If anyone actually reads this, let it be known that I am transferring back to blogspot.com for my host. So if you want more of my series, or just my latest thoughts, check out passionatproject.blogspot.com
When your worldview is led by a cultural reading of the Bible, believing that man in general is the most superior being in the Universe, that thinking leads to a separation from the rest of nature; thinking that the world and universe revolves around humans, because this creation was all made by a supernatural God, supposedly just for man.
If the title “God’s chosen people” can be claimed to be your ancestry, either by blood or spiritual “adoption”, and placed with the nowadays understanding of creation stories and presumed image of God, that makes a Christian (or whoever else tries to claim the title,) pretty special! It makes you a son or daughter of the King! And even those who love or protect you will be blessed the Bible says!
Many Atheists, sometimes including myself, have sought to discredit Christianity and those “fool enough” to still believe in it by looking at the stupid sheep in mainstream Christianity for their sources of ammo. While there is no shortage of them in mainstream Christianity, those aren’t the intellects in Christianity. Honestly, the Bible has much good in it, that when properly understood, from a historical or non-embittered perspective, it makes a lot of sense. (At least as much as any ancient text can.)
Insecure Atheists and agnostics want to throw out the Bible as all fairy tale, so that they don’t have to believe any of it is not fairy tale. . .I think that this “all or nothing” mentality is bound to “throw the baby out with the bathwater.” The understanding we can glean from the Bible about our origins isn’t as whacked out as we may first think . ..
Let’s go over what that ancient text actually tells us of our beginning. First God said, “let US make man in our OUR image “(Genesis 1:26).
Christian’s think of God as 3 persons, or “The trinity”, so that’s why it seems logical to them to say that He is one God, and yet speaks as a group. . .the logic of which reasoning is rarely questioned of course. The only problem with that belief is that there is really very little evidence for a monotheistic belief in history. It was unheard of before the Old testament. So that in itself seems suspicious if those closer to the creation and Noah stories (similar in just about every culture of the world) wouldn’t have gotten their stories a little more clearly, then those further removed. . . do we really have the gall to think we know about God better then those who spoke directly to him/them?!
Without the Holy Spirit part of God in existence, (which is easily explained away as something of the conscience BTW) the Israelites would have had no call to say that “God” speaking as “US” and “OUR” was a reference to more then one person of the “Godhead” speaking in that verse, because most of the Jews didn’t apparently embrace the coming Messiah as God. . .
The Catholic church clearly added the “Holy Spirit” concept to make up for that issue. In 1 John 5:7 it seems to be clearly stating that God is not only father, like all the other cultures claim, but that the son, Jesus, (“begotten not created”) and the very unclear Spirit are one. There, problem solved! The verse goes like this. “For there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one.”
When you take out the added “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one”, the Jews of the time are left with “God” speaking to or for a group of people, not being one. . .That verse is the only and clearest verse in the Bible regarding the Holy Trinity, yet it is missing in many modern versions like the NIV, NASB, RSV, NRSV and Jehovah witness versions.
It is not found in the Greek manuscripts and for this reason it should not be included in the Bible.
So was the “us” and “our” way of speaking that “God” always used just a way royals use to talk, as some have said? Or was it possibly a group of peers he was talking to, as nearly every other ancient culture gave reference to with their concepts of many “gods”? And if so, do we now have to consider all the ancient texts in their writings of their gods as on par with the Christians rendering of God? Are they talking of the same ones?
Maybe we can find out by looking more closely at some of the most tricky and misunderstood verses in the Bible, and cross reference a little. . .So, besides the gods, the Bible also speaks of “sons of God” or “Angels” being in the beginning. Can we look at the ancient understanding of those terms to find some enlightenment on why the break off from many gods, to one? First, some context: “The sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and took them wives, all of which they chose. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men [had sexual relations with them], that they bare CHILDREN to them, the same became MIGHTY MEN which were of old, men of renown” (Gen.6:1-4).
The Apocrypha, which was a highly respected part of the Bible up until the last few hundred years when it’s many implications were misunderstood as myth. Enoch 6:2 of the Apocrypha is a parallel passage to those very tricky verses in the Bible. Enoch puts it this way, “And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: ‘Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us children.'”
Enoch also removes any doubt that the giants were the children of these “unholy” unions. Further, it is a fascinating read as it describes the angels, their children, and the punishments meted out on them. Enoch’s translation into heaven (which he came back from to write the book of Enoch) is also described in great detail and takes very little imagination to interpret what happened to him. . .
In Bible college they bring up the difficulty of interpreting Genesis 6 and yet I wonder why the book of Enoch is never brought into the discussion, as it fills in all the gaps. I highly suggest checking it out online!
I will take the viewpoint that was widely held in the world of the first century CE, and was supported by Flavius Josephus, Philo, Eusebius and many of the “Ante-Nicene Fathers,” including Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Athenagoras and Commodianus: the terms “angels”, “sons of God”, and “the children of heaven” are synonymous in these two passages.
Also, the Bible verses talking about “the sons of God”(otherwise understood as “Angels” or the “children of Heaven”) usually spoke of them coming from the heavens, which was always just referring to “above”. . . showing either their poor understanding of space and the solar system (for more on this, check out my post called A flat Earth teaching in a perfect book), or the Bible just means they came from the sky, or from a “mountain of God”, as every other depiction of the gods of other previous cultures. Enoch describes these “children of heaven” as “descended in the days of Jared on the summit of Mount Hermon,” which seems to imply from the sky to the mountain to lower elevations.
The Bible also speaks of “the Holy mountain of God” trembling and fire coming from the top of it. This is consistent with other ancient texts depictions of their gods living on the tops of mountains in their houses. For instance, the gods at mount Olympus in Greek mythology certainly sound suspiciously familiar to the tales in the Bible.
These “Angels” having to “come down” often leads to the speculation of the “Angels” being “fallen” from these high places to have come down to the women, but there is no reference to them being in disfavor with God or the gods on the mountain, or in the sky before they started mingling with the woman.” The Bible speaks of Satan giving a report to these “God(s)” : And the LORD said to Satan, “Where have you come from?” Satan answered the LORD, “From roaming through the earth and going back and forth in it.” He certainly didn’t seem to be doing any harm, but he was apparently watching man.
“I saw in the visions of my head as I lay in bed, and behold, a watcher, a holy one, came down from heaven.
- are ‘holy angels who watch’ (20:1)
- are of the higher class of angels like the archangels, cherubim and seraphim,
- are ‘the eternal watchers’ (41:1) in the presence of God
- belong to the Great Holy One (12:3)
- do not sleep but stand before the glory of God (39:12, 61:12, 71:7)
- never depart from the Great One (14:23)
- are known as “sons of heaven” (6:2; 13:8; 14:3)
- have been given the secrets of the heavens (9:6; 16:3)
- are appointed to fulfill certain duties (20:1-8)
These Angels who “fell”, bound themselves by an oath to leave “heaven” and descend to earth to marry the daughters of earth (Enoch 6:3-5). The Watchers also teaching the people on earth the “eternal secrets that are performed in heaven” (9:6). The dastardly wicked art of making metal weapons, arts, crafts, incantations, astrology, cosmetics and bracelets (8:1-4)
The concept of Heaven being in a mystical realm with only perfect spirit beings living in perfect bliss kind of gets thrown out when you read that “weapons”, “incantations” (which was apparently well looked on then)”astrology” and such frivolities as make up and jewelry is in “Heaven”. . .as that obviously doesn’t fit in with the picture that has evolved of Heaven, the church threw it out. It is nonetheless consistent with other ancient texts.
Back to the “Watchers” or the so called “fallen” angels: they are so filled with shame that they cannot speak or raise their eyes to heaven. (1 Enoch 13:5)
- they follow the “eyes of whoredom” (2:16)
- they “walked in the stubbornness of their hearts”, following their own ways and rejecting God’s commandments (2:17-18)
So who were these “sons of God” or “Angels” in Genesis 6:1-4? There have been several suggestions as to who they were and why the children they had with daughters of men grew into a race of giants.
The three primary views on the identity of “the sons of God” are 1) they were “fallen” angels, 2) they were powerful human rulers, or 3) they were godly descendants of Seth intermarrying with wicked descendants of Cain. Giving weight to the first theory is the fact that in the Old Testament the phrase “sons of God” always refers to angels (Job 1:6;2:1; 38:7). A potential problem with this is in Matthew 22:30, which indicates that angels do not marry.
The weakness of views 2) and 3) is that ordinary human males marrying ordinary human females does not account for why the offspring were “giants” or “heroes of old, men of renown.” Further, why would God decide to bring the flood on the earth (Genesis 6:5-7) when God had never forbade powerful human males or descendants of Seth to marry ordinary human females or descendants of Cain? The oncoming judgment of Genesis 6:5-7 is linked to what took place in Genesis 6:1-4. Only the marriage of “fallen” angels with human females would seem to justify such a harsh judgment.
When the Bible speaks of “sons of god” who consorted with “the daughters of men”, it is looked on very unfavorably. These Angels were not allowed to return to Heaven for this act. These giants are referred to in Hebrew as “nephilim.” The word “giants” means the following, from Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible#5303:
nephiyl (nefeel’); or nephil (nefeel’); from 5307; which means properly a feller, i.e. a bully or tyrant.
NEPHILIM, a word of uncertain meaning (Genesis 6:4; Numbers 13:33), (NIV, NEB, NASB, RSV translations), translated as giants by the KJV and NKJV. Some scholars believe . . . were descended from famous rulers, outstanding leaders, and mighty warriors who lived before the Flood.
The Bible speaks of these Nephilim before the flood as being wicked and full of evil, so God planned to destroy these giants with a flood. Again, this is described in The Book of Enoch.
Only Noah and his family had a pure bloodline from Adam the Bible tells us and consequently was given a warning about the impending flood to wipe out the wicked giants, whereas, the giants were not told.
The Bible puts it this way, “These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God” (Gen.6:9). God told Noah in Gen. 6:18 “But with thee will I establish my covenant.”
The rest of mankind had become corrupted through intermarriage with the “Angels”.
The giants survived the flood though, as we see them again in Num.13:32-33 as the sons of Anak. “And there we saw the GIANTS, the sons of Anak, which come of the GIANTS: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so were we in their sight” (The word for “giants” here is the same word used in Genesis 6:4 — the Nephilim.) Obviously, therefore, some of them lived after the Flood.
It was for the destruction of these giants, (Nephilim) that the sword of Israel was apparently necessary, as the Flood had been before.” Because the god(s) were not interested in having a world of violence again, but wanted to start fresh with Noah, who was apparently a true “son of God”, whatever that meant. . .
The Rephaim were another name for the descendants of the giants which existed after the Flood. Moses also talks of the land of Moab saying, “That also was accounted a land of giants; GIANTS dwelt therein in old time. . . the LORD destroyed them before them; and they succeeded them, and dwelt in their stead” Deut.2:20-21
God clarifies though that, “It is not because of your [The Israelite’s or God’s chosen people’s] righteousness or the uprightness of your heart that you go in to possess their land, but because of the wickedness of these nations that the Lord your God drives them out from before you, and that He may fulfill the word which the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” Deuteronomy 9:5
The Scriptures tell us that young David slew Goliath (whose name means “an exile”) a giant over 9 feet tall! He was probably a descendant from the ancient Rephaim, of whom a remnant took refuge among the Philistines making him stand out because he was an exile in the land. (Deut.2:20-21; II Sam.21:22).
The Anakim (‘anna -‘keem)- another race of giants descended from the Angels are mentioned ten times in the Bible, Duet 1:28, 2:10, 2:11, 2:21, 9:2, Josh. 11:21, 11:22, 14:12, 14:15, and Joshua 47:5. There were nearly a dozen different races of Giants during the time of Israel’s captivity in Egypt. . .
If these many groups of (up to 30 foot) giants or tall men of legend were real, then they were likely not only in the middle east, but also associated earlier with Africa, (more specifically Egypt), which would give a plausible explanation for the problem which has for ages perplexed engineers: that being, how those huge stone pyramids, temples and monuments were built. . . .”
Giants are also a common tale in areas of Europe, and believed to be the origin of the Greek legends of “demi-gods” “Giant-legends of this class are common in Asia too, where the big and “stupid” giants would seem to have been barbaric tribes.”
The Giants were apparently experiments of the Angels gone wrong, a product of their uncontrolled lusts. The first interbreeding of these ancient Angel type “gods” with man, according to many different ancient sources.
Making public the many sites of these giant’s remains in Egypt, Asia, the Middle east, and Europe, and allowing scientists to analyze the DNA, blood type, and RH factor would likely lead to some very interesting conclusions.. . . instead the powers that be tell us the pictures are a hoax, and the evidence of the giants is quickly whisked away. . .telling us they are just a myth?
The Bible speaks of these giants as historical though, and it is supported with many other cultures ancient texts, so it seems pretty likely that they were real.
The fact that the giants fathers were called “sons of god”(s), not only Angels, makes me wonder what their father(s) looked like? Were they tall too?
Ancient civilizations were all thought to have believed in “gods”. “The Egyptians, Chaldeans, Mayans, Aztecs, Aryans, Syrians, and the inhabitants of the ancient Indian Tibet have all recorded the arrival of “gods from the heavens” in their ancient writing. Considering their similarities to the Bible, when you throw out the uneducated presumptions we’ve already dealt with, it seems we might get some clues from these other texts that predated the Bible even!
“The best place to get answers about who these gods were is probably from the oldest known records written by the oldest known civilization, the Sumerians. (Their culture dates back to 6000 BC!)
The Sumerians documented the arrival of “gods” who they called “ilu”, from another world, who brought with them advanced knowledge.” [Sounds like in Enoch. . .]
The Sumerians, as opposed to the later cultures were more descriptive of these “ilu”, calling them the “Anunnaki” which translates into “Those who from Heaven to Earth Came.” Sound familiar? The Anunnaki were also known to play “god” roles and control civilizations through worship or “work for.”
I believe there has been a simple misunderstanding about these “gods” of ancient cultures though, rooted in a mis-translation of the word used to describe what mainstream linguists say means “god”.
While the word “ilu” has been commonly translated as “god” because it made the most sense to the ancient worldview, “ilu” has a different translation: “tall men.”
Despite this overall acceptance of this “mistake” of translation by linguists, they continue to translate “ilu” to mean “gods,” as any other meaning wouldn’t have made sense to their worldview. . .until now.
Later, the Akkadian, Babylonians, and the Assyrian culture and language evolved from the Sumerian Civilization and brought with them the word “ilu”. It is generally presumed that the “god” word of the Bible evolved from both the word, and the god(s) that were passed down from those earlier texts and cultures.
The Akkadian cuneiform tablets speak extensively about the affairs of the “ilu” gods, and in every depiction/illustration where “ilu” and ordinary people are shown side by side the ilu are much taller. . .” So, we could presume that these “gods” could have easily have been the fathers (the “Angels” or “sons of God”) that mated with the humans, creating giants in all the Ancient texts!
“The ancient stories tell us a lot about these “gods”. . . The first humans could have been a result of manipulation with the gods’ genes and maybe other life forms here on Earth already.
Many stories in all the ancient texts, especially pre-Christian texts, tell about a race of gods that “from the Heavens to the Earth Came.” And they “created man in their image”. Looking back, these “gods” who all lived long lives (around 1,000 years) had superior knowledge and technology, performing apparent “miracles” would have certainly been looked on as gods. [Even though we believe it is better translated as tall men”] So it’s really no surprise that the meaning morphed into a supernatural being. . .as they were intuitive, wise, advanced, and very different. . .
[These gods, according to the many texts were] “flying about in lighted ships in the sky [sometimes called flaming chariots] and shooting fire or lightning from them [on select occasions] , creating ear-shattering booms and temporary blindness.” [Sometimes the flaming chariots even took people away, never to be seen again!]
The humans watched as these “gods” built massive and glorious houses and created beautiful cities for themselves. (Usually with help. . .)
Many questions have sprung up about who these original “ilu” were?
These “people” have been variously identified with just about every mythical being after them that you can imagine, leading most scholars to automatically place the whole texts they come from in the realm of myth or allegory. Interestingly though that all of these ancient creatures of myth were blond or red headed. . .so, based on my last posts, we can presume they were the original O- blooded Albinos, later “sons of god”, or a hybrid breed of red and blond-haired gods.
Interestingly, these ilu or “gods” made creations that, though in their “image” and “good”, were nonetheless shorter, less intelligent, less large boned, rounder head and apparently the males had a foreskin, whereas some believe the gods did not. So these creations were not sons of god, but a new creation, with genes that were unique to the planet. . .apparently.
The difference between the “ilu” and their creation was probably why the ancient civilizations started the practice of circumcising the male descendants. . .on the best day possible for blood clotting. Could it have been just to hide the fact that they were created “Sons of the gods” instead of true descendants like the Angels? Created, instead of creators.
Considering the violence and maybe even jealousy of the neighboring giant cultures seeking favor with god, it may have been a deceptive safety measure, hoping to confuse the “stupid” giants. . . because we sure haven’t found genital mutilation to being of any other benefit. For a very interesting article on circumcision, check this out.
The mingling of the human species, with these sons of “tall men” (God) happened in other places too. . thus the different cultures’ giants mating with women and creating demi-gods or partially “tall men.” Thus, all these “myths” would have been all talking about the same thing as the Bible.
We could look at them all as myth then, as many Atheists do, or we could look to see what the ancients might have meant by what they were all said to have seen. . .Could “the Lord”, or “gods”, or the fathers of the “Angels” in every culture of the world have been just a depiction of the first ones on earth?
It seems with many ancient texts handing down rules for not intermarrying with other races, (better described as species, as seen in my last post) that some groups coming from the first human creations were taught so to keep their blood pure. Thus, they are still a separate people from the days of Noah. Could they look like a somewhat tall, RH- O blood type, red and blond headed race of “people”, like all the “gods”?
If all creation came from the mingled species of Angels and the created man in the image of God, it seems they both would have been equally the same color of the “tall men”, white albinos. Like I talked about in my first post in this series.
As we can see in my next post in the series, the blood type that went with the original albinos was always O-. To this day, blood that is O or has the RH – factor would indicate some white in that person’s ancestry. So, as stated earlier, since blood doesn’t mutate, one could ask when the other blood types to make the darker races would have come in, if Adam and Eve were both the same color and in the image of the “gods”?
Creation scientists wisely admit to this discrepancy though, and say, I quote :” If Adam and Eve were heterozygous for blood types A and B, respectively (one allele for type O and one allele for either type A or B), [I believe it would have to be both A and B, as blood cannot mutate] they could have produced children that had any of the ABO blood types.”
Of course, they also say, “Adam wouldn’t have been a white boy, having been created from the dust of the earth/ground. Eve on the other hand, being created from his rib, would have been pale since that would be the shade afforded bone from which she was derived.”
Source: Institution for creation research
That is a hilarious reasoning! And this concession has only been recently admitted to. . . their previous theory stated that Adam and Eve were light brown! So if the people separated nicely into slightly different shades over the years, and did that numerous times (apparently moving away after a while), then our presumptuous understanding of the Bible could be accurate. I think there is a lot easier of an explanation though. . . but as usual, the Bible won’t change, the reading of it does. So Christians should have no problem with this info, right?
The Creation science people have almost figured it out! Look at this quote from the same place: “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. This scenario would fit better if the O allele was rare in the population today and appeared in a specific people group. [It use to be, but with interbreeding it is recessive in a lot of white groups around the world.] However, the O allele is by far the most common allele globally, indicating that if it did originate via a mutational event, it had to occur when the human population was extremely small and before humans divided into ethnic groups and spread across the globe. . .If Adam and Eve did not have all three blood type alleles, then there must have been a mutation creating the O allele while the human race was still very small and before humans dispersed across the globe. Whether the origin of blood type O was in Adam and Eve at Creation or whether it arose as a mutational event [blood has proven the least likely part of the body to be able to mutate] that took place shortly before or after the Flood, it strongly supports that all humans today are descendants of two individuals or a small group of people that eventually populated the globe. Both scenarios are consistent with the biblical model of human origins.”
” For one thing, for a husband and wife to pass on all alleles to their children, they need to, between them, have the A, B, and O alleles. So Adam and Eve could have had any of the following genetic make-ups: AO and BO, AB and OO, AB and AO, AB and BO, AA and BO or BB and AO, that is, any combination where both parents have all three alleles between them. Another possibility is that the O gene arose later.”
Source: Institution for creation research
A genetically manipulated part-“god” (“tall man”) species, with O- blood being created and commemorated in the many creation stories is the most logical explanation of the numerous creation stories I can think of. With man’s bestiality bringing in the A and B blood later.
How could I insinuate such a derogatory thing as bestiality causing the origin of the dark skinned people?? Well, from the Start, it seemed that the “tall men” or gods encouraged it! Parading the newly made animals in front of a desperate and lonely man, no doubt hoping one of them would be a good mate for him, saving themselves the trouble of cloning another person from his bone marrow (rib), and changing it a little to make a female. I mean, seriously! How many animals did he have to “try out” first before he and the “gods” agreed that he needed a mate like him?
By going up to one of “the mountains of God”, Moses eventually got instructions from the “tall men” to condemn bestiality, consequently discouraging the creation of all the hybrid men. . .the “mythical” half men, half horses, or half man, half monkey. . .?
Or was it Solomon’s many “Strange” wives, that were “his undoing”. . .? And the “undoing” of the whole nation that soon divided “God’s chosen people” from the nation of Judah. Whatever the case, it seemed from the perspective of one of the writers of the Bible, that it was an intentional action of the “tall men” to mix up the genes of some of the tribes of the original Israelite nation.
And when the Bible says “All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats.” (Matthew 25:31-32) It could be in reference to a physical “End time” separation of the whites from the blacks, O blood types from the A’s and B’s or more likely, the RH-‘s from the RH+. . . I don’t know which. Could it be more in reference to an obvious cultural and mental separation of the species that we have done ourselves? Could the intention of the Rh- white elites with their pushing of religion, vaccines, fluoride, GMO’s, BPA’s, drugs and dangerous medical, as well as a pathetic educational system, simply be for the purpose of depopulating the less dominant group, as they did in the Bible days to the stupid experimental giants?
I have a favorite breed of dog, a Bichon Friese, but all dogs have their place I think. They each have their specialties and are unique in nature. The boxer for instance is stronger, while the Poodle is smarter. When you think about it, that could be called racism of sorts by the Boxer I suppose, if he thought it was superior to be smart, over strong. . . As long as everyone can appreciates all breeds (like races) for having their specialties, and place on the planet, I personally see no problem with differences. The problem comes when someone so hates a breed or thinks it inferior, that they want to mock or eliminate that breed.
I especially love cats too. As well as horses. I guess that could mean I prefer certain species to others, like a pig or donkey. I don’t find the rest of the species calling me on my “specieism” though, and I think that’s because for one thing, I don’t mock the rest-or they couldn’t tell if I do, because I don’t speak their language- and I don’t try to eliminate the other “inferior” species.
I wonder, do horses feel it’s unfair that a cat gets to curl up on my lap, while they are stuck in hard labor jobs or sports like racing because of their strength and build? Would they demand equality if they could talk? That is more ridiculous than the women who want equal treatment to men in our society, but it is similar in concept. Woman are much different then men, and if they were treated as equals, they would be treated in a way that would be as hard on them as it would be hard on the cat being expected to pull a buggy. That doesn’t work, not because they aren’t equal, but because they are different. (And different means less equality is some things sure, but that is fine, and the way it should be!)
My son just brought two different socks to me to put on him, and I was again reminded that some socks are for dress up situations, and some for play, as well as some for work. They should be paired with their match, and be appropriately used for what they are good at and even made for. That makes sense in socks, as it makes sense in mammals.
I really feel close to all creation, but of course selfishly close to mammals. I don’t even really put humans much, if any, above other mammals anymore.
All this talk of how foolish it is to equate preferring different animals, sexes, socks or groups for their different roles, without actually mocking, hating, shunning, being intolerant of or abusing the different groups or individuals, brings me to a touchy subject. . . I already touched on this in my posts, Was Hitler right? (In here I bring up a huge can of worms!) and “Variety is the spice of life” part 1. (Which I highly recommend going back to read, if you haven’t already.)
I wanted to find out why the red heads have had such an unusual past, and what made them first honored and then hated and often killed for their differences. I had not seen anyone online equate red and blond haired people, but I was sure that they must have had a common ancestor because of their skin and eyes. . .What I found is both so interesting, that I find it hard to believe, yet so well supported, that it is foolish not to! Truth is stranger then fiction!
So cautiously, let me start with the history of a dirty little word: Aryan.“The Vedic term arya- in its earliest attestations has a meaning of “stranger”, but “stranger” in the sense of“potential guest”. The Sanskrit lexicon defines Arya as mahākula kulīnārya “being of a noble family”, sabhya “having gentle or refined behavior and demeanor”, sajjana “being well-born and respectable”, and sādhava “being virtuous, honorable, or righteous”. Arya, is a title of honor and respect given to certain people for noble behavior.
The Aryan race was a term used in the early 20th century by European racial theorists who believed strongly in the division of humanity into biologically distinct races with differing characteristics. Such writers believed that the Proto-Indo-Europeans constituted a specific race that had expanded across parts of Europe, Iran and small parts of northern India. This usage tends to merge the Sanskrit meaning of “noble” or “elevated” with the idea of distinctive behavioral and ancestral ethnicity marked by language distribution.
Nazism portrayed their interpretation of an “Aryan race” as the only race capable of, or with an interest in, creating and maintaining culture and civilizations, while other races are merely capable of conversion, or destruction of culture. [This is not a healthy view of other races IMO, but it does depend on your definition of “culture and civilization” I suppose. . .]These arguments derived from late nineteenth century racial hierarchies. Some Nazis were also influenced by Madame Blavatsky’s The Secret Doctrine (1888) where she postulates “Aryans” as the fifth of her “Root Races”, dating them to about a million years ago, tracing them to Atlantis.
Because of historical racist use of “Aryan”, and especially the use of “Aryan race” in connection with the propaganda of Nazism, the word is sometimes avoided in the West as being tainted, in the same manner as the swastika symbol. Currently, India and Iran are the only countries to use the word “Aryan” in a demographic designation.”
– Reference: Wikipedia.org
The term “Aryan” is used to combine numerous ancient races, probably because they seem to have a singular DNA origin . . .
Following DNA, we can see that the races such as the Annanaki, the Taklamakans, The Muvians, Phoenicians, Canaanites (Archaeologists and historians commonly refer to the Bronze Age, pre-1200 BC Levantines as Canaanites and their Iron Age descendants, particularly those living on the coast, as Phoenicians.) etc. . .as well as many previous races lost to mythology are all summed up as “Aryan” or “Caucasian”. Both of which are unfortunately steeped in a history of elitist mentality.
The history of the whites of the world has a lot of prejudice ingrained into it. And that is still seen as a preference for white skin, even strangely among the native populations of most nations of the world!
“Many cultures have historically favored lighter skin for women. In Europe, before the Industrial Revolution, pale skin was preferred and was a sign of high social status. The poorer classes worked outdoors and got darker skin from exposure to the sun, while the upper class stayed indoors and had light skin. Light skin became associated with wealth and high position.Women would even put lead-based cosmetics on their skin to artificially whiten their skin tone. Achieving a light-skinned appearance was additionally brought about in various other ways, including the use of arsenic to whiten skin, and powders. Other methods included wearing full-length clothes when outdoors, including gloves, hats and parasols.
Colonization and slavery by European countries inspired racism, led by the belief that people with dark skin were uncivilized and were to be considered inferior and subordinate to the lighter skinned invaders, which has continued to be perpetuated in modern times. There continues to be a preference for fair or lighter skin in some countries, including Latin American countries where whites are a minority. In Mexico, light skin is associated with power, as well as attractiveness. A dark-skinned person is more likely to be discriminated against in Brazil. Many actors and actresses in Latin America and Hispanic United States have European features—blond hair, blue eyes, and pale skin. A light-skinned person is considered to be more privileged and have a higher social status; a person with light skin is considered more beautiful and it means that the person has more wealth.
In India, pale skin is considered more attractive, while dark skin is associated with a lower class status, creating a massive market for skin whitening creams. Fairer skin tones also correlate, to higher-caste status in the Hindu social order . Actors and actresses in Indian cinema tend to be dramatically lighter skinned than the average Indian, and Indian cinematographers use graphics and intense lighting to achieve more desirable skin tones. Fairer skin tones are considered an asset in Indian marketing, with models skin tones regularly photoshopped to lighten tone.
Skin whitening products have remained prominent over time, often due to historical beliefs and perceptions about fair skin. In South and East Asian countries, light skin has traditionally been seen as more attractive and a preference for lighter skin remains prevalent. In ancient China and Japan, pale skin can be traced back to ancient drawings depicting women and goddesses with fair skin tones so pale skin is still seen as a sign of wealth. Thus, skin whitening cosmetic products are popular in East Asia. 4 out of 10 women surveyed in Hong Kong, Malaysia, the Philippines and South Korea used a skin-whitening cream.. In In Japan, the geisha was well known for their white painted faces, and the appeal of the bihaku (美白?), or “beautiful white”, ideal leads many Japanese women to avoid any form of tanning. Skin whitening is also not uncommon in Africa, and several research projects have suggested a general preference for lighter skin in the African-American community.
Significant exceptions to a preference for lighter skin started to appear in Western culture mid-20th century. Though sun-tanned skin used to be associated with the sun-exposed manual labor of the lower-class, the associations became dramatically reversed during this time. Source
This concern for “beauty” (and the status that came with it) is not surprisingly mostly found in the woman only of any culture. It would be very unusual to see a man in make up, or stressing over creams everyday. . .it’s just not in their make-up:) The more we know of archaeology and the other sciences and DNA, the more we can piece things together that explain not only the origins of the Aryan race, but even all of humanity! (And it is exciting stuff!)
There is no denial that a quest for equality of races in this country has brought about much controversy. Some are proud of their heritage as being unique -but different- though. Some of these differences are seen in the school system, which seeks to unite the different cultures and expects them all to act alike. Studies of blacks in school for instance show that they actually believe that being studious was betraying their racial identity by ”acting white” .
Many minority boys are also highly medicated for ADD, because they can’t sit still at a desk as well.
In light of political correctness I want to interject here, that no one (least of all a humanist with pantheistic leanings) really wants to speak the truth of genetics, for fear of being ostracized or unfairly deemed “racist”! Truth is not racist though, and as I said earlier, racism involves hatred and abuse of someone not like yourself.
As my last post ( Variety is the spice of life part 1) showed, there are many variations in humans, and the genetics alone can lead us to some interesting conclusions. . .but here’s were it get’s even more weird!
Did you know that two hundred and fifty of our genes are not shared with any other life form on earth?!
For the past few decades molecular biologists have been examining and mapping the human DNA. It turns out that ninety seven percent of our DNA is “Junk DNA” with no known use or function at this time!
Our so called “Junk DNA” is a hidden and dormant upgrade of our basic code though; it’s a clever self-organizing auto executing, auto developing and auto correction software! In other words the DNA that scientists have been calling “Junk DNA” is really “Divine DNA”.
If we have a “genetic programmer”, he purposely disabled us and only left us to exist on three percent of our own DNA! (Like a scratched CD, stuck on one song, instead of playing the whole CD, humans are stuck in a partial reality.) Your DNA can be unlocked though for usefulness, as I talk about in my post “Good vibrations“.
If that wasn’t weird enough, 85% of all human beings share most of their working genes with a monkey! The monkey gene is called the rhesus factor (or RH factor) because it can be traced back to the rhesus monkey. If you test negative for the monkey gene (are RH-), then you are in a small minority of the worlds population! Only 5% of the population completely lacks this monkey gene, (which BTW, I am not one of).
The problems of RH- is, as most know, an incompatibility with blood types, causing a problem with their reproduction, and in their babies called haemolytic disease. Haemolytic disease is the allergic reaction that occurs when an Rh negative mother is carrying a Rh positive child. Her blood builds up antibodies to destroy an ALIEN substance (the same way it would a virus), thereby destroying the infant. Rh blood type incompatibility is the leading cause of potentially fatal blood related problems of the newborn in America.
Why does this infant’s haemolytic disease occur in humans if all humans are the same species? Why would a mother’s body reject her own offspring? Nowhere else in nature does this occur naturally.
Although, this problem in reproduction has been resolved with the roGAM shot and with the testing of the RH blood types, basically, the problem has been smoothed over without any explanations as to what is going on with these two blood types. The Rh-Negatives Factor is of “Unknown Origin” they say, but we can trace it back to Europe, about 25,000-35,000 years ago.
While some consider Rh- to be a mutation, it might actually be the other way around. After studies were done to see if there are any differences between RH negative and RH positive people, a lot of both good and bad differences were found though. The differences ascribed to them are hard to believe. RH negative people are said to have:
- a higher than average IQ (Mind you, Caucasians already have a 15 point average jump on non-Caucasians, so that could account for it.)
- prefer a lower temperature, and tend to be too hot compared to others of a similar build.
- have increased sensitivity to sunlight, night blindness, and generally poor eyesight, or has evolved to make up for that with large eyes
- increased sensitivity to sounds
- can’t receive blood transfusions from RH positive donors, yet they can give them.
- some even have a extra vertebrae (a tailbone) or an extra rib.
- have large heads
- have colorblindness. (Two recessive genes are required for the expression of colorblindness in female, whereas only one gene gains expression in male.)
- lower than normal blood pressure
- a low pule rate
- higher mental analytical abilities
- have more true allergies and digestive issues
- a sense of not belonging
- often have a widow’s peak
- often can roll and/or fold back the tongue
- para-normal occurrences happen to them
- truth seekers
- sensitive and empathetic. (Ironically, even those with Aspergers syndrome have a greater response then usual to other’s physical stress, but not empathetic to perceived emotional stress of others.)
- empathetic illnesses, often deemed as being a “hypochondriac”
- hemophilia runs in the family
- deep concern for the fate of mankind
- a sense of a ‘mission’ in life
- high sensitivity to EM and ELF Fields (you affect electronics and mechanical things like watches.)
- doesn’t like to drink, and/or “can’t hold your liquor”.
- higher negative-ion shielding ability to your cells (repelling positive “charged” virus/bacteria/dust/ microbes/ pet dander around the body).
- Psychic dreams and/or abilities
Why is there such a large percentage of Rh negative people in fields of psychic ability and and those looking into conspiracy theory? Could they have a vague memory of what we are looking for? It has been said that a question is not asked until the answer is KNOWN.
What if you have a lot of these “symptoms” or tendencies, but aren’t RH-? One major misunderstanding made by most people, is that all Rh positive people are all positive. However, there are many people in the population who are called Rh+ but who are really Rh+/-. These people possess two different forms of a particular gene, one inherited from each parent. A person who is heterozygous or a hybrid (Rh+/-) is called a gene carrier because it’s recessive. Just as our blood type is NOT inherited from just our mother or our father, we each receive one Rh factor from EACH parent and we all end up with two. A person who is Type O- is really Type OO-/-, as they received one type (O) and one (Rh-) Factor from each parent. In North America, about 15% of whites have a dominant RH negative gene, while all the rest have a recessive RH negative gene.
Rh- blacks and non whites are not truly rh- and are a weak D+(rh+) and partial D+ antigen that doesn’t show up on general blood testing. Unfortunately, we do not usually know our recessive traits unless closely investigated by familial history or extensive testing is performed.
All Rh- blood stems from O- blood.
Type O blood cells display neither A nor B antigens on their surfaces. O negatives can give blood to everyone but they can only receive it from another o negative. A, B or AB negative can take o negative blood.
We don’t know presently where the A blood type originated, but the highest frequencies of A are found in small, unrelated populations. Like the Blackfoot Indians of Montana (30-35%), the Australian Aborigines (many groups are 40-53%), and the Lapps of Northern Scandinavia (50-90%).
Blood type B evolved as early humans moved from eastern Africa to the highlands of Asia.”It’s lowest in the Americas and Australia.”
“AB- blood, is the result of your A positive and B positive ancestors breeding with an o negative individual. AB negative blood is the rarest, but it is simply a bi-product of interbreeding.”
Barak Obama is AB-. While only less than 0.09% of people of African descent being Rh Negative, he is ironically one of the 5 percent of the world’s Rh negative people. Genealogists have linked Barack Obama to John Punch, an indentured servant who went on to have children with a white woman, who eventually produced Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham’s lineage (read here).
Speaking of genealogy though, why was genealogy so important to some ancient groups? Why when we think of them as so primitive, were they calculating, and writing such things down in such permanent ways? You could say that it was because the bloodline was so special that there was cause to want to know about it. The royals for instance.
The royal families in Europe pride themselves on their bloodline. (Called the Merovingian blood line.) Apparently the red carpet they walk on constantly is symbolic of their bloodline. The royal families have preserved the purity of their bloodline by interbreeding exclusively within royal circles, even making laws that made it illegal to do otherwise. This is why originally marriages had to be arranged down through time for the royal blood line. The uniqueness of the European royalty bloodline could be tied to RH negative blood as it seems to be predominant.
An interesting quote from Neil deGrasse Tyson makes me wonder if he is aware of different bloods: “I remember once, just reflecting when I was driving down the street after I saw a streetlight, “When that turns red, I stop. But suppose our blood was based on copper instead of iron? It would be green instead of red, so green would be a color of warning. What would stop lights look like if we had green blood?”)
So, is there anyone else with this line of blood? Or is it just the royals with RH-? You will be surprised to know, that there are a lot of famous people who publicly tell their blood type. These are some famous people I’ve found:
Actors and Actresses:
Dan Aykroyd (AB-)
Johnny Depp (B-)
Leonardo Di Caprio (B-)
Mia Farrow (B-)
Marilyn Monroe (AB-)
Fox Mulder “X-files” (O-)
Paul Newman (0-)
Jack Nicholson (B-)
Jimmi Hendrix (0-)
Mick Jagger (AB-)
John Lennon (0-)
O. J. Simpson
Possibly, nearly every king, queen, emperor, pharoah and president of the world have had this rare blood type.
“..If America declared its Independence from the European monarchies in 1776, how is it possible that every single president has descended from European monarchs? If presidents are democratically elected, (as we are told,) what are the odds that we would always choose members of the European royal bloodlines (Rh-) to lead us?” Well, considering the only candidates that get passed as an option for the white house have RH- blood too, it’s really just an illusion of a choice. (Yes, Mitt Romney had AB- blood too.) So basically, Americas have always been governed by the same royal families that govern Britain and Europe This mysterious bloodline has and is actually ruling the world. This shouldn’t shock anyone who’s looked into the personalities of the blood types though. The Japanese people consider blood type to be very important.
It is not uncommon for young Japanese women to even select a prospective husband based on his blood type. This is because they see the blood types as saying a lot about you. And they do. . .
Perhaps it is worth considering whether an elite can be made, or whether such powers are purely in the blood .
Some get scared that the Rh-‘s (all originating in the O- blood type) that are in power, otherwise known as “the illuminati” or “the elite”, seem to be tracking the Rh- people. I choose to see it as less of a conspiracy, as much as it is just for practical reasons. If ruling elites and the wealthy are all Rh- then they would simply want to know where all their family or potential blood/organ donors are.
The majority of the world has rh positive blood though, (dominantly so!) which means that about 85% of the world is genetically more closely related to the rhesus monkey.
When you look at those dominantly RH positive “minorities”, with a lot of the melanin in their genes, as discussed in my first of this series, and compare them to monkey troops, it becomes abundantly obvious there is a relation. From similar health concerns, and diet requirements, personality, as well as learning styles, and family or social habits, the monkeys and the minority’s culture is nearly identical where ever they move from or to! This would not be true of those with any white genes in them necessarily though. Statistically speaking, even accounting for all the inbreeding of the blacks with whites though, the differences between white people and dark minorities, generally, is huge!
- “Whites get more and better-quality sleep than people of other races.”
- “The IQ of whites is 15 points higher on average then minorities.”
- White babies are bigger, and tend to have a longer gestation (about 2 weeks) then other minorities.
- White people, the original O blood type, (according to the book “Eat right for your type”), digest and need animal protein. Whereas, the minorities need a predominantly vegetarian diet. (Could this be part of the reason why the minorities have such high rates of obesity, type 2 diabetes and other health problems?. . .because few eat much for vegetables or fruit it seems.)
- The whites even get cheaper prices on stuff like houses then minorities. (“One theory is that sellers are “willing to accept a lower transaction price from a buyer that they deemed more likely to be able to secure financing and close the deal,” and that either due to assumption or reality, African-Americans and Hispanic buyers often don’t fit the mold sellers are looking for.”)
- Whites have a low ability to jump,(“White man can’t jump.”) and sports like basket ball show that clearly.
- Whites aren’t generally as strong, as seen in sports like football.
- whites have poor eyesight compared to minorities.
- and much more. . .
All in all, we can see that to treat the minorities as equal and the same, and expect them to fit into our white dominated society, is like trying to push a square block into a circular hole. Would we loose a monkey in a china shop? Would we expect a horse to act as a cat? No. It is not racist to say this, as all humans did not come from the same species originally. . .Or they would not have had the breeding issues that continue until this day.
They are different species no doubt, but only do they seem “inferior” or “bad” to the white person, when we expect them to act like a white person. . .and not like their close relative the monkey. If all minorities were back in their ancient cultural societies, mostly untouched by western or European influence, they would do fine. (Maybe this is why the apparent late push to tighten our borders. . .)
When Americans brought some of the Blacks here to America as slaves, (totally outside of their natural habitat,) they were treating them as their domesticated pets. (albeit work horses). The natural consequence would be a tendency to being dependent on the master.
That dependency as an adult would have to be humbling on the men I’d think, taking away any ambition they may have had. I believe slavery taught the slaves such a dependency, that they started having major issues with entitlement and aggression if not given what they felt was due them. When the slaves were freed and owners no longer were required to feed and house them, they were ill prepared.
The elite, realizing that they had made minorities incapable of taking care of themselves, have provided for them now with numerous state programs and thus have again became their masters in a sense. . . as white people had done before in every ancient society.
The kindest slave masters of the past, (Like a red haired Thomas Jefferson) did what all the past generations of whites did with their slave “pets”, and interbred with them to make a hybrid, more capable of survival, in this land of whites.
Now because of much of that inbreeding in America, we are all much more of a hybrid of the two separate species, (RH+ and RH-) but we still see these differences in those with the strong monkey genes ,( A, B, or AB Positive blood types) and those with the white man’s blood. (O or the negative factor.)
If all mankind evolved from the same ancestors (monkeys) then their blood would all be A or B or AB, and with a RH+, which would be compatible in the whole species of monkeys. Instead though we find that the gene that causes white skin, red/blond hair and blue/green eyes is a “mutation” that had unknown origins, unlike anything of this planet, and certainly unlike any other primate! Even creationists loudly proclaim this, as supposed proof for Adam and Eve. Saying: “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”.
I have been doing some research into our family tree. This might very much interest you if you are a blond or red head like my family, but even just if some of your family comes from somewhere in Europe. This three part series will simply share with my readers as usual, what facts I’ve just learned myself. I will mostly quote others first, (some technical stuff of which I admit, I don’t fully understand), then start putting it all together in the second part, leaving my remarks and any personal biases to the last. So hold on through the dry stuff, or you will need to come back to understand the next posts. I will underline anything of particularly note. So here goes!
Let me tell you a little about Albinos first.
Red and violet
Most babies who have European ancestry have light-colored eyes [at least] before the age of one. As the child develops, melanocytes . . . slowly begin to produce melanin. Most eye changes happen when the infant is around one year old, although it can happen up to three years of age. Observing the iris of an infant from the side using only transmitted light with no reflection from the back of the iris, it is possible to detect the presence or absence of low levels of melanin.
” A genetic mutation leads to blue eyes. . .Originally, we all had brown eyes.”
Distribution of light-eyed people in Europe.
As you can see, it seems that the gene for blue eyes had an origin and got diluted from there to the rest of Europe.
Though the people with blue eyes in America came from European descent, “the melting pot of the world”, time and interbreeding has made the gene mutation less and less common with only 16.6% of the total population, and 22.3% of the white population having blue eyes.
Like blue eyes, gray eyes have a relatively clear stroma.
One possible explanation for the difference in the appearance of gray and blue eyes is that gray eyes differ in the concentration of melanin at the front of the stroma. Gray eyes are also most common in Northern and Eastern Europe. . . Under magnification, gray eyes exhibit small amounts of yellow and brown color in the iris.
- Green is the least common eye color and as in the case of blue and grey eyes, the color of green eyes does not result simply from the pigmentation of the iris. Rather, their appearance is caused by the combination of an amber or light brown pigmentation of the stroma, given by a low or moderate concentration of melanin, with the blue tone imparted by the Rayleigh scattering of the reflected light.
- Green eyes are most common in Northern and Central Europe. They can also be found in Southern Europe. . .
HazelHazel eyes are due to a combination of Rayleigh scattering and a moderate amount of melanin in the iris.
In a study published in Human Genetics it was shown that a mutation of the HERC2 gene, is hypothesized to interact with the OCA2 gene. . . This genetic mutation in our chromosomes resulted in the creation of a ‘switch,‘ which literally ‘turned off’ the ability to produce brown eyes.” The genetic switch is located in the gene adjacent to OCA2 and rather than actually completely turning off the gene, the switch merely limits its action. Reducing the production of melanin in the iris. In effect, the turned-down switch diluted brown eyes to blue. If the OCA2 gene had been completely shut down, our hair, eyes and skin would be melanin-less, a condition known as albinism.
In humans, there are two principal types of albinism, oculocutaneous, affecting the eyes, skin and hair, and ocular affecting the eyes only.
Types of Albinism
- Oculocutaneous albinism type 1 (OCA1 or tyrosinase-related albinism) results from a genetic defect in an enzyme called tyrosinase (hence ‘ty’ above). This enzyme helps the body to change the amino acid tyrosine into pigment. (An amino acid is a “building block” of protein.) There are two subtypes of OCA1. In OCA1A, the enzyme is inactive and no melanin is produced, leading to white hair and very light skin. In OCA1B, the enzyme is minimally active and a small amount of melanin is produced, leading to hair that may darken to blond, yellow/orange or even light brown, as well as slightly more pigment in the skin.
- Oculocutaneous albinism type 2 (OCA2 or P gene albinism) results from a genetic defect in the P protein that helps the tyrosinase enzyme to function. Individuals with OCA2 make a minimal amount of melanin pigment and can have hair color ranging from very light blond to brown.
- Oculocutaneous albinism type 3 (OCA3) is rarely described and results from a genetic defect in TYRP1, a protein related to tyrosinase. Individuals with OCA3 can have substantial pigment.
- Oculocutaneous albinism type 4 (OCA4) results from a genetic defect in the SLC45A2 protein that helps the tyrosinase enzyme to function. Individuals with OCA4 make a minimal amount of melanin pigment similar to persons with OCA2.
Something that is common to albinos are eye issues, resulting from abnormal development of the eye because of lack of pigment. These include one or more of these:
- legal blindness
- age related macular degeneration
- increased risk of uveal melanoma
- horizontal back and forth movement of the eyes
- muscle imbalance of the eyes, “crossed eyes” or “lazy eye”.
- sensitivity to bright light and glare
- far-sighted or near-sighted
- have a stigmatism
- the retina does not develop normally before birth and in infancy
- Optic nerve misrouting: the nerve signals from the retina to the brain do not follow the usual nerve routes
Now look at this chart from the 2010 USA stats of eye problems by race. (Keeping in mind the albino genes seem to be one with the genes of the white race. . .and that the albino gene is often a recessive gene in other races in the USA.)
The leading cause of blindness among white persons was age-related macular degeneration (54.4% of the cases), while among black persons, cataract and glaucoma accounted for more than 60%of blindness.
Cataracts are often an effect of eye injuries and diabetes. . . African Americans, Hispanic/Latino Americans, American Indians, and some Asian Americans and Native Hawaiians or other Pacific Islander Americans are at particularly high risk for type 2 diabetes. Basically, “minorities have a higher prevalence of type 2 diabetes than whites.” (Curable by a good diet BTW)
Some of the causes of glaucoma (that lead to most of the rest of the eye problems in minorities) include: an injury to the eye, severe eye infection, inflammatory conditions of the eye, and occasionally eye surgery to correct another condition. (Like cataracts.)
Considering the high rate of minorities with type 2 diabetes, and also the high rate of minorities in sports or rough jobs, as well as in gangs, it seems likely that the vast majority of eye problems of minorities in the USA are lifestyle induced, as opposed to the genetic issues facing the person with light eyes.
Well, we can see the fascinating difference in the eyes of the albino. . . leading me to say that an albinoid is basically a person with light eyes. . . but what about their hair? What does a person with very low levels of melanin in their hair look like? Here’s what I learned:
“Hair color is the pigmentation of hair follicles due to two types of melanin: Phaeomelanin, and Eumelanin. Eumelanin is the dark pigment which is predominate in black hair. Phaeomelanin is a lighter pigment, which is found in red and blond hair. Many people’s hair contains a mixture of the two: the more eumelanin there is in the mixture, the darker is the hair.
Blond hair can have almost any proportion of pheomelanin and eumelanin . . . More pheomelanin creates a more golden blond color, and more eumelanin creates an ash blond.
Natural blond hair is rare in adulthood, with some reports that only about 2% of the world’s population is naturally blond. Blond hair is most commonly found in Northern and Eastern Europeans and their descendants [in America], but can be found spread around most of Europe.
Blond hair is exceptionally rare among those without European heritage. . . Sub-saharan African has the lowest [rate of blond hair]. . .
The chemicals which cause auburn hair are eumelanin (brown) and pheomelanin (red), with a higher proportion of red-causing pheomelanin than what is found in average brown hair. It is most commonly found in individuals of Northern and Western European descent.
Chestnut hair is a hair color which is a reddish shade of brown hair. In contrast to auburn hair, the reddish shade of chestnut is darker. Chestnut hair is common among the native peoples of Northern, Central, Western, and Eastern Europe.
Red hair ranges from light strawberry blond shades to titian, copper and less commonly “true” red. It is caused by a variation in the Mc1r gene and is recessive. Red hair has the highest amounts of pheomelanin, around 67%, and usually low levels of eumelanin. At 1-2% of the population, it is the least common hair color in the world. . .
For the majority of us, each individual hair strand has three layers. The layers (starting from the outside) are the cuticle, cortex, and medulla. Fine texture hair usually associated with Europeans, Australians, and Americans, typically only has two layers. The inside of the hair, the medulla, is often missing, so hair can be limp and look thin naturally.
Medium texture hair is thinner than coarse hair but not as thin as fine hair. Medium is in between the two. Medium is also the most common type of hair texture.
Hair that is very thick or wiry in texture is referred to as coarse hair. Coarse hair is strong and may be ultra straight or ultra curly.
Now let’s talk about what that Melanin (or lack of it) does to the skin: Melanin in the skin controls the amount of ultraviolet (UV) radiation from the sun that penetrates by absorption. UV radiation can then assist in the production of vitamin D.
There are two types of melanin. The most common form of biological melanin is eumelanin. Eumelanin is found in hair, areola, and skin, and the hair colors grey, black, yellow, and brown. In humans, it is more abundant in people with dark skin.
The genes responsible for the variations in coloring (melanin)
between the albino skin, hair, and eyes, and the black skin,
hair and eyes, are these:
“Dark skin with large concentrations of melanin protects against exposure to ultraviolet light and skin cancers; and light-skinned people have about a tenfold greater risk of skin cancer, compared with dark-skinned persons, under equal sunlight exposure. Excessive solar radiation causes direct and indirect DNA damage to the skin. It would have, on the other hand, represented a health benefit to have light skin in reduced sunlight, [Like humans living in caves, or underground or where the light source was further away. . .] as it maximizes the synthesis of vitamin D.”
The leading hypothesis for the evolution of human skin color proposes that:
- From ~1.2 million years ago to 10,000 years ago, the ancestors of all people alive were dark-skinned Africans.
- As populations began to migrate out of Africa, sometime around 10,000 years ago, the evolutionary constraint keeping skin dark dark, proportionally to the distance North a population migrated, resulting in a range of skin tones within northern populations.
- At some point, northern populations experienced positive selection for lighter skin due (presumably) to the increased production of vitamin D from sunlight and the genes for darker skin disappeared from these populations.
“Scientists conclude that the mutation [that leads to the light skin, as well as the blue eyes and the red and blond hair] may have arisen in a single [or a few] individual(s), probably living in the northwestern part of the Black Sea region [of Europe] . . . 6,000–10,000 years ago during the Neolithic revolution.” [the transition of human culture from a lifestyle of animal like hunting and gathering to one of agriculture and settlement.]
So I was thinking about the whole medical system, and the mindset of those in it. . . Some think that the people rebelling against it are in a cult because the “rebels” are always the free thinkers of society, not being controlled by money or their propaganda, which could be said of extremists in any religion. Often the strong willed ones with principles and intelligence enough to not just go along with the crowd in other ways, whether they be an Atheist, or sincerely religious, would likely be an independent rebel, not following the medical authorities, and going to their doctor for every sniffle.
After all, the basic concept of the medical model of care is totally against stats and true science, not to mention against nature and common sense! If a doctor diagnoses a problem in you, he is only seeing part of the problem. . .As if the body part was placed magically and separately inside the body, by a divine creator. So they chop it out. Or they put another piece in.
I went to a doctor with a list of complaints years ago, (which I found out later were all connected) and when I showed it to him, he got overwhelmed and said, “Let’s just start from the top, and give you a drug for this, put you in the hospital for a test for that, send you home with a monitor for that, and just watch to see how bad that gets.”
Besides a lot of painful tests, that if you’re lucky don’t have a 50/50 rate of accuracy, doctor’s main methods of care are symptom control and pain management, neither of which can be had without more risks to your health.
Doctors look at us like a giant puzzle that can be assembled and reassembled; or as a puppet that can be manipulated with surgery and controlled by drugs. The doctor is of course the puppeteer, and has a god-like role in all of that. It is thus almost inevitable that the doctor gets a god-like complex when they are allowed such a role.
From a purely scientific aspect we also see an evolutionary and emotional connection and reaction with everything around us. The medical model should show this knowledge of a holistic world and body , but they turn a blind eye to this information, and treat the body as a physical bunch of parts that God put together. . .because that was the mindset of those who started it, and it has changed little over the years.
The mindset of religion is strong in the medical system, but still the opposers of it are accused of being the religious ones, because those people who dare dabble in the unknown of the scientific world and look into things like: reflexology, kineseology, accupuncture, cranialsacro therapy, etc, find a mystical or energetic side of the body that has to be taken on faith and personal experience. While some therapies may make no sense, we realize they have a long history of working. I feel that with little or no side effects, I have little to lose from going that way for my health. Plus, the alternative health practitioners main goal is to put themselves out of a job. (Which is the opposite goal of doctors I’ve seen.)
The healthcare system realizes their shortcomings though, and are starting to change a little, or at least branch off and specialize. These changes we see are all off shoots of the medical system, just as denominations are offshoots of the original cults. Some common off shoots of the medical religion can be seen in separate healthcare professions all condoned by doctors. Some I have experience with are the chiropractor, naturopath and nurse Midwives.
Now here I will be loosing a lot of you I know,but let me explain; I’ve had a lot of experience with them, and while having a lot of good in what they do differently then doctors, they have remnants of that old medical model of care, that I see as useless at best and harmful at worst.
MOST chiropractors work COMPLETELY with your bones, and don’t even recommend you to a massage therapist when they find eventually that they aren’t helping you. (hundreds or thousands of dollars later. . .) That is just like the doctor who works on you, focusing on one part, as if you are just a bunch of separate parts that God put magically together. The chiropractor typically just looks at you as a pile of bones. Believing that everything is wrong is because your back is out, and if you can just get it to stay in, it will be fixed! The problem is, because of muscular or even emotional issues causing tension around the bones, the chiropractic adjustment sometimes only lasts minutes!
Naturopaths typically use homeopathics, which have a track record of a placebo or worse. It is the same concept used by doctors to push vaccines, and it doesn’t work in either case, so you look pretty hypocritical or just plain ignorant to vaccinators if you do homiopathics instead, IMO. (At least the homeopathics are harmless sugar pills. . .as opposed to the vaccines with harmful stabilizers and not so small amounts of sometimes live diseases!)
The Naturopath also treat the body as a puzzle by singling out hormones or specialized supplements for certain parts. In my research and experience I’ve found that the body will regulate all that and more if you give it the right nutrition, and or help it with dealing with stress or environmental toxins and parasites by regular detoxing. So, to me the many expensive supplements are a waste of money. Plus, people testing for allergies have told me that supplements and single vitamins and nutrients are commonly what people become allergic to. That’s presuming that they are quality enough to even digest, and not end up in the septic system like most of them.
As for the nurse Midwives, though I know there are exceptions to the rule, (when the training is taken after being a lay Midwife, or after training under a homebirth Midwife (CPM) for instance) I found the same mindset from the nurse Midwives, as from Doctors. The ones I’ve had experience with watched me like a time bomb waiting to go off, instead of getting ready for a natural birth. . .making me very nervous.
Like doctors, the Nurse Midwives training in the abnormal, led them to try to diagnose me as a worst case scenario,threatening constantly to hand me over to a specialist and call me high risk! They had the prenatals in a sterile looking office, where they tested, probed and accused me of doing everything wrong. . .I can’t blame them too much though as I do have a rare disorder called an “irritable uterus”, and as well have huge babies. (Gaining a healthy 50% increase in body weight by the end of the pregnancy!) As a general rule, with the Nurse Midwives, classically many woman’s testimonies confirm that birth with them feels like a step closer to natural, but still a lurking crisis or an accident waiting to happen. . .
For me that was true even with the Nurse Midwife who helped me with a home birth! She was ridiculously paranoid of even my own families germs, requiring me to put toilet paper in the oven to sanitize it for after birth! She made me put a strong medical powder on the babies cord stump with every diaper change. . .which caused a very long healing time.
It may be a personality or a generalization with them all, but I’ve noticed something about all these off shoots, and more: like religious leaders in their old fashioned, or fancy garb, you can tell those with the remnants of this medical model mindset; they are the ones in the scrubs, and with a plain, and sterile office.
They are thankfully not all that way though. Years ago I actually decided to replace a never visited family doctor, with a holistic chiropractor, (Like the ones who employ the Brimhall method) and my family as well as many others I know, have been quite satisfied.
Unlike those in a cult who refuse care from doctors or hospitals no matter the emergency, I would use the hospital’s emergency room in true emergency situations. Overall though, I see no use for a doctor for regular care. Their mindset is outdated, far from holistic, based on a religious view of the body, IMO. Furthermore, their methods just plain old don’t work. Plus, most of their diagnostic ability is inferior to muscle testing, reflexology, or what you can find out online yourself! (And man is it expensive and more painful!)
So, while some people stress out about having no healthcare coverage for doctors and hospitals, I have little concern for something I would likely never use. We will unfortunately continue to pay out of pocket for a few (not 3 times a week, indefinitely, like some chiropractors demand) visits a year to a chiropractor like ours, (when we have a little accident,) or go to a massage therapist here and there, when we strain a muscle. For the most part though, I’ve learned to avoid and treat all the basic sicknesses and infections with safe remedies or healthy food. As Hippocrates, the father of real medicine said, “Let food be thine medicine.” How is it that doctors claim him as their inspiration, but know nothing of nutrition, or how it fixes just about everything they waste their time patching up?! I think that the sincere doctors who are smart may have to do as the extreme religious folks, and get back to their roots. . .do I hear an “Amen”?
Let’s just presume for a minute that you are actually reading this, as an enlightened first world reader. (If you didn’t know it already, the 1st world is obviously much more Atheistic and generally enlightened, as I show stats for in my post called Will science be the death of religion?) Let’s then just skip over the obvious issues with religion, and presume you are no longer a theist or a Deist. Does this mean that you won’t now fall prey to the infiltration of religious thought in our American culture, because being aware of it, you know how to avoid it’s pitfalls? I think those coming from mainstream religion will still need to be aware of the tendency to fall into a religious mentality, or sheep-like mode, not only because we have likely done it in the past, but because it’s human nature for the religious, and nonreligious alike.
That said, those who are the intellectuals of our time, but have never been raised in extreme religion like me, have a big disadvantage, IMO. Not having experienced the personal blinders of religion, they for one thing, don’t see where it can take them, and so are less cautious. An experience in religion leads a person to certain sensitivities, because of hurt and/or bitterness that serve a very practical purpose, of not likely repeating your foolish mistakes.
This is why when you’ve gone to the extreme edge of religion, you don’t generally ever carelessly go back into any form of religion. . . As you will have had your eyes enlightened by facts, and your heart matured and made skeptical of being suckered again.
While that experience of rejecting what has been your passion and life does mature you fast, giving you wisdom in dealing wisely with other propaganda and conditioning in life, Agnostics and Atheists are not the only intelligent and wise people out there, by all means! I find some wise and intelligent people in religion too! Believe it or not, I even find that most people I like most, are from, or still in, a similar background as me. While a lot of them are seriously questioning their background and doctrine, like me, the good people who have a head on their shoulders yet are strangely still stanch in their beliefs, have a pretty logical reason for being behind the times, read on to find my guess as to why. . .
From my experience, the few both decent and smart people still in religion, are the passionate, compassionate, outspoken and stubborn religious extremists. They are usually so busy in their missionary efforts and ministries, that they feel little motivation (and have little time), to look into or consider changing what they fight so hard to teach because it’s still working for them and paying the bills. Likely (unless they already feel the disconnect with their crowd), they’re scared to look into the options with an open mind, fearing they could be humiliated, lose their job, their hard earned respect from their circle of friends, and fall into a life of depression as a hermit. So they close their mind, and try to stay blissfully ignorant.
This blissfully ignorant passion that gets focused toward ministry is not without it’s negative consequences though. Passionate people often neglect something in their life to make room for their passions. As with me and my blog now, so this was definitely the case in my own family growing up. My parents were so involved in ministry as evangelists, that they sadly neglected a decent education for me . . . I won’t speak for the rest. Homeschooling, while successful for many families, was such a low priority with them, that such basics as spelling, math, critical thinking, a second language and reading was neglected. I felt at such a disadvantage in a Bible college setting! I was accepted mainly because I was an evangelists kid. I was even given a “ministry scholarship”.
But back to the type of people I believe are descent and smart, while ironically still being religious; there are second plus generation religious people as well. These are often neither as passionate as their parents, nor are they leaders in the church . . .unless they inherited the reins, or have the passionate personality their parents had. (And it wasn’t beat out of them as a child, being called a “strong will” or “rebellion”.) They are probably very nice, and try not to be disagreeable.
They likely claim the near exact beliefs of their parents (having the life-goal of filling their parents shoes or making them proud), and are also likely a first born of their sex in the family (or took over the firstborn birth order role). These people are mostly found in cults, and would be a wreck if they ever left them alone, as they are not likely to be leaders or strong personalities.
Often, both of these personalities (which I am a little of each) are on the fringes of mainstream society, and have little influence from or to “the world”, enjoying instead their exclusive, old fashioned circle of friends. They are both standing on the somewhat historical, and literal reading of their holy book to defend most of their lifestyle and beliefs, yet the lifestyle would be quite fine and accepted without that justification . . .
Fearing the accountability and positive peer pressure found in mainstream culture though (calling it “persecution”), they avoid any confrontation about their lifestyle or beliefs with Atheists or people of different religions. Ignorantly judging the other groups they often know little of, they create a small circle of like-minded friends to bolster their faith. Then often with a simple or natural lifestyle, they homeschool their children and work at home, which is ideally away from a big city.
They control their lives closely, fearing the influence of “the world” will come in and pull them and their children away from “the truth.” If they even allow themselves “the dangers of technology”, they have very narrow choices of websites that they frequent . . .TV programs, movies, radio programs or stations as well as CD’s and books are also very limited.
Honestly, because of an education in something, common sense or just a preference, this can be something said of my family even today! I see so much of that past lifestyle as not religiously motivated (as religious people claim it is) as much as just what conservative personalities and/or intelligent people do. Other then not feeling that I have to shun ‘bad people”, technology or other previously “bad” stuff anymore, I still don’t prefer to be around them/it.
Those like-minded intelligent people in extreme religious circles, are like me and other ex-religious, free thinking people, in that we are all very wary of any sheep-like thinking. We have grown up that way, or we wouldn’t have avoided the inconsistencies and idiocies of the mainstream religions, and mainstream thinking in general. The extremely religious minorities, like the ex-religious minorities are skeptical of anything said by the people in power.
Sadly though, there is a whole group of non-religious people, who have never been on the extreme side of religion like me, who will naturally discount all skepticism of mainstream thinking, still believing that there is safety in numbers. I think this could be because they have never fully believed in religion as a thinking adult, and don’t know the power of a crowd and conditioning as a child. They have consequently never developed a distrust of their authorities, or they never veered far from mainstream thoughts of religion, to become a mainstream Agnostic skeptic.
Because of this background, these non-religious believe these ex-ultra religious extremists to be predisposed to religious thoughts and are just rebounding back into it if they look into, adopt or start standing up for another uncommon practice or new theory. Simply because a person has a mindset that is not mainstream, doesn’t mean they are religious though. .in fact, in many cases, it just shows that like they were a free thinker and smarter then the average person in religion, they carried that over to their unbelief, and are still, “Smarter then the average bear.” (As I talk more about here.)
For those of you curious about my blog. I am not going to tell you that I’ve written a blog that’s gone exactly viral or something, but as I am nearing my 10,000th pageview, it seems a good time as any to give a little bragging update.
While my friends on Facebook have accounted for about a measly 450 of those views, the vast majority of those views have come from those who are just randomly searching Google. Proof to me that those who are curious, and looking, are usually the only ones who will find answers.
From May 1st of 2012, to now, I have seen my blog appreciated by those around the world. These are the stats broken down by countries.
You might call me a conspiracy theorist, or a fear mongerer, but when I look around in these uncertain times, I see a need for a plan to protect my family from many potential catastrophes. Just this year I’ve personally seen a bad hail storm taking out a lot of free range animals and crops in the area, tornado strength winds, wrecking havoc and causing a 2 week power outage all over the south for many homes, as well as a drought, that is expected to spike the prices of grains by a projected 60% by next year. There was also a 7.7 earthquake close to my family in BC Canada this very morning, and we are expecting the tail end of a rather large hurricane in a short time now. So my concern seems well justified!
Add to that the oil prices spiking, and overall inflation of the dollar that will likely be coming as well, (no doubt because of the American government printing money out of thin air) and we have the perfect recipe for disaster- financially as well as physically!
For many, traveling has now become too expensive. The trucking and shipping expenses have gone up because of the rise in fuel as well, which has caused all imported products and food as well as non-seasonal food to likewise go up in price.
As an eternal optimist though I must point out that the oil prices spiking is actually a blessing in disguise because we are encouraged to buy more local, and seasonal food, because it ends up being cheaper. This shift to local would then stop a lot of pollution, and put more money into our local community. These sky rocketing fuel costs also motivate us to find cleaner more efficient forms of energy. So if the government is behind these prices, that is one thing they’ve done right in my book!
There is a real concern about the government doing wrong though, and not only by actually causing the economic crisis we are in with unnecessary wars and bank bailouts and the like, but many other much more potentially sinister things. . .like spying on people from satellites and cameras. Many see the governments’ growing control over our health, freedom, land, children, the media and even the control in the vote, as a real cause for concern. And of course the ever lurking possibility of them sending us into world war 3 (nuclear or otherwise) and the desperation, filth and diseases that come with them. . .
So, first off, to plan for a power outage is just plain prudent. Something I noticed though in our last crisis was that both generators and the usual fuel source of them, (being gas) were hard to get at that time, with huge lines to get them at best. The lines for ice, dry or otherwise, were hours long as well. . .without which some of my friends lost a whole fridge and freezer worth of stored up food. (I had that happen myself one year after picking a freezer full of berries, and I was feeling very poor for wasting that money.)
Without power I’ve realized that if you are in the country on well water, like us, you will not have water either. So planning on using all sources of water in the country is also wise. If you have a creek, you could get or make a biological filter, and order some food grade hydrogen peroxide to sanitize it. Or set up a solar or windmill system to run the pump from your well. Everyone should use their run off rainwater from their roof to store in rain barrels as well. (Even if your roof material renders the water undrinkable, it can at least help you manually wash clothes, flush toilets, or water inedible plants in a pinch.) Doing that is so much better then having to stock up 1 gallon of water per person per day in my mind.
If you have a bunch of money just sitting in a bank, IMHO, you are living foolishly at best, dangerously at worst. . .for that matter, if your money is sunk into anything you cannot use or eat in a global crisis, it is a investment mistake! (Not that I know-or care- a lot about finances. . .just common sense.)
I seriously question even owning real estate that you don’t live in it or are at least in walking distance from. Because without a steady supply of gas, a working car and working roads, in numerous major natural disaster situations, (or otherwise) you would not get any money from the people renting your investment property, and it would likely just get trashed.
Whereas, land that you personally can use to farm, put animals on, and build up as self sustaining, is the only safe investment of your money in these crazy times, IMO. And the best investment of your time, is learning how to live closer to the earth and be more self sustaining.
Besides the one time monetary investment on land, (with a chemical free well) you should ideally get a horse, a pair of mini cows, some bees, and a few pigs and chickens. Then get some preferably mostly non-electric stuff to take care of keeping, milking, or slaughtering them. As well as storing or processing their product. When you buy quality stuff, you can use it for the rest of your life, and even pass it on to your kids. . .when you buy plastic, you add to the landfill, and deprave your children of a good inheritance:)
You should also plant as many easy perennials as you can, like; these veggies and more, as well as nuts, berries, fruit trees, and herbs for teas and medicinal use and spices. An annual garden on the other hand may not always be easy or practical to do every year, (as opposed to the perennial garden) but you should have cleared space , know-how -or books-, and the tools and seeds for one. . . in the event that you need it. Some food storage places sell packets of garden seeds that last for 25 years and have a great variety. A good review of the best ones is: here.
Having some survival and foraging (helping yourself to free wild food) skills and books for emergencies on hand could also save your life, in the case of a power outage and internet being down. One’s like: Back to Basics: How to Learn and Enjoy Traditional American Skills , The Survival Handbook: Essential Skills for Outdoor Adventure, Emergency: This Book Will Save Your Life ,Modern Survival Manual – Surviving the Economic Collapse , and Will to Live.
Also some farming and homesteading basic skills books like these are good for longer term survival and thriving : Storey’s Basic country skills, The Encyclopedia of country living, and The Backyard Homestead.
Considering the guarantee of a rise in prices with inflation because of the national debt, and oil and food shortages, it is also wise to stock up on food you will use in 6 months or less, if you have the space, or anytime you see a sale, but especially stock up on food that doesn’t spoil. . but that is still healthy. In most cases, anything that “doesn’t spoil” is not “healthy”, including even the best foods if they are in BPA sealed aluminum cans. Of course, that is a great frustration to the health conscious who wants to be prepared . . .but there are a few exceptions. So here’s my best list of healthy food to stock up on:
- Dried milk, I do not recommend disgusting tasting and actually rather toxic, dried skim cows milk, I would buy dried coconut milk instead. Use milk kifer grains with coconut milk powder and water to make it a tasty, healthy, live probiotic dairy substitute, as well as a high quality saturated fat. . .often a scarcity in the wild.
- Grains (Lots of them, like: oat groats, wheat, corn, barley,quinoa, rye, spelt, rice-get no American rice, as there is an Arsenic scare right now in anything but organic, which is best anyhow-) in buckets with screw on lids. (Before storing, the easiest way to kill any bugs is by adding 1 1/4 cups of diotomaceous earth to 5 gallons of grain, and roll to distribute evenly.) Also, make sure you are regularly using a sourdough starter, for yeast, to make them actually digestible, a lot more nutritious, while not spiking your blood sugar. See more about why that is needed here.
- White flour, tapioca flour, potato flour, and/ or coconut flour.
- Quinoa noodles, or if you don’t care about a little unhealthy splurge here and there, regular noodles.
- Seeds to plant, sprout, soak or just eat plain. They all have a very long shelf life if stored well.
- Beans, split peas and nuts.
- Dehydrated beef and salmon jerky (I splurge for free range organic beef jerky, because I want nutrition, not disease in an emergency, more then ever.)
- Himalayan salt
- Quality oils. A liquid like olive and grapeseed oil have a long shelf life. As well as a solid like coconut or palm oil are great. Which double as butter in a pinch.
- Sweeteners like raw honey, white sugar, (good to use for Kombucha tea, or medicinally.) Succanat molasses and maple syrup. . .although Maple syrup only stores for 1 year.
- Dehydrated veggies, individual packs and/or mixes. (and knowledge, recipes or books on how to use them.)
- Dehydrated mushrooms- Ditto above-
- Dehydrated fruit chunks or fruit leather. -Ditto above-
- Glass jars of preferably organic spaghetti sauce, pickles, olives, jams, nut butters, salad dressings, sauces or anything else you have found that you like in glass jars, or that you have canned yourself. (Plastic containers are not as good health wise, or for keeping the food as fresh, or safe from mice.)
- Baking soda and Baking powder if you use it.(unlike me since starter came into my life)
- Cocoa powder- free trade if you can afford it and or carob powder.
- Whole spices like cinnamon, nutmeg, vanilla beans. . .
- Healthy vegetable or chicken bouillon cubes like the Celifiber brand ones
- For a little splurge, Lara bars are an easy and tasty solution for convenience and health, as they have only good stuff, and are grainfree. (So you don’t have to worry about whether the grains are sprouted, soaked, or soured, and are just going to make you hungrier with their grains and sugars.)
- Organic squeezable fruit pouches are very tasty and nice to have on hand, but don’t last long at my house, nor do they store for more then a year. (I found them for around .60 cents ea. at my local big lots)
Those whole foods, dried coconut milk, spices or anything not already sealed in a bucket or a glass jar, I would ideally vacuum seal with a foodsaver. By putting the stuff in glass jars and sealing them with the Foodsaver jar sealer attachment, or in the airtight bags the foodsaver uses -if it’s a non-food item- you will ensure they are dry, bug free, and not eaten by rodents years down the road.
Non-food items I would have handy in many different emergencies are:
- Cast iron cooking pots and skillets to use on a wood stove , grill or open fire. (Cooking utensils of choice to go with.)
- An outdoor grill, oven and/or smoker. (Like this one.)
- Rain barrels and bottled water, and/or solar run well pump and well or creek for emergency water. (If you are on a well, and if you aren’t hopefully you have a good filter to take out the junk in the city water.)
- first aid kit:
- blood clotting agent:witch hazel, cayenne powder.
- natural pain relief: clove oil (for teeth) velarian root powder to make the nerves relax and make you sleepy. . .there isn’t a good way to numb pain well in nature, because it is always for a purpose that we need to heed. For an injury, you may need to pack some over the counter medication, just in case the ends justify the means.
- Rescue remedy, for traumas.
- An antiseptic. . .some to keep well stocked, because they have a million other uses are: hydrogen peroxide,vinegar. . .
- An anti venom, anti poison, anti-inflammatory remedy: charcoal
- Tea tree oil for numerous skin issues.
- CPR mask
- first aid book
5. Warm clothing for every family member.
6. Sleeping bags, or warm blankets in garbage bags and sucked out with a vacuum and then knotted.
7. Personal hygiene items: toothbrush, brush, razors, clippers, nail file (real emergencies don’t require make-up or any products in my book.)
8.Wallet, medical files and important documents, or copies of them if they are in a safe.
9. Green reusable personal products, cloth diapers, mama pads, family cloth. or packages of paper products, and diapers or pads. . .not very long lasting or sustainable in any major emergency.
10. Unbreakable, reusable, place settings for each person.
11. A good long rope.
12. A tarp.
13. A hatchet
14. A good manual grain grinder and flaker attachment too, like: Family Grain Mill
15. A waterproof, permanent lighter like this one and extra refill fluid.
16. A few night light emergency plug in LED flashlights.
17. An umbrella or so.
Optional high tech things that would help in major, large scale disasters (or just for camping):
- An Emergency light/radio/cell phone charger that is solar and crank powered.
- A Biolite campstove, a small woodburning stove and power-generating device to charge your electrical devices.
- And /or an all-in-one solar generator like this one, to power the necessities in your house.
- A solar shower for in a pinch. I’ve had icy showers before and for the few dollars these are, believe me, they would be well worth it.
- And of course everyone needs a good all purpose swiss army knife, for whittling or something. . .
Now if you’re like me, you might be thinking, “Where can I put all that food and stuff?” That has been my number one issue too, so humor me while I share my dream. . .
I’d build an underground root cellar/storm shelter to put it in. I would put a small camping toilet in it, like this one, and I’d build a wood oven < like that one,( in or near it) that cooks and bakes, and smokes. If put inside, the stovepipe would be coming out on the side that shows a door at least. If it was outside, which I would lean towards, it should be under a simple roof, and screened in structure, to make it comfortable to cook on and to keep it protected, and more practical to use year round.
Back to my store house/ shelter though, I’d dig it into the side of a hill as deep as I can with my slope (so the temperature doesn’t fluctuate as much,) like this “umbrella house” below.
I think I would put cement blocks for the outside of the inside walls, and
I’d insulate the inside walls with either a waterproof barrier of plastic, then straw bales covered with breathable lime stucco, Peeled logs, or a simple and unattractive Styrofoam barrier.
It would also have passive annual heat storage, (PAHS) and cooling as well as good ventilation with two simple pipes well placed as shown up above, and here as well.
I would ideally put in LED grow lights and have a hydrophonics garden in there year round, as well as shelving for jars or buckets.. Connecting the system with a large in wall aquarium to grow edible fish that in turn fertilize the plants. (It’s together called aquaponics,)
Yeah, that is pretty much my dream of the perfectly simple, productive, food shelter. . .but as long as I can, (preferably soon) get some solar to power my stove, washing machine, fridge and lights, while giving me heat, all in the comfort of my own well insulated home, I think I’ll rarely find a need to go running there for most emergencies. . .but the peace of mind after having it done would be well worth it, knowing I have somewhere to take my family the next time a tornado comes along.
Last but not least, a wise man once said that: “Humanity is going to need a substantially new way of thinking if it is to survive!” (Albert Einstein) That’s why I will continue to challenge prejudices and religion in future posts, with the goal of helping this species thrive and survive.
I’ve noticed a feeling rising up in myself the longer I am an Agnostic Atheist: that feeling is what I use to call “holy indignation”, or some might judge it as “anger”. It is often negatively commented on about Atheists, and even I haven’t always welcomed it, that’s for sure. I knew how as a Christian just getting out of a cult called the Church of God in Christ Mennonite in the past, I would not even consider reading anything written by an angry or bitter sounding person. I believed that anger was a sign that the person was being controlled by Satan or at least their “old man” or “flesh”and not “the Spirit” which leads you into all truth. So for a long time I repressed my anger and passion.
The more I repressed those feelings though, the more I felt that it was an injustice to not stand for right and share why I was upset. Anger has it’s purpose, as does passion. Every global change for good has come about because of anger, whether or not history depicts it’s activist heroes as angry or not now. I was surprised to hear that even the most peaceful leaders like Gandhi and Martin Luther king Jr. confessed to be motivated by anger.
Seriously, if you are a good person, and compassionate to the plight of others, is it not inevitable that you will be angry when you see injustice and inequality in the world? For that reason, and more, “I would purpose that Atheists aren’t angry because there is something wrong with us, but because there is something right with us.”
When I think about it, unlike some of the people in many movements for change, from the past until now, (like woman’s suffrage, fighting communism or the labor laws, fighting for black rights, gay rights. . .etc) atheists aren’t even angry because of how they are being treated. . .at least for the most part. Sure, it’s a fact that Atheists are the most discriminated group in the world, and it will inevitably effect them somewhat, depending on how outspoken they are about it. . .but the main reason Atheists are angry is often about just plain old injustice.
One could ask why don’t you commonly see swearing, name calling, (besides maybe at worst the inevitable “ignorant”, “stupid”, or “naive”) threatening, rioting, looting and shootings when an Atheist don’t get their way or convince their opponent? That kind of thing has often come with such strong, passionate people in the past. . . Well, I believe, it’s because that would be below the dignity, ethics, general character and education of the Atheist. These non religious people are as a general rule, highly educated, obviously moral people, as seen by the stats of education levels, IQ, scores on religious knowledge tests, rates of Atheists incarcerated. . .
The truth is, many of the Atheists of the world were in the past very sincere religious people. Their character and strength often led them to be leaders and well respected for their spiritual and family life. In their constant search for truth, and teachability they may have appeared to flounder in their beliefs, but likely they were always doing the best they knew to do, with all the sincerity they had in them. . .that character and passion doesn’t then simply vanish because they realize that they have lived a delusion and been told a huge lie their whole life. It does usually motivate them to action (to right some wrongs) though.
What do you find Atheists doing then? They are activists for freedom of thought and the equal rights of any group that isn’t getting it. . . from freedom of free speech, like the occupy movement, to the ability to chose your healthcare and food. They also seek freedom for woman to control their own bodies, (in numerous ways!) equality for the gays, the children, the animals or the planet. An atheist does not need to be a woman who has had an abortion taught to submit, been abused, told they are inferior, etc. . .she does not need to be gay, an abused child, animal or tree to feel empathetic, and see their interdependence with them. This is group of people who are compassionate and empathetic to the bone, and make very good allies to humanity.
So why in the world are they hated so much?! Well let’s see, maybe because they expose wrong, and in the process they make a lot of people defensive, angry and guilty. If you are a religious person for instance, perpetrating these injustices, out of a sincere duty to your God, you are likely subconsciously feeling trapped, between your conscience, and your God.
So what happens every time the Atheist gets in the middle of this conflict by exposing the real issues? It’s so predictable it’s talked of all over the internet! First the cornered Christian gets angry, (but of course to admit to that would make them look bad, so they rarely do) and to pacify her conscience, she has to take it out on someone. . . So they say you are the one being mean, (though you have likely stayed calm and never made any personal attacks). This usually comes as a ploy to get out of answering a question they know that they can’t answer, and so they hope to distract you from it. Then when they get called on it, and you demand an answer, out of desperation, they next try to discredit you by making personal attacks on your character or person. . .as if that nullifies the points we had made or our questions. (What gets me, is that they can’t seem to see that their hurtful or judgmental claim started the discussion in the first place, making the compassionate Atheist feel the need to stand up for justice and equality.)
After this has happened enough times, atheists get pretty good at pegging these Christians from the start. They are the older generation, of mostly conservative fundamentalists, who believe that they can’t be wrong in their interpretation of the Bible. When you try to show them that they are though, they can’t believe you, because their religion has built in defenses for having actual humility and teachability. . .even though the Bible would seem to teach it.
They see every injustice and horror in the Bible, or allowed by God as justifiable, because “God’s ways are not our ways”, and we would be arrogant to question Him, when we are so inferior to him. Also, even if every other person on earth went away from God, the Bible supposedly predicts a “falling away” that would leave only a few faithful. So the more people go away, the more they feel justified in their self righteousness.
When their conscience finally wins out though, and they actually do admit to being wrong about a doctrine, they can always say that:
- They were just not understanding that the Bible actually said that all along. (You can find justification for just about anything in The Bible if you look hard enough.)
- Those verses were only applicable to the people in the time of the Bible.
- They should just listen to their holy spirit, instead of what they were taught the Bible said, as “The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life”. After all, “The Spirit will lead you into all truth”, and “You have no need of a teacher.”
Of course when other more progressive “Christians” or the non religious, (but still Bible- believing) people are making those same excuses for their changes in religious thoughts, the self righteous conservatives accuse them of being “back-slidden”, not being “Spirit led”, being “arrogant”, or “proud”. In my experience, it is the epitome of arrogance on the part of the conservative to claim this, as the one they are accusing is, (or was) often a person who was more educated or highly respected for their life and sincerity as a Christian. I have seen this unfair judgment so often it’s disgusting! It almost makes me more sad for the progressive Christian then the Atheist!
If I were to make a list of why I am angry about religion, a large chunk of the list would be for what it does to it’s adherents. It’s actually because of my experience with the brainwashing I went through that allows me to be empathetic,calm, patient, and overall loving to the Christians I know. . .and how does that come out? The same way it did as a loving, concerned religious person; I seek to enlighten them.
Think about it, as a Christian, I believed I would have blood on my hands for every friend I didn’t try to convert, so I was not only living in fear for them, but for me if I didn’t push my beliefs on them in any way I could. . .it was my life’s goal to thwart Satan, and snatch souls out of his grasp.
Now, I have no fear for myself, and I could just keep my thoughts to myself and make my life a lot easier. . .but I care too much! Every time I see the attack dogs of Christian fundamentalism, it’s a reminder of how I added to the bigotry, racism, sexism, ageism and all the other harms of religion, by standing with them in the past. Now as a sort of penance I oppose religion, with a vengeance, and I do it, not to be right, (though it’s easy to feel that I will be proven so in the near future) or just because I love to fight; I do it for the same reason I have always fought injustice and inequality in this world; because I care! I kind of wish I could be passive and not care what happens to humanity around me, like some people I know.
It may be because I had a very sheltered and secure, upbringing, where I was mostly accepted (even honored) and loved by nearly all those around me, (even though I don’t feel that way now). I think everyone should know what that feels like, sometime in their life. So when I see the underdog picked on, and when I see abuse, I get angry. . .and it just so happens that it’s usually directed at religion, as nearly all the injustices of the past were connected with religion too. In the future though, if it weren’t for the lack of religious terminology, I’m sure looking back on atheists anger it would not be looked at as anger, so much as righteous or holy indignation.
For more about why Atheist come across as angry, (even though they are generally very happy people), check out this article: http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismmyths/a/AtheistsAngry.htm
Or this excellent book:
Or better yet, just watch the author as she highlights the main points in this excellent speech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GUI_ML1qkQE
What are some of the feelings that fall into the domain of love?
Compassion, forgiveness, joy, bliss, generosity, patience, tolerance, understanding, gentleness, respect, honor and the like all have their source in the emotion of love.
What are those that can be linked to fear?
reason why those in power still seek to control the common people through fear.
These people are combating the awakening of a deeper human awareness with a virtual sensory onslaught, TV, sex, utterly meaningless celebrity gossip, more and more baubles and beads and more and more by promoting an atmosphere of fear.”
Wars, terrorism, crime coverage, food shortages, gas shortages, exaggerated epidemics, anything they can think of to produce negative energy and a climate of fear, stress, hatred and intolerance and to a certain degree, they have succeeded.
Science has now shown that while we have the ability to be a much higher and advanced creature, (through the power of love and with other good habits of healthy living), we are not utilizing that power.
This potential enlightened state of being is theorized to come from using what some call “Junk DNA”, which is amazingly 98% of out DNA! Some others call this “Divine DNA” because of it’s amazing ability to develop, organize and change, all by itself! Some scientists believe the DNA’s evolution is only possible by the “enlightenment” that comes from a “wireless connection” with the pineal gland, and the emotion of love.
Why the Pineal gland you ask? I had hardly even heard of it before looking into this myself. “This tiny gland is located at the center of our brain and is involved in the production of a variety of important neurotransmitters, and facilitates altered states of awareness.” It is thought to open the doors to spiritual perception.” It was known as the “dream center”, both physically and spiritually by the people in the past.
The Physiological Importance of the Pineal Gland
“During the late 1990’s in England, a scientist by the name of Jennifer Luke undertook the first study the effects of sodium fluoride on the pineal gland. She determined that the pineal gland. . . was a target for fluoride. The pineal gland simply absorbed more fluoride than any other physical matter in the body, even bones.
Because of the pineal gland’s importance to the endocrine system, her conclusions were a breakthrough. Her study provided the missing link to a lot of physiological damage from sodium fluoride that had been hypothesized but not positively connected. . .
Good news though. Frequent exposure to outdoor sunshine, 20 minutes or so at a time, will help stimulate a fluoride calcified pineal gland.”
(source: here) A good diet and regular exercise will also detox the body helping to facilitate the removal of the fluoride as well.
There is a fascinating connection with the Pineal gland, emotions (good or bad) and our DNA. It is speculated that the ancients knew not only about the power of the emotions of fear and love, but of the Pineal gland as well, and it’s transforming abilities to the DNA.
It’s ancient symbols were a pine cone, sometimes a pomegranate or a pineapple.”Pine cones have always been associated with spiritual enlightenment. Whether we look at ancient Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks or Christians, the pine cone has represented the mysterious link between the physical and the spiritual.”
The Egyptian Staff of Osiris, dating back to approximately 1224 BC, depicts two intertwining serpents rising up to meet at a pine cone. It could be this very staff that inspired the myth of Moses holding up the bronze snake on a pole to spiritually “save” people from dying. No doubt it symbolized a spiritual awakening (or the opposite of) to the Jews of that time. Likely though, the meaning and history of the pine cone has been lost to the Jews?
Our “Pine”al Gland is shaped like (and named after) the Pine cone and is intimately linked to our body’s perception of light. Which may be why the Pineal gland was also considered by many to be our biological “Third Eye”, the “Epicenter of Enlightenment” or the “dream center”.
The third eye has been used as an ancient religious symbol for many groups. The Freemasons believe your connection to God is through opening your “third eye” and letting the light of God in you. The 33rd degree Freemason, and 31st president of the United States, Franklin D. Roosevelt, had this symbol printed on the dollar bill in 1933 and to this day that symbol is still seen on the dollar bill.
Pine cones also regularly appear framed in Freemason Octagons on the ceilings of Masonic Lodges, and Large Freemason sculptures. On the side of the Whitehall Building in the New York they depict two enormous intertwining snakes spiraling up to a pine cone. (which is striking similarity to the Staff of Osiris).
The pine cone and third eye were symbols of secret societies in Europe long before anyone heard of the United States. Freemasonic and secret society symbolism actually goes back to the ancient world.
Modern scholars and philosophers have noted the symbolic parallels of the “third eye” to the Indian “Kundalini,” a spiritual energy in the body depicted as coiled serpents rising up from the base of the spine to the Third Eye (Pineal Gland) in the moment of enlightenment. Awakened Indian Kundalini energy represents the merging and alignment of the Chakras, and is said to be the one and only way to attain the “Divine Wisdom”, bringing pure joy, pure knowledge and pure love. (Could this be the beginning of the concept of God being love. . .or rather, love being god?)
Depictions of Hindu deities are also interwoven with symbolic representations of serpents and pine cones. In some cases, Hindu gods are carved, sculpted or drawn holding a pine cone.
There is also an ancient carving depicting Ahura Mazda as holding a pine cone. (Ahura Mazda is the highest deity of worship in Zoroastrianism. The word Ahura means light and Mazda means wisdom. Thus Ahura Mazda is the lord of light and wisdom. ) In Babylon the pine cone was connected with the god Tammuz.
” Ancient Assyrian palace carvings, dating back to 713-716 BC depict four-winged God-like figures purposefully holding aloft pine cones, or in some cases, using a pine cone to pollinate their depiction of the Tree of Life — a tribute to the Pine cone’s symbolism as an icon of enlightenment.”
In yet another culture’s tribute to the Pine cone, a statue of the Mexican god “Chicomecoatl” (“Seven Snakes”) again depicts the deity offering forth pine cones in one hand, and an evergreen tree in the other.
The Greeks and Romans also incorporated the Pine cone into their elaborate systems of religious belief and mythology. Dionysus, later known as Bacchus to the Romans, was continually depicted carrying a “Thyrsus,” a fennel staff woven with ivy and leaves and topped with a pine cone.
Romans later built an enormous bronze sculpture, the “Pigna,” in the shape of a huge pine cone three stories tall! The Pigna is confirmed to have served as a large fountain overflowing with water next to the Temple of Isis in Ancient Rome, however, the gigantic statue now sits directly in front of the Catholic Vatican in the “Court of the Pine cone.”
Catholic religious tradition is intricately interwoven with pine cones, perhaps most prominently atop the sacred staff carried by the Pope himself. The Coat of Arms of the Holy See, found on the Vatican flag among other places, features a stacking of three crowns suspiciously similar in shape to a pine cone. The very name, “Holy See,” appears to many to be a direct reference to the Third Eye…
Pine cones also turn up as sources of “illumination” in the church, such as candle holders and lamps, seemingly symbolic of the spiritual illumination the “Third Eye” represents.
All of these factors lead philosophers and sceptics to accuse the Catholics of using their religion to veil the blind public to true spiritual enlightenment: The awakening of our Pineal Gland. Some people also believe the Freemasons even today understand the spiritual significance of the Third/single/middle Eye, and regularly pay iconic tribute to it, while continuing to placate the masses with a doctrine of religious and cultural dogma that will leave them in fear.
Of course the Bible believing Christian always knew that those other religions were of Satan, and so it should be no shock to see such “pagan” symbols, representing repression and “spiritual” blindness in those religions or “cults”. . .but a Bible verse seems to come to my mind on the subject: “The light of the body is the eye: if therefore your eye be single, your whole body shall be full of light.”-Matthew 6:22 That verse would make no sense if it weren’t for the understanding about the middle or “single” eye being the pineal gland, by the writers of the Bible. . .(unless of course Bible-excuseres, that is, Bible scholars have come up with some new complicated meaning for it that renders it excusable for past interpretations.)
Surly that is all i the Bible still, and it is not a great case for Pagan symbolism to be in the Bible. . .Well, some say that the Pine cone was originally the “fruit” from the biblical Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in Eden. Was it really meant then to be a literal story with Eve gnawing on this pine cone, or as those other leaders holding the pine cone, was it suppose to just symbolize something?
This creation myth I believe, as all the rest in the world, shows a beginning. This seems to be the birth of distinguishing or perceiving something as good and another as evil; one thing as pleasant and another as unpleasant; right and wrong. To cut-it-short: this was the beginning of objectification — this was the birth of self-awareness.
If you take most cultures “Beginning” stories back far enough they have some kind of a similar account or notion to them. I know that in Taoism they paint the picture of a time where mankind lived in a peaceful “Eden-like” state with all of creation, and that they fell from this when they started to distinguish themselves as other-than and greater-than the rest of the animals and nature. . .a mistake leading to many others.
In Kabbalah it describes more of a vast organism of Spirits in which some of them became self-aware — thus creating a vacuum. Once we set one thing apart as good, we create evil. Once we set one thing apart as beautiful, we create the ugly.
If you believe in the message of the Bible, then I would hope that you can at least agree to the goal of “peace that passeth all understanding”. . .but the Bible says that comes from a dying to “self” or better put: dying to self-awareness. So then is it bad to be self-aware according to the Bible, and yet the pineal gland represents becoming enlightened with it’s use. . .
Or maybe Christians have missed the whole point of the story of Jesus; maybe the “kingdom of God” is actually here now (as Jesus said quite blankly) and it is just up to us to become aware of it’s mental connotations, as well as spiritual. . .but not literal.
We certainly need to be aware of our inner self to be a part in this kingdom that is “not of this world”. But how do we accomplish this self-awareness? Well, some pray for something or someone else to give it to them, believing that inner self to be God’s voice or will. Others fast, some punish their bodies or go through extreme acts of asceticism, some even try drugs or other intoxicants to get ” out of this world”! In Zen it is all about stopping and listening. In Christianity,”The Spirit giveth life” we are told. The Bible also says, that this same Spirit “will lead you into all truth”. Could this “Holy Spirit” they believe is “God”, (although historically it wasn’t believed to be a part of the “Godhead” at all) actually just be another manifestation of the way the meditations of Zen open themselves up to a greater self awareness by listening to their own conscious? Or are all types of religious meditation a way to disengage the frontal and temporal lobe circuits, the very thing which tracks time and creates self-awareness? Studies of the brain now confirm that in fact, even though the relaxation in religious meditation is beneficial in some ways, it dissolves the mind-body connection responsible for self awareness. . .So while you are technically becoming more self aware through meditation, some people would instead call it “God aware” because of that mental disconnect.
So, to sum it all up, if you want to be like “God” as Eve in the Garden of Eden did. . .
- Live a life of love, (practicing the many positive emotions associated with it,) for your own good, not because you are told to.
- Support the pineal gland with a good diet, 20 minutes of sun a day or more, and exercise.
- Avoid pineal suppressing fear based emotions, fluoride, drugs and religions, that are pretty much all based on fear and the suppression of enlightenment and self-awareness.
- Instead, exercise your mind in self-awareness techniques like meditation, Yoga, walks in the woods alone. . .
And you will be enlightened, thinking person, like the Ancient “Gods”.