Monday, October 10, 2011

We are not from here; A compelling argument.

The nature of things is to be in balance. The planetary environment (a.k.a. mother nature) maintains balance (within an unspecified range). For example, when a given species experiences a boom in population, they ultimately outgrow their food supply, and starvation among other things reduces the population back to the balanced range. Likewise, their food supply has just endured a population reduction, which takes pressure off it's food supply, which in turn grows in population, leading to the recovery of the population of the species that was eaten up by the initial booming species. All this says one thing: The balance fluctuates, but is maintained. Always. ...with one exception...
The introduction of non-indigenous species. Massive, virtually uncontrolled booms in the population of a species generally occur only when a species relocates to a new environment, finds a comfortable niche, but has no natural predators to keep its population in check. So, BOOM! Suddenly the beast is everywhere, knocking everything out of balance. In the looooooooong run, a new balance will be established and life will continue, but that is irrelevant in the scope of this essay.
My point is this. Humans have overrun the planet. This is largely due to a clear lack of effective predators. I already explained that this only happens when a transplantation has occurred. Well, humans function at the level of the global ecosystem so how could a transplantation have occurred? An inter-planetary transplant - we are from another world.
I have some additional circumstantial evidence as well. In my observations, each species of animal generally has one type of hair/fur. It may be longer or shorter in different places on their body, but fundamentally, it's type is unchanged. i.e. They don't have pubic hair. Caucasian humans on the other hand, often have a dramatic difference between their body/head hair and pubic hair, lighter skinned races as well. However the difference is not so dramatic in persons of African origin/black people. Note that Africa is pointed to as the origin of the Human race. So would it not make sense to see the "two hair types" anomaly as evidence of a mixing of species/races? But there is no evidence for the origin of humans of any type outside of Africa without emigration having brought humans there. An obvious explanation is the introduction of an alien/offworld species which mixed with the native African/black humans, resulting in humans with two hair types. In addition to this, the introduction appears to have altered the human species enough that it began functioning outside the natural balance and thus the resulting overrunning of the planetary ecosystem.
Furthermore, Caucasian cultures and individuals, historically display a drive for conquest and control at levels beyond what would be considered healthy for survival and prosperity; levels we don't see in any other animal. Nor in African cultures - as far as my limited knowledge goes. But as skin lightens, we begin to see this drive emerge around the world.
Do understand that these broad generalizations are for the sake of historical argument only and are not grounds for prejudice or much meaningful application at all regarding today's global human culture.
So yeah, we're alien hybrids...


  1. Interesting. Your posts seemed to contain direct racism along with a lack of knowledge in regards to defining the cultural differences of Caucasians and African-Americans along with their characteristics. Which, clearly have no difference in relation to health and conquest or control except by a matter of opinion; which is then considered more of a prejudiced point of view; rather than an actual fact. Being so strongly opinionated on certain things could be an offense to other people. So in turn, you should always try to avoid it in writing, as a courtesy to other people. ;^)

  2. What do you mean by "direct racism"? If you mean that I acknowledge that races exist and can be loosely defined by certain common physical characteristics then yes. If you mean prejudice, malice, or judgement applied to an individual, based purely on his/her physical appearance/heritage, then No, I disagree regarding my posts' content.

    Please elaborate on what knowledge I'm lacking and how I display it, in regards to "defining the cultural differences of Caucasians and African-Americans along with their characteristics."

    You then state that there is "clearly (have) no [B/W racial] difference in relation to health..."
    Are you kidding me? That there are general, genetic, health differences between races is so well documented ( that it's virtually indisputable. As for conquest and control issues, I already addressed my knowledge limitations in the post (try reading it). I suggest you increase the depth of your research before making judgments of other people and other subject matters in general.
    Before asserting the strength of my opinions stated here, perhaps you should read the blog description at the TOP OF EVERY PAGE.
    Freedom and diversity of expression are fundamental to our culture's nature. Such self censorship as you suggest, would not be merely a disservice to one's self, but to everyone. To consider it a courtesy seems a rather uninformed opinion.
    Anyway, good luck to you, you're gonna need it.
    If you feel like it, apologizing for your improper judgments of me regarding racism, prejudice, and my flexibility of mind wouldn't be a bad idea. Cheers.

  3. Man, fools piss me off... Anyway, I would also like to point out to the
    Anonymous (insecure) commentator that I never mentioned African-Americans. Only cultures actually IN Africa. Perhaps you should indeed get that chip off your shoulder before writing as your indentifiable self.

  4. That should read: ...writing as your IDENTIFIABLE self.
    It only took me a year to correct that. And now I'm sitting here thinking of what comments I should make about that fact. ...retard.