When I saw this article, (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4251299.stm) I remembered something Bob Whitaker wrote about the possibility of the kikes having large quantities of the beautiful Neanderthal gene. Here are both articles - first the one by Whitaker, the the one from BBC.

Social Surgery (http://whitakeronline.org/blog/?p=2154)
(Bob Whitaker)

When someone says “Cut out the cancer” it sounds like a quick deal. But if you watch surgery, it is meticulous. The surgeon very, very slowly cuts between the cancer and the healthy cells. He has spent years learning 1) what cancers look like and 2) exactly what the organs in which the cancer is growing have to do.
That is one reason my approach to thought is so hard for people to catch onto. Instead of telling people I read fourteen books last week, I will read the same book over and over. I will watch the same documentary over and over. I don’t believe you can really GET the message in one go. So when I make a comment, it’s not just the usual “intellectual” statement where everyone then spills out whatever they were thinking on the same subject.
Once you get used to going with me on this, you will surprised how enjoyable it is. You are spading over earth that no one has looked at CLOSELY. In fat, it is like the first microscopes. Few people in history have had more sheer fun than the first people to look through microscopes.
But we are looking very, very closely at, for example, 1) Why did he say that? Why did he say that right now? Everybody else is just looking at the information, “So and so said so and so…” But if you put things together and you demand of yourself that you figure out why the simplest things get said, you begin to feel the thrill of a person looking through a microscope for the time: I didn’t know those little things EXISTED! They are fascinating.
To give one of hundreds of examples, I noticed that the line on the Neanderthal suddenly changed in all the documentaries. For about two years, everybody absolutely agreed that “modern humans” don’t have a drop of Neanderthal blood. Now I remember that before that, for decades, this was an open question. Where id t his conclusions come from?
So I first went back over the documentaries, I enjoy the second time more because I am doing analysis, to find out if there were any NEW FACTS that would lead to this suddenly universal conclusion. Several documentaries and several repeats of each, and I found no change in the facts to justify this sudden, drill-like about-face. Of course, if there had been “facts,” I would have wondered about them. I am always suspicious when the Party Line changes so suddenly.
So my antennae were out for a Neanderthal connection.
I found that a guy wrote Ice Man, which was anti-white and a real sensation. He was a new writer and hadn’t been checked out ideologically by the media, but this was too good to miss. Then he wrote a follow-up book which connected Jewish traits to Neanderthal traits, arguing they had a greater proportion of Neanderthal genes and not being flattering at all about what it did to God’s Chosen People. On the day of that book’s publication, it because official doctrine that no modern man had ANY Neanderthal genes.
It was inconvenient when it was recently discovered, through serious genetic study which is not too difficult now that we know DNA, that we have about 5% Neanderthal. But I was the only one who even noticed that all the documentaries switched back and forth with a precision that would make an SS drillmaster green with envy.
Pain is doing a particularly good job of extending what I say. If we are going to cut the cancers out of our society, we are going to have to make a whole new study, in extreme, microscopic detail, if all of the assumptions, where all the information comes from, and try to keep from simply throwing out an old canned opinion.
We are the only ones so far who have this microscope. That’s a hell of a responsibility.


The icy truth behind Neanderthals (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4251299.stm)
(BBC)


http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40812000/jpg/_40812917_skull_bbc_203.jpg

In 1848, a strange skull was discovered on the military outpost of Gibraltar. It was undoubtedly human, but also had some of the heavy features of an ape - distinct brow ridges, and a forward projecting face.
Just what was this ancient creature? And when had it lived?
As more remains were discovered one thing became clear: this creature had once lived right across Europe. The remains were named Homo neanderthalensis - or Neanderthal Man - an ancient and primitive form of human.
The archaeological evidence revealed that the earliest Neanderthals had lived in Europe about 200,000 years ago. But then, about 30,000 years ago, they disappeared - just at the time when the first "modern humans" appear in Europe.
The story is that our ancestors, those modern humans, spread out of Africa about 100,000 years ago with better brains and more sophisticated tools. As they spread into Neanderthal territory, they simply out-competed their primitive cousins.
But was Neanderthal really the brutish ape-man of legend, or an effective rival to our own species? And how exactly had he been driven to extinction?
This week's Horizon programme brings together a team of leading experts to see just what we could find out about this remarkable creature, from the bones themselves. But to begin we needed a skeleton, and no complete Neanderthal has ever been found.
However, Gary Sawyer, a reconstruction expert at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, US, realised that enough partial skeletons existed to create an entire composite skeleton from casts of the fragments.
So Sawyer combined and rebuilt broken parts to create the most complete Neanderthal the world had ever seen. Our Neanderthal stood no more than 1.6m (5ft 4in) tall, and yet he had a robust and powerful build - perfect for his ice-age environment.
But would he have really stood up to the cold better than us?
Cold Adaptation
The popular image of the ice age is a period of unremitting freezing conditions.
But over nearly a million years, Europe has seen huge climate swings - warm and cold.
For much of the last 200,000 years, when Neanderthals were alive, the climate was mild, sometimes even warmer than that which we experience today. But they did also have to live through periods of intense cold.
Our body plan expert Professor Trenton Holliday, from Tulane University, US, revealed that our skeleton had comparatively short limbs and a deep, wide ribcage.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40811000/jpg/_40811817_mockup250.jpg
Neanderthals would have had an advantage in cold conditions

The theory is that this body plan minimises the body's surface area to retain heat, and to keep vital organs embedded deep within the body to insulate them from the cold.
To see if this would have helped Neanderthal to survive we brought anthropologist Professor Leslie Aiello, from University College London, UK, to Loughborough University to team up with Dr George Havenith, who runs a laboratory studying the way modern humans retain heat.
In an experiment, two modern humans with very different body shapes were subjected to cooling in an ice bath - one with the long limbed, athletic shape of a runner, the other with the stockier, heavily muscled body plan closer to that of a Neanderthal.
The heavily muscled person lasted longer in the ice bath, so Neanderthals would have had an advantage. His muscle would have acted as an insulator, and his deep chest did help to keep organs warm.
Even so, the advantage doesn't mean that Neanderthal could have survived the icy extremes - this was a polar wasteland and his heavily muscled body plan needed a lot of feeding: about twice as much as we need today.
Hunting
The archaeological record suggests that Neanderthals lived around the edges of forests where they hunted large animals like red deer, horse, and wild cattle. The forests gave them firewood, and materials to construct shelters, and spears.
By studying Neanderthal stone spear points, Professor John Shea from Stony Brook University, New York, US, has found that the shafts of Neanderthal spears would have been thick and heavy. And if they hunted in woodland, then trying to throw these spears at animals would have been useless. So just how did Neanderthals hunt?
Professor Trenton Holliday can identify a clue in the BBC Neanderthal - he was much stronger on the right side than on the left, and his right forearm was particularly powerful, demonstrating a very powerful grip.
To see how this muscle development might have related to hunting, Professor Steve Churchill, from Duke University, US, carried out another experiment.
By fitting a metal pole with stress sensors, he could determine what force each arm was delivering when the pole was thrust into a pad. It turns out that this action could explain the muscle development identified in the skeleton.
So Neanderthal was an ambush hunter; waiting in a forest for his prey to stray close, and then attacking with a thrusting spear. Neanderthal was possibly the most carnivorous form of human ever to have lived.
Intelligence
What else could the skeleton tell us? Professor Ralph Holloway, from Columbia University, New York, US, is an expert on ancient brains. By taking casts of the inside of ancient skulls, he looks for details that might offer clues to the anatomy of the brain that was once inside.
His assessment of our skull was startling: 20% larger than the average size of a modern human's brain, and anatomically identical. He could tell that this Neanderthal was right-handed and that that the areas of brain responsible for complex thought were just as advanced. He should have had the ability to think like us.
But one of the ways we use our brains is very particular: we talk. This ability makes us unique in the world today, and ultimately human. So was it possible to tell if Neanderthal could have spoken?

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40811000/jpg/_40811823_skull250.jpg
Neanderthal was possibly the most carnivorous form of human ever to have lived

A tiny bone in the throat, called the hyoid, offered a clue. This bone supports the soft tissue of the throat, and several groups of scientists are attempting to model that soft tissue from the bones and discover what Neanderthal might have sounded like.
Professor Bob Franciscus, from Iowa University, US, is one of a multi-national group attempting to do just this. By making scans of modern humans, he can see how the soft tissue of the vocal tracts depends on the position of the hyoid bone and the anchoring sites on the skull.
Computer predictions can then be made that can determine the shape of the modern human vocal tract from bone data alone. The same equations can then be used with data from a Neanderthal skull to predict the shape of a Neanderthal vocal tract.
The Neanderthal vocal tract seems to have been shorter and wider than a modern male human, closer to that found today in modern human females. It's possible, then, that Neanderthal males had higher pitched voices than we might have expected.
Together with a big chest, mouth, and huge nasal cavity, a big, harsh, high, sound might have resulted. But, crucially, the anatomy of the vocal tract is close enough to that of modern humans to indicate that anatomically there was no reason why Neanderthal could not have produced the complex range of sounds needed for speech.
Powerful, better adapted to the cold, and perhaps just as intelligent - Neanderthal should have been invincible. So just how are we here, and why is Neanderthal extinct?
Extinction
It seems that something much more random could have played a significant role. About 45,000 years ago, the climate of Europe went through a burst of very sudden switches between warm and cold conditions that would have transformed the Neanderthals' environment.
The forests on which they depended began to recede, giving way to open plains. Here, Professor John Shea believes, the Neanderthal thrusting spear and ambush strategy did not work. Neanderthals retreated with the forests, their population falling as their hunting grounds shrank.
By comparison, modern humans made lighter stone points that could be fitted on to lighter spear shafts. These could be thrown, enabling our ancestors to hunt more effectively in an open landscape.
Hunting in an open landscape also required high levels of mobility to follow migrating herds, and the agility to throw the spears themselves. So the question for our team was: how did Neanderthal stand up to our ancestors in agility?
Analysing the inner ear of a Neanderthal, Professor Fred Spoor, from UCL, has discovered clues to Neanderthal's agility.
The semi-circular canals of the inner ear provide us with our sense of balance, and by studying a range of animals, Spoor, has found a high correlation between the size of the canals and agility. Throughout human evolution, our canals seem to have increased in size as our agility has increased.
But Neanderthals have smaller canals than modern humans, and even earlier ancestors suggesting they were less agile.
Returning to the skeleton, Professor Trenton Holliday found an explanation for this - that the short limbs and wide pelvis of our Neanderthal would have resulted in less efficient locomotion than modern humans.
The energy costs in travelling would have been higher, and this would have been a serious evolutionary disadvantage.
For Neanderthal, it was an ironic end - the very body plan that had made Neanderthal so well adapted to the ice age had locked him into an evolutionary cul-de-sac.
He might have been better adapted to the cold than the first modern humans, but as the landscape changed, it was our ancestors who could take better advantage of the more open environment.
Neanderthal died and we survived to tell the tale.
Horizon is broadcast on BBC Two on Thursday, 10 February, at 2100GMT
Now tell me the first picture doesn't look like a kike. :D

When I saw this article, (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4251299.stm) I remembered something Bob Whitaker wrote about the possibility of the kikes having large quantities of the beautiful Neanderthal gene. Here are both articles - first the one by Whitaker, the the one from BBC.

Interesting finds, Bolg.

Last November, Michael Bradley was crowing that everything he ever said about Neanderthals and SOME modern humans is turning out to be true.

Bradley is an odd character, but then he's been under attack since 1978 when he wrote The Iceman Inheritance. A bit later on, he wrote Chosen People from the Caucasus and specifially noted that his main subject is ONE specific people partly from the Caucasus area, the "Hebrews". All hell broke loose and he hasn't had a major publication since.

Anyway, here's part of the comments he makes (in the third person) about last years finds (link includes the articles Bradley references.)




...In effect, these two article indicate that Neaderthals were also ancestors of modern Western humanity and that a significant number of Western people alive today retain vestiges of Neanderthal characteristics, both physical and "mental".

This is precisely what Michael Bradley said in The Iceman Inheritance in 1978, a book that was excerpted in The Globe and Mail, The Calgary Herald and The Ottawa Journal in early December 1978. The same facts were restated in greater detail and more recently in the Epilogue of Michael Bradley's Swords at Sunset (2005).

Back in 1978, the modern tools of DNA analysis and forensic examination were not yet widely available, being still somewhat experimental.

Archaeological and physical anthropological evidence were available, but the "new" DNA techniques were used to challenge and supposedly nullify the evidence of physical anthropology.

This was easy to do in the popular media because DNA analysis was and is based on statistical probability...and a researcher can "prove" almost anything with statistics. As someone once put it: 'first come lies, then damned lies and then statistics.'

Therefore, Michael Bradley and The Iceman Inheritance have been attacked, ridiculed and suppressed for the past 28 years in both North American media and education...

...Various "DNA statistical studies", such as the Stoneking-Paabo DNA analysis published in Cell Journal in July 1997, were concocted to deny any possibility of Neanderthals having interbred with "early modern humanity" (which was never defined). We have also all been subjected to propaganda such as the Journey of Man television documentary claiming that there are essentially no geographic genetic races at all. And Neanderthal has become a pejorative expression referring to the "fact" that Neanderthals were not "human" (again, not defined).


...As DNA analysis became more routine and truly proper statistical methodology was standardized, DNA analysis gradually began generally to support and confirm the previous findings of physical anthropology (see Dr. Carlton Coon's The Origin of Races, 1968). And the sheer volume of evidence began to be reported in the popular press.

The study published on Tuesday, as reported by Reuters, substantiates Neanderthal admixture in modern Western humanity...and vindicates Michael Bradley's work, as does the earlier study also attached.

....But, unfortunately, slightly larger brains are not the only evidence of Neanderthal heritage in Western humanity.


There are other intellectual, emotional and philosophical characteristics in the genetic package of the Neanderthal heritage. These are: a mentality that gives a numerical and materialistic emphasis to "intelligence"; little or no visual artistic ability; anti-feminist and anti-sexual emotions and social orientation; sexual mutilation as an expression of "religious" affiliation; extremely strong in-group cohesion; high aggression against all other groups and a tendency toward fanatical monotheism in "religions" that Neanderthal-descended people invented... "

These characteristics are obvious from the geographical evidence of the last Neanderthal refuge -- the Caucasus (hence "Caucasian"), Elburz, Taurus, Zagros and Hindu Kush Mountains of the Middle East.



All of it at Bradley's highly eccentric homepage:

http://www.michaelbradley.info/

Thank you, FJ!
So Michael Bradley was the author Whitaker was talking about. What a trove of information!

An afterthought - if Neanderthals were really different species, the offspring between them and real humans would have been sterile, no? Interesting to see whether that side of the problem is mentioned anywhere. Thanks again.

There are other intellectual, emotional and philosophical characteristics in the genetic package of the Neanderthal heritage. These are: a mentality that gives a numerical and materialistic emphasis to "intelligence"; little or no visual artistic ability; anti-feminist and anti-sexual emotions and social orientation; sexual mutilation as an expression of "religious" affiliation; extremely strong in-group cohesion; high aggression against all other groups and a tendency toward fanatical monotheism in "religions" that Neanderthal-descended people invented... "
I was a bit baffled at the "anti-feminist" part. It becomes clear from the excrept below - Michael Bradley was reffering not to anti-feminist ideology, but to dislike for women - hatred for the female, plus psychosexual ambivalence. In his delicate way, he describes the Neanderthal as the antescendent of someone we've learned to cherish and love - the mythical proto-faggot.

From "Esau's Empire versus the Goddess, the Grail and the Great Galactic Ghoul" (http://www.michaelbradley.info/esau/esau-part1.pdf):

I have also suggested that the Neanderthal fascination with
numbers may have led to the conception of just "One God" who
allowed all other things to exist, just as the number "1" allows all
other numbers to exist. I have further proposed that psychosexual
ambivalence and confusion were also a characteristic of
Neanderthals and have been expressed in their modern
descendants as "anti-feminist" cultural and religious injunctions
combined nearly always with strict monotheism.

This gets better and better. It just makes perfect sense at gut level - it's like a puzzle coming together at long last.

It is internal group loyalty and cohesion so intense that
individuals comprising the group have difficulty in conceiving of
any identity at all outside the group. It is group aggression so
extreme that members of other groups are not recognised as being
of the same species (which, in a strictly technical sense, they are
not). Any opposition to the groups’ Will to control and conquer is
perceived as an attack on the group’s security. They rationalize
that, in being thwarted from control and conquest, they are
actually the “victims”.


We are so not them.

In the anthro community, Neandertals are a huge problem. One of the hottest debates revolves around his extinction. Did we mate with them or did we eradicate them? Multi-cultists insist that we mated with them and all was well.

In the anthro community, Neandertals are a huge problem. One of the hottest debates revolves around his extinction. Did we mate with them or did we eradicate them? Multi-cultists insist that we mated with them and all was well.



Wrong! The multiculturalists are the ones pushing the "out of africa" theory that all people are essentially african migrants who supplanted archaic sapiens in the area they found them, such as the neandertals in western eurasia, without any admixture. It is the multi-regionalists who claim that europeans have neandertal ancestry and that there was no complete replacements of archaic sapiens by modern sapiens moving out of africa.

In the anthro community, Neandertals are a huge problem. One of the hottest debates revolves around his extinction. Did we mate with them or did we eradicate them? Multi-cultists insist that we mated with them and all was well.

I believe some of it, cause it makes sense. If they were totally wiped out, where did jews come from? And again, jews try to have a fly on every wall, as Linder put it in one of his articles. On the one hand, Neanderthals went extinct, cause if they didn't, the implication would be that we're not so eqwall after all. And that's heresy. On the other hand, of course, we did mate with them, and we all have some Neanderthal in us, idinit beautiful!? ("We are all jews now!" - said the Dutch king, in some parallel universe).

The logic says, yes, some mixing occured, a small percentage. And Neanderthals are here too - I see them every day. The bowed legs, the low center of gravity, big head, chest deeper than wider. They are here, and they are called jews.

Which begs the question: why the fuck didn't they get wiped out? There wasn't ADL back then, after all.

This gets better and better. It just makes perfect sense at gut level - it's like a puzzle coming together at long last.


Nonsense Bolg. Don't be so gullible and simply believe something because that's what you want to hear. Read the "Iceman Inheritance". In it bradley claims that it is the white race as a whole that has this complex of characteristics and lays racism as a trait soley at the feet of the white man. His argument is that the types in the caucasus were allegedly the most extreme neanderthal mixed types and that's why they present these characteristics to the most marked degree. However, his take on the original cave painters in Europe is that they were nigger San Bushmen, and that it was admixture with neanderthals that gave Europeans their caucasian physical characteristics. His claim is that the euro niggers were wonderful creative types who were basically bred with caucasoid neandertal that gave Europeans all of their negative characteristics. By the way, did I mention that Bradley himself admits he's a jew? When I corresponded with him and took him to task for his attacks on the white race, he basically just responded by claiming that I was exhibiting neandertal aggression. A few posts later, this sick puppy invited me to contact him on a personal level. Why? On his website, they had posted that they were searching for a lifetime "companion", preferably asian female, to be their "companion" and also help with research. He hinted at one point, that although they favored a female oriental, he liked my iconoclastic views and that made me a suitable candidate. If you read his original advertisement for this on his site, you would have definitely noticed that there was a strange and twisted sexual slant to what they were seeking. He admitted that he was an older man getting on in age and that he and his wife had drifted emotionally, and the thrust of it was that they were seeking a sexual partner to keep things spicy.

Take whatever this fraudulent jew says with a grain of salt. He may be a self-hater, but make no mistake about it. When he says neandertal, he means white caucasoids.

Nonsense Bolg. Don't be so gullible and simply believe something because that's what you want to hear. Read the "Iceman Inheritance". In it bradley claims that it is the white race as a whole that has this complex of characteristics and lays racism as a trait soley at the feet of the white man. His argument is that the types in the caucasus were allegedly the most extreme neanderthal mixed types and that's why they present these characteristics to the most marked degree. However, his take on the original cave painters in Europe is that they were nigger San Bushmen, and that it was admixture with neanderthals that gave Europeans their caucasian physical characteristics. His claim is that the euro niggers were wonderful creative types who were basically bred with caucasoid neandertal that gave Europeans all of their negative characteristics. By the way, did I mention that Bradley himself admits he's a jew? When I corresponded with him and took him to task for his attacks on the white race, he basically just responded by claiming that I was exhibiting neandertal aggression. A few posts later, this sick puppy invited me to contact him on a personal level. Why? On his website, they had posted that they were searching for a lifetime "companion", preferably asian female, to be their "companion" and also help with research. He hinted at one point, that although they favored a female oriental, he liked my iconoclastic views and that made me a suitable candidate. If you read his original advertisement for this on his site, you would have definitely noticed that there was a strange and twisted sexual slant to what they were seeking. He admitted that he was an older man getting on in age and that he and his wife had drifted emotionally, and the thrust of it was that they were seeking a sexual partner to keep things spicy.

Take whatever this fraudulent jew says with a grain of salt. He may be a self-hater, but make no mistake about it. When he says neandertal, he means white caucasoids.


Oh, I don't take it as gospel. If he is being dishonest, it is in the interpretation of the facts. The revolutionary aspect in his theory though, is not the interpretation (which makes him look like a cook), but rather that those facts were brought up in the first place.

I didn't have the impression Bradley was a kike. That would explain the intellectual dishonesty in the interpretation of the questions raised. But I rather think he's a touchy-feely liberal, who hates so much what he's found to be true, he feels compelled to throw in some multi-culti & a grain of sub-saharan nigger just to feel good.

Something like:

"Yeah, I say nasty stuff about Jews, but I love Blacks. I can't be that bad, see?"

The ultimate in denial. But who am I to judge....

I believe some of it, cause it makes sense. If they were totally wiped out, where did jews come from?.

Easy. They are simply a variety of swarthy caucasoid from the levant, with those caucasoids, like modern semitic arabs, having a significant percentage of negroid blood in them.


And again, jews try to have a fly on every wall, as Linder put it in one of his articles. On the one hand, Neanderthals went extinct, cause if they didn't, the implication would be that we're not so eqwall after all. And that's heresy. .

You're on the right track here. Modern multi-culturalists try to downplay the input of archaic sapiens genes in modern populations, because then that would mean that racial differences are much deeper in time than the relatively recent expansion of the alleged "modern" sapiens from africa who they claim replaced everybody else.

On the other hand, of course, we did mate with them, and we all have some Neanderthal in us, idinit beautiful!? ("We are all jews now!" - said the Dutch king, in some parallel universe)..

They've never made this argument. Only bradley the jew has.

The logic says, yes, some mixing occured, a small percentage. And Neanderthals are here too - I see them every day. The bowed legs, the low center of gravity, big head, chest deeper than wider. They are here, and they are called jews.

No! They are called white europeans with their lighter hair having adapted in colder condition for hundreds of thousands of years, with dentition and browridges that have neandertal antecendents, with stronger muscle attachments than other races, a higher threshhold of pain, as well as midfacial projection of the white race, whereas the yellow and black non-neandertal races having flat faces.

Which begs the question: why the fuck didn't they get wiped out? There wasn't ADL back then, after all.

Maybe they didn't and they're us, but the matrix wants you to think differently.

I didn't have the impression Bradley was a kike.

He even admitted to me during our heated exchange that it was white racists like myself from the klan that had once had him bullwhipped and that it was a black family that had protected him. This sick scumbag definitely has an axe to grind with whitey, make no mistake at all. Read the book for yourself and see.

He even admitted to me during our heated exchange that it was white racists like myself from the klan that had once had him bullwhipped and that it was a black family that had protected him. This sick scumbag definitely has an axe to grind with whitey, make no mistake at all. Read the book for yourself and see.

Oh, I am sure he has an axe to grind - I've read the stuff on his page. But again, he tries to fit his pre-conceptions into his theory, and they simply don't fit, so he begins to lie. Or his jewish editor. Doesn't matter. The fact is, he wants both to look intellectually honest and feel good about himself. This is impossible in a controlled environment.

So, everybody knows that Germans are evil - he makes them Neanderthal, along with the kikes. Everybody knows niggers are born with a molecular physics diploma up their ass - Bradley (or, again, his jewish editor) decides Cro-Magnons were niggers. Figures...

...white racists like myself from the klan that had once had him bullwhipped and that it was a black family that had protected him...This is a variation of the "Some of my best friends are Black & My great-grandmother was a Seminole" song. I'd disregard it. It's the trendy thing to do, and it makes him a coward, but not a jew.

BTW, I confronted him about his contention that Khazars descended from Attila (which would make us Bulgars immaculately begotten in the best case, and Khazar kikes in the worst). He never responded. Maybe because I began my letter with an advice for him to stop groveling before the kikes. Oh well...

They've never made this argument. Only bradley the jew has.

Quite true! That's why I call it revolutionary. He has studied under C. Coon. Even a grain of truth in his theory is worth the rubbish it's packaged in.

No! They are called white europeans with their lighter hair having adapted in colder condition for hundreds of thousands of years, with dentition and browridges that have neandertal antecendents, with stronger muscle attachments than other races, a higher threshhold of pain, as well as midfacial projection of the white race, whereas the yellow and black non-neandertal races having flat faces.

Maybe they didn't and they're us, but the matrix wants you to think differently.
But where does that leave Cro-Magnons? It rather seems more plausible that we are Cro-Magnons. Again, Bradley deliberately lies about some things, but I believe you displace the lie. It's not that he lies about Neanderthals. It's rather in the fact he makes the Cro-Magnins niggers!

His reasoning? None. But it's cool!

I admit I am a total dilletant in the field though. I go by simple logic & gut feeling. So I take what you say seriously and think it over.

This is a variation of the "Some of my best friends are Black & My great-grandmother was a Seminole" song. I'd disregard it. It's the trendy thing to do, and it makes him a coward, but not a jew.

In his biography of himself on his website which existed at the time, which he later reiterated to me during our exchanges, he stated that he had "sephardic" jewish ancestry. These would not have been the khazar "ashkenazi" jews from the caucasus he apparently disliked, but he is a jew nonetheless.

But where does that leave Cro-Magnons? It rather seems more plausible that we are Cro-Magnons.

Well we are, but that's the issue: whether or not the cro-magnons in Europe evolved from the local archaic sapiens like neandertals, or whether they emanated from africa. Multi-regionalists believe that the fossil record in fact shows that neandertal bones in places like Krapina, Yugoslavia and even some sites in France indicated that neandertals were evolving in the modern direction. So cro-magnon could have evolved from more gracilized neandertals from some isolated pockets of Eurasia. The niggerists believe this to be impossible and that these specimens do not exhibit modernization. They would have us believe that the first cro-mags in Europe were africans. The problem is this: for the first euros to have been recent modern sapiens sapiens just arrived from Africa, they would have to exhibit anatomical characteristics similar to the Africans they were allegedly related to. The argument has been made by the niggerists that in fact the earliest euros seem like they emanated from a tropical zone because of their much greater height and longer arms than the neandertals. However, the very first modern euros were in fact no taller than the latest neandertals. Also, the shape of the browridges of the earliest euros, tooth surface structure, anatomical characteristics of the femur bones, certain jaw characteristics, retained archaic elements found in the preceding neandertal populations, yet these same elements were absent from the african populations groups they were supposed to have come from.
That's not to say there might not have been genetic input from areas outside of Europe. Clearly there has always between genic exchange between populations groups on the peripheries. Those genes get reshuffled and redistributed, keeping the entire human race as a single species, yet with discernible sub-species. Some of the more gracilized neandertals might have been so because of genic exchange with strangers from the peripheries, but then again, this need not mean that there was a wholesale replacement of the entire neandertal group in Europe. It also doesn't necessarily mean that the first africans had to be niggers. It's thought that these earliest migratory african groups, if they indeed existed, would have been a generalized sapient group. The racial characteristics we know and see today could have gradually developed thousands of years later as they crystalized in their respective regions. Some have even hypothesized that the earliest caucasoids might have evolved in north africa or the middle east from neandertaloid types, moving northward and further breeding with and spreading genes among the european neandertals. It's very complex and the issue is far from solved.

Who knows? In the end, maybe the archaic sapiens did become extinct in the face of a migration out of Africa. Lots of racialists can't stomach this and have a hangup about it. My response is: so what? All it means is that the stock from africa that moved into europe had to deal with a more rigorous and challenging climate and thus evolved into the better breed.

In his biography of himself on his website which existed at the time, which he later reiterated to me during our exchanges, he stated that he had "sephardic" jewish ancestry. These would not have been the khazar "ashkenazi" jews from the caucasus he apparently disliked, but he is a jew nonetheless.

Ah, that changes everything, then. Wasn't aware of that.

Well we are, but that's the issue: whether or not the cro-magnons in Europe evolved from the local archaic sapiens like neandertals, or whether they emanated from africa. Multi-regionalists believe that the fossil record in fact shows that neandertal bones in places like Krapina, Yugoslavia and even some sites in France indicated that neandertals were evolving in the modern direction. So cro-magnon could have evolved from more gracilized neandertals from some isolated pockets of Eurasia. The niggerists believe this to be impossible and that these specimens do not exhibit modernization. They would have us believe that the first cro-mags in Europe were africans. The problem is this: for the first euros to have been recent modern sapiens sapiens just arrived from Africa, they would have to exhibit anatomical characteristics similar to the Africans they were allegedly related to. The argument has been made by the niggerists that in fact the earliest euros seem like they emanated from a tropical zone because of their much greater height and longer arms than the neandertals. However, the very first modern euros were in fact no taller than the latest neandertals. Also, the shape of the browridges of the earliest euros, tooth surface structure, anatomical characteristics of the femur bones, certain jaw characteristics, retained archaic elements found in the preceding neandertal populations, yet these same elements were absent from the african populations groups they were supposed to have come from.
That's not to say there might not have been genetic input from areas outside of Europe. Clearly there has always between genic exchange between populations groups on the peripheries. Those genes get reshuffled and redistributed, keeping the entire human race as a single species, yet with discernible sub-species. Some of the more gracilized neandertals might have been so because of genic exchange with strangers from the peripheries, but then again, this need not mean that there was a wholesale replacement of the entire neandertal group in Europe. It also doesn't necessarily mean that the first africans had to be niggers. It's thought that these earliest migratory african groups, if they indeed existed, would have been a generalized sapient group. The racial characteristics we know and see today could have gradually developed thousands of years later as they crystalized in their respective regions. Some have even hypothesized that the earliest caucasoids might have evolved in north africa or the middle east from neandertaloid types, moving northward and further breeding with and spreading genes among the european neandertals. It's very complex and the issue is far from solved.

Who knows? In the end, maybe the archaic sapiens did become extinct in the face of a migration out of Africa. Lots of racialists can't stomach this and have a hangup about it. My response is: so what? All it means is that the stock from africa that moved into europe had to deal with a more rigorous and challenging climate and thus evolved into the better breed.

Indeed, if, as afrocentrists claim, Cro-magnons migrated upwards from Africa, it doesn't automatically mean they were niggers.

For example, the only other ape beside niggers to display the heavily-extruded ass area, are gorillas. Wouldn't it be plausible that the different races descended from different apes? More like a parallel evolution, instead of subsequent one? (I know this will sound stupid to card-carrying anthropologists on many levels, but it is readily observable nonetheless.)

Parallel evolution might explain the existence of the aborigines in Australia. The argument that they were part of the species that got separated from the rest because of the geological movement of the continents doesn't hold - we are talking about hundreds of millions of years here.

Can you recommend some books for me to gather knowledge about this?

Isn't the "Out of Africa" theory a falsifiable hypothesis? Take a population of hominids from the sub-Saharan regions, place it in a European wilderness, and see if it survives the winter. :rolleyes:

An afterthought - if Neanderthals were really different species, the offspring between them and real humans would have been sterile, no? Interesting to see whether that side of the problem is mentioned anywhere. Thanks again.

I think we're attaching significance to words rather than to principles. If two organisms are to be classed in the same species simply by merit of being able to produce fertile offspring, so be it. This is a principle which exists regardless of the word which symbolises it, just as the principle that they can be separate and distinct organisms at the same time.

Now, I have a question. Does any proponent of continuity between all hominids dare assert that one could take a population from the Congo and through selective breeding derive from it a Swede? I fancy one would have greater successes turning Chihuahuas into Great Danes.

Isn't the "Out of Africa" theory a falsifiable hypothesis? Take a population of hominids from the sub-Saharan regions, place it in a European wilderness, and see if it survives the winter. :rolleyes:

You're missing something. In the OOA theory, those who left Africa self-selected for an array of traits. They were more enterprising, daring, and most likely smarter.

There is no way we share a common ancestor with Africans. I believe in the multiregional hypothesis. Our ancestors were the Cro-magnon. The nigger ancestor is Lucy, a monkey with human-like features.

You're missing something. In the OOA theory, those who left Africa self-selected for an array of traits. They were more enterprising, daring, and most likely smarter.

You're missing something. In the OOA theory, this population replaced all hominid populations on earth, and includes sub-Saharans amongst its descendents.

Sándor's restatement of the "Out of Africa" theory, the "First White Flight" theory: the first "modern humans" left their primitive cousins behind in Africa, and never came back. :D

You're missing something.

No, I'm fine, thanks. There's no reason for you to get upset. You wrote:

Isn't the "Out of Africa" theory a falsifiable hypothesis? Take a population of hominids from the sub-Saharan regions, place it in a European wilderness, and see if it survives the winter.

Your "thought experiment" here leaves out what is a key component to many versions of OOA--self-selected traits of those who left (and indeed that of those who stayed). More directly stated, this means that one should take into account that those who would've gone OOA would have been smarter, more enterprising, and more likely to (to use your example) have success in the Euro wilderness. I wasn't even giving my opinion on OOA, I was simply stating that this was a necessary component, and that you had left it out. If you think I'm wrong let me know, but there's no need to go third-person.

In the OOA theory, this population replaced all hominid populations on earth, and includes sub-Saharans amongst its descendents.

Sándor's restatement of the "Out of Africa" theory, the "First White Flight" theory: the first "modern humans" left their primitive cousins behind in Africa, and never came back. :D

I will have to catch you in the morning, it's time to play--which isn't usually as exciting, but I'm using my new Strat' tonight. :D:D:D

http://www.nationalistplanet.com/Theseus1/HPIM1389.JPG
http://www.nationalistplanet.com/Theseus1/HPIM1390.JPG
http://www.nationalistplanet.com/Theseus1/HPIM1391.JPG
http://www.nationalistplanet.com/Theseus1/HPIM1392.JPG
http://www.nationalistplanet.com/Theseus1/HPIM1393.JPG
http://www.nationalistplanet.com/Theseus1/HPIM1394.JPG

Can you recommend some books for me to gather knowledge about this?

A few books from the multiregionalist perspective are those by Milford Wolpoff, either Paleoanthropology or Human Evolution. He's a jew, but as always, you're going to find many jews on both sides of the debate. Erik Trinkaus had a book called "Neandertals". He also argues for neandertal characteristics as being evident in subsequent modern European populations. I got all of these books from a good local library and didn't even have to purchase them, but if you're in Bulgaria, that's a different story.
I had an immense interest in this stuff at one point and also spent a lot of time searching through the index of periodicals at my local library. It's an index where you look up a subject and it tells you which periodical a relevant item was published in. Sometimes libraries kept this material archived in bound stacks or on microfilm. A lot of the newest material is published in peer reviewed journals like "The Journal of Human Evolution", but Scientific American and Science magazine also had great articles, and I'm sure they continue to do so. Naturally, you can also find a great deal of material on the internet through a search engine these days.
In recent years, the debate has switched to the dna extracted from fossils. They managed to extract dna from a neandertal fossil, and it was claimed to be too different from modern human dna, so neandertals were pronounced a different species with no genetic contribution to modern euro populations. Naturally, the opposing camp has challenged these interpretations. For one thing, the neandertal dna was compared to modern european dna, when a better comparison would probably have been to the subsequent cro-magnon populations who succeeded the neandertals in Europe. To this date, I'm not aware of this having been done yet.

There is no way we share a common ancestor with Africans. I believe in the multiregional hypothesis. Our ancestors were the Cro-magnon. The nigger ancestor is Lucy, a monkey with human-like features.

Yet the multiregional hypothesis also states that our ancestors were ultimately hominids from Africa, but that they left Africa much earlier in time. They would have left Africa about 1,000,000 years ago during the Homo Erectus stage of evolution. Upon arriving in Europe, through a process of more or less independent evolution, but with gene flow on the peripheries with africa and asia, they would have evolved into the cro-magnon race, just as africa and asia would have developed their respective more or less modern populations. The out of africa theorists claim that even though homo erectus might have spread out of africa 1 million years ago, about 100,000 thousand years ago modern homo sapiens sapiens evolved ONLY in Africa, then spread out into Eurasia, completely replacing the resident archaic sapiens populations without any interbreeding.

Your "thought experiment" here leaves out what is a key component to many versions of OOA--self-selected traits of those who left (and indeed that of those who stayed). More directly stated, this means that one should take into account that those who would've gone OOA would have been smarter, more enterprising, and more likely to (to use your example) have success in the Euro wilderness. I wasn't even giving my opinion on OOA, I was simply stating that this was a necessary component, and that you had left it out. If you think I'm wrong let me know, but there's no need to go third-person.


I think what you are saying is relevant if Europeans are descendents of the "modern humans" who evolved and left Africa, but Africans are not. Of course, the proponents of the theory say nothing of the sort. According to them, all "modern humans" are completely descended from this supposed group, and only developed differences over the past 40 000 years due to adaptation i.e. after the fact of migration. Hence one would find it reasonable under these assumptions to think that negroids who have not changed their habitat and didn't suffer an ice age most closely resemble this ancestor.

Don't take my little experiment too seriously, but I don't think any African tribe left to its own devices would survive a week of January in Europe. ;)

A good reading, rather popular in format, but all the more understandable because of it.

http://www.solargeneral.com/library/futureofman.pdf

Interesting picture on page 48 - Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon skeletons.

"Yeah, I say nasty stuff about Jews, but I love Blacks. I can't be that bad, see?"

The ultimate in denial. But who am I to judge....

Who doesn't say nasty stuff about Jews? - apart from Jews of course. Jews are not biologically equal and biological equality is one of the fundamental concepts on which racial equality is established .

When race is acknowledged at all in the argument against the Jewish threat, it is ethnicity that is often is subsituted for race as a word, chanted as a 'mantra' since it is less 'offensive' and more 'acceptable'.

Ignoring the biological inequality of the Jew has been a founding principle on which the concept of the politically correct 'colour blind' society has been based.