History, Immigration, News, Uncategorized

A Blue Eyed Caucasian

781 Views 16

So now we know that “the first Brits were black” (or so say some headlines). No doubt we have all seen the reports of the DNA analysis of “Cheddar Man” and the reconstruction of his appearance proving, with a three to one degree of probability, that he was dark skinned. The glee of the usual suspects does not need to be imagined with quotes such as “the multi-racial roots of the first Briton” and “we are all immigrants”. That he was blue eyed received rather less emphasis and the fact that – for all his dark skin – he was clearly Caucasoid, received none at all.

This matters because it will be used to delegitimise our fundamental argument – that Britain and the British are and always have been White and should remain so. So much for “there ain’t no black in the Union Jack”! And we can be quite certain that Cheddar Man will feature in the anti-racist education to which our children are already subjected. As racialists we need to clarify our thoughts on this matter and develop an appropriate response. Whether or not the scientific findings are conclusive and final I do not know, but I do know that unless we have geneticists among us there is no point in trying to argue with the science; if we try to do that we will be dismissed as cranks and obscurantists, and rightly so.

That the earliest Homo Sapiens were dark skinned is beyond dispute because our species first appeared in southern Africa. But having left their original home humans began, like all widespread species,  to devolve into sub-species. One of those sub-species, the Caucasoid, eventually colonised Europe and in the course of time became white skinned – became something new. Thus far, so uncontroversial. The only new thing now revealed is just how late these blue eyed Caucasians became white skinned – perhaps only as an adaptation to the spread of agriculture within the last ten thousand years.

So where does that leave us? I suggest that it changes nothing. The first of our two fundamental principles of racial nationalism is that we must maintain our racial identity free from non-European contamination – and “white” is merely shorthand for “European”. Cheddar Man may not have had a white skin but he was Caucasoid in every other respect, unquestionably European and the ancestor of the white race.

By Frederick Dixon © 2018

 

# # # #

JOIN WESTERN SPRING

Western Spring is not just a website. We are a community of people dedicated to achieving the Six Prerequisites and thereby acquiring the wherewithal needed to win political power and through that secure the future survival, proliferation and advancement of the British people and other White peoples of European descent, wherever they may live. Please join us:

# # # #

16 thoughts on “A Blue Eyed Caucasian”

  1. Max Musson

    - Edit

    It is interesting, John, that despite contributions to this project dealing with the reconstruction of Cheddar Man, from the Natural History Museum, University College London and a host of other geneticists, none of these academics has seen fit to publish their scientific findings and in doing so expose their work to critical scrutiny.
    .
    There are a number of genes that have been found to have an effect upon human skin colour, eye colour and hair colour, such as: SLC24A5, SLC45A2, HERC2, OCA2, ASIP, MC1R, MATP, TYR, TYRP1 and MFSD12, to name but a few. None of these genes or their variants is an on:off switch as far as colouration is concerned however, although they all contribute to some extent. Furthermore it is admitted that the way in which these all interact is not fully understood, which is why the academics are only saying that there is a 74% probability that Cheddar Man’s skin was “brown to black”.
    .
    All that the academics have said so far is that Cheddar Man and a couple of other Mesolithic humans possessed versions of some of these genes that are normally found in sub-Saharan populations. As I point out however the San people of the Kalahari must possess the sub-Saharan versions of all these genes and yet their skin is in many cases not much darker than the average Arab. There has therefore been a degree of ‘artistic licence’ employed in the decision to make Cheddar Man appear as dark as the reconstruction project group have and I believe this is down to virtue signalling and the desire to push the multiracial agenda.
    .
    The primary gene responsible for skin colour would appear to be SLC24A5, and these designations are simply short-hand versions of the full scientific names given to these genes.
    .
    SLC24A5 differs between various human populations in three places where certain single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are located, and these SNPs are named: rs1426654, rs2555364 and rs16960620.
    .
    What I have managed to ascertain so far is that there are three versions of rs1426654, and two versions of the other two SNPs. For example: version rs1426654(A;A) contributes to lighter skin colour; whereas rs1426654(A;G) contributes to medium skin colour; and rs1426654(G;G) contributes to darker skin colour, and when we calculate the total number of variations that can be caused by a combination of these seven SNP variants, there are twelve (3 x 2 x 2).
    .
    When we then add to this the effect of a second gene, SLC45A2, which has 3 SNP variants, it creates the possibility of 36 variations between the darkest and the lightest skin colour, and what the academics are not telling anyone is the variants of all of these genes that Cheddar Man possessed, and in doing so they are preventing anyone from challenging their interpretations. They expect us to simply believe what we have been told despite the fact that in this area of academic research a special working group has been established, the sole purpose of which is to vet scientific findings and present them in a sanitised form that inhibits the potential for those findings to be used to support the racial beliefs of ‘far-right’ groups. Do you see how Orwellian this all is?

    1. Frederick Dixon

      - Edit

      Thank you Max for this further clarification. I must say that you have studied the science with far greater dedication than I could muster!

      1. Max Musson

        - Edit

        Someone has to do it and unfortunately only a geneticist/anthropologist who wants to end his/her career will openly challenge the prevailing orthodoxy, so it must be a lay-person with an aptitude and a driving fanaticism.
        .
        The number of individuals for whom their complete genome has now been mapped runs into the thousands and what scientists ought to do, if they really want people to understand and believe the truth regarding issues of race, evolution, and genetics, is to compile a table listing the variants of all of these genes and SNPs that the tested individuals present, together with a colour photograph of what they look like and details of their physical conformation. That way, we would all be able to look at the findings for Cheddar man and compare them with the findings for extant individuals whose colouration etc is both known and proven. It occurs to me that this is something that one of the analysts at the Max Planck Institute could probably compile in a matter of a few days at most, and the fact that it has not been done when it is such an obvious thing to do speaks volumes. It would be the ‘ender of all arguments’ and we have to ask ourselves why the people who have access to this information don’t want to share it with us?

  2. janet mills

    - Edit

    OUT OF AFRICA THEORY DEBUNKED
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-the-out-of-africa-theory-out/
    An examination of over 5,000 teeth from early human ancestors shows that many of the first Europeans probably came from Asia.
    https://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=19566
    Re-Examining the “Out of Africa” Theory and the Origin of Europeoids (Caucasoids) in Light of DNA Genealogy
    ATTENTION: it has NEVER been more than someone’s made-up speculation that we all came out of Africa. PLEASE DO SOME RESEARCH ON THESE HAPLOGROUP TYPES BEFORE LEAPING TO THAT MADE-UP THEORY B/C IT IS NOT FACT AND NEVER HAS BEEN. SEE BELOW:
    ABSTRACT

    Seven thousand five hundred fifty-six (7556) haplotypes of 46 subclades in 17 major haplogroups were considered in terms of their base (ancestral) haplotypes and timespans to their common ancestors, for the purposes of designing of time-balanced haplogroup tree. It was found that African haplogroup A (originated 132,000 ± 12,000 years before present) is very remote time-wise from all other haplogroups, which have a separate common ancestor, named β-haplogroup, and originated 64,000 ± 6000 ybp. It includes a family of Europeoid (Caucasoid) haplogroups from F through T that originated 58,000 ± 5000 ybp. A downstream common ancestor for haplogroup A and β-haplogroup, coined the α-haplogroup emerged 160,000 ± 12,000 ybp. A territorial origin of haplogroups α- and β-remains unknown; however, the most likely origin for each of them is a vast triangle stretched from Central Europe in the west through the Russian Plain to the east and to Levant to the south. Haplogroup B is descended from β-haplogroup (and not from haplogroup A, from which it is very distant, and separated by as much as 123,000 years of “lat- eral” mutational evolution) likely migrated to Africa after 46,000 ybp. The finding that the Europeoid haplogroups did not descend from “African” haplogroups A or B is supported by the fact that bearers of the Europeoid haplogroups, as well as all non-African haplogroups do not carry either SNPs M91, P97, M31, P82, M23, M114, P262, M32, M59, P289, P291, P102, M13, M171, M118 (haplogroup A and its subclades SNPs) or M60, M181, P90 (haplogroup B), as it was shown recently in “Walk through Y” FTDNA Project (the reference is incorporated therein) on several hundred people from various haplogroups.

    If we all came out of Africa, obviously implying a common starting point, then without making excuses, why aren’t Africans more civilized? all equal? music, art, science, sanitation, literacy and the written word, superstition, cruelty and violence not only toward others but also toward members of their own group, need for instant gratification–to name a few areas of concern–just look at the deteriorating conditions in Europe being destroyed by our equals who started out with the same package as the rest of us, supposedly, if one accepts the out-of-africa THEORY.

    https://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Differential_K_theory#r.E2.80.93K_theory_as_an_explanation_for_the_differences
    Differential K theory is a highly controversial theory by J. Philippe Rushton which aims to explain numerous argued differences between human races.

  3. Stefan

    - Edit

    I think they are cherry picking bits out of history to get the answers they want.
    Now what I want to know is, what were the original Africans like, that we’re supposedly descended from?
    If we have altered drastically from them, have the present range of Africans also altered in some way from them too?

    Awhile ago there was a programme on the BBC that purported to show how ancient Britons changed.
    The original inhabitents were shown as Whiteish & were the Neanderthals but the cleverer horse riding Homo Sapien types were shown as being like modern Africans!
    If this was correct then why did Africans evolve/change here but not in Africa?

  4. John Stephens

    - Edit

    Without actual physical skin, they cannot possibly come to the conclusion that a “Blue-eyed, Causasian” is black. At least one that is “blackenned” by Socio-Political engineering.

    We did not come from Africa. Many times since the seas retreated, and life developed introducing humans on many future continents, each region on Earth, went through cooler, then warmer periods.

    White folks are too innovative, and too adventurous to have originated elsewhere. The mummies in America and China have proven this. If anything, the Europeans were in fact, the bringers of high culture, invention, and sophisticated architecture.

    The cast system in India, and amongst Indian communities world-wide, echo this. This “find” is too close in time, with “Megan and Harry”, to be a coincidence. I fear a far more aggressive stage is upon us, in the “Abolish The White Race” era.

    1. Max Musson

      - Edit

      You are I believe talking about the remains of an early hominid named Graecopithecus freybergi by the scientists who found them, which are approximately 7.2 million years old and have been found at various sites in Bulgaria and Greece?
      .
      What we have to bear in mind here is that the genus Homo evolved in only the last 2.5 million years, Homo sapiens only within the last 500,000 years, and Homo sapiens sapiens only within the last 200,000 years, and therefore what happened 7.2 million years ago is of little relevance to the Out of Africa Hypothesis (OAH).
      .
      The ‘pithecus’ element within both Graecopithecus and the African equivalent Australopithecus, means ‘ape’. ‘Graecopithecus’ meaning ‘Greek ape’, and ‘Australopithecus’ meaning ‘Southern ape’. We are essentially talking about chimpanzee like creatures here, who just happen to exhibit teeth with some features similar to human teeth. The next evolutionary stage is Homo habilis and then Homo erectus. Homo erectus was originally named Pithecanthropus erectus, meaning ‘ape-man erect’, indicating an ape-like man who walked on two legs rather than shuffling around on all four as apes do.
      .
      There were pithecines living in Africa, Europe and Asia prior to the emergence of the genus Homo. Then, even with the emergence of the genus Homo, there were beings at the erectus stage living as the pithecines had done before them, in Africa, Europe and Asia, and a similar picture emerges with the next evolutionary stage Homo heidelbergensis.
      .
      Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (the Neanderthals) appear to have evolved in Europe and the Middle East, while according to the OAH, Homo sapiens sapiens (anatomically modern man) evolved in Africa.
      .
      I believe however that the evidence shows the emergence of Homo sapiens sapiens in Africa north of the Sahara and the Middle East, in what has always been the Palearctic or European faunal zone, and which during most of the Palaeolithic period had a moister and cooler, more Southern European climate, than prevails today. Homo sapiens sapiens then migrated south into sub-Saharan Africa; north into Europe; and west into Asia.
      .
      In Africa Homo sapiens sapiens (1500cc cranial capacity) encountered Palaeo-Sanids and Palaeo-Negrids who were still at the Homo heidelbergensis stage of development (1250cc cranial capacity) and through mixing with them produced the two main racial groups of Africa with relatively small brains, low IQs and stunted cultural development.
      .
      In Southern Asia, Homo sapiens sapiens (1500cc cranial capacity) encountered Palaeo-Australids (Denisovans) who were still at the Homo heidelbergensis stage of development (1250cc cranial capacity) and through mixing with them produced the aboriginal peoples of the Indian subcontinent and of Australasia with heavier brow ridges, small brains, low IQs and stunted cultural development.
      .
      In Europe and Northern Asia, Homo sapiens sapiens (1500cc cranial capacity) encountered Neanderthals (1700cc cranial capacity) and in mixing produced Cro-Magnon Man (1600cc cranial capacity) and those that ventured further beyond the Tien Shan mountain range, a flatter faced variant with yellower rather than pinker skin colour and a flatter face with epicanthic folds around the eye. The Cro-Magnon peoples then replaced the Neanderthalers as they moved west along the European peninsula during the Upper Palaeolithic.
      .
      I can cite much evidence to substantiate this third hypothesis of mine, which I call the Out-of-Africa, Multiregional, Hybrid Hypothesis (OAMRHH), and while there is not yet sufficient evidence to prove it, I am convinced it will eventually be proven true, because it is consistent with all of the archaeological, genetic and empirical evidence available to us so far. When Professor Chris Stringer of the Natural History Museum was championing the OAH in the late 1970s claiming that anatomically modern humans had no genetic inheritance from Neanderthals, I identified the archaeological evidence in terms of skull morphology that indicated otherwise, and in this modern age of genetic science I have been proven right.
      .
      Furthermore, I have maintained all along that Homo sapiens sapiens interbred with the pre-sapiens populations they encountered as they spread out from their point of origin, thereby giving rise to the modern races of man, and this too has been proven correct with Australian aborigines having been shown to have Denisovan DNA, and with sub-Saharan African people shown to have inherited DNA from ancient pre-sapiens groups that preceded the spread of Homo sapiens sapiens.

  6. Andrew Jones

    - Edit

    I asked one of the scientists who worked on the study – if it had been “peer-reviewed”, he said no but claimed the “methodology” was – sounds fake to me!

        1. Max Musson

          - Edit

          The archaeological establishment have for many decades now been attempting to achieve a consensus in which all modern day humans will be regarded as being at an equivalent evolutionary level with a very recent common ancestor. This is obviously a politically motivated goal that is in keeping with the Marxist concept of human equality. This idea grew from an evolutionary hypothesis originally proposed by Dr Franz Weidenreich a German Jew which became known as ‘Polycentrism’: that the races of man evolved simultaneously in four centres across the Old World, and that each race crossed the sapiens threshold at roughly the same time.
          .
          The weakness of the Polycentric idea is that the mutations needed to propel hominids along the evolutionary trajectory from ape-like ancestor to anatomically modern human would all occur spontaneously and independeantly in four very different environmental zones so that the four major racial divisions of mankind would evolve in parallel and the archaeological establishment reacted in two ways:
          .
          On the one hand, by refining polycentrism into the Multiregional Hypothesis (MRH) proposed in the 1980s by Jewish American anthropologist Milford Wolpoff, Australian Alan Thorne and Chines anthropologist Xinzhi Wu. These archeologists acknowledged the fact that racial characteristics that are still found in and distinguish the modern day races of man already existed in the corresponding pre-sapiens populations prior to the emergence of Homo sapiens. They postulated that the four main racial divisions of mankind had therefore evolved in parallel with gene flow between them, spreading the advantageous mutations that contributed to our evolution without there needing to be accepted any evolutionary epicentre; and
          .
          On the other hand, by rejecting the MRH, identifying that the earliest skeletal remains of Homo sapiens sapiens had limb proportions that indicate a relatively recent warm temperate/tropical origin, and proposing the Out of Africa Hypothesis (OAH) claiming that all modern human populations are derived from a very recent common ancestor from Africa, which spread across the Old World from 50,000 to 150,000 years ago exterminating and driving into extinction all of the pre-sapiens hominids encountered along the way. This hypothesis has been championed by Professor Chris Stringer of the Natural History Museum, amongst others.
          .
          As I have already indicated however, both of these hypotheses incorporate flaws which make them improbable.
          .
          The MRH is improbable in that in order to maintain the falsehood of human equality it postulates that despite the differential evolution that has clearly taken place in order to create the distinct races of modern man, that differential evolution did not occur disproportionately in any one of the faunal zones sufficient to create an evolutionary epicentre at which the sapiens threshold was crossed first. Human migratory patterns, both historic and pre-historic suggest however that gene flow has primarily been from an epicentre located somewhere near the south-eastern corner of the Mediterranean, i.e. North Africa, the Middle East or the Caucasus. It is from there that pastoralism spread into Africa, that pastoralism spread into Europe and other parts of Asia; it is from there that farming spread into Africa, that farming spread into Europe and other parts of Asia; and it is from there that metal working spread and it was not until relatively modern times that the epicentre of innovation and migration shifted to Europe and ultimately Western Europe.
          .
          The OAH is improbable because the morphological characteristics that define the modern races of man are shown in the fossil record to predate the supposed migrations of Homo sapiens sapiens out of Africa. Furthermore despite the proposition of Mitochondrial Eve, recent DNA analysis shows the presence of a significant amount of Neanderthal DNA in non-Africans; a significant amount of Denisovan DNA in Australian aborigines; and a significant amount of specific pre-sapiens DNA among modern African populations of a kind that does not occur outside of Africa. This indicates that rather than exterminating and driving into extinction all of the pre-sapiens population groups they encountered on their expansion, the first Homo sapiens sapiens interbred with those pre-sapiens populations and in thereby acquiring the ancient racial characteristics of those diverse groups, caused the emergence of the distinctly unequal races of man with a diverse range of attributes.
          .
          When all archaeologists and paleoanthropologists agree that the defining characteristic of Homo sapiens sapiens is our cultural creativity, it is absurd for them to suggest that sub-Saharan Africa was the evolutionary epicentre when modern sub-Saharan African populations are characterised by their almost complete lack of cultural creativity. Something happened to the Homo sapiens sapiens that first ventured south of the Sahara that nullified their creative genius and caused their descendants to be remain trapped in the ‘Stone Age’, and it is fairly obvious that it was interbreeding with the pre-sapiens, Palaeo-Sanid and Palaeo-negrid population groups that they found there.
          .
          Similarly, something happened to the Homo sapiens sapiens that first ventured into the Australasian faunal zone, Asia south of the Himalayas and the islands forming Australasia, that nullified their creative genius and caused their descendants to be remain trapped in the ‘Stone Age’ too. Again it is fairly obvious that it was interbreeding with the pre-sapiens populations they encountered there.
          .
          Only when Homo sapiens sapiens migrated north into Eurasia did they encounter hominids of comparable intelligence, the Neanderthalers who had the highest average cranial capacities ever recorded, and was there a synthesis under the harsh selective pressure of the last glaciation, that resulted in the emergence of two races who retained the creative genius needed to take mankind from the Stone Age, through the Bronze Age and the Iron Age and to our age of high culture, science and reason. This is the ‘elephant in the room’ that modern day anthropologists, the advocates of the OAH and the MRH, have been reluctant to acknowledge.
          .
          Interestingly, in this video Professor Chris Stringer from the Natural History Museum appears to have brought his thinking into line with what I have outlined above in terms of the evolutionary course, albeit not from the racial significance perspective: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdP-Wjd1qSY

  7. Mr Charlton

    - Edit

    In a few thousand years scientists will be claiming that Black people evolved from Whites. This will be because someone will find a skull of one of those long extinct White people who once inhabited these lands. As the entire population will by then be entirely Black and they are here after us – they obviously must have evolved from us. Simple.

Comments are closed.