Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old December 7th, 2003 #1
Mack
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default White Orgins?

Did the White race first appear in Manchuria? There was a site somewhere on the internet that described a war between the Orientals and the Whites long ago; stating that the Orientals had in turn originated on the northern coast of Asia during one of the warm interglacial periods. An ice age forced them south and they drove our ancestors out of Manchuria.This conflict was between two technically advanced races, the site said, and there are enigmatic White ruins buried deep under the Yellow river delta. Any more to add, anyone?
 
Old December 7th, 2003 #2
Pathogen
Junior Member
 
Pathogen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Asheville NC
Posts: 100
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mack
Did the White race first appear in Manchuria? There was a site somewhere on the internet that described a war between the Orientals and the Whites long ago; stating that the Orientals had in turn originated on the northern coast of Asia during one of the warm interglacial periods. An ice age forced them south and they drove our ancestors out of Manchuria.This conflict was between two technically advanced races, the site said, and there are enigmatic White ruins buried deep under the Yellow river delta. Any more to add, anyone?
This sounds more vague than a Nostradamus quatrain. Can you give any more specifics?
 
Old December 7th, 2003 #3
Billy Roper
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default White Origins?

“WHERE WE COME FROM” part of a series by R.A. Fonda*

*His ground-breaking anthropological and genetic research proves rather conclusively that only Eurasians are true humans, while Africans, etc, are hybrids with a pre-human species. In other words, Whites are not descended from Africans, as modern liberals contend. Remember that: We are not all Africans. Doubters should be referred to www.rafonda.com.


At the time I wrote Age and Origin of the Human Species, published research on the mitochondrial genome could not support conclusions regarding human origins. Accordingly, I had to leave it an open question; I said:
“The age of the human species had lately been estimated at between 150,000 and 250,000 years, based on studies of mitochondrial DNA. Those estimates were based on the assumption of clonal transmission of the mtDNA, and the cited studies invalidate that (Awadalla et al., 1999; Hagelberg et al., 1999; Eyre-Walker et al., 1999), but we do not know by how much the dates are off. Eyre-Walker has proposed that ‘Eve’ may have lived twice as long ago as current estimates, or as long as 500,000 years BPE. If there were bottlenecks subsequent to a mtDNA replacement event, which wiped out older lines, it would seem that the sweep occurred more recently than it really did…” and, “…[some researchers] consider that the data support a ‘clean sweep’ of earlier mtDNA lineages and this has frequently been raised in support of the Eve/Africa view. However, such ancient dates for an mtDNA replacement event would be consistent with radiation of pre-human species out of Africa, rather than the origin of s. sapiens. There has never been any reason to assume that the putative female (whose mtDNA is said to be ancestral to that found in all living humans) was, herself, s. sapiens [modern human]”.
The research by Awadalla, Eyre-Walker, and others, which cast doubt on the universal assumption that mtDNA only replicated clonally, was challenged. Innan and Nordborg review the follow-on studies of recombination.
http://walnut.usc.edu/~magnus/papers...borg02-MBE.pdf
Bottom line, there may well be some recombination, but you can't prove it the way Awadalla tried to. Meanwhile, medical research has revealed, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that recombination does occur in humans, as evidenced by the study of pathological cases. Recombination, as the term applies to mtDNA replication, refers to the uncommon occurrence of mtDNA from the sperm becoming incorporated in the developing embryo. It was previously assumed that only the mother’s mtDNA was ever transmitted. For the purposes of this discussion it isn’t necessary to even understand what recombination in mtDNA means, let alone the details of how it is accomplished: we can simply treat it as an ‘object’ in this analysis.
There has been unanimous and vociferous insistence in the media, on one critical afrocentrist assumption: all modern human mtDNA is 'so similar' that it had to have come from a single woman. This is known to the public as the 'African Eve' theory, and researchers speak of the same idea as 'a single genealogy for the mtDNA genome'. Far from proving the out-of-Africa theory, this is an absolutely necessary pre-condition for their theory of afro-replacement. Because I never saw anything to the contrary, in all I've read, I supposed it was true. The cited research (indicating that mtDNA transmission was not always clonal) cast doubt on the estimates of Eve’s age and the assumption of a single mtDNA genealogy, but I didn’t realize, then, that there is a far more fundamental reason to reject the claim that all human mtDNA is ‘so similar’ that it must come from one woman!

Consider this sentence, (italic emphasis mine) from the first paragraph of the Innan-Nordborg paper, “The argument for recombination is based on the observation that the pattern of polymorphism in mtDNA is incompatible with a single genealogical tree and unique mutations." In other words, there are three things that might account for the observed pattern of polymorphisms: 1) recombination, 2) more than one lineage, or 3) multiple mutations at many sites. Look at Figure 2 of the Innan paper and you will see that the repetitively mutated sites must be scattered throughout the genome, not just in the hypervariable region. Moreover, the less recombination has affected the mitochondrial genome, then the more unlikely it is that all modern mtDNA traces back to an African Eve!
On the other hand, the more recombination, or repetitive mutation that has occurred, then the more Eve’s age has been under-estimated. The effect of either repeated mutations at one site or recombination is to make the mtDNA genome appear younger than it really is. That is because either obscures the history of mutation, and the more mutations that can be discerned, the older the genome is assumed to be. If we knew Eve’s era from historical or anthropological data, we could compare that date with the one derived from the mtDNA coalescence algorithim. The difference between the calculated coalescence result and the historical date would reveal the combined effect of recombination and repetitive mutation. If that combined effect was obviously insufficient to account for the observed pattern of polymorphism, then we could reasonably infer a plural genealogy for the human mtDNA genome.
Until just recently, I thought the combined effect of repetitive mutations and recombination was enough to obscure the fact that Eve's era was more ancient than the -200 kyrs cited in Mishmar, et al.: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/100/1/171.pdf
It was impossible to substantiate such a view, because there was nothing in the historical or anthropological record to independently establish the era of a (supposed) speciation of humans in Africa. However, the situation in Eurasia is very different. There we can calibrate the coalescence date of Eurasian strains of mtDNA with an historical event, anthropological evidence, and research on the human y-chromosome. Thus we can infer the effect (hence extent) of recombination and repeated mutations, by comparing those other dates with the result of the mtDNA coalescence calculation. If the fit on all these dates is fairly close we can be assured that little recombination or repetitive mutation has occurred, hence the observed pattern of polymorphism must be interpreted to reveal a plural genealogy for the mtDNA genome.
Refer to the Mishmar paper (second full paragraph, right-hand column, on the first page) for a brief description of the M and N mtDNA lineages. Technically, one can't say that these are 'Eurasian specific' lineages, only because they have found their way into the African population. Note Mishmar's admission concerning the
afrocentrists’ assertion that M and N evolved/diverged in North Africa. This paper's authors come about as close to admitting that is implausible as they can, while remaining politically correct and afro-orthodox. To sum up: on the afro-view, M and N lineages diverged from the African Eve's lineage, while on my view they are the oldest surviving Eurasian lineages. Either way, it doesn't affect the argument I am making in regard to determining the relative contribution of repeated mutation and/or recombination versus plural genealogy.
With either theory, there's a coalescence date for the M and N lineages: these are the Eurasian Eves' ages, and they are the same. That is a very significant fact, as I'll explain later, but for now, note that the date of origin is -65kyr, for both these lineages. It doesn't matter, for this part of the argument whether you think M and N split off African lineage then, or whether you think they are the most ancient Eurasian
lineages still extant: either way, they are 65kyr old, as calculated by the coalescence algorithm.
In contrast to Africa at -200 kyr, there was a lot going on in Eurasia at about -65 kyr. The last common paternal ancestor of Europeans lived at -59 kyr, as calculated from y-chromosome data. So we have a date for the male counterpart of Eurasian Eve, calculated from a different genome at a date within 10% of agreement. Then, the earliest true-human artifacts are found in Eurasia at -55kyr. Allowing for the fact that it is unlikely that we have found the very first artifacts, and that people may have been genetically modern for awhile before developing human ['hu': Indo-European root meaning 'good' or 'true'] culture, those dates are in remarkable agreement. Add to that, radiation into Australia by modern humans occurred at a date that may be as early as -60 kyrs, and no doubt that radiation took some millennia.
It begins to look like that -65kyr coalescence date is right on target, and we could claim there is no influence from recombination and repeated mutation, so all the sites reflected in Figure 2 are evidence for plural genealogies: QED! However, that would be disingenuous, because I believe there has been some recurrent mutation, though it is possible they have fully accounted for it in their model, and some recombination, which they probably have not explicitly factored in. So, I would expect that coalescence date to be a little more recent than the era of a genetically significant event, which actually caused modern humans to differentiate from a relatively advanced population of archaics, or Homo-single-sapiens.
(continued)
 
Old December 7th, 2003 #4
Billy Roper
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default White Origins?

“WHERE WE COME FROM” part of a series by R.A. Fonda*

*His ground-breaking anthropological and genetic research proves rather conclusively that only Eurasians are true humans, while Africans, etc, are hybrids with a pre-human species. In other words, Whites are not descended from Africans, as modern liberals contend. Remember that: We are not all Africans. Doubters should be referred to www.rafonda.com.


continued......
One reason we can expect the loss of lineages existing before the modern type speciated, is that there must have been a population ‘bottle-neck’ associated with speciation itself. Moreover there must have been a severe population loss in temperate or higher latitudes when Mt. Toba erupted around –72kyrs and caused a nuclear winter in Eurasia. That savage selection event, followed by the constriction attendant to speciation, accounts for the loss of more-ancient Eurasian mtDNA lineages. Earlier, I said it is significant that the two oldest Eurasian mtDNA lineages were the same age; that points to any more-ancient lineages being lost in the same era, in a specific selection event and/or population bottleneck, rather than through 'lineage sorting'. Moreover, it is comparatively unlikely that two mtDNA lineages would simultaneously diverge from a putative African lineage, and both (but only they) survive to the present. It is far more reasonable to assume that no more-ancient Eurasian lineages survived two severe bottlenecks, and subsequent lineage sorting, in the indigenous Eurasian population.
So, even if we assume that the actual population constriction occurred prior to the coalescence date, and associate it with an obvious selection event, the –65kyr coalescence date still calibrates quite closely. If we compare the dates, we note that -65 kyrs is only about 10% less than the putative genetically significant date of -72 kyrs. So we can see that both recombination and repeated mutations can only have had a small effect on the calculation of a coalescence date, hence there are not many sites in the mtDNA genome that have experienced recombination or repeated mutation. But, look at Figure 2, where it is evident that many of the sites show evidence of either recombination or repeated mutation, or else they are evidence of more than one genealogy for the mtDNA genome! Therefore, most of the sites graphed in Figure 2 must be considered as evidence for more than one mtDNA genealogy. Therefore, M and N lineages are not derived from the African genome, but represent the most ancient, surviving lineages of the Eurasian type. Hence M and N are Eurasian specific lineages that only entered Africa through radiation, rather than coming from Africa.
In conclusion, recombination and repetitive mutations are not enough (by a wide margin) to explain the observed pattern of polymorphisms in the mtDNA genome. Therefore, there is more than one genealogy: there are two Eurasian maternal lineages, associated with modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) and another, African lineage. The African lineage descends from Homo erectus, hybridized with Homo (single) sapiens (most likely from Eurasia) in ancient times and modern-human Eurasians since about 65,000 years ago. This falsifies the ‘afro-radiation and replacement’ theory, and the politically correct shibboleth that ‘we are all Africans’.
Mishmar et al, is probably correct to attribute variation, in lineages derived from M and N, to natural selection, however that point is of no relevance to the argument above. Moreover, it is plausible that such selection took place in very ancient times (when pre human species were adapting to a cold climate) and was only retained at high latitudes, among people living at low culture levels, as it comes at a cost, and was lost when and where physical adaptations were superceded by elaborated clothing and shelter, in the temperate zone.
 
Old December 8th, 2003 #5
OnYourKneesNiggerBoy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default what do you mean?

billy your getting too damn scientific-like for me
 
Old December 8th, 2003 #6
Pathogen
Junior Member
 
Pathogen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Asheville NC
Posts: 100
Default

[QUOTE=Billy Roper]“WHERE WE COME FROM” part of a series by R.A. Fonda*

*His ground-breaking anthropological and genetic research proves rather conclusively that only Eurasians are true humans, while Africans, etc, are hybrids with a pre-human species.

Do Eurasian populations include northeast Asians (Chinese, Korean etc), Semites, and Amerindians? Or does it just include modern Europeans?
 
Old December 8th, 2003 #7
Billy Roper
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default White Origins

I believe that this specific evidence separates Blacks from the rest of the (so-called) human species, including Whites, Asians, and various admixtures thereof. Of course, further separation between Asians and Whites occurs through the fifth Haploid group x factor, as discussed in several Kennewick man articles, and in my Thesis.


-Billy

[QUOTE=Pathogen]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Roper
“WHERE WE COME FROM” part of a series by R.A. Fonda*

*His ground-breaking anthropological and genetic research proves rather conclusively that only Eurasians are true humans, while Africans, etc, are hybrids with a pre-human species.

Do Eurasian populations include northeast Asians (Chinese, Korean etc), Semites, and Amerindians? Or does it just include modern Europeans?
 
Old December 8th, 2003 #8
Blondie
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Do Eurasian populations include northeast Asians (Chinese, Korean etc), Semites, and Amerindians? Or does it just include modern Europeans?"

Check out the web site http://www.ancestrybydna.com/ . Although we may disagree that we all came from a common ancestor, the web site is interesting. They don't have a category "Eurasian", but call that "Indo European". I think they are equivalent, and the map which defines those terms, according to them, is found at http://www.ancestrybydna.com/profiles.html . Their Indoeuropean types include Europe and on over to India (don't forget those very upper caste Indians who have light skin and very caucasoid features).

They are refining their test in the future to be able to discriminate how much "euro" and how much "indo" is in a given person.
 
Old December 9th, 2003 #9
Craig Smith
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Aopparently, the National Geographic society investigated the lost city of Atlantis and one of the theories they discussed was that it was in South America, on a large open plain in which a volcanic island serves as a centerpoint. Are the ancient Inca remnants of a pre-European white population? Interesting to think about.

(Someone described Billy Roper as a "Southern Gentleman" and I think this is true. Look at his exemplary conduct both in the National Alliance geekery and in these threads... I wish more adhered to standards like that.)
 
Old December 9th, 2003 #10
Billy Roper
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default White Origins

Thanks, Craig. Actually, though, I've been called a lot of things much more often than "gentleman". I'm too radical and abrasive and outspoken for many people's tastes...but then, I suppose that someone has to represent the extremist position by which others are measured. However, I digress.

The point about the term "Indo-European" is well made. Originally, it was coined to describe a family of languages, just as the term "Semitic" was, for example. Arabs and Palestinians speak a Semitic language, and therefore are Semitic. Most jews are not descended from Abraham or other Middle Eastern origins, and don't speak Hebrew, either, ergo, most jews are not Semitic. I am not an anti-Semite, therefore, I am a pro-Semite, because I want to see the Palestinians drive the last hook-nosed jew into the Mediterranean with his yarmaluke on fire.

"Indo-European" was used to describe all of the related languages, from Latin to German to Sanskrit (thus the "Indo") which are spoken by the related peoples who are or who were what we commonly refer to as "White". The Aryan invasion of India establish Hinduism and its' caste system as a means of racial separation between the various degrees of admixture which developed when Whites conquered the northern half of the Indian subcontinent. Even today, the highest "varna", a word meaning both "caste" and "color", and which comes from the same Indo-European root word which our own word "varnish" comes from, are much lighter skinned and obviously have a much higher degree of White ancestry remaining, than do the lower castes. Some of them even could pass as Italians or other Mediterranean Whites. Just as could some northern Iranians, as Iran's name also originates from the term "Aryan", as does "Ireland", for example. One of the Shah of Iran's former titles was "Light of the Aryans".

I mention all this just to remind us how far and wide our race spread in the past, how we repeatedly conquered the world, leaving a bit of ourselves behind to be eventually overwhelmed by the majority nonWhite native populations, and how we are in recession today, at a lower tide than we have ever been before, at least in recorded History. Traces remain, in languages, in genetic threads, in religion, and in archaeological ruins. After the Revolution we can continue the research the first Fuhrer began in Tibet and India, to uncover some more of the mysteries of our ancient Aryan presence there.

I'll see if I can find a language tree to post or link to...

-Billy




Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Smith
Aopparently, the National Geographic society investigated the lost city of Atlantis and one of the theories they discussed was that it was in South America, on a large open plain in which a volcanic island serves as a centerpoint. Are the ancient Inca remnants of a pre-European white population? Interesting to think about.

(Someone described Billy Roper as a "Southern Gentleman" and I think this is true. Look at his exemplary conduct both in the National Alliance geekery and in these threads... I wish more adhered to standards like that.)
 
Old December 9th, 2003 #11
Billy Roper
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default White Origins

I also briefly mention the ancient Incan link, describing the Caucasian mummies of Incan nobility dating back to and before the Incan classical period, in my Master's Thesis. I firmly belief that both the Incan and Aztec proto-civilizations were established by Whites.

Just to clarify things, the Indo-European language group, a link to which is below, does NOT include Oriental languages, one more indication that the two races had separate origins, as well.

Scroll down through the language tree on this page, look at all the languages represented and how they are interconnected and akin to each other, and think about the exploits of our ancestors. Amazing....

http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/ballc/oe/oe-ie.html




Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Roper
Thanks, Craig. Actually, though, I've been called a lot of things much more often than "gentleman". I'm too radical and abrasive and outspoken for many people's tastes...but then, I suppose that someone has to represent the extremist position by which others are measured. However, I digress.

The point about the term "Indo-European" is well made. Originally, it was coined to describe a family of languages, just as the term "Semitic" was, for example. Arabs and Palestinians speak a Semitic language, and therefore are Semitic. Most jews are not descended from Abraham or other Middle Eastern origins, and don't speak Hebrew, either, ergo, most jews are not Semitic. I am not an anti-Semite, therefore, I am a pro-Semite, because I want to see the Palestinians drive the last hook-nosed jew into the Mediterranean with his yarmaluke on fire.

"Indo-European" was used to describe all of the related languages, from Latin to German to Sanskrit (thus the "Indo") which are spoken by the related peoples who are or who were what we commonly refer to as "White". The Aryan invasion of India establish Hinduism and its' caste system as a means of racial separation between the various degrees of admixture which developed when Whites conquered the northern half of the Indian subcontinent. Even today, the highest "varna", a word meaning both "caste" and "color", and which comes from the same Indo-European root word which our own word "varnish" comes from, are much lighter skinned and obviously have a much higher degree of White ancestry remaining, than do the lower castes. Some of them even could pass as Italians or other Mediterranean Whites. Just as could some northern Iranians, as Iran's name also originates from the term "Aryan", as does "Ireland", for example. One of the Shah of Iran's former titles was "Light of the Aryans".

I mention all this just to remind us how far and wide our race spread in the past, how we repeatedly conquered the world, leaving a bit of ourselves behind to be eventually overwhelmed by the majority nonWhite native populations, and how we are in recession today, at a lower tide than we have ever been before, at least in recorded History. Traces remain, in languages, in genetic threads, in religion, and in archaeological ruins. After the Revolution we can continue the research the first Fuhrer began in Tibet and India, to uncover some more of the mysteries of our ancient Aryan presence there.

I'll see if I can find a language tree to post or link to...

-Billy
 
Old December 9th, 2003 #12
Craig Smith
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Those who have reason to fear what you say will call you all sorts of names, but names have never stopped the truth.

I find this site to have some good links:

http://www.indo-european.org/

I like using the term "Indo-European" as it points out the lengthy and proud history of our people outside of Europe as well as within.
 
Old December 10th, 2003 #13
Childeric
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The University of Texas has some interesting pages on Indo-European Languages:

http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/lrc...-lg/ie-lg.html

Included in the IE group is Tocharian, which was (apparently) the language of the Caucasians of the Tarim Basin region of southwest China, whose mummies were discovered a few years ago. There is still some disagreement regarding Tocharian A and B--dialects, or separate languages?

If you have a large, unabridged dictionary, you may find that an archaic definition of the word "dug" is nipple or teat, similar to the Sanskrit word (dugda) for "milk." Compare Danish "dćgge," and Swedish ""dćgga" - "to suckle."

The connection between Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin is another fascinating subject. Check it all out with a Google search.

The Aryan/Dravidian subject regarding the caste system of India is another matter of interest. Was the caste system established as a means of racial segregation? It would appear so, although hotly denied by today's "egalitarians."

C.
 
Old December 10th, 2003 #14
Billy Roper
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default White Origins?

By R.A Fonda:

Someone on another list posted this blurb about an article in the January
DISCOVER magazine:

"Humans are all so closely related that our entire population shows less
genetic diversity than that of a small group of chimpanzees. It's almost as
though we all came from the same town - and perhaps we did. ... [the
article] is based on a study by Marcus Feldman, a population geneticist at
Stanford University; Noah Rosenberg, a computational biologist at the
University of Southern California in Los Angeles; and Lev Zhivotovsky, a
geneticist at the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow. They examined
short, repetitive fragments of DNA called microsatellites, markers found in
every person. 'We used 377 markers that are generally located in noncoding
regions of the genome, ones that are likely to be neutral, where there is no
natural selection involved,' says Rosenberg. The beauty of microsatellites
is that they mutate frequently and at a steady pace, enabling scientists to
infer from them when human populations first diverged from each other.
Studying those mutations in 1,056 individuals clustered in 52 populations
groups around the world ..."

I replied:
I noted "This scenario is based on a study by Marcus Feldman," so I
looked him up and found other articles by him, and about the research done
in the Stanford lab he controls. Let me show you what his agenda is, because
it validates my accusation that leading genetic researchers are
misrepresenting the significance of the data they develop. I think it is
evident that they know what they are doing, because there is an 'arrow of
purpose' in the consistency of their misrepresentation, so lets just call it
what it is: LYING. I can give you some examples confirming that view, by
quoting such people themselves. Feldman, and his research associates are
mentioned in a paper by David Rotman, called "GENES, MEDICINE, AND THE NEW
RACE DEBATE" from Technology Review; Jun2003, Vol. 106, issue 5, pg 41.
The title itself is a tip-off, and the abstract mentions the "Danger of
looking for genetic variations among racial groups."
Well, that says it ALL: the DANGER of these genetic discoveries! Now, do
you really think that, if these discoveries were actually showing that 'we
are all the same' and 'we are all Africans', these people would think that
was 'dangerous'? You know better; they would hail these discoveries as proof
of their contentions that 'we are all from one village'. But we don't have
to infer their motives: they tell us, in that paper, what they fear and why.
First, they tell us that the HapMap (I have written about this before) "will
make it possible to spell out in great detail the genetic differences
between people from different parts of the world." So, "Sociologists,
bioethicists, and anthropologists WORRY that the genetic data could be
manipulated to give an air of BIOLOGICAL CREDENCE to ETHNIC STEREOTYPES, to
revive discredited RACIAL CLASSIFICATIONS, and EVEN to fuel bogus claims of
FUNDAMENTAL GENETIC DIFFERENCES between groups." [emphasis mine]. Those
'sociologists, bioethicists, and anthropologists' are what I call 'political
scientists', though I include afrocentrist and PC researchers of all kinds
in my term. It is just that the afro-PC elements have captured those three
disciplines, so that they speak (bleat) with one voice, while elsewhere
surly muttering continues. A 'bioethicist' is someone who is so smart, well
connected, highly educated, and morally exalted they know what is right and
wrong and are authorized to tell you how to think, speak, and act ... sort
of like the Pope, but with divisions. I like to think they are talking about
my work in that "EVEN ... FUNDAMENTAL GENETIC DIFFERENCES ..." category!
"Here's the rub", says Troy Duster, a sociologist, "...The danger", he
says, [there it is again, that DANGER] is that people will associate those
differences with racial groups . ahhhwhooowhooo. Jonathan Kahn, bioethicist,
suggests that, "it is all too easy for biological and genetic categories to
become conflated with racial ones.[no doubt!] And when they do, a lot of
mischief can occur". This exalted being knows that we ordinary Folk are not
to be trusted with dangerous genetic knowledge. Duster admits that "...to
map differences between various populations while avoiding the DANGERS of
RACIAL STEREOTYPES is a conundrum without an answer." He doesn't openly say
the truth should be withheld from us vulgar rabble, but it is clearly
implied, here and elsewhere in the paper, that genetic researchers had
better come to the right 'conclusions' in the information they divulge, lest
'racists' discover that science has proved their commonsense perceptions!

(continued)
 
Old December 10th, 2003 #15
Billy Roper
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default White Origins?

By R.A. Fonda, continued....
Gee, I thought we were just one homogenous family from the same village,
'Doctor' Feldman. But, look here, Feldman's lab reported " ... detailed data
on gene samples from individuals from 52 populations..." and the bottom line
was " ... that how people categorized themselves - whether they called
themselves black or white or asian - correlated closely with the genetic
categories." So, you see why I think Feldman is LYING, rather than just dumb
or honestly mistaken. He knows he is contradicting the evidence of a study
done by his own lab. This same paper mentions that there are about 10
MILLION 'snips' [single nucleotide polymorphisms] in the human genome.
Feldman looked at 377 of those, out of all those millions, and says that
proves we are just one village. Do you suppose he picked those 377 BECAUSE
they are all common to everyone, so he can compare minor variations? Of
course, but then he acts like everybody having those same, carefully chosen
SNPs is proof we are 'all the same'.
Also he picked 'junk DNA' sites; now why would he do that? He has a
rationale, but I think part of the reason is that coding DNA has been shown
to correlate with racial groups so well that cops can trace a headless,
handless, 'muti' corpse in the Thames river back to a specific locale in
Africa, so they can't use THAT to claim 'we are all Africans'. And the mtDNA
is coming unraveled on them, revealing distinctly different lineages for
Africans and Eurasians, so it is better not to mention THAT. So he uses
'junk' DNA, and finds 377 SNPs, out of millions, that show 'we all came from
the same village'. But this is the same data, that spelled DANGER to those
political scientists, just written up two different ways! This is the SAME
data that showed people's perceptions of whether they were black, white, or
asian correlated with the genetic data. No problem: just LIE about what it
MEANS; Discover magazine isn't going to question you ... or allow anyone
else to call you on it!
I mentioned that one reason Feldman might have used 'junk' DNA was
because the coding regions ARE so strongly correlated with race, but even
his carefully chosen data DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS HIS STATED CONCLUSIONS.
Here's more about that from, DOES RACE EXIST, Sci. Am.,DEC 2003. That
article talked out of both sides of the mouth, trying to deny race in the
sense we Folk loyalists understand it, but admitted the genetic correlation.
"...we needed 60 polymorphisms to assign individuals to their continent of
origin with 90% accuracy. To achieve nearly 100% accuracy, however, we
needed to use about 100...", out of ten million. This same article mentions
that Noah Rosenberg and Jonathan Pritchard FORMERLY OF FELDMAN'S LABORATORY
used the same data-set (375 polymorphisms from 1000 people of 52 ethnic
groups) and found that, "...by looking at varying frequencies of these
polymorphisms they were able to distinguish five different groups of people
whose ancestors were typically isolated by oceans, deserts, or mountains:
sub-Saharan Africans; Europeans and Asians west of the Himalayas; east
Asians; ... Melanesia; and Native Americans. They were also able to identify
subgroups within each region that usually corresponded with each member's
self-reported ethnicity." Now does that sound like Feldman's "one village",
or is he a telling a bald-faced LIE? You have to wonder if those researchers
left Feldman's lab in disgust!
In closing, let me quote from the abstract of, Human Genetic Diversity:
Lewontin's Fallacy. (BioEssays, Aug2003) "In popular articles that play down
the genetical differences among human populations, it is often stated that
about 85% of the total genetic variation is due to individual differences
within populations and only 15% to differences between populations or ethnic
groups. ...this argument ignores the fact that most of the information that
distinguishes populations is hidden in the correlation structure of the data
and not simply in the variation of the individual factors." In other words,
this is a disingenuous argument, and those who make it know that. They are
using this analytical 'sleight of hand' to obfuscate. Figures, and data,
don't lie, but liars figure, and they are the only ones our media-masters
will publish.

RAF
rafonda.com

I'm trying to talk Mr. Fonda into coming here and sharing his insights with us personally, as I find his research fascinating.

-Billy









Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Roper
By R.A Fonda:

Someone on another list posted this blurb about an article in the January
DISCOVER magazine:

"Humans are all so closely related that our entire population shows less
genetic diversity than that of a small group of chimpanzees. It's almost as
though we all came from the same town - and perhaps we did. ... [the
article] is based on a study by Marcus Feldman, a population geneticist at
Stanford University; Noah Rosenberg, a computational biologist at the
University of Southern California in Los Angeles; and Lev Zhivotovsky, a
geneticist at the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow. They examined
short, repetitive fragments of DNA called microsatellites, markers found in
every person. 'We used 377 markers that are generally located in noncoding
regions of the genome, ones that are likely to be neutral, where there is no
natural selection involved,' says Rosenberg. The beauty of microsatellites
is that they mutate frequently and at a steady pace, enabling scientists to
infer from them when human populations first diverged from each other.
Studying those mutations in 1,056 individuals clustered in 52 populations
groups around the world ..."

I replied:
I noted "This scenario is based on a study by Marcus Feldman," so I
looked him up and found other articles by him, and about the research done
in the Stanford lab he controls. Let me show you what his agenda is, because
it validates my accusation that leading genetic researchers are
misrepresenting the significance of the data they develop. I think it is
evident that they know what they are doing, because there is an 'arrow of
purpose' in the consistency of their misrepresentation, so lets just call it
what it is: LYING. I can give you some examples confirming that view, by
quoting such people themselves. Feldman, and his research associates are
mentioned in a paper by David Rotman, called "GENES, MEDICINE, AND THE NEW
RACE DEBATE" from Technology Review; Jun2003, Vol. 106, issue 5, pg 41.
The title itself is a tip-off, and the abstract mentions the "Danger of
looking for genetic variations among racial groups."
Well, that says it ALL: the DANGER of these genetic discoveries! Now, do
you really think that, if these discoveries were actually showing that 'we
are all the same' and 'we are all Africans', these people would think that
was 'dangerous'? You know better; they would hail these discoveries as proof
of their contentions that 'we are all from one village'. But we don't have
to infer their motives: they tell us, in that paper, what they fear and why.
First, they tell us that the HapMap (I have written about this before) "will
make it possible to spell out in great detail the genetic differences
between people from different parts of the world." So, "Sociologists,
bioethicists, and anthropologists WORRY that the genetic data could be
manipulated to give an air of BIOLOGICAL CREDENCE to ETHNIC STEREOTYPES, to
revive discredited RACIAL CLASSIFICATIONS, and EVEN to fuel bogus claims of
FUNDAMENTAL GENETIC DIFFERENCES between groups." [emphasis mine]. Those
'sociologists, bioethicists, and anthropologists' are what I call 'political
scientists', though I include afrocentrist and PC researchers of all kinds
in my term. It is just that the afro-PC elements have captured those three
disciplines, so that they speak (bleat) with one voice, while elsewhere
surly muttering continues. A 'bioethicist' is someone who is so smart, well
connected, highly educated, and morally exalted they know what is right and
wrong and are authorized to tell you how to think, speak, and act ... sort
of like the Pope, but with divisions. I like to think they are talking about
my work in that "EVEN ... FUNDAMENTAL GENETIC DIFFERENCES ..." category!
"Here's the rub", says Troy Duster, a sociologist, "...The danger", he
says, [there it is again, that DANGER] is that people will associate those
differences with racial groups . ahhhwhooowhooo. Jonathan Kahn, bioethicist,
suggests that, "it is all too easy for biological and genetic categories to
become conflated with racial ones.[no doubt!] And when they do, a lot of
mischief can occur". This exalted being knows that we ordinary Folk are not
to be trusted with dangerous genetic knowledge. Duster admits that "...to
map differences between various populations while avoiding the DANGERS of
RACIAL STEREOTYPES is a conundrum without an answer." He doesn't openly say
the truth should be withheld from us vulgar rabble, but it is clearly
implied, here and elsewhere in the paper, that genetic researchers had
better come to the right 'conclusions' in the information they divulge, lest
'racists' discover that science has proved their commonsense perceptions!

(continued)
 
Old December 11th, 2003 #16
Magog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,191
Default Top of the world.

The oldest Aryan legends have our people coming out of the Artic circle before the last pole shift when it was more hospitable climate. One branch went into India and one branch went into Iran.

The oldest human DNA is Aryan and asian, so it could be that the war you talked about happen, but I would guess that it took placed with in the last 5000 years after the great war of The Mahabharata.
 
Old December 13th, 2003 #17
Billy Roper
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default White Origins

Granted, real action is needed now, and that's what I'm all about, but we need to also know who we are and where we come from.
One of the things most lacking in our people is a solid sense of identity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by [67]
Whats the point in caring about the past when whites are in such "danger" now?
 
Old December 14th, 2003 #18
Fredrik Haerne
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Great information, guys! This is always a fascinating topic for us history buffs.

I wonder now, who are the Semites? And how many different kinds are there? Arabs, Jews (the original kind), Bedouins.... Are Kurds Semites? Are Syrians? What's the difference between East Syrians, the "Assyrians," and other Syrians? And are Bedouins really Arabs, only mentioned separately because it makes sense to make a distinction in a political context?


I was very surprised when I heard last year that there are, in fact, some Arabs with blond hair, and even blue and green eyes. This came over the internet from a girl living in the Gulf, and I also got to hear that "Of course there are Arabs with blond hair. Arabs are white, you know." Of course they are not White, only mixed with Whites a long time ago from what I've heard, but I didn't want to burst her bubble. Interesting, though, to hear that Arabs would like to claim Whiteness. Like so many others.

Last edited by Fredrik Haerne; December 14th, 2003 at 11:53 AM.
 
Old December 15th, 2003 #19
Magog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,191
Default You were called Yudas.

The vedas speak of the jews as Yudas. You history is second to the Aryans.
 
Old December 16th, 2003 #20
Colonel-Voltz
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Wow, that was a lot of information to digest. I wish I had some pictures to help me visualize the differences in the DNA. Anyway, thanks for the info Bill.I just wish these biologists would refrain from political correctness and do their jobs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fredrik Haerne
Great information, guys! This is always a fascinating topic for us history buffs.


I was very surprised when I heard last year that there are, in fact, some Arabs with blond hair, and even blue and green eyes. .
I have also heard that a few Indians in the Mid-West were reported to have had blonde hair and blue eyes though, I think it is suspected some mixing had taken place.
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:47 PM.
Page generated in 0.20966 seconds.