.png)
Basic Dimension
(406) Homo naledi gave us Archetypal Racism (406) Homo naledi gave us Archetypal Racism
MODERN RACISM IS SICK MAGICAL THINKING, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN ALWAYS THE CASE.
Racism from Homo sapiens arose from a genuine sexual instinct from bipedal primates. It was meant as a centripetal force. But subsequently, human racism has been badly modified in the evolution to a centrifugal force. This is caused by our enlarged frontal cortex, allowing people since Homo erectus dumb magical concepts to play psychologist, as I do now:
HOMO NALEDI KNEW OUR SICK BRAIN:
THE HIERARCHY OF RELIGIOUS CONCEPTS:
BETWEEN LIFE AND DEATH:
SLEEP FOREVER:
Tribal identity
Assumption 625: Tribal identities.
Cultures are defined by their tribal identity from which religions are derived.
The first bipedal primates diverged in outward appearance from extreme inbreeding in seclusion, looking like different species and surviving only by practicing what we would now call "racism" in distinguishing between the ethnicities of their species.
And bipedal primates had good reasons to practice "racism" for 14 million years. If we do not understand these roots of racism, further discussion becomes difficult.
WE ARE A SICK SPECIES AND PROUD OF THAT:
Modern racism
Definitions:
Assumption 627: Identity politics:
Identity politics is a political approach wherein people of a particular gender, religion, race, social background, class or other identifying factor develop political agendas based around one or more of these categories.
Racism is an approach in which individuals of a particular race or ethnicity are identified on the basis of alleged group characteristics projected into them.
Racism/discrimination is part of identity politics.
The first bipedal primates assumed that the appearance of individuals of a certain subspecies could be equated with their (deviating) tribal identity. Therefore, they easily confused the individual with his group based on external features.
Assumption 628: Identity politics is a policy of Woke Hominids to manage the people by projecting alleged group characteristics into naïve individuals.
General aspects of racism:
- The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
- Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
- The belief that each race has distinct and intrinsic attributes.
Definitions
From The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.
- The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
- Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
From Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License.
- The belief that each race has distinct and intrinsic attributes.
- The belief that one race is superior to all others.
- Prejudice or discrimination based upon race.
From WordNet 3.0 Copyright 2006 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.
- Discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race
- The prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races
Basic Dimension:
Discrimination, prejudice, and abusive behavior stem from the assumption that races have distinct and intrinsic traits and abilities, which is why superior and inferior races are postulated.
Species and subspecies:
Technically, a species is a population or groups of populations that can potentially interbreed freely within and among themselves. Subspecies, on the other hand, are subgroups within a species that have different traits and are defined by scientists
https://askabiologist.asu.edu/questions/human-races
What’s the difference between race and subspecies?
A long time ago, the words race and subspecies were used to mean the same thing in biology. This was before we knew how much or how little genes could differ between animals. Now we only use subspecies to refer to living things that aren’t human. We only use race when we talk about humans. We often try to group humans by race based on how they look. While humans may look different on the outside, our DNA looks very similar.
It is clear that the process of human racism can derail in the long run. The longer it stagnates without converging into integration or assimilation, the more difficult it is to untangle its terrible sequential interactions.
Resume: Homo sapiens' racism is bad, because it projects alleged group characteristics into the individual. We now call this identity politics. But the first bipedal primates could not talk yet and had to infer the tribal origin from the outward features of a passing stranger (the Archetype of Racism):
Assumptions:
Assumption 621: The Archetype of Racism:
The first bipedal hominids relied primarily on inbreeding for survival. Then inbreeding became tribal identity. Much later tribal identity led to religion: The Inbreeding Cult which is still alive. The first bipeds did not die out easily from inbreeding because of their varied genome like chimpanzees. But extensive inbreeding in many places created a variety of different looking subspecies. And so, they checked passing hominids for tribal identity by looking to their outward features. In this way, 'racism' arose as a way of allowing strangers into the tribe. This archetype of racism therefore only looked at outward appearances and not at psychological features projected into races or subspecies.
Assumption 622: The definition of Racism:
Racism is an approach in which individuals of a particular race or ethnicity are identified on the basis of alleged group characteristics projected into them.
Assumption 623: The intent of Racism.
Racism tries to achieve symbolic balance between cultures, between tribal identities, bringing races or ethnicities into the cultural harmony of integration and assimilation. And of course those are almost always unpleasant corrections from both sides.
Assumption 624: Outwardly features led to 'racism'. The first bipedal primates were interested in outwardly features of aliens to determine whether they belonged to their species. Then it was decided whether they should be admitted to their tribe or exiled. So, outwardly features were cues regarding tribal identity, which identities had to match. Because the first bipedal primates had a lot of genetic variation in the same species, checking facial features was a meaningful substitute for tribal identity, especially since they could not talk yet. Also, no difference was assumed between individuals and their tribes.
Assumption 625: Tribal identities.
Cultures are defined by their tribal identity from which religions are derived.
Assumption 627: Identity politics:
Identity politics is a political approach wherein people of a particular gender, religion, race, social background, class or other identifying factor develop political agendas based around one or more of these categories.
Racism is an approach in which individuals of a particular race or ethnicity are identified on the basis of alleged group characteristics projected into them.
Racism/discrimination is part of identity politics.
The first bipedal primates assumed that the appearance of individuals of a certain subspecies could be equated with their (deviating) tribal identity. Therefore, they easily confused the individual with his group based on external features.
Assumption 628: Identity politics is a policy of Woke Hominids to manage the people by projecting alleged group characteristics into naïve individuals.
We descend from Homo naledi!
Homo naledi was the lesser of Homo erectus and they lived more than 2 million years alongside each other in Africa. Most likely Homo naledi hid from erectus but many times females must have been captured by erectus. And so DNA from naledi ended up in erectus, but not vice versa.
The same probably happened with Homo neanderthalensis who raped females of Homo sapiens, whose DNA is not found in neanderthalensis.
Homo erectus had a varied DNA and practiced inbreeding and outbreeding.
So, Homo erectus was not a pure inbred population and more importantly, he
invented the soul and earthly reincarnation:
invented the soul and earthly reincarnation:
Homo naledi, on the other hand, was a pure inbreeding culture that did not believe in the soul or reincarnation, but in a kind of earthly rebirth, just like new plants grow out of the soil under the influence of the God of Darkness:
Homo erectus must have been a terrible obsession for Homo naledi and the latter developed a religion to protect their tribes through almost complete inbreeding and isolation. They also prevented their unborn fetuses from being born into the wombs of Homo erectus females:
There has probably been a variety of subspecies of Homo erectus, at least two, and the admixture with Homo naledi definitely led to Homo sapiens in a straight line. Homo naledi was a balanced inbred population (like dog breeds), which indirectly delivered its DNA to Homo sapiens, which unfortunately had a much less varied genome and thus became extremely vulnerable to inbreeding:
And because inbreeding cultures cannot survive without racism for the preservation of their DNA, Homo naledi transferred its archetypal instinct of "racism" from Australopithecus through Homo erectus to Homo sapiens as the Archetype of Racism.
Subsequently, Homo sapiens developed the modern variant of racism (identity politics) as we know racism today. But the modern Homo sapiens variant is misleading and sometimes unethical. Today's mess comes from Marxism and postmodernism, which basically amounts to projecting alleged group characteristics onto naïf
individuals.
The difference with Homo naledi is that the Archetype of Racism was sincere in itself and already got enough information from facial features (phenotype) to judge
assimilation or segregation for the spread of their genotype. So, what they saw was what they got. Archetypal racism has been a sincere effort to keep the species pure on behalf of tribal identity.
The phenotype of the stranger was directly comparable to their subspecies, their tribal identity, their religion (Rebirth or Reincarnation), which identities had to match. Thus, they did not make psychological projections beyond the individual's phenotype. So, there was no sneaky modern variant of racism (see the Racism equation) that aimed at forced integration of other cultures. This deceptive process was not developed until Homo sapiens (or Homo erectus).
But indeed, Homo erectus probably already used the Master-Slave model for Homo naledi females:
It is a fluke that Dr. Lee Berger stumbled upon Homo naledi in the Rising Star Cave. Many thanks to him and his team. Lee Berger changed the paleoanthropology of Homo sapiens. Dinaledi chamber changed our understanding of human evolution forever:
Bipedal primates on the savannas:
The bipedal mutation:
Actually, there was not a single mutation, but a whole series of subsequent mutations to adapt bipedal primates to the savannas. That Period lasted from 14 million years to 7 million years ago. And from then on the first remains that indicate an upright-walking species were found:
The pelvis had changed:
The skull attached at chimpanzees posteriorly now stood erect at the body (inferiorly).
Bipeds could now easily walk 18 km in a day against chimpanzees 4 km.
So, four-legged primates were stunned to see such a weird bipad:
Assumption 374: A necessary condition for bipedality was spear defense. Bipedal primates did not exchange the forests for the savannas without this simple and effective protection against predators. Spears were not invented but arose naturally from their environment. Australopiths must have transported multiple spears tied together with ropes from knotted grasses. Knots that they did not invent, but that originated naturally and were learned to untie. First bipeds themselves invented nothing, no stone tools, but wooden tools came on their way.
The model adapted to Australopiths:
1) Australopiths broke off a branch.
1) Australopiths broke off a branch.
2) They trimmed the side branches and leaves.
3) They stripped it from bark by rubbing on rough surface like sharp rocks.
3) They stripped it from bark by rubbing on rough surface like sharp rocks.
4) They sharpened the tip of the tool against the rocks to a sharp point.
5) Or they made points with their sharp teeth like chimps can do.
6) Australopiths must have transported multiple spears tied together with ropes from knotted grasses. Knots that they did not invent, but that originated naturally and were learned to untie.
In most cases, the Fongoli chimpanzees carried out four or more steps to manufacture spears for hunting. In all but one of the cases:
1) chimps broke off a living branch to make their tool. They would then
2) trim the side branches and leaves. In a number of cases, chimps also
3) trimmed the ends of the branch and
4) stripped it of bark. Some chimps also
5) sharpened the tip of the tool with their teeth.
Inbreeding bipads and outbreeding quadrupads
Four-legged primates (quadrupeds) such as chimpanzees are tired of walking 5 km and then need to be at home again in the forest. Therefore, they never leave their biotope and are a stable factor among the other chimpanzee tribes. At the age of 7, female chimpanzees begin to leave their tribes and roam the forests in search of their outcrossing destination in another tribe.
But males will stay together in their tree in the male cognate line. So the effect is almost perfect outbreeding, except when a hereditary disease breaks out in the male bloodline, what never happens. Well, I'm not certain of that, because alien male DNA in females.
Bipedal hominids, however, with their seven league boots could travel 18 km a day without tiring and entire groups disappeared over the horizon, into all directions. The further they walked, the more difficult it became to exchange young females. And even 2 million years ago, there were only 26,000 bipedal primates in the world. So the chances of African Homo erectus meeting others in Shangchen were very slim:
Nevertheless bipeds managed to exchange young females:
Paranthropus robustus (2 Ma; 400cc)
A 2011 study using ratios of strontium isotopes in teeth suggested that Australopithecus africanus and P. robustus groups in southern Africa were patrilocal: females tended to settle farther from their region of birth than males did.
A 2011 study using ratios of strontium isotopes in teeth suggested that Australopithecus africanus and P. robustus groups in southern Africa were patrilocal: females tended to settle farther from their region of birth than males did.
Aborigines 50,000 years ago:
The point is that extreme inbreeding has occurred with bipedal primates on many places resulting in a wide variation of phenotypes from the same genotype of hominids. They could interbreed, but they knew that extreme inbreeding had also led to different tribal identities. And tribal identity led to tribal religion and was the unifying power of the tribe. That's why the first bipedal primates projected their own facial features onto the faces of passing strangers to estimate their tribal identity. Of course, they couldn't speak yet to get their information in another way.
This means that the Archetype of Racism was fair and did not focus on the psychology of the individual under review. His phenotype simply had to reflect the right tribal identity, which was vital to the survival of the tribe. If they recognized themselves in the stranger, he was accepted and otherwise refused.
inbred cultures are threatened by alien genomes, and therefore perpetuate by genetic discrimination, which is, of course, another word for racism. Well, maybe the same genome but different phenotypes.
Chimpanzees have an outbreeding culture in females, but inbreeding in males. But the total effect is outbreeding. Male chimps hate males from other tribes and will kill them on their territory. But they welcome alien juvenile females for outbreeding, because quadrupeds are outcrossing cultures. And because they like fresh females.
So, many bipedal hominid cultures must have been inbred populations like Homo naledi and thus discrimination and racism arose from inbred populations. And still today discrimination and racism are primarily to be found in inbreeding cultures. Outbreeding cultures (Christianity) mix with all kinds of peoples and practice less racism.
- Homo naledi has lived alongside Homo erectus for 2 million years and developed a policy to reject hominins with different DNA, which we now would call racism:
- Homo naledi was an inbreeding culture but probably mixed with Homo erectus. Very probably we descent from this combination and that's why also humans are prone to inbreeding. That is, if Homo naledi is our predecessor then also his extreme inbreeding instinct came into our genes:
- Homo naledi (2.3 Mya - 236,000 Ka; 550cc) lived along side Homo erectus (2.2 Mya - 10,000 Ka; 900cc). It is almost certain that Homo erectus has captivated females from Homo naledi, so that genes from naledi came into erectus but not the other way around. Homo erectus simply was much stronger.
Eventually Homo naledi was overrun by Homo erectus:
And these genes later passed into Homo sapiens. This makes Homo naledi the most notable predecessor of Homo sapiens:
The same with Homo neanderthalensis who dropped his genes into Homo sapiens but not the other way around. That's because Homo sapiens males did not like female Homo neanderthalensis. Homo sapiens practiced aesthetic female breeding but Homo neanderthalensis did not:
So the DNA from Homo naledi with all hominid traits ended up in Homo erectus but that of Homo erectus likely not in Homo naledi.
- This makes comprehensible the Rebirth cult of Homo naledi:
Homo naledi tried to prevent rebirth fetuses repaired and rejuvenated with longer telomeres by the God of Darkness from ending up accidentally in female wombs of Homo erectus, which is why Homo naledi likely kept his females in camps in front of the Rising Star Cave. Well, their tribes must have been closer to the Cave than Homo erectus tribes:
- And that means Homo naledi, who inherited a multimillion-year inbreeding culture, passed this extreme inbreeding instinct through Homo erectus to Homo sapiens:
- And that was special because Homo naledi was a balanced inbred culture (see dog breeds), wherein the phenotype for all individuals in Dinaledi chamber was the same and so there must have been a lot of homozygous combinations that no longer led to life-threatening autosomal recessive disorders because that had been selected over millions of years.
- And that means that homo species that evolved from this variant of Homo erectus inherited their rather strong inbreeding instinct most likely from Homo naledi.
- And this inbreeding instinct was prone to archetypal racism, which deteriorated into human racism (identity politics).
- In deviation to the genetic monoculture of Homo naledi, however, we also see genetic diversity in Homo erectus, for example in Dmanisi Georgia:
'Traditionally, researchers have used variation among Homo fossils to define different species. But in light of these new findings, Dr Lordkipanidze and his colleagues suggest that early, various Homo fossils, with their origins in Africa, actually represent variation among members of a single, evolving lineage - most appropriately, Homo erectus.'
But Homo sapiens got a disastrous impoverished genome, with identical alleles and prone to autosomal recessive disorders. Therefore I placed the wording of the Tree of Knowledge of autosomal recessive disorders at 74,000 years ago, central in the outburst of Mount Toba on Sumatra. The genetic downfall of Homo sapiens actually was from 100,000 - 50,000 years ago.
Therefore, the following conclusion looks somewhat premature:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/05/210520133722.htm
The spread of modern humans out of Africa about 80,000 years ago is an important period in human history and is often described as a genetic bottleneck. Populations moved out of Africa and into Asia and Europe. The effects of these migrations can be seen even today. Genetic diversity is lower in populations outside of Africa than in African. That Pestera Muierii 1 has high genetic diversity implies that the greatest loss of genetic diversity occurred during the last Ice Age (which ended about 10,000 years ago) instead of during the out of Africa migration.
Conclusion strong inbreeding and archetypal racism:
If Homo naledi lived until 235,000 years ago and Homo sapiens appeared 350,000 years ago then it is nonsense not to see that Homo naledi was a direct predecessor of Homo sapiens.
- So, the extremities of Homo sapiens and Homo naledi must be causally linked, probably through Homo erectus. There is no reason for convergent evolution for manifestations of the same species that lived so closely together in the same period.
