faced, large jawed and muscle bound black man in a gang walking down the street, loudly talking to his homos, I avoid eye contact, in order not to challenge them. And yes, I may also avoid them. . .statistics tell me that would be wise. Racial profiling is, done right, protecting yourself, and being street wise. Racism and thus profiling only on color, use to be less flawed with less mixing, which is why the ancient texts were pretty obvious about it. It really is no more wrong though then treating a man like a man, or a woman like a woman. . .until you understand them to be otherwise.
The entire Old testament is an "Ode to Racism", but history is explaining things now. . .even the Nubians who assimilated (interbred) into the white royal culture of the Kemites put a ban on the other Nubians from entering Egypt!
Source Source Source
We see the God in the Old testament made out to be a murdering, racist. . .Who saw blacks as a disease. God was a lot like Hitler is seen, he truly saw the heathen/gentiles as a pest to be wiped from the earth! From the time of the Edomites, shockingly God said he hated Esau and his mixed (?) race and would destroy them. That said, the supposedly loving Jesus many years later in the parable of the good Samaritan, showed that the Samaritans (half breeds) could act humanely, and in their humility, even act better then the elite of his own beloved Jews. . .something we also see today! (That mind you did not stop him from referring to them as dogs of the children of Israel!)
So whether you are dark, white, religious, or an Atheist, you may want to consider the mindset of an advanced alien and their children looking at challenging, violent earthly pests. After all, when challenged or threatened, what mammal wouldn't go after a different species to defend their own? We call that the cycle of life, or the food chain, not racism.
These are harsh racist, or at least "specieist" judgments to our equality loving minds now. . .but even thousands of years later, with interbreeding in most of the globe now, we see that the Annunaki's apparent "judgement" and "racism" was based on knowledge of their breeding stock!
Stats on who is in our jails, rape stats, domestic abuse, marriage and divorce, babies out of wedlock, religion rates, IQ differences and much more are unfortunately very telling of a more violent species . . .this is because dark skin is associated with high levels of testosterone. And according to Psychology today:
"High-T dominance and competitiveness can involve brute force, violence, and fighting behavior of all kinds. Their more tender feelings literally "blunted" by elevated testosterone levels, they tend not to be particularly concerned about--or, for that matter, interested in--the feelings of others. And unmoderated feelings such as lust, resentment, and rage can easily preempt the softer feelings of love, compassion, or forgiveness."
(This high testosterone contributes to sexual predatory actions very young in Blacks, as this video shows.)
"Sadly, there's seems to be something about high testosterone levels that contributes to an almost predatory frame of mind, at least for those not reared very caringly in childhood. (And since T-levels are typically seen as heritable, the risk of their being subject to such unsympathetic parenting is a clear possibility.) [Those with high testosterone are] ". . . naturally at risk of abusing this energy in potentially dangerous ways. As one study has noted, "those with higher levels of testosterone are more inclined to smoke, drink alcohol excessively and indulge in risky behavior that leads to injury."". . . high-testosterone males have difficulty treating the opposite sex with the consideration and respect they deserve. Insufficiently sensitive to a girl's or woman's feelings, they also struggle with simply appreciating these feelings. And so, among other things, they typically don't function particularly well in marriages. In fact, the statistics available on this topic indicate that they're more likely to divorce and--indeed--less likely to marry in the first place." [What stats could they possibly be looking at. . .?] "High-T males, with their propensity to dominate (and even pick fights--whether they be for fun or blood), hardly fit the picture of Gottman's ideal husband, ready and willing to share power and control."
"By nature leaning--competitively or confrontationally--toward raucous or rugged physical activities, they frequently don't perform well academically." "And given the greater impulsivity of males with high-T--and the impaired judgment linked to such not-well-contemplated behavior--they're obviously in greater danger of veering toward the dark side."
Speaking of "the dark side", "High testosterone shows itself in strong jawbones, darker coloring, and hollower cheekbones." They would say that high testosterone shapes and colors the face to be what it is, as if it is a testosterone imbalance to be dark or have a bigger jaw, when in fact, it just shows you are from an ancestry that has a naturally high testosterone level. The test for this of course would be shooting up whites with testosterone and seeing if they turn black and get a bigger jaw. . .ha ha!
"Other high-testosterone features: slightly smaller eyes, larger noses, and broader cheekbones." [If you still wondered whether blacks are predisposed to these things, those are pretty obvious black features as well.]
Source
Furthermore, more testosterone, bigger muscles as well as other things. . . are clearly associated with Sub Saharan blacks. . .but I suppose it could just be caused by eating the collard greens and fried chicken of the south, as some have said on body building forums. Even those who are obvious mixes, and are blending in with whites in college, have a 15% increase in testosterone, adding apparently to a big difference in risk for prostate cancer.
Source Source
Yet the testosterone rate in America is lower then the blacks would have in their natural habitat in Africa, because vitamin D increases testosterone, and blacks (even in the South of America) are generally deficient in Vitamin D.
Also, with extreme poverty, as well as other issues surrounding them, blacks have a lot of stress. According to Dr. Mercola, "When you're under a lot of stress, your body releases high levels of the stress hormone cortisol. This hormone actually blocks the effects of testosterone. . ." Sugar also decreases testosterone, and the typical diet of the poor black in America is full of it.
Source
Weak correlation to them being more violent you think? How about this?! Scientists have found a gene that is in the most violent offenders. They are basically mostly considered black.
" I am sensitive to the fact that this line of research could reinforce unfair judgments that all black men are dangerous, but the 2-repeat allele of MAOA illustrates that a gene might contribute to a racial disparity in violent behavior even though most black men do not have said allele. If it is an important violence gene, then maybe targeted treatments can be created that will be more likely to help African-American men and bring American society closer to equality."
Source
So yes, there is a clear link to the primate lineage in the actions of the blacks, as well as their biology, but it is not fair to judge them as "inferior" because of those things, any more then we can say a turtle is inferior for not running as fast as a hare.
Is a Silver back male Gorilla wrong to treat his harem roughly? The primates of Africa, and the descendants closest to them live nearly the same today in their natural habitat, as they have for hundreds of thousands of years or more! . . .
The problem is when we expect blacks to act white. While no one should judge a person solely on their skin color, those with high testosterone inside cannot hide it for long. (As will likely be evidenced in the comment section.) My thought is, if a black acts as a monkey, treat him like one. . .until then, hope for the best, and treat him as you would want to be.
Although I'm all for acceptance of differences in looks, and fair treatment of all life, I'm afraid that this generations belief in us all coming from the same roots, brings with it false expectations of acceptable, smart and "civilized" behavior for all people. Primate behavior like loud yelling, incest, violence, gang behavior, rampant rape, and polygamy, has rarely to never been couth in white "civilized" culture. And highly respected behavior among whites, like getting an education, sitting still, being soft spoken, networking, being a picky eater etc. are mocked by the blacks as "acting white". Clearly our cultures and species do not mix well.
So consequently the white "children of god" the Jews (the lost tribes, not the dark interbred ones we think of as Jews today) have always followed in the footsteps of the gods in segregating from the "Negros"or "barbarian" nations. (Which was a word only used by the whites about the blacks down through the ages.)
To admit to this difference is really no different then to admit that men and woman are also different. There should be no judgement involved with differences, just understanding. While I know there are some exceptions of men, that are frankly crossovers, I would generally treat a man with a certain understanding of how he is driven by his hormones and will act thus certain ways. When I see different actions though, I know that the man is not as his sex, and will start to treat him more like a woman. In the same way, I presume that a black who has no give away signs of being part white, may be a bad mix with me. So when I see a short, flat faced, large jawed and muscle bound black man in a gang walking down the street, loudly talking to his homos, I avoid eye contact, in order not to challenge them. And yes, I may also avoid them. . .statistics tell me that would be wise. Racial profiling is, done right, protecting yourself, and being street wise. Racism and thus profiling only on color, use to be less flawed with less mixing, which is why the ancient texts were pretty obvious about it. It really is no more wrong though then treating a man like a man, or a woman like a woman. . .until you understand them to be otherwise.
The entire Old testament is an "Ode to Racism", but history is explaining things now. . .even the Nubians who assimilated (interbred) into the white royal culture of the Kemites put a ban on the other Nubians from entering Egypt!
Source Source Source
We see the God in the Old testament made out to be a murdering, racist. . .Who saw blacks as a disease. God was a lot like Hitler is seen, he truly saw the heathen/gentiles as a pest to be wiped from the earth! From the time of the Edomites, shockingly God said he hated Esau and his mixed (?) race and would destroy them. That said, the supposedly loving Jesus many years later in the parable of the good Samaritan, showed that the Samaritans (half breeds) could act humanely, and in their humility, even act better then the elite of his own beloved Jews. . .something we also see today! (That mind you did not stop him from referring to them as dogs of the children of Israel!)
So whether you are dark, white, religious, or an Atheist, you may want to consider the mindset of an advanced alien and their children looking at challenging, violent earthly pests. After all, when challenged or threatened, what mammal wouldn't go after a different species to defend their own? We call that the cycle of life, or the food chain, not racism.
So whether you are dark, white, religious, or an Atheist, you may want to consider the mindset of an advanced alien and their children looking at challenging, violent earthly pests. After all, when challenged or threatened, what mammal wouldn't go after a different species to defend their own? We call that the cycle of life, or the food chain, not racism.
Was this treatment in self defense, because of multiple attacks out of jealousy, as we see now? While whites generally dominate groups of humanitarians, tree huggers, vegans, vegetarians, volunteers, missionaries, etc, Blacks (mostly mixed) cultures are fighting for equality, charity, history and a position that is and never was deserved or theirs.
So to generalize, whites are compassionate and civilized by their very nature. While blacks came from, well, this. . .
Furthermore, studies of body composition of different races confirm that in general blacks have longer extremities, and trunks, as well as heavier bones and more muscles then whites, all of which are ape like.
From the start the aliens/gods were probably breeding the black race for strength, so it stands to reason that when Blacks started intermixing and gaining a bigger brain, and higher IQ, they would have the power and enough smarts to rebel being a slave. And they did, and that was the beginning of wars. Egypt wisely integrated the mixed Nubian into their police force, as they saw these wars rising up. . . hoping it would help keep the other Nubians at bay. Before that time, there were no mixed races, or only a few. And there was peace in Sumer and Egypt for a very long time.
So to be consistent, if you are a Christian (unlike me) and believe "God" was and is just and moral, as his bloodline has always sought to be, then you will be fine with the slavery of the black wild man. . .the Sub Saharan African, who is a different species. . .just as any other species we use and domesticate like: cows, bees, horses, cats, dogs, etc. Or you need to start considering if we have the right to enslave any other species. . .makes you think huh?
So to be consistent, if you are a Christian (unlike me) and believe "God" was and is just and moral, as his bloodline has always sought to be, then you will be fine with the slavery of the black wild man. . .the Sub Saharan African, who is a different species. . .just as any other species we use and domesticate like: cows, bees, horses, cats, dogs, etc. Or you need to start considering if we have the right to enslave any other species. . .makes you think huh?
Whatever the case, religion for black people is hilariously inappropriate, even more so the claim that God or Jesus was Black!
Not surprisingly though, blacks are the most religious on earth! While no doubt they would respect and worship an advanced race, they should be content to be who they are, and not seek to claim white ancestry or the white's history of being "godly" or "Christlike". . .as it is apparently impossible for a Black person to be godly or Christ-like in looks or actions, without interbreeding anyhow.
Back to the topic I started this series with though: Slavery. Whites were told by the gods to have dominion over the beasts of the field and the earth in general. This planet in a sense was an inheritance given to the "children of God", or generally speaking, the white Neanderthal race. So just as we put our flag on the moon to claim it, even though we were not there first. . .we believed we have the right to it.
The Annunaki or the gods had all the same excuses as we make today for claiming earth as the dominant species. We kill off the native species of earth, or cut down a forest and yet people say they were horrible to try to wipe out their primate slaves! Do we know their intentions, or if it was in self defense, or to preserve, or evolve the species? This "ethnic cleansing" was tried by numerous groups of whites over time, and some say it is continuing even now with a artificially made, race specific disease.. .AIDS!
I am no judge of "God" or man, nor do I want to side with what those like Hitler did to the mixed dark Jews. In fact I feel sorry for them!
The Annunaki or the gods had all the same excuses as we make today for claiming earth as the dominant species. We kill off the native species of earth, or cut down a forest and yet people say they were horrible to try to wipe out their primate slaves! Do we know their intentions, or if it was in self defense, or to preserve, or evolve the species? This "ethnic cleansing" was tried by numerous groups of whites over time, and some say it is continuing even now with a artificially made, race specific disease.. .AIDS!
What ethics does this knowledge of different origins leave us with? How do we whites deal with the races with less or no neanderthal in them?
Primate tribes of monkeys, and homo Erectus (genetically almost identical to their closest relatives the Sub Saharan Africans) practice cannibalism of their own species as well as others, in order to get dominance. Scientists also believe some Neanderthals may have been killed by them too!
Yet, according to the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh the Neanderthal whites from Adam tamed and befriended some of the wild, homo Erectus people. In fact, many whites have tried hard to be fair to black, and even help them on many occasions!
The species do not naturally follow the golden rule equally it seems. The golden rule is connected to understanding it will come back to you, thus it is self serving to follow the golden rule, as well as smart.
Instead of living by the golden rule, looking for peace and leading by example, as would be presumed of a "civilized" and networking human who is evolved to be like a herd animal, the wild dark species is not the same. They could be more compared to apes.
Unlike respectfully earning the dominant position, or having it handed down genetically by the gods, via the "divine right to rule", the "wild" species use the more typical brute strength or violence to attempt to gain dominance over whites, like bigger or stronger chickens would attain a higher pecking order. Not only is this behavior a trait we can see is due to an inflated ego because of high testosterone, but it is a sign they believe the "top dog" is the strongest or the loudest, typical of primates. "Survival of the fittest" in their mindset is the strongest one, but though they do dominate in that, we know know it is not the most physically fit that survives in a first world nation in the end, but the most fit to the environment. The environment of civilization requires intelligence, and with a clear disadvantage of both brain size and IQ, pure Sub Saharan blacks are unable to compete.
The pure African is thus going extinct, or attempting (by high rates of white rape) to assimilate, as they cannot compete in a white man's world. The best they can hope for is to be supported as pets of the whites welfare system, whether in or out of jail. Furthermore, even mixed Africans admit that their dark race is destined for imminent extinction, at the rate it's going. . .and the "black genocide" has nothing to do with the white man either for a change, as you can see in the link below.
Source
It is not intentional, but the ones who are lower on the food chain just tend to slow us down. Without humanitarian groups, protection and a lot of charity, other species have to evolve or die.
It's simply a matter of survival of the fittest in a white man's world.
The African, like any wildlife, in their natural habitat, can flourish. . .and had been "Happy heathen", living as kings of their jungles. Untouched by whites, Sub Saharan Africans are ecofriendly and generally harmless. The problem came when they were brought to live with whites as pets, then slaves. It is what we have done to numerous other species too. Cows, horses, dogs, cats. Then they become domesticated, and can no longer survive in their natural habitat. So what is the option for the pure blacks other then the humanitarian methods we have done for other pets? Whites don't want this black genocide, and would have been content to have the blacks admit and submit to their place in the world. If Sub Saharan Africans could peacefully and gratefully live as the dependent blue collar workers of the 1st world nations (slavery was often preferable) or live in primitive Africa (a place that lives off of foreign aid, and missionary efforts) then we would not see the problems we do now with race. . .but they won't.
Everyone seems to be against treating Blacks as different, fighting for equality even when it gives unfair advantages to the Blacks! Whites are told to feel guilty for giving the blacks steady work and taking care of them (slavery), when they were diseased and starving as well as being rejected by their own in Africa. I personally think many of the slaves were better off with their white slave masters in the past, then they are on their own now. And yet the propaganda continues. . .
Unless the people live in Sub Saharan Africa, Detroit or the South, they see the mixed blacks as the norm now, instead of the exception. Blacks are also demanding equal rights, believing egotistically that they are the same, just as smart and completely independent of the whites.
Truly, some Blacks are all that, and they are proving what they already are inside by getting/having an education, making wise financial choices, food choices, moral choices, etc. Those who aren't smart enough though find themselves living off the taxpayers, are simply getting more angry and bitter as they fight to have something that they will never earn.
If you have been to Mexico (like I have), you can see the mentality I am talking about. Those on the borders, exposed to the American wealth and ways, are discontented and crime infested. Those who live far away from the influence have settled into their primitive life with thankfulness and even sustainability. For this reason, the blacks of Africa with little influence from the white culture are much better off then those in America, IMO. (And I have been all over southern Africa, and Liberia as well as visited Detroit numerous times and lived in Virginia and California, where most of the Blacks are.)
Most whites have great sympathy for the plight of the Sub Saharan Africans. There are many charities and missionary efforts that hope to evolve the Africans up to our westernized standard of living. . .Though it was and is often unappreciated.
In fact, something my Grandparents often got asked, was "Why don't you just leave the happy heathen alone?"
My Grandparents were missionaries in Liberia, west Africa for 35 years. There my Grandparents literally saved lives, schooled kids and started a Bible school. . . and inspired an orphanage to be started. (My Grandpa even wrote a book on his adventures. Source)
My Grandpa was worshiped as a god. The "savior complex" missionaries get seems to be the real motivating factor of most white missionaries, whether they know it or not. It just feels so good to be adored! This woman's experience mirrors my own.
Many would say white kids being sent on missions trips are only there to feel good about helping the 3rd world nations or to grasp just how good they have it. And you know, speaking from experience, I would say they are right! It helps a spoiled kid be grateful fast. . .but at what expense to the locals?
It seems that times have changed, and instead of accepting and being grateful for the help and charity, Africans (mostly mixed ones) all over the globe are proudly rejecting help. They say it is white supremacy that even sends an Atheist white (like a missionary) to help black inner city people learn sustainable living. (Check out Detroit food justice.) I get the distinct feeling that many Blacks would rather die with dignity, then be dependent on the charity and pity of the whites. Respecting their wishes, freedom, and the little dignity they have left, I have thus finally given up on my lifelong dream of being a missionary to Africa. I have decided, unlike my Grandparents, to let the "happy heathen" alone. Considering how unpopular my message would be to blacks of Africa anyhow. . .I think that would be wise, don't you. . .?
