Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.
Frankenstein

The Origin of the White Race! What WN don't want you to know!

28 posts in this topic

Quote

As you can see, the White nationalists are furious about this. White nationalism has always opposed the Out of Africa theory, now accepted as the Gold Standard by nearly all of anthropology. It’s just too offensive to imagine that Grandpa may have been a *******.

Yet obviously he was.

The “White European” phenotype as we know it today did not come into existence until after 12,000 years ago, or maybe sooner.

Before that, European Caucasians resemble Arabs. For instance, A 24,000 year old Cro-Magnon European shows DNA similarities to Near East (Arabs or the Caucasus). A 23,000 year old Italian Cro-Magnon sample genetically resembles modern Middle Easterners from Palestine, Syria, Yemen and Iran.

https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2009/05/05/the-birth-of-the-caucasian-race/

White people are a mix of Arab, African, and good ole evolution.

See how hate blinds people to how connected we all actually are!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm.... Yeah evolution I don't buy. There's no way that humans having 46 chromosomes 2 less than the 48 apes have makes us that much more intelligent. I just can't fathom that 2 less makes us that much more superior in practically everything except strength and speed. What does make sense is the research of Lloyd Pye which suggests that we are a hybridization of alien and whatever Bigfoot creature was inhabiting the earth at that point. Now with that said I was taught that there's only 3 races of human. Asian,black,and white. Now I can't speak for anyone else but I don't have a problem with Arabs. It's their batshit crazy religion I have a problem with. ? 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What Quick said, yes, indeed. :IGly6RW:

Humans were created in a lab in Africa. Probably as miners and general slave labor.

Tweaking dna of hominids -- with more Anunnaki/Advanced Being genetic material -- resulted in other races. Darwinism cannot explain the rapid changes that took place with our ridiculous naked bodies during ice ages, our weak skeletons, stupid sinuses, and bad feet. Not to mention the impossible overnight birth of civilization, complete with agriculture, laws, languages. Evolution is a lie. Creationism is a fabrication. The truth is in the middle, hidden under the ashes of burned books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Humans? Apes? Related? Yes! by evolution? No!

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, grav said:

What Quick said, yes, indeed. :IGly6RW:

Humans were created in a lab in Africa. Probably as miners and general slave labor.

Tweaking dna of hominids -- with more Anunnaki/Advanced Being genetic material -- resulted in other races. Darwinism cannot explain the rapid changes that took place with our ridiculous naked bodies during ice ages, our weak skeletons, stupid sinuses, and bad feet. Not to mention the impossible overnight birth of civilization, complete with agriculture, laws, languages. Evolution is a lie. Creationism is a fabrication. The truth is in the middle, hidden under the ashes of burned books.

While I agree that evolution doesn't really answer a lot of questions for me, it is the best theory we have based on the evidence available. 

We still lack the key piece of evidence required to validate the alien intervention theory, the aliens.  One would think we would have seen them again by now, or found evidence of their technology here on Earth. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my understanding was the out-of-africa theory had been exposed as a political ruse,
but i'll have to re-check that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, seeker said:

my understanding was the out-of-africa theory had been exposed as a political ruse,
but i'll have to re-check that

Correct! the only real theory that holds weight is the.... is this a theory not sure? so i'll just explain it!

Blood types are the key! we come from the stars, the core Rh Negative blood group are direct pure bloodlines of the alien projects. Rh Positive are the group that was once pure but due to genetic deformities from testing or from mating with apes left them as the weaker group. Sadly research into this shows that it can be race specific. Which would explain the behavior of some races over others.

I do not really care about the race but one thing i know for sure is those with Rh Negative blood tend to be some of the best people i have ever had the pleasure of meeting. They have real humanity. Rh positives always end up rubbing me the wrong way and not to get primal or anything but they come off as savages in the decisions they make and the way they treat people

i actually think this is why the political viewpoints are split the way they are. Both think they are right. But only one is serving the greater good. The other just thinks they are while destroying everything. Call it a lack of understanding.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks Shep, interesting

almost a serpent seed line, if you look at it from that path

one for ignoble purposes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, seeker said:

thanks Shep, interesting

almost a serpent seed line, if you look at it from that path

one for ignoble purposes

Well i believe we came from mars! or were genetically created!

The mars theory is based on tidbits of information coupled with the damage our solar system has undertaken. Mars was once habitable or so they say! if we had to evacuate earth. Mars would be our first choice and it is in a horrid state. So imagine a species on mars. What if they had to leave? they would choose earth! with that said i could be wrong but it could also explain the myths behind reptilian species. What if they left so few in number to earth from a mars cataclysm. Got here so few in number and began experimenting so they could rebuild. That also work in with the theory of the illuminati bloodline or ancient religious beings and with lizard people.

Just a thought!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, seeker said:

my understanding was the out-of-africa theory had been exposed as a political ruse,
but i'll have to re-check that

Yes, the Out of Africa Theory was debunked some time ago.

“Out of Africa” Theory Officially Debunked

Scientific evidence refuting the theory of modern humanity’s African genesis is common knowledge among those familiar with the most recent scientific papers on the human Genome, Mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosomes. Regrettably, within mainstream press and academia circles, there seems to be a conspicuous – and dare we say it – deliberate vacuum when it comes to reporting news of these recent studies and their obvious implications.

Australian historian Greg Jefferys explains that, "The whole ‘Out of Africa’ myth has its roots in the mainstream academic campaign in the 1990′s to remove the concept of Race. When I did my degree they all spent a lot of time on the ‘Out of Africa’ thing but it’s been completely disproved by genetics. Mainstream still hold on to it."

 
It did begin the early 90’s. And the academics most responsible for cementing both the Out-of Africa theory and the complementary common ancestral African mother – given the name of “Eve” – in the public arena and nearly every curriculum, were Professors Alan C. Wilson and Rebecca L. Cann. 
 
In their defense, the authors of this paper were fully aware that genealogy is not in any way linked to geography, and that their placement of Eve in Africa was an assumption, never an assertion.
-----
Central to results of this extensive examination of haplogroups (7,556) was the absence of any African genes. So lacking was the sampling of African genetic involvement, the researchers stated in their introduction that, “the finding that the Europeoid haplogroups did not descend from “African” haplogroups A or B is supported by the fact that bearers of the Europeoid, as well as all non-African groups do not carry either SNI’s M91, P97, M31, P82, M23, M114, P262”.
 
Is the Out of Africa Theory Out?

All the ancestors of contemporary Europeans apparently did not migrate out of Africa as previously believed. According to a new analysis of more than 5,000 teeth from long-perished members of the genus Homo and the closely relatedAustralopithecus, many early settlers hailed from Asia.
-----
"Teeth are the best genetic marker that we have in the fossil record itself," Trinkaus says, because "they are as close as we can get to a reflection of the individual's genetic makeup." The reason: Tooth crowns are genetically determined—and thus reflect an individual's genotype—and are not affected by environmental stress during development.
Scientists found that teeth from African specimens were a different shape or morphology than those from Eurasian samples. 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-the-out-of-africa-theory-out/

 

Shep is right, the one main thing the Out of Africa Theory supporters or the evolutionists wont touch is the existence of Rh negative blood types.
All mammals on the planet are Rh positive, except for cats (they have no Rh factor) and a small percent of humans from certain regions or tribes.
Over 99% of all Africans and over 98% of all Asians are rhesus positive. Approximately 15% (some say as low as 7%) of Caucasians are Rhesus negative.
Rh negative women can't naturally breed with Rh positive males more than once if that. The mother's body rejects the foreign DNA resulting in miscarriage.

 

Rh incompatibility

Rh incompatibility is a condition that develops when a pregnant woman has Rh-negative blood and the baby in her womb has Rh-positive blood.

During pregnancy, red blood cells from the unborn baby can cross into the mother's blood through the placenta.If the mother is Rh-negative, her immune system treats Rh-positive fetal cells as if they were a foreign substance. The mother's body makes antibodies against the fetal blood cells. These antibodies may cross back through the placenta into the developing baby. They destroy the baby's circulating red blood cells.
 

Firstborn infants are often not affected unless the mother had past miscarriages or abortions that sensitized her immune system. This because it takes time for the mother to develop antibodies. However, all children she has later who are also Rh-positive may be affected.
Rh incompatibility develops only when the mother is Rh-negative and the infant is Rh-positive. 

https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001600.htm

 "there are no human races." 
Those who subscribe to this opinion are obviously ignorant of modern biology.
Ernst Mayr on Race
 

http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/001951.html

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Lucy Barnable said:

Yes, the Out of Africa Theory was debunked some time ago.

“Out of Africa” Theory Officially Debunked

Scientific evidence refuting the theory of modern humanity’s African genesis is common knowledge among those familiar with the most recent scientific papers on the human Genome, Mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosomes. Regrettably, within mainstream press and academia circles, there seems to be a conspicuous – and dare we say it – deliberate vacuum when it comes to reporting news of these recent studies and their obvious implications.

Australian historian Greg Jefferys explains that, "The whole ‘Out of Africa’ myth has its roots in the mainstream academic campaign in the 1990′s to remove the concept of Race. When I did my degree they all spent a lot of time on the ‘Out of Africa’ thing but it’s been completely disproved by genetics. Mainstream still hold on to it."

 
It did begin the early 90’s. And the academics most responsible for cementing both the Out-of Africa theory and the complementary common ancestral African mother – given the name of “Eve” – in the public arena and nearly every curriculum, were Professors Alan C. Wilson and Rebecca L. Cann. 
 
In their defense, the authors of this paper were fully aware that genealogy is not in any way linked to geography, and that their placement of Eve in Africa was an assumption, never an assertion.
-----
Central to results of this extensive examination of haplogroups (7,556) was the absence of any African genes. So lacking was the sampling of African genetic involvement, the researchers stated in their introduction that, “the finding that the Europeoid haplogroups did not descend from “African” haplogroups A or B is supported by the fact that bearers of the Europeoid, as well as all non-African groups do not carry either SNI’s M91, P97, M31, P82, M23, M114, P262”.
 
Is the Out of Africa Theory Out?

All the ancestors of contemporary Europeans apparently did not migrate out of Africa as previously believed. According to a new analysis of more than 5,000 teeth from long-perished members of the genus Homo and the closely relatedAustralopithecus, many early settlers hailed from Asia.
-----
"Teeth are the best genetic marker that we have in the fossil record itself," Trinkaus says, because "they are as close as we can get to a reflection of the individual's genetic makeup." The reason: Tooth crowns are genetically determined—and thus reflect an individual's genotype—and are not affected by environmental stress during development.
Scientists found that teeth from African specimens were a different shape or morphology than those from Eurasian samples. 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-the-out-of-africa-theory-out/

 

Shep is right, the one main thing the Out of Africa Theory supporters or the evolutionists wont touch is the existence of Rh negative blood types.
All mammals on the planet are Rh positive, except for cats (they have no Rh factor) and a small percent of humans from certain regions or tribes.
Over 99% of all Africans and over 98% of all Asians are rhesus positive. Approximately 15% (some say as low as 7%) of Caucasians are Rhesus negative.
Rh negative women can't naturally breed with Rh positive males more than once if that. The mother's body rejects the foreign DNA resulting in miscarriage.

 

Rh incompatibility

Rh incompatibility is a condition that develops when a pregnant woman has Rh-negative blood and the baby in her womb has Rh-positive blood.

During pregnancy, red blood cells from the unborn baby can cross into the mother's blood through the placenta.If the mother is Rh-negative, her immune system treats Rh-positive fetal cells as if they were a foreign substance. The mother's body makes antibodies against the fetal blood cells. These antibodies may cross back through the placenta into the developing baby. They destroy the baby's circulating red blood cells.
 

Firstborn infants are often not affected unless the mother had past miscarriages or abortions that sensitized her immune system. This because it takes time for the mother to develop antibodies. However, all children she has later who are also Rh-positive may be affected.
Rh incompatibility develops only when the mother is Rh-negative and the infant is Rh-positive. 

https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001600.htm

 "there are no human races." 
Those who subscribe to this opinion are obviously ignorant of modern biology.
Ernst Mayr on Race
 

http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/001951.html

I'm not going to cite the thorough debunking of that information here, it's quite long, okay it's very very long.

But it can be found here    http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=23928

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Restore formatting

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead


Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.