Eradicate Whitey

Can’t happen.

Oh you could wipe us out and replace us with Africans but guess what? That’s where we came from.

Humanity, science is pretty sure, started in north-east Africa. Side note: real science is never more than ‘pretty sure’ about anything. All of science is open to question and open to new data. When you hear ‘the science is settled’ and the Word cannot be questioned, that’s religion. Especially if it has a repeatedly-predicted apocalypse that never actually happens. Climate ‘science’ has predicted far more Days of Judgement, and been wrong more times, than any religion on Earth.

Even so, science is pretty sure on this one. Humans first appeared in north-east Africa, pretty close to where the Bible says Eden was situated (yeah, couldn’t resist chucking that cat among the pigeons :D).

So, in the beginning, we were all black-skinned. Had to be or we’d have died of sunburn and skin cancer. White skinned at or close to the equator is not a good mix – okay these days we have sunscreen and clothes but back then, no.

It is therefore no surprise that the much-vaunted Cheddar Man, apparently the first human in the UK, was black. Of course he was. He would have migrated here from Africa. Just like everybody else, everywhere on the planet.

The thing is, having black skin when you’re getting close to the poles is a disadvantage. You cannot produce enough vitamin D in your skin to survive.

Note for the obvious retort – Vit D carries calcium and helps with bone growth. You can get rickets in Africa if you have all the vit D you need but not enough calcium in your diet. You need both. Oh, and no, you could not nip to the chemist for a pack of Vitamin D pills. In many places you still can’t.

So those who were born lighter skinned in the North did better that those who were born really dark skinned. Eventially we lost most of the melatonin and became the Honkies who are so despised, even though we are actually the same people.

It took thousands of years. It will take thousands to do it again but it will happen.

So sure, wipe out Whitey and fill the North with black Africans. Wait a few thousand years and you’ll have to do it all again.

They might come here hating us, but the very act of coming here, as we did thousands of years ago, means their descendants will become us.

We are not a separate species. White people did not come from different stock than black people or brown or any other shade of skin. We are one species. We all came from the same place, we just adapted to the place we lived in. All you white people who hate black people, your ancestors were black. All you black people in Europe who hate white people, your descendants will be white.

In the end, as with most things in life, your fevered rantings and violent purges will end up changing nothing at all.

Have a cup of tea. Smoke. Relax.

In the end, nothing matters enough to get a heart attack over.

30 thoughts on “Eradicate Whitey

  1. That is why I always tick the “Mixed Race” box in nosey government questionnaires..
    Also I know that under the rules of the game, I am “black”. If a white mates with a black the offspring is black. And so on down the generations.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. It’s a fascinating study, because the Africa we know today was part of a whacking great lump the wise people call Pangaea.

    And our ape like forefathers wandered around freely.

    So when the plates moved, so our primate ancestors became marooned and they evolved a bit like we see on the Galapagos. One that seriously raises my bile was the Fuegians. They’ve gone, killed by whalers and some dictator.

    Those early whalers also slaughtered huge numbers in Tasmania.

    Our evolution has resulted in some truely remarkable variants – and the Pharos, who had seriously and elongated skulls used that to get themselves elevated to godlike status.

    You’re correct it can’t be done, any more than we eradicated the Neanderthal. Err… No… We’re about 1 to 3 % Neanderthal.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Humans first appeared in north-east Africa, pretty close to where the Bible says Eden was situated (yeah, couldn’t resist chucking that cat among the pigeons :D).

    Us creationists are quick to point this out also, although, post-Flood is what counts rather than Eden. The creationist view makes more sense. After the languages were confounded and people were forced to spread throughout the world, the Genesis chronology is remarkably close to other chronologies:

    The people who dispersed had various amounts of melanin (not melatonin, although I was informed that they are related). The darker-skinned people did better in Africa, so survived, while the ‘whites’ (light-browny pinks, really), survived further north.

    Most people probably believe that people evolved to suit the climate, but skin tone is down to the DNA. The people who crossed over to America (probably while it could still be done by land as the ice from the ice age was still retreating) only had genetic information for medium brown skin, which is the reason that native Americans are medium brown from the Inuit down through the tropics and on to Tierra del Fuego. The equivalent of negroes and whiteys couldn’t appear because the DNA wouldn’t allow it.

    As far as I’m aware, all non-negroes have Neanderthal DNA. Again, the ice age can explain the vitamin D deficiency that would have caused the rickets, broken bones, bad teeth and arthritis common to these people – and when the climate warmed up again, people returned to normal.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Melanin is the skin pigment, melatonin is the brain hormone that gets you to sleep. I get those confused all the time but then I’m not an endocrinologist 😉

      DNA can change, sometimes surprisingly quickly. Also, recessive genes can pass down many generations before they get a chance to express themselves. Africa sees occasional albino humans who would do better in northern climes (if the superstitious didn’t kill them for body parts for rituals!).

      Some white people can tan quite dark. Some, like me, turn into Lobsterman on contact with sunlight followed by a transition into Captain Flakey. Those who can tan would adapt to sunnier parts of the world, while those like me would be forced into a nocturnal existence in sunshine. Wouldn’t bother me too much, I live mostly nocturnally anyway. Especially in summer.

      It’s not so much ‘evolved to suit the climate’ as ‘those best adapted to the climate stayed there, those who didn’t like it, moved’.As I moved north.

      There are cases of rickets among dark-skinned people in the UK and it’s vitamin D deficiency. There’s no shortage of dietary calcium. There are cases in Africa where there’s plenty of sunlight for skin-made Vit D but the diets are deficient in calcium. It’s a lot easier to fix Vit D deficiency in the UK (you can buy the tablets in most shops now) than it is to fix a calcium-deficient diet in an African village.

      I have a whole rant building on diet too. People now sneer at things like liver, kidney, heart, etc because these are ‘offal’ and ‘civilised’ people don’t eat them. Well I do. I suppose I shouldn’t really complain about the snootiness of the modern diner because it means those things are incredibly cheap and full of good stuff. If you’ve never had stuffed lamb’s heart, make sure you’re really hungry before you start. It’s highly compact muscle!


      • I was prescribed melatonin once and after reading about it, decided not to take them. Some claim that they can mess up your own production after three months of use. Doctors don’t like prescribing benzo sleeping pills now, but they’re fine with irreversible brain damage. Good old NHS: envy of the world.

        I don’t claim to be a world authority on genetics, but I’m sure I know more than most of the layman ‘experts’ out there who argue with me because they read a Dawkins book once. It’s so complex that I doubt if any top-notch geneticist understands as much as he’d like to.

        I think the dry liver I was served up in childhood put me off offal. I’d need to be really hungry to eat some of that stuff, even if I crash-landed in the Andes in a plane carrying a cargo of the stuff. I might be more tempted to eat the co-pilot first…


      • In truth Leg’s the Scots do eat a fair amount of offal. Haggis.

        The canned stuff uses lamb lungs and a good butcher will make their own with minced kidney and liver included.

        I’d guess the Haggis patties they serve in fish and chip shops will be the same as the canned version.


      • It is interesting from the perspective that people will just take “science” and do with it what they will to “prove” their point, like in ‘Public Health’.

        How can a theory believed by billions be “officially debunked” because two Russians have said so? I don’t believe the OOA theory either, but this looks like bad science to prop up modern comic strip pseudoscience to further whatever their agenda is: alien races/atheism/racism and elitism by assuming they are more highly evolved.

        The comment section under the page linked by the phrase, “scientific evidence,” is full of bad-tempered debate, self-aggrandising and pure racism against blacks. And as usual, there are the loonies who blame everything on the Jews!

        Evolution theory is highly racist and bad science and to suggest that black people are a different species to everyone else takes us back to Darwin’s time when Australian Aborigines were shot as missing links for museums.

        Seems to me that these are people with nothing better to do with their time than distorting science to try to defend their racism OCD.

        I’m not accusing him of being a racist, but I was into that Graham Hancock-type nonsense while I was intellectually feeble-minded. Perhaps I still am feeble-minded, but I don’t consider myself superior to black people at all.


        • “How can a theory believed by billions be “officially debunked” because two Russians have said so?”

          Millions believed that the sun revolved about the Earth but one man with his inconvenient facts said otherwise.

          Just because millions of people believe something to be true, it doesn’t follow that they are necessarily correct. That’s how science works – one man with his inconvenient facts debunking the beliefs that went before.


            • Oh, god… brain farts or what?

              Actually, it is entirely possible that different hominids evolved. Evolution theory is not racist nor does it suggest superiority. Simply that the strongest survive and weaker genes die out.


              • Yes, one man can be right and everyone else wrong, but, the scientific process involves brainstorming/hypothesising/speculating, etc., followed by experimenting/collecting empirical evidence, followed by re-experimenting and have others repeat the experiments and, via peer-reviewed confirmation, a hypothesis might be considered to be of value.

                Two blokes writing their opinions does not constitute correct scientific process and to make the claim that all which went before is now “officially debunked” is pure wishful thinking by the writer. These days, people seem to believe what they want to, regardless of validity.

                There is actually plenty of empirical evidence for geocentrism; far more than there is for neo-Darwinism. People tend to believe what is expedient and/or what they have been conditioned to believe.

                Don’t get me started on ‘hominids’. They can be divided into humans and extinct apes. It’s only an issue because every (paleo)anthropologist wants one named after him, based on a fragment or two of bone that an illustrator with a good imagination has transformed into the next ‘Boxgrove Man’ or ‘Nebraska Man’.

                Evolution theory is highly racist, as it infers that some people are more highly evolved than others (mainly Africans). Hitler’s ‘bible’ was Madison Grant’s “The Passing of the Great Race” i.e. the ‘Nordic’ race of superhumans like Adolf. It was under the influence of US and UK Darwinists and eugenicists that formed many of Hitler’s most atrocious ideas.


                • “Evolution theory is highly racist”

                  Sorry, but this is factually untrue and repeating it doesn’t make it true. Evolution is a theory that relates to the survival of species – the fittest survive and the weakest die out. It infers *nothing* as it was based upon observation and Darwin recorded his observations. As with all scientific theories, those experiments are capable of being replicated and the theory is falsifiable. This is not racist. It cannot possibly be racist as it follows accepted scientific principle. Bugger all to do with Hitler or any other follower of eugenics.

                  As for the linked article – it relates to tracing DNA across continents. It isn’t just two blokes having a conversation. They have produced evidence. Therefore that evidence needs to be examined on its merit. Again, is it falsifiable? Can the data be tested according to standard scientific principles?


        • Hello Stewart, it has been a while, remember me? I see you are still spouting creationism and denying the theory of evolution. A theory which has stood the test of time for 170 years. Nothing is certain in science (read Karl Popper). and it is possible that a better theory will supplant our current notion of how the biological world works. If so it will be based on the rational scientific method. For example: The Newtonian world view explained the mechanics of the universe almost perfectly. Then along came Einstein in the early 20th century and his theories and equations concerning relativity overturned Newtonian mechanics. This is how science works. Anyway, Stewart, I’ve recently retired and living the life of idyll in rural New Zealand. As a retired professional geneticist, I now have time to review the musings of the internet and its denizens. I have decided to visit your ‘place’ and give my considered opinions on topics sundry. Don’t worry Stewart, I will remain respectful and comment without personal insults or histrionics. I am not a troll!


          • I know you’re not a troll, my dear Saxon. Of course I remember you. I should have been a Kiwi myself. The family was set to emigrate in the 60s, but my mum decided that she didn’t want to leave her mother. If things get much worse here, which they will, I’ll be looking at going elsewhere. I expect you could hide out on the South Island for years and evade detection.

            Karl Popper seemed like an interesting character. More laid back, perhaps, than the average hubris-filled scientist?

            Most of my writings are still up on, but no point leaving a comment because I cannot log in if it ends up in moderation. Something nasty must’ve happened when I migrated to a new host. If you use an old email address, it might well accept your comments.

            I won’t finish on a song, but on a Karl Popper quote:

            “Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve.”


                • Yeah, I’m aware of Piltdown Man. It was an example of credulousness, but doesn’t impact on evolutionary theory. Hoaxes and such are merely human failings as are examples of pseudo science such as eugenics and phrenology. Scientific process will expose them sooner or later.


                  • Piltdown Man did impact on evolutionary theory for 41 years, during both world wars where the ‘theory’ was used to justify mass murder on an industrial scale. You can still watch German propaganda films about the degeneration of the German people because they have “transgressed” the laws of natural selection and allowed their less fit people (“lower than any beasts”) to procreate.

                    Piltdown Man was also given as evidence in the Scopes trial.

                    “Hoaxes and such are merely human failings as are examples of pseudo science such as eugenics and phrenology”

                    What about the thousands of ‘scientists’ who went along with the hoax? What about all the other ‘hominid’ hoaxes which have misled people for decades? These lies have had huge consequences. You are defending Darwin, but you seem to know little to nothing about what has gone on, historically or scientifically, not to mention the philosophical problems evolution theory throws up, which makes even Dawkins balk at its moral implications.

                    Eugenics isn’t a pseudoscience in practice A century ago, it was being used in a few places, incl. the USA, to try to selectively breed ‘better’ humans. We live with it today, due to people like the insane Marie Stopes who hated the ‘lower orders’ and disabled and left a legacy of eight million dead unborn babies in the UK since 1967 and the growing euthanasia movement and general mistreatment of anyone seen as a “burden” on society.


                    “Scientific process will expose them sooner or later.”

                    Real scientists have exposed the hoaxes, but academia has an a priori commitment to materialism and so they are gatekeepers, like the MSM and the education system, to maintaining evolution theory as the only permissible version of history, regardless of the evidence.

                    Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist) wrote,

                    “Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

                    “It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

                    At the end of the day, this is a religious war, not a scientific disagreement.


  4. That humans adapt over thousands of years is no big news. I’ve long held the opinion that people change over the generations, either through genetic (Parental) or Epigenetic adaptation (The ‘switching on and off’ of various genes).

    The origin of this opinion was based upon my own observation, where certain families I knew had what was once called “A lick of the tar brush” in their ancestry, but to look at their modern day descendants you would never know that they weren’t all descended from 100% ‘white’ antecedents.

    A simple explanation of Epigenetics:


      • Agreed. Unfortunately Jean-Baptiste did not have the specific knowledge to back up his theories, but now researchers are starting to get a handle on how environment shapes evolution.

        The next step is working out the chemical triggers in the womb. When that happens, then parents will be able to decide what traits their offspring have in some very fine detail.


  5. Thank you to our host and all commenters for being interesting, thought provoking (as in ” making me want to learn more” ) and remaining polite.
    Regarding mating with Neanderthals : it seems that humans will mate with anything, animal, vegetable or mineral. Maybe it is a survival thing, like trying to eat anything. After all someone had to be the first to eat fugu. And live.


  6. Dear Longrider,

    “Sorry, but this is factually untrue and repeating it doesn’t make it true.”

    Denying it repeatedly also doesn’t make it false. As always, you need to ask, “What is the evidence?”

    As a “theory,” you might be able to argue that evolution is not racist, but the way it has been used by racists and eugenicists to support their aims is very well known. It is a fact that evolution theory is used by racists to further their racist notions and reinforce ideas of their own superiority.

    You just have to read filth like this. The ‘theory’ has made people think like this for generations.

    “It cannot possibly be racist as it follows accepted scientific principle.”

    Darwin was not a real scientist, yet he is considered one of the greatest scientists who developed some great unifying scientific ‘greatest show on earth’. It’s all nonsense.

    Darwin was a keen observer and reasonably good writer, but his ‘theory’ is extremely unscientific. Darwin extrapolated without limit, which is highly unscientific. This was not a ‘theory’ but a story from his imagination. He often used words in his writing like “I see no reason why….”

    His theory of a common ancestor was not achieved through the usual scientific method at all. He had an idea and published his theory. Experimentation was not a major factor, if a factor at all. He had noted that organisms show variations and blew this fact out of all proportion by making the utterly unfounded claim that this is evidence for a common ancestor in the distant past.

    It was a narrative which suited the growing ‘Enlightened’ [sic] ones, as it explained life without the need for a creator, except it explained it in a ridiculously flimsy, evidence-free way, but it is what people wanted to hear as an alternative to special creation.

    Darwin doubted his own theory. His main concern was that, if he was right, that there should be a ‘truly enormous’ number of intermediate links in the fossil record, but wrote:

    “Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.” (The Origin of Species)

    But! He expected the intermediates to be discovered. They haven’t been. The fossil record is still as it was in 1859: a record of the extinction of fully-formed organisms. Evolution didn’t happen.

    “Bugger all to do with Hitler or any other follower of eugenics.”

    The term ‘eugenics’ was coined by Francis Galton, who was Charles Darwin’s cousin and from whose ideas about natural selection he devised his own ideas on alleged racial superiority. Fellow eugenicists like Madison Grant not only had Hitler’s attention, but many other world leaders’ attention.

    Re. the article, I agree that the evidence needs to be examined on its merit. I don’t believe either story! The original paper was published seven years ago, so where are all the new recruits now that the “Out of Africa” Theory has been “Officially Debunked”?

    Science cannot be ‘officially’ anythinged, as there is no referee, so the article falls on its face starting at the headline. Certain scientific understandings can form ‘official’ policy at the NAS or Ofsted or Oxford or Cornell, but that’s all.

    But, I don’t see how you can deny that the rabidly eugenicist Nazis were not influenced by evolution theory or even just natural selection. They very clearly were.


First comments are moderated to keep the spambots out. Once your first comment is approved, you're in.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.