I n d i G o| b L u


Archive for Europe

White| in America

Yeah, white people have thier own set of issues too…..

I found this to be very interesting. Most people were wondering what something like a “White in America” documentary would look like. Well, here’s your chance to actually see.

I saw this at Macon D’s blog:


Myth|about HIV/AIDs & |the True Origin|of Mankind

So the story, in a nutshell, bascially goes….Out of Africa..into the Middle East..into Asia, then into Europe  (Map)

 Evolution A gradual process in which something changes into a different and more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development. The process of developing. Gradual development.

Perhaps evolution does exist, but perhaps its definition, especially in this case, is flawed. What, exactly, is more complex or better with seemingly unbeneficial mutations? Lighter skin, straighter hair, different color eyes, and different color hair—how are any of these things more complex or in a “better” form other than the myth of European features being aesthetically appealing more so than African features.

18th century anthropologist Christoph Meiners, who first defined the term, characterized the “Caucasian” as having the characteristics of “lightness“, “beauty” and being “handsome” with the “ancient Germans” having the “whitest, most blooming and most delicate skin” because they were the most racially pure Caucasians.

18th century anthropologist Johann Blumenbach, the second person to define the term, considered Caucasians to be the top of “racial hierarchy” he organized where,

 the white color holds the first place, such as it is that most Europeans. The redness of cheeks in this variety is almost peculiar to it: at all events it is but seldom seen in the rest.” and described Caucasians as, “Color white, Cheeks rosy; hair brown or chestnut-colored; head subglobular; face oval, straight, its parts moderately defined, forehead smooth, nose narrow, slightly hooked, mouth small. The primary teeth placed perpendicularly to each jaw: the lips (especially the lower one) moderately open, the chin full and rounded.

Further definition of evolution: Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

Of course, Europeans are not a different species, considering the fact they have the least genetic diversity which makes them much more susceptible to harmful mutations only invalidates this definition more. Moreover, all humans share more than 90% of their DNA with each other, so the genetic variation that does exist is very minute to their genetic commonality, with people of African decent having the most genetic diversity.

Natural selection is the process by which favorable heritable traits become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable heritable traits become less common, due to differential reproduction of genotypes. Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism, such that individuals with favorable phenotypes are more likely to survive and reproduce than those with less favorable phenotypes.

Favorable by whose standards–defiantly not mother natures.

 More than this, what happened to the extinction aspect of evolution in this case, if everyone else ultimately evolved from Africans, why is the African populations not dwindling on the point of extinction? Just how much time is required, it’s been about 100,000 years. In 2007, the population of Africa was 965 million, while Europe has 731 million. Of course not everyone in Europe is of European decent and the same can be said for Africa, however, most are actually of the origin of the continents –give or take a few.

Those who try to argue about AIDS playing out the role of natural selection on the African population (which is by the way, very unintelligent) —you’d have to say that Europeans and people of other races are not able to contract the virus—and everyone knows that they are just as capable as anyone else of contracting AIDS. If they were somehow evolved, as a “better developed breed”, so to speak, they’d have immunity to this OR somehow adapted in some way. I just wanted to address the stupidity before it came.

Why would one think, and be justified in thinking, that AIDS, or HIV is a man-made disease? Two very simply reasons..maybe three–besides the ones listed on the above mentioned site.

  1. The fact that this virus has two strains in such a short amount of time, and it just sprouted up all of a sudden, out seemingly no where. Monkeys were discovered to have the virus parallel to the time it began to spread in the (African) human population. As many experiments that monkeys and apes have been subjected to since the breaking age of science, it is highly unlikely that scientist, all of sudden found out those animals had HIV–at least they would have noted a decline in the population much earlier than the time it took to spread in the human population.
  2. The way the virus works, turning the immune system against itself, is unnaturalin its entirety. There is no other disease or virus known to do this.
  3. There are occurrences of two women from China who were exposed to the HIV virus AND actually showed immunity to it.
  4. Magic Johnson is alive and well (almost 20 years) and it is pubically known that he has/had HIV/AIDs.

Fishy stuff, huh? Everyone’s life is affected and at risk by AIDS. Start asking questions, seeking information, and demandig answers—real answers. I’ve noticed how many people just take whatever the media/government feeds—much like jumping of a cliff because someone simply told you to jump”. 

Other Helpful links: http://rense.com/general67/viru.htm  http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/AIDS3.html         http://www.aliveandwell.org/