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”.