Guess who came up with the "Out of Africa" theory
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
Comments (60)
sorted by:
I hate that this guy influenced my mind as a child in to believing this shit , and that my mind still half thinks its true to this day, even though i know its not, just because the idea got imprinted on my mind as a child. .
so where did we come from then, the hyperboreans?
Robert Sepehr provides a good overview in his video, Out-of-Africa Theory Debunked.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lABvt4l0S3Y
Thank you for the link.
Coming up next week:
>Guess who debunked out-of-Africa? https://x.com/MauricePinay/status/1662171844147855366
I like his work, and watched a fair bit of it across the subjects he touches on. It’s all interesting and mostly good, but his “answers” are scant more than nods in what look like promising directions, imo.
In your defense, you believe a lot of things that aren't true.
So do you, champ.
Name a few.
Why bother you will just pretend to not see the answer and keep having the same conversation.
As is tradition!
Well, you bothered, and were just unable to post anything of substance. You're doing great.
Oh, my apologies. I'm sure your knowledge is 100% accurate and true on all subjects, unlike us plebs with fallibilities.
Sarcasm aside, imagine the hubris of arguing about something that is self evidently true.
And before your witty retort: I'm sure I believe things that aren't true, because I'm a human being. The difference between us is that I acknowledge that fact. I'm looking for truth, not looking to own someone on a fringe message board on the ass end of the Internet. Go have a slap fight with someone else.
It seemed you weren't saying "you're fallible like everyone else", but if this is your fallback position because you cannot actually name something, that's also good.
Of course. We all do.
Let me remind you that you replied to me, not I to you.
Says the vaxxer.
Define 'vaxxer'.
A midwit that deludes he's some sort of intellectual for believing in the science ultimately doesn't even know what to do whether to take the boosters or not, since there's no update about the vaccines yet have the audacity to still act like smarmy twat.
I mean it's true out of africa came from some jewish scholar yet you have to seethe at the fact, sperg out every single time. Give it a rest already and make yourself useful and touch grass. I thought I was going to just lurk here and read but your spergout was too unbearable. What with smarmy attitude for being wrong about almost everything yet you have to stick around here like a leech pretending to be anti-sjw because that's the most safest position to take nowadays while still arguing like breadtuber faggots. How privileged to be a natural born shameless shapeshifter.
“touch grass” uh oh faggot alert
Also active in Germany and a professor during the Weimar Republic.
I heard in a video essay that the effects of the Weimar Republic and it's consequences are still being felt to this day. Yeah. He's not really wrong...
Which video essay?
Are we the New Weimar?
Interesting video for the history and origins of the Weimar Republic alone. Not sure I agree with his overall conclusions, but...
Tomorrow probably:
The whole theory is utterly meaningless anyway.
According to their theory it took ancient
aliensAfricans 40.000 years to leave Africa, traverse all of Asia, intermingle with various other human species (the ones that supposedly left Africa were just one of many) and eventually arrive in southern Europe. Even IF that is true, the people who arrived had little to do with those who left Africa.Hell, if you look back a bit further, evolution says, we have shared ancestors with literal apes and if you go back even further with single-cell organisms. So?
So nothing.. it's just interesting data. Using this data in the modern world to make decisions, either positive or negative, is entirely retarded.
There's the out of Asia theory. One of the evidence is simple population density. The source should be the most dense.
Population growth was only linear until the 50s. After that it was exponential.
They can say what they want, but 40,000 years of evolutionary divergence is one hell of a drug.
/our exertion makes us beautiful.
I never beleived it
Considering that Arabs are indistinquishable from sunbsaharan African peoples it makes sense.
Guess who came up with General Relativity. You should boycott da Joooz by refusing to use GPS, which relies on it...
Jews invented GPS so we should ignore their constant need to destroy white nations with endless immigration!
It's funny how "da Joooz did it" is only relevant when it's something that you don't like.
It’s funny how whitey keeps pointing out the Jews constant subversion of white culture. Doesn’t anyone care that they made GPS!!!!!!
Please demonstrate how the 'out of Africa theory' subverts white culture. Thank you.
Well, it certainly “subverted” (or atleast was part of the effort to subvert) all the prior theories of human racial separation. It allowed every moron on earth to bleet out pat phrases like “there’s more genetic diversity within Africa than outside Africa” and have literally zero idea what they’re talking about, or what their useful idiocy is being used to achieve. “Out of Africa” basically exists to subvert all notions of racial differentiation, since “we wuz Africans 6 gorillion years ago”.
I take less issue with the actual data the theory is based on (basically attempting to reconstruct a history of haplogroup migration), than I do the broad and absurd popular delusions that have been constructed on that theory and data. But one piece I’ll point to debunk the broadest strokes of the theory is to point to the up to 20% of the subsaharan genome which doesn’t appear in any other genome on earth (also referred to by the popsci label “ghost DNA”). Out of Africa has no plausible mechanism by which this reality could exist while also maintaining its core notions.
https://www.reuters.com/article/world/ghost-ancestors-african-dna-study-detects-mysterious-human-species-idUSKBN2072X9
So now 'subverting' previous theories is a terrible thing. Wait till you hear about plate tectonics.
I don't think it does, and even then, you'd have to show that this was the actual intent of the theory. Also, out of Africa or not, ultimately, all humans share the same ancestors - so why?
I don't care if it stands or falls. The claims made in this thread are strange at best though.
It’s funny you mention that. Did you know plate tectonics was originally conceived of as a “catastrophist” explanation for the evidently rapid shifts in the location of the continents relative to the planet’s poles? In fact, it was a shady campaign of accusations of “Science Denier!” that eventually cowed Wegener and his eventual re-writers into the orthodoxy of the “gradualists”. Now we know that the catastrophist interpretation is far more accurate than the Scientific Establishment™️ could ever allow for
So you accidentally have brought up yet another example of valid theories being smashed and contorted to accommodate dogmatic ignorances. Just found that funny.
No I don’t, I directly addressed this dude why waste a paragraph on this:
Because, like you demonstrate in this pat, one-sentence reduction, it allows for woefully incomplete analysis to appear to be some kind of “ultimately honed in on” insight. Which it’s the farthest thing from. It’s a very messy and broad series of claims based on a very messy and broad array of data and the picture it sets out to paint is so incomplete as to be harmful in its reductionism. let me give it to you in a hypothetical - let’s say atleast 0.1% of every human can be traced to some dna we found in africa - that doesn’t actually say anything of value about the nature of the world, certainly nothing with counteracts the valid study of group differences, yet it’s used, ultimately (as you demonstrated) to dismiss these differences with ideas like “we’re all the same, ultimately”
Yeah, the theory definitely isn’t incorrect because this guy was jewish. It’s an unfortunately reality of the polarization of the current times. I wish it was more clear to me how to introduce nuance back into discussions of black and white.
Thank God for GPS. It's so great for keeping track of critics of Israel and finding hospitals to bomb!
It’s not even humans keeping track or selecting which hospitals/refugee camps to blow up anymore, it’s fucking skynet being run on AWS servers (oh and they snuck in some blasphemy while they were at it):
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/01/the-gospel-how-israel-uses-ai-to-select-bombing-targets
I'll never recover from ActOneSceneOne not liking me.
OK, let's break this down. Was Einstein the only guy in the history of the world that could've discovered general relativity? If so, him being Jewish is kind of irrelevant no?
If it's possible someone else would've discovered it, then how many gentiles were working in theoretical physics at the time? Quite a few. Is it possible one of them could've discovered it? Absolutely.
Now let's look at the other side. Did Jewish intellectuals found the concepts of cultural relativism, psychoanalysis, and Marxism? Yes. Did Jewish intellectuals advocate for mass migration into European nations? Yes. How many gentiles were thinking along these lines? Almost none.
Is it possible gentiles would have created these fictive ideas by themselves? Not really, no. The possibility is far greater that Jewish intellectualism was a necessary condition, not merely sufficient, for the formation of subversive concepts. These are all attacks from the outgroup on the ingroup.
Jewish individuals made up a majority of Bolshevik leadership. That would be over 2000% overrepresentation.
Poincare's "relativity principle" and Lorentz's transformation from one "local time" to another predated Einstein. Relativity was already discovered before the "theory of relativity".
Basically Einstein just sexed it up a bit. Like how Turing gets credit for the "universal computer" even though Church's lambda calculus is earlier and more useful - but Turing's Machine was an easier sell to the populace and he was pushed by special groups (the British and the gays), just like Einstein.
Well yeah. My point is not that it is relevant, it's that the Nazis only bring up Jewishness when it suits them. And they do it regardless of whether this could have been the only person in all of human history to come up with that idea.
Let's assume your framing. Were these the only people who could have come up with these ideas? Hardly seems likely.
Clever attempt, but you don't deal with how these ideas actually spread, and among whom. You can also not regard Marxism as emerging in a vacuum. It's the outgrowth of the French Revolution, as the whole idea of socialism itself was.
I'm not sure what you're basing this on.
It doesn't seem unlikely that people who are in an outgroup would come up with ideas that overturn established ideas. In case of the Bolsheviks, it's not at all surprising that the Jews would be with the people who were not staging pogroms. But you must admit that the people who post these things are not trying to make an intelligent, sophisticated argument like you are, but instead want to say "JEWS BAD". Which is why they bring it up when it's something they don't like and never when they do!
I doubt you're correct about this, but just to be sure: do you mean 'the Politburo', and if so, what year? Or as a whole? That is almost certainly incorrect.
This started when you countered an example of Jewish subversion with the achievements of Einstein. I'm explaining to you why that's a weak argument. Einstein certainly accelerated the development of theoretical physics, but many other people in his field were running in the same direction. Whereas in social sciences, for example, social Darwinism was the order of the day until Jewish thinkers like Boaz intervened and turned the bus around to cultural relativism, which undermines the orthodoxy of white, Christian, European countries.
The rest of your post is basically an argument from historical ignorance where you haven't read about investigations into Bolshevism, Marxism, etc. I would refer you to The role of Jews in the Russian Revolutionary movement by Leonard Schapiro, which plainly states on the first page that 50% of the revolutionary party membership was Jewish.
There are also contemporary writings from Churchill and other leaders that show they believed the Jews were leading the Bolsheviks. For example, he wrote the role of Jews in the revolution "is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others."
I believe there’s an interesting case to be made for a type of ancient communism which seems to have persisted through to the Classical era:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Marxist_communism#Classical_antiquity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_communism#Example_societies
If you turned all of the biblical vices into approved activities, and then you manifested those behaviors as a political and cultural belief system, wouldn’t it look a lot like communism?
Communism as practiced? Yes, but I see the same vices manifest in Capitalism as practiced (or whatever label you want to give the ideology “opposed” to communism).
On the flip side, I see many of the values of Christianity in “communism” as written (not marxism per se but the more general ideas of communal-ism which can be shown to long predate marxism (for instance, the reason that the Jerusalem Church collapsed while the Church of Rome thrived was that the Jerusalem Christian community was largely operated “communistically” while the Church of Rome imposed a capitalistic tithing system which helped contribute to their practically ruling the world for a time - one might point to this as yet more proof that “communism is idealism and not achievable in reality”, I wouldn’t disagree but I simply point to it to enrich the conversation which draws threads between “communism” and “Christianity”).
Can you substantiate how this is 'subversion', let alone 'Jewish subversion'?
Can you name a few? Not Fitzgerald or Lorenz, who were running in the exact opposite direction.
How very interesting. You don't have a problem with people subverting historic Christian doctrines with such piffle like 'social Darwinism', but you do care about one incorrect idea being displaced by another? Social Darwinism has more in common with cultural relativism than either have with anything that is related to Western civilization.
Well, you're moving the goalposts already. You said that 50% of the leadership of the Bolsheviks was Jewish, and all you presented was a not substantiated claim about the membership of revolutionary parties.
Furthermore, this happened in the summer of 1903, your article says. This was before there even were Bolsheviks, let alone a leadership of Bolsheviks.
That's very good and all, but there are actual documents showing who the leaders of the Bolsheviks were. You don't need to quote people, you can just point to the members, right?
Look, obviously Jews were overrepresented among Bolsheviks. But as soon as you made that claim, it being as sweeping as it was vague, I knew that you weren't right about it.
The irony is that the two Jewish members of the Politburo I know of voted against the October coup d'etat.
One thing at a time. Let us repeat, again, that a staggering 50% of the Russian revolutionary party rolls were Jewish. There is no Jewish defection or displacement from the revolutionary movement until Stalin excised Trotsky and other intellectuals, so in 1918 the number of participants, at the minimum, is the same in the Bolsheviks. In regards to the leadership, Jewish representation throughout history has been notoriously top heavy. For example, a survey in the 80s found that Jews are 60% of Hollywood decisionmakers. So if anything, we would estimate representation in Bolshevik leadership to be even higher.
You can't swat this aside, sorry. The fact that you even tried is laughable.
In a not substantiated claim, yes.
Partly true, but the 'revolutionary movement' was not just the Bolsheviks. There were also the Mensheviks (actually led by a Jew) and the Socialist Revolutionaries, who were divided internally between minimalists and maximalists.
Why 'at a minimum'? When you can empirically verify the actual leadership of the Bolsheviks, why on earth would you go on an unsubstantiated claim of a government official which is not even about the leadership?
I am not sure what an unnamed study about Hollywood teaches us about the Bolsheviks from 2 generations earlier in a completely different country. For one, it's a very insulting comparison to the Bolsheviks - they weren't pedos and cocaine users.
Actually, it's laughable that you made a claim about one thing and tried to prove it with something completely different (if unsubstantiated), and then dragged in Hollywood degenerates.
Excuse me? Are you going to substantially dispute the specific claim that 50% of the revolutionary party rolls were Jewish? How?
This has to be the most tortured argument you’ve ever written here. So he’s possibly or even probably right, but you think most of the people who agree with him don’t understand the nuances of why he’s right, and therefore… what exactly? He’s wrong? But you didn’t say that. And even if you had, you would have been engaging in a fallacy.
Further, you imply your belief that anti-Semitism simply falls from the sky. Negative opinion of Jews is always arbitrary and exists as a first order principle, animating and directing all subsequent opinions such that they are inherently invalid, yea? But then why do so many people across so many cultures and nations develop these opinions in mutual isolation? Why do people raised within intensely pro-Jewish cultures (as the West) spontaneously develop negative opinions about the Jewish ethnic cohort? Pattern recognition seems a far greater possibility than “muh papa didn’t like ‘em”.
humans appeared at most 2 million years ago, the earths surface was pretty much in its current position as of at least 20 million years ago, maybe more
that is assuming you believe any of the rest of the story
Pangea was like 200 million years ago. When dinosaurs roamed the land.
Oldest hominid found is a few million years ago and they were well different from modern people.
That would be a really huge gap in the record for humans to have spread out on the supercontinent and then stayed interbreedable for a couple hundred millions of years. Hollow Earth is more believable than that.
That would also require humans to be the first mammals.
You are correct but when South America was connected to Africa but I don't think apes even existed. It was millions of years before humans evolved. By the way I don't know if I believe the out of Africa theory either. Nothing can surprise me.
Other people have already pointed out the rediculous statement regarding pangea, I'll only comment on the fossil record aspect. You can't really rely on a fossil record with hominids because we tend to favour more temperate and forested climates which don't preserve bodies very well (there are obviously certain situations such as bogs and peaty soils where this is the opposite, and incredibly lucky situations in which a body is quickly buried under a lot of sediment). So you have an abundance of preserved fossil evidence of hominids in dryer climates such as North Africa, but very little outside, which might not reflect the reality of the situation.