Subjective Assumptions underpin Mainstream Genetic Study

[Michael]

In my opinion, the problem with the whole current, and past, scientific analysis of Mitochondrial and Y-Chromosome DNA is that the issues have always been analysed under the assumption that "modern man" evolved. No other assumptions have to my knowledge ever been entertained.

It is understandable that under this assumption science has to rely upon the unproven theory that species gained their differences via mutations in history. Indeed, the origin of the majority of the European race is supposedly found in a mutation from the hitherto norm species that took place either in Africa, or in Mesopotamia at least 12,000 years ago. Of course Judeo-Christians must necessarily support such an evolutionary assumption as well, as they believe that all "human" races today derived from Noah and his family. This evolutionary assumption also causes a problem for non-CI WNs, in that they have to rely upon evolution to ultimately account for their existence, and if they do so, then "why can't we all learn to live together, as we are all from the same origins anyway?", as the liberals will rail against them.

Mainstream science also always relies on the dogma that as there is supposedly more genetic differences between people of the same race, as there is between races, race is a social construct only. On this point Bill's observation from a few days ago over in the Forum Section relating to Indo-European language is pertentant, in that we do not have likenesses of what they are calling "European" so as to physically judge this assertion.

However, in my opinion, accepted scientific evidence also does not discount a different base assumption. That assumption being that the white race is the original "control" race in the analysis of available genetic evidence.

Honest scientific methodology should see science put aside any subjective assumptions, and analyse all possibilities, and choose the one that is least in conflict with concrete scientific evidence.

From a CI perspective we of course believe that Yahweh created all man in his image, and so the angel Satan and the other angels that rebelled against Yahweh are also white. Upon their removal from Heaven they sought to be better than Yahweh, and so went about creating their own world. How they created other beings, be it genetic modification, or an angelic ability to interbreed with other species, the main point is that the first human species on earth were white; ie, the Fallen Angels and their leader Satan. How can this assertion be supported by science? Here are some starting points:

1. Negriods and Mongoloids have always had the ability to produce albino types on rare occasions. However, whites never produce black offspring if the generational parentage is exclusively white. Therefore, negriods have some white genetics, but whites have no negriod genetics. Thus whites must have been the progenitor race.

2. Science has shown that all "man", "white, black, yellow, or in between" can be traced to the earliest of human remains found on earth. This is understandable, as Yahweh also created Satan and the Fallen Angels in his image. Therefore, Europeans/Whites of course will have some genetic link to these other species, as the non-white species were developed through either genetic modification, or an angelic ability to interbreed with other existing non-human species by the progenitor Fallen Angels.

3. One scientific problem has been that whites and Mongoliods have some genetic similarities to the Neanderthal/Cro-Magnon species, but blacks do not, so where does Neanderthal species fit into the evolutionaly model? This is explainable under the Fallen Angel creation assumption simply in that the Fallen Angels developed Neandethal in a different area to where Negriods existed (like also the Mongol development by the Fallen Angels in a remote area to Negriods), but nevertheless Neaderthals contained some of the original Yahweh created white genetics passed from the Fallen Angels. If Negriods are the progenitor race, how come they share no genetic links to the neanderthel species?

These are only a few examples that come to mind. Please add to them as folk see fit.

Of course Yahweh then created Adam in his image to start His own exclusive family presence on earth. Having seen how His earlier creation had dishonoured Him and rebelled against Him, He left the offspring of the Fallen Angels on earth as a test for His Adamic Family, so that they would know the fruits of evil and vanity if they sought to partake in the same. If Yahweh did not leave the offspring of the Fallen Angels on earth, His new creation would more than likely end up doing as His Angelic creation had earlier done, and not be obedient to Him.

In short, our alternative position of the non-white species being created by formally white Fallen Angels is not, in my opinion, in conflict with genetic evidence as established by science.

(Again, note that the positions held by non-CI WNs and judeo-christians are in conflict with genetic evidence as established by science. Moreover, because judeo-christians assert that all people are descendants of Noah, they necessarily support evolution theory, as obviously their exists different races today. It follows that if judeos support evolution, then there is no need for a creation, and thus no need for their christian faith. However, they are too involved in their "feel good" traditions to see that outcome.)

[learningaboutCI]

Paradigmatic problems with genetic testing are the main reason why I have not bothered to have my DNA tested. That, and the other criterion one can use to feel confident.

I'm so white that when I went to Spain, people made fun of me. They told me to spend more time in the sun. The whole time I was there, they were deriding me.

I don't know of a single solitary piece of evidence that anyone on either side of my tree that had a bar mitzvah, or a yarmulka, or a jewish candelabra, or anything of the kind.

More than 75 years ago, people tried harder to keep separate from the jews. And that's well within the time of photographs and well-preserved writings.

Jesus said, My sheep know me. I know I feel repulsed by what the jews do, and not attracted to it. I see the truth of CI.

I don't act strictly out of self-interest, but instead I have the kind of altruistic good-for-us-all kind of personality that an Aryan would be expected to have.

I have only one defect, in my teeth, and my siblings don't have it. I think it is something I ate when I was about five. It affected my liver and kidneys, thus causing an imperfection in my bone growth.

So I haven't bothered getting a DNA test. People think genetics is very scientific, but I've heard they even have to redefine "gene" sometimes. There is the problem of gene expression. Some people think there is a degree to which genetic expression can be altered by behavior (although I don't think the basic code can be). And what would it really mean? Suppose I read out as 2% Neanderthal. Do they really know that? How significant are the interpretive elements in their methods? I suppose if they said I was part jewish, they would be right, but where would the jew be, if I have no sign or trace of jew in my known history? Genetic science might not be two seedline (to say the least), so how do they really tell the two apart? In other words, I have no confidence that the testing methodology is itself meaningful. Except that if you were obviously not White, it would confirm that with a dot on the map in Africa or Asia or wherever. There is also a small degree of imprecision that testing services acknowledge.

Have any of you debated whether or not to bother with a DNA test? What reasoning did you settle on?

[marc4liberty]

I have considered having my DNA analyzed. Before I do, I would like to know what percentage of European/white heritage qualifies being an Adamite and what identifiers qualify for being an Israelite.

My parents are from southern Europe and both were so white that they wouldn't even tan. I have (had) dark hair and brown eyes, as did my parents. I have one aunt and some cousins who have (had) blue eyes and blond hair. My aunt definitely had the same father as my mother and they looked almost like twins except for the eyes and hair. I know the Normans conquered the area where they lived about a thousand years ago.

What if I did have my DNA tested and they found a small percentage (say less than 3 percent) non-European heritage? Would I be automatically disqualified from eternal salvation? Would I be automatically disqualified from being a member of CI. Would I have to quit being a Christian?

I don't fear the answer. Regardless of the answer, I would continue to follow Yahweh's laws and love Him and witness His eternal truth through Yeshua Christ, whether or not He is my Lord and Savior.

[bahr]

Just a word about "Cro-Magnons", to show how much all these "human sciences" are really a vast swindle.

When I was younger, the official "scientific" dogma was that the "Cro-Magnons" where white skinned. It was certain, it was proved, it was thought everywhere, and most people still believe it today. But propaganda changes with time. Today, propaganda demands that Europe was not originally White, and consequently, on Wikipedia, we can read this:

While the skin and hair colour of the Cro-Magnons can at best be guessed at, light skin is known to have evolved independently in both the Asian and European lines, and may have only appeared in the European line as recently as 6,000 years ago suggesting Cro-Magnons could have been medium brown to tan-skinned.

So we see that the "White Cro-Magnons fact" was in reality nothing more than propaganda (destined at that time to brainwash White people about "evolution"), and now that practically everyone is already brainwashed, they just had to replace the old psyop with a new one, more religiously correct: the "arab" version. Notice the usual phraseology: "suggesting", "could have been". Hard science, indeed!

[Fenwick]

Your point about whites being the baseline pure race is one that has an additional point in genetic testing.


When they say "oh, this person has genes that show up in North Africa" what they're suggesting is that the person had a negro or an arab for an ancestor.

They don't take into account that virtually all nonwhite populations are mixed, so a white man sharing genetic markers with a north african arab doesn't mean that white man is part arab, it can often just mean that those arabs have a lot of white ancestry.


It's the enemy's tactic of taking a result for one group and assuming that it applies across all groups, something they usually attack racialists for doing.

[Lang]

As far as I know the black race is the oldest race in Earth, much older than us... I'm sure I have read even CI sources talking about this. I think evolution is right to a certain extent, but it does not applies to whites. I believe that blacks came out of monkeys while we were created by God much after the other races.

[marc4liberty]

@Lang:

If you want to know William Finck's interpretation of Genesis, in terms of the different races, I would listen to (or read) his presentation of Pragmatic Genesis Part 3:

http://christogenea.org/content/christo ... ic-genesis

Bill documents this very well. Even so, I am still struggling with this interpretation. I know from looking up the Hebrew words in Strong's, it seems to me that the Hebrew language uses the same word for "ruddy" "man" "mankind" and "Adam". However, they are listed as three different words in Strong's (119, 120 and 121). I guess the usage depends on the context and other identifiers (e.g. the article). I am still searching for an answer.

I am completely convinced that adamic man was created (formed) by Yahweh for a special purpose and that adamic man alone has the spirit of Yahweh and has eternal salvation through Israel and Yeshua Christ. I am not yet convinced that all other non-adamic people (beasts?) were not also created by Yahweh, but for a different purpose.

[Kentucky]

I am not yet convinced that all other non-adamic people (beasts?) were not also created by Yahweh, but for a different purpose.

This is what Bill said in Part 3:

The reference to “every tree of the garden” is certainly not a reference to other so-called races, since they are not a part of the Tree of Life and have never - until the sins of our recent past - been included as part of any White culture. Rather, the other races are branches on the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and Adam was told to stay away from them. They are angels bound in chains of darkness. That is why the parable of the net contains only two races of fish: good fish and bad fish! Yahweh made nothing bad. Rather, the bad are from the tree of knowledge of good and bad.

A question: who made the tree of knowledge of good and bad?

Mark

[Filidh]

originally yahweh made all of existance, including the messengers. when the third of the host of the sky rebelled and was cast to earth, they were henceforth a desecrated and perverted folk, partially-but-not-entirely cuz they mixed their seed with every kind. thus, even tho yahweh made the fallen messengers originally, he isn't responsible for their perverse state-of-being afterwards, or any other perverse abominations that walk on two-legs and talk, cuz yahweh creates good but the evil one perverts into evil.

i'm open to correction if i'm in error.

[Kentucky]

originally yahweh made all of existance, including the messengers. when the third of the host of the sky rebelled and was cast to earth, they were henceforth a desecrated and perverted folk, partially-but-not-entirely cuz they mixed their seed with every kind. thus, even tho yahweh made the fallen messengers originally, he isn't responsible for their perverse state-of-being afterwards, or any other perverse abominations that walk on two-legs and talk,

So if God made the tree of life, who made the tree of knowledge of good and evil... "the fallen messengers"? Don't get me wrong, I believe hybrids/mixed seed are not 'kind after kind' and therefore not of God's Creation as intended.

cuz yahweh creates good but the evil one perverts into evil.

Let me see if I understand you correctly. The "evil one" cannot pervert something into evil unless it is good first? How do you reconcile Isaiah 45:7?

Mark