BBC
Watching now … the origins of the biggest sin in modern British society.
Note: This is pretty silly.
Europeans were obviously trying to understand and explain what they were seeing – just as they tried to explain every other problem, such as the transmission of diseases like malaria and yellow fever – and were coming up with various theories to explain why peoples with such radically different phenotypes could exist along the same latitudes.
They correctly inferred that heredity, not the environment, is the cause of racial differences in skin color and morphology. They also correctly inferred that there was a biological connection between Africans and the gorillas, monkeys, and chimpanzees that lived among them.
Very interesting video, including the account of the Moravian Indian converts massacre in Pennsylvania beginning at 30:42, and of the Freetown (Sierra Leone) colony (prototype of Liberia?). Around 54:29, someone says that the reparations that had to be paid by Haiti to France two hundred years ago for expropriated property “is one reason why Haiti is poor today.”
“They also correctly inferred that there was a biological connection between Africans and the gorillas, monkeys, and chimpanzees that lived among them.”
I know you are not referring to this, but there is a very small trace of chimpanzee DNA in many Africans (and corresponding trace of humanoid DNA in chimpanzees) indicates there was some interbreeding of humanoid ancestors with chimpanzee ancestors in the very remote past.
We must comb these professional blacks out of our midst. A couple of polite blacks with PhDs do not reflect the reality of the Qualibaniquas among us.
There is a Barbadain Prof on there saying that Kant Hume etc have been sanitized by not addressing their white supremacist views. Au contraire Professor Chillens, the opinions these men held were the result of rational thought. Probably the result of painful observation. Were their racist views to be widely published again, people might agree with the racist Kant, Hume and Voltaire. That’s why these opinions are not widely circulated. They are true.
“I know you are not referring to this, but there is a very small trace of chimpanzee DNA in many Africans (and corresponding trace of humanoid DNA in chimpanzees) indicates there was some interbreeding of humanoid ancestors with chimpanzee ancestors in the very remote past.”
That was several million years ago, and would be found in all humans and likewise all our ancestors since then. Africans may have more ancestral physical features than europeans and technically genetically closer to chimpanzees (the significance of both of which being irrelevant- for quick reference, neanderthals had more ancestral features than even africans and would likewise be closer to chimps), but this one is just ridiculous. And who would be the africans that don’t have chimpanzee DNA?
“I know you are not referring to this, but there is a very small trace of chimpanzee DNA in many Africans (and corresponding trace of humanoid DNA in chimpanzees) indicates there was some interbreeding of humanoid ancestors with chimpanzee ancestors in the very remote past.”
Provide a reference for this please. Some African genetic clades are more “basal” ie. they preceded Europeans (after all both Europeans and Asians and Australoids came “out of Africa”) but there is absolutely no evidence that there has been any inter-breeding between even the earliest Homo Sapiens (a species who first existed at the most liberal estimate at a date no earlier than 290,000 years ago and probably less) and our cousins the chimpanzees. Chimps don’t even have the same number of chromosomes that humans do. The split between hominids and the rest of the apes occurred millions of years ago. There is however evidence that the common ancestors of Whites and Asians interbred with Neanderthals.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/db/Humanevolutionchart.jpg/928px-Humanevolutionchart.jpg
Anyone who claims that sub-Saharan Africans are not of the species Homo Sapiens is woefully ignorant. In fact, niggers may be more “human” than we are. They don’t have any Neanderthal DNA!
I can’t stand it when these anti-racist professionals pronounce the word “people” when referring to non-whites.
Sorry anti-racists, you are not talking about “people”; you are talking about proto-humanoid hybrids.
This might be from the BBC, the take home message might be “Whitey bad”, however, at 14:30 the British Brainwashing Company give us : “Black africans are produced by the sexual relation between a human woman and a chimpanzee.”
Okay. This might work after all.
Note that the token negro scholars the British Bullshit Company uses to help illustrate the boring old Whitey Be Bad meme, are all African studies specialists.
Where’s Skip Gates, though?
Yes, Rudel, it is very well known by now that Caucasians and also Orientals (but not Africans or Aborigines) have traces of Neanderthal DNA indicating some crossbreeding in the very remote past. That doesn’t make us less than human. Nor does their very small trace of chimpanzee, inherited through a crosssbreeding humanoid ancestor, make Negroes a different species. Nor does the humanoid trace carried in chimpanzees make them humanoid.
I’m NOT one of those here who doubt or deny the full humanity of Africans and Aborigines!
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05/18/chimps_love_humans/
While we’re going off topic: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/14/chimp_genome_y_chromosome_gumble/
It is bullshit.
Haiti collapsed into poverty long before the indemnity was negotiated by Boyer.
“I’m NOT one of those here who doubt or deny the full humanity of Africans and Aborigines!”
Sorry about that. I really didn’t read what you said closely enough. I read “humanoid” as “human” rather than “hominid” as you intended.
They are the missing link in many ways. Certainly in terms of cultural and technological evolution anyway.
Fed on vast quanitities of meat they grew very tall though. A lot of the slave cargo was probably malnourished, short and abnormally stupid even for an African.
Neanderthals and Denisovans were human, and the idea of our species being only 250,000 years old largely relates to the nebulous concept of “anatomical modernity”. We’re considerably older than that.
Mosin is referring to the fact our lineage interbred with the chimpanzee lineage some several million years ago- which I’m not sure is totally proven, but it’s not outside the realm of possibility, though it’s really not that relevant to much of anything today. Where he gets the idea only africans have this ancestry is something else entirely. Every hominid that’s derived from them would carry it.
Also, recent evidence suggests sub-saharan africans interbred with another archaic human group similar to the neanderthals and denisovans. The Iwo Eleru skulls in Nigeria, which are more ancestral than even modern africans probably belonged to this group.
“African genetic clades are more ‘basal’ ie. they preceded Europeans (after all both Europeans and Asians and Australoids came ‘out of Africa’) but there is absolutely no evidence that there has been any inter-breeding between even the earliest Homo Sapiens (a species who first existed at the most liberal estimate at a date no earlier than 290,000 years ago and probably less) and our cousins the chimpanzees.”
I see you are satisfied with the simpler version of the out-of-Africa story, but I agree fully that members of the human species cannot and have never interbred with apes. The chimpanzee DNA was passed to some black Africans (not to whites) through another, older hominid species that hybridised several million years ago.
“Mosin is referring to the fact our lineage interbred with the chimpanzee lineage some several million years ago — which I’m not sure is totally proven, but it’s not outside the realm of possibility, though it’s really not that relevant to much of anything today. Where he gets the idea only africans have this ancestry is something else entirely. Every hominid that’s derived from them would carry it.”
The simpler out-of-Africa explanation would predict all humans carry it, but my understanding is that geneticists have detected it in subsaharan Africans, not in out-of-Africa races, just as Neanderthal DNA in Caucasians and Orientals is not detected in subsaharan Africans. Of course, mulattoes would carry both, and in any case it is a trivial issue that makes no significant difference, and everyone is still fully human, with or without it.
I brought up this trivia in response to Hunter’s statement that “there was a biological connection between Africans and the gorillas, monkeys, and chimpanzees that lived among them” — and indeed they do have an absolutely completely insignificant, nearly undetectable trace more of connection than out-of-African races have — and of course they’re still fully human.
Then you’re talking about something completely different, and yet it still doesn’t mean they got it from any hominid that carried chimpanzee ancestry. I’m aware of an old, really weird MX Reinzi page detailing alleles found in chimps that are only found in africans, but those are meaningless and were lost simply as soon as non-africans diverged from africans. There are probably other alleles just like that that are found only in africans and some, but not all non-africans. There’s no way they could have gotten this from a hominid species that hybridized several million years ago because a) chimp-human lineage interbreeding would have happened that long ago and ALL hominids from then on would have carried it b) breeding between humans and that hominid species wouldn’t even be possible due to the distance.
Going back to the main issue, if you really want to be totally accurate, it’s pointless to fixate and drum up which population is genetically most similar to chimps or which has the most ancestral features, reasons such as how you’d be throwing yourself up for a reductio ad absurdum loop of the significance of being closest to the LCA- humans probably aren’t the most genetically diverged of all life, and literal genetic distance from the earliest life forms has nothing to do with how advanced an organism is, and australian aborigines, in spite of being the most ancestral of all modern human populations, (though they’re likewise probably the most physically diverse) are genetically further from chimps than africans. South american natives are probably the most distant from chimps overall, and any population that diverges from an ancestral population becomes less similar to the last common ancestor.
It’s also not like europeans and caucasoids as a whole are physically derived in all regards, nor are they probably even the most derived of all modern humans- if you want to be totally accurate, east africans, particularly somalians, are probably the most physically derived of all modern humans, regardless if you believed they’re mixed or not.
That happens to have no bearing on things like Somalia being one of the worst countries in the world, though.
This all might be a different story if you’re a subscriber to Richard Fuerle’s work, but, just in my opinion, the guy’s kind of a whacko.
No chimp ever ripped me off. They would be a step up from the Nig.
“I’m NOT one of those here who doubt or deny the full humanity of Africans and Aborigines!”
Well, I am. Sorry about that. Not really.
This woman wishes she could have back what the chimp ripped off from her:
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-08-11/us/massachusetts.facial.transplant_1_charla-nash-full-face-transplant-pet-chimp?_s=PM:US
And of course this man wishes he could have back what the close relative of the chimp ripped off of him:
http://news.discovery.com/human/ronald-poppomiami-zombie-rudy-eugene-miami-120809.html
You really sure they’re human? Looks like a classic case of “monkey see, monkey do,” to me.
Deo Vindice
So finally it comes out! You Southrons and pretenders of Whiteness are nothing more than another bunch of nigger lovers!
Oh, niggers are still human! They are only slightly ape-like! Sickening…
These Porch Monkeys are nothing but hairless apes with as much humanity as a Cockroach!
They’ll slit your throat for a Dollar and have not the slightest conscience about it!
They Must Be Destroyed! Exterminated. They are Stupid Enough to Bite the Hand that feeds them and therefore are not even as intelligent as the dumbest dog!
The niggers and their Satanic Masters Must All Die! To the Last One! Afterwards their remains must be incinerated to prevent anyone from rebirthing them through cloning or other technological means.
This is Total War! A War of Extermination. White Genocide Will NOT STAND!
Re: Dr. Doom
As long as racialism has existed in America, the more deranged sounding racialists have typically been Northerners, undoubtedly because racialism is more marginal and liberalism has traditionally been more dominant there than in the South.
@ Dr. Doom, who wrote: “So finally it comes out! You Southrons and pretenders of Whiteness are nothing more than another bunch of nigger lovers! Oh, niggers are still human! They are only slightly ape-like! Sickening…. These Porch Monkeys are nothing but hairless apes with as much humanity as a Cockroach! They’ll slit your throat for a Dollar and have not the slightest conscience about it! They Must Be Destroyed! Exterminated. They are Stupid Enough to Bite the Hand that feeds them and therefore are not even as intelligent as the dumbest dog!”
Agreement with the biological definition of humanness, the facts of human speciation or distinction of homo sapiens from other primates, does NOT mean someone does not recognise racial differences! I accept the biological science AND the racial insight — and also, the religious insight (that humans are spiritual beings created in the image of God, etc.) — so you need not worry!
!
@ Hunter, who wrote: “Re: Dr. Doom: As long as racialism has existed in America, the more deranged sounding racialists have typically been Northerners, undoubtedly because racialism is more marginal and liberalism has traditionally been more dominant there than in the South.”
There is nothing Northern- or deranged-sounding about someone accepting findings of biological science, or having the “liberal” (Christian) “notion” that we are all spiritual beings and that our eternal destinies are a much more important concern than our temporal “earthly” conditions,
@ aaaaaaaaaaaaaa: Thanks for your excellent, intelligent responses to my trivia about chimp DNA. Don’t worry I didn’t “get it from MX Reinzi.” I had never heard of him, but now thanks for informing me of the source, VNN, where this sort of thing appears: “N– are people-shaped animals”: http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/20070415/niggers-are-people-shaped-animals/
Nor did I get it from Fuerhle, who I did know and have read: http://erectuswalksamongst.us/Chap29.html
In fact, it is just a mainstream science fact, however insignificant (we both agree) and trivial. Thanks for your well-informed science-background response that doesn’t go into hysterical accusations of Yankeeism, wiggerism, etc.
@ aaaaaaaaaaaaaa: Thanks for your excellent, intelligent responses to my trivia about chimp DNA. Don’t worry I didn’t “get it from MX Reinzi.” I had never heard of him, but now thanks for informing me of the source, VNN, where this sort of thing appears: “N– are people-shaped animals”: http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/20070415/niggers-are-people-shaped-animals/
Nor did I get it from Fuerhle, who I did know and have read: http://erectuswalksamongst.us/Chap29.html
In fact, it is just a mainstream science fact, however insignificant (we both agree) and trivial. Thanks for your well-informed science-background response that doesn’t go into hysterical accusations of Yankeeism, wiggerism, etc.
No problem, and now that you mention it, I think Fuerle mentions the same thing somewhere in his book. The existence of such alleles is indisputable, but I think you’ve just gotten mixed up somewhere along the road on the origin of these. Fuerle and MX Reinzi are the only people I’ve seen discuss this as well.
And like I said, this all might be a different story if you’re a subscriber to Fuerle’s work, but he honestly believes africans, aborigines and such aren’t fully human, along with a whole laundry list of other bizarre ideas. (that page trumpets the idea of a mulatto Egypt, a middle east that declined due to mixing with africans, etc. all of which are cited to MOTT.) He also seems to think homo erectus was more advanced than modern africans and seemingly treats them as interchangeable with humans- just that they had really low IQ’s and extremely ancestral features.
*only seen discuss outside of academic work
One way or another blacks are simply defective. They don’t want to live among each other. Always among us and they complain endless.
“he honestly believes africans, aborigines and such aren’t fully human, along with a whole laundry list of other bizarre ideas”: I don’t agree with Fuerhle either.
dr doom, Rudel and Mosin are yankees, they are the ones saying negros are human. Brother Apuleius and myself are Southron and deny negros any shred of humanity. I think you have your story wrong. Lest I think so. Hard to figure out your ramblings
“dr doom, Rudel and Mosin are yankees”
I refuse to be associated in any way whatsoever (as a yankee or otherwise) with dr. doom.
@ Stonelifter: Human species, as in biological science, is one thing. Race is another. My “ramblings” might have been confusing.
The Neanderthal DNA factor explains EVERYTHING. Science must be true to itself and reclasify the sub Saharan African.
The lack of neanderthal DNA in the Sub Sahara negro fully explains the ‘sub human’, ape/chimp like appearance of this species.
The low level of intelligence, & the ‘chimp like’ behavior of this species,wherever they are found, confirms the , self evident fact, that, there are vast differences between the black negro ‘species’ & the fully human, Caucasian.
It should be clear, to any white person, with normal capability of discrimination , to see that this is true,..in that, the negro, is NOT , in fact,of a different ‘race’, but rather, they are of a totally different ‘species’, & the white race should embrace this fact, & arrange for the complete,removal, of them, from any & all white homelands, & return them back to the bosom of ‘mother Africa’, where the evolutionary processes of nature, of nature are, even now using, AIDS, & their penchant for slaughter, & cannibalism, to drive this worthless species to extinction, in order that the African continent might be populated by a higher form of life,..
They thrived quite well for a couple of hundred thousand years (at least) in Africa. They were hardly going extinct before the White man arrived.
You don’t know WTF you are talking about.
To Rudel, I would say, that although they, the blacks, may have lived in Africa, for thousands of years, I would hesitate to say that they “thrived”,..Considering that the level of their circumstances was so primitive, that they had accomplished absolutely nothing to prove that they, as a species are any smarter than thechimpanzees.’ & as to the possibility of their eventual, extinction,..Such possibility, of extinction, is the result of AIDS, which is not something that the hated white man brought to Africa, But rather, there is some reason to believe the the black race caught from having sex with non-human primates, to whom the are closely related.
What the White race brought to Africa, was a level of progress & civilization, such as the blacks could never have produced,on their own & which the blacks in Africa, are even now destroying, while returning, Africa back to the savagery & chaos, that is the natural product of negro DNA, & genes, now that the white race is no longer in charge in Africa to take care of them,..
Nordicelt
Nordicelt
“while returning, Africa back to the savagery & chaos, that is the natural product of negro DNA, & genes”
Returning to a savage past is a long way from becoming extinct. BTW, “genes” consist of DNA and AIDS was almost certainly transferred to humans through the eating of bushmeat brain tissue. Also, if you try to have sex with a chimpanzee you will immediately get your balls ripped off, your eyes chomped out, and your throat ripped open; roughly in that order.
Don’t post here any more. You are an ignorant moron.
I think what all of you need to do is consider the possibility that the fusion event is the reverse of scientific ‘knowledge’. If the fusion event in chromosome 2 is actually an unfusion event, wherein a homo sapien sapien [non sub Saharan] mated with a chimp and other primates, to produce the sub Saharan negro, then you would get closer to the genetic truth. In the process the Neandethal genome transfer properties in this conjugation would in turn be destroyed or failed to transfer, because of cytological barriers or properties of dissolution. The ‘Out Of Africa’ theory has already been proven false , as haplogroup genetic classifications of the sub saharan negroes are not found in the other ‘races’. I say that the Negro is the youngest of the races, not the oldest, which is a ridiculous genetic ‘closer to chimpanzee’, theory based upon cde gene sequences frequencies and black/brown monkey skin ascendency. Any theories, let me know.