Race: a huge blunder of science

IF you accept Darwinism you think we evolved from apes and that civilisations are a recent development. Even then, the Bible, which accepts creationism instead of evolution, narrates that humans have only inhabitated the planet for no more than 4, 5 or 6 thousand years. Either way due to geographical separation we have a scenario where many species were isolated on continents in some penultimate period.

Modern events have seen all of that change, where migration and domination of introduced species has led to loss of diversification, a supposed 'sin of mankind', the result of European colonisation and globalisation. Sadly most if not all of this has happened under the banner of religion, either Christianity or to a lesser extent Islam.

Yet there is another train of thought, that of the Vedas - where Ice Ages have periodically interrupted millions of years of humanity by forcing retreat and dieback on a massive scale. The last period of maximum glaciation ended roughly ten thousand years ago, and since then the melting ice caps and glaciers have changed the topography of the planet vastly. The Vedic thought is that their culture has survived through all of this for millions of years by retreating to areas protected by the Himalayas.

The problem with science, the substitute "Almighty" of atheists, is that it is relative and imperfect (unlike the Absolute, Divine Creator, Supreme Being, Big Dude In The Sky or whatever you identify with) and can make monumental mistakes.

Take classifying humanity into different races, for example; a huge blunder in science. [Quaintly put, the original conceptual division of anthropology was simple - Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid, Australoid. This ran into problems when other "races" were identified, such as the indigenous Ainu of Japan for example, or lumping Polynesian, Melanesian and other Pacific Ocean islanders all together]. Simply put, races don't exist - in reality they are an artificial academic construct, a result of geographical separation over long periods of time. Eventually there will be so much "interbreeding" that it will be impossible to distinguish one "race" from another. The 'modern scientific' assumption of apparent racial distinction is simply a result of the geographical separation of civilisations. One day there'll be kangaroos in Europe just like our colonial rabbits here in Oz. Maybe even Polar bears in Antarctica and penguins at the North Pole. We've already got feral camels and buffalo in the outback and California loves its Eucalyptus gum trees. I say diversity is a good thing and in the future there will be no such thing as an 'introduced species'. It's all just a matter of time.

Sure, there are genetic differences in the DNA of so-called "races". But that occurs even within families. The fact that humans can mate and produce viable offspring proves that we are all one species and that race is a nonsense concept.

So how did all this come about? Even if you accept Darwin's proposition (which I don't) that we evolved from apes (well I'll be a monkey's uncle!), that doesn't explain the sudden recent emergence of civilisation. That evolving ape thing is supposed to be millions of years ago (emphasis on supposed) yet suddenly society springs up 5,000 years ago?

This geographical separation phenomenon has given us a skewed vision of history. Before the technological advancement of sailing boats, continents like Australia and the Americas remained largely inaccessible to the outside world apart from from migration on foot which is what happened. Without genetic diversity, species became "indigenous" purely because they were isolated, no migration. In the future all of this will change. Trying to preserve an outmoded paradigm defies common sense, is useless sentimentality, and flies in the face of progress and evolution.

What happened in the past is what people erroneously call an Ice Age. The fact is we are still in one, as evidenced by the polar caps. There have been at least five ice ages in Earth's billions of years history, and between each one the frozen caps disappear (Galcial/Interglacial Periods). What people really mean by "the last Ice Age" is the last stadial within the Glacial Period, which peaked about 20,000 years ago. Between each Glacial Maximum is an interstadial period of warmness. What alarmists label as global warming is actually a periodic cyclic event, the interstadial we are currently experiencing, somewhat like seasons but happening on a much longer time period of tens of thousands of years.

So picture the Earth before the last glacial period, which lasted about 130,000 years (interstadials vary from 10 to 50 thousand years; stadials, or glacial periods are much longer - generally 100 to 500 thousand years) and ended 20,000 years ago. When everything froze over, all life had to retreat to the few remaining areas of warmth that could sustain them. And where was that?

Time for a quick lesson in geography. Nearly all of the Earth's major mountain chains run North-South. The Rocky Mountains of USA, the Scandinavias, the Andes of South America, the Great Dividing Range of Australia, the Atlas Mountains of Africa - all offer little to no protection in halting the advancing Ice Age as it crept towards the Equator from both polar regions.

The exception to this are the East-West Himalayas of India, the Swiss Alps of Europe and the Caucasus and Zagras of Turkey and the Middle East. These are the only places of refuge between the North Pole and the Equator (there is no Southern Hemisphere equivalent) and it is no accident that this is where the world's oldest civilisations come from. South of these ranges, on the Plains between the mountain peaks and the Equator there were no glaciers. They stopped at the mountains. This is why all the Earth's oldest civilisations come from Equatorial regions.

Modern historians mark recorded history from the time humans started writing stuff down. That doesn't mean there was no history before then - again, about 5,000 years ago - just that it wasn't recorded, passed instead by oral tradition, as people had better memories before Kali Yuga started in 3012 BC.

Consider the possibility that many civilisations died out during the Glacial Period (approx. 130,000 - 10,000 BC), or became isolated, lived in caves or underground, eventually dumbed-down through separation and lost their knowledge. Perhaps this is why we are 'taught' (given pictures) of stupid Neanderthal Man groping with clumsy tools as being our ancestors. Yet there are cultures that claim to go so far back in time that their origin is impossible to pinpoint.

Vedic civilisation is one such culture and claims to be millions of years old. Some other surviving cultures are the Chinese, the Australian Aborigines, and of course the African Negroid - a term now not encouraged because it is racist.

Which brings us back to the original context of this whole story. The idea of dividing humanity up into separate races is in itself inherently racist and an invented, artificial construct. It is purely geographical separation over time (as a result of the "Ice Age") that caused the lack of genetic diversity contributing to a limited range of physical features - hence, a supposedly distinct "race".

It is the nature of survival that if a culture's needs are met there is no reason for peoples to migrate, let alone travel long distances seeking adventure. In previous Ages society was more  cultivated and concentrated on spiritual and religious endeavour. All this changed 5,000 years ago with the coming of Kali Yuga, the lowest of all ages culture wise (there are four and they rotate in succession). Losing their spirituality, civilisations became enamoured with lust for sense gratification resulting in capitalism, colonisation and conquering of foreign lands. That's where the ships come in - really high tech stuff in those days.

We tend to look back and judge everything as being really primitive in the old days but it's all relative. We take books for granted but before the invention of the Gutenberg press everything was copied via handwriting. Sometimes books were limited to a few dozen issues. Mass publication was such a boon that it even changed Christianity! No longer were citizens dependent on the Church for scripture; each home could have a Holy Bible and practice worship without having to be dependent on priests and cow-tow to the Roman Catholic Church. They no longer had a monopoly. This is how all the different denominations took hold and the origin of the "Bible Society" began.

Nowadays we look upon books as old-fashioned, outdated technology. Yet like the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Vedas, Egyptian hieroglyphics and the Tibetan Book of the Dead and so many other scriptures, books do not require electricity and are available for use all the time regardless of circumstances unless you don't have a candle!

With no recorded history academics have a hard time proving anything before the invention of writing. Academics discard oral history as mere anecdotal 'mythology'. History starts at the point stuff was written down. Before that it's prehistoric ha ha. Not that long ago, forget about dinosaurs!

Take for instance the Guru-Disciple relationship, formally known as shishya. Say you want to learn how to play the mridanga, an Indian hand-drum. You approach a teacher and promise to serve them, and in return they impart their knowledge verbally and with demonstration and instruction.

It is an oral tradition. Each way of tapping or hitting the drum has a name (bol), and one recites the bol name as each stroke is played. The first lesson is te-re-ke-ta. This simultaneous speaking and playing sets up a dynamic that will enable the student to later sing and play the rhythm once learnt. Sure, it can be written down but it is not necessary. I learnt to play mridanga  primarily from written down stuff (the internet) but it was absolutely vital to hear actual playing (YouTube) to confirm that I'd got it down right. It's like learning a poem or a riddle or a funny joke. Once learnt properly the student then becomes master and can faithfully teach the same knowledge to a new student.

Historians have no interest in any of this because there is no evidence, no "written account of history". That doesn't mean knowledge wasn't imparted or exchanged or that nothing happened, just that it isn't recorded.

So effectively all history amounts to the stuff that was recorded (in those days written down) as if people were too dumb to recall and recite it later! Historians date the Vedas as being no older than a few thousand years. But the fact is that's just the time they were written down. Before that they were passed down for millions of years by oral tradition just like all cultural traditions are these days. There is no telling how old any of them are.

There is debate about when Australian Aborigines migrated. Some say there were two or more waves, 40, 60, maybe 120 thousand years ago. Chinese dynasties can only be dated from the time they wrote shit down. Same thing with the Egyptians and papyrus. Funny enough it all traces back to 5,000 years ago... the start of Kali Yuga (again!) when memories deteriorated and they had to start writing everything down.

'Cos that's when history "began".

Back then everyone was a joke teller.

Is History Fake ?

                 (from a fb post 23 Feb, 2014)

It is a well-documented and albeit controversial theory of where and when the Aryans invaded India from the north. There is considerable controversy about Indo/European and Indo/Aryan ancestry and migration. Perhaps it is more accurately deemed a White Supremacist myth,  postulated by recent Christian historians to promote Caucasian superiority and discredit the indigenous people of India. There is in fact no such thing as a race of Aryans, just as there isn't a race of Accountants!  The word 'arya' denotes the quality of lightness, specifically in consciousness and certainly not the hair or skin colour of how 'Aryans' are commonly portrayed. Little is known in the West about 'The History of India' before the successive invasions of the Aryan, Muslim and British Empires. Ancient history as we now know it, is based on evidence. When there is an absence of evidence before a certain time, then that time period is called pre-history. Sounds simple enough.

At the humourous risk of sounding like I'm talking about Cavemen, I'm going to make the assertion that Vedic knowledge is prehistoric. I'm suggesting that the model I was taught in High School - that Mesopotamia was the 'Cradle of Civilisation' -  and indeed was taught in educational institutions around the world at that time, was based on a flawed assumption. Current thinking is that there was no single 'cradle', but several civilisations that developed independently of which the Near Eastern Neolithic was the first. Some of the other known independent 'cradles' are the Indus River of the Indian Subcontinent, Yellow River in China, and the Peruvian and Mesoamerican cultures. Scholars and historians have commonly used writing (amongst various criteria) as a definition of 'civilisation', which is arguably a flawed categorisation as it presumes that earlier cultures lacked sophistication- rather than having no need for writing!

Modern science proposes that various civilisations invented writing as they 'developed'. Consider this widely accepted idea though: prior to this, the tradition in ancient cultures all around the world was to pass on knowledge orally (because they all possessed powerful memories). However, apart from Quarrel and Hypocrisy, another one of the symptoms of the current age Kali Yuga, which began roughly 5,000 years ago, is poor memory. As the faculty of memory diminished, the need arose to write things down so that they wouldn't forget. We all know what that's like.

Furiously disputed by the indigenous peoples of India (as they have 'inside information', where folk-lore has it that the Veda were in existence from at least 6000BC and not the 1500BC that the West guesses they were compiled) the current Western viewpoint of the History of India credits the 'Aryan Invasion' with the development of the Vedas and Hinduism as we know it today, because THEY WERE THE FIRST to write it all down... but it wasn't just an isolated incident. It was happening everywhere out of necessity.

All over the globe, civilisations everywhere that previously relied on the established oral tradition had to find a way to record their knowledge as their memories faltered. From the ancient hieroglyphics of the Egyptians, and the separately developed South American Incas; to the multi-character glyphs of the Orient; and the (no caveman jokes please!) Early European and Australian Aborigine cave paintings - all these cultures independently developed pictorial/written recordings at around the same period, roughly five thousand years ago. I'm suggesting that things were going BACKWARD, not FORWARD, as modern materialistic society would have us believe.

(Curiously this 'advent of writing'  coincides with the astrological Great Age of Gemini which ended about six thousand years ago (c.6000 - 4000BC) which rules the hands and communication. No-one knows how long the Chinese existed before records were kept. The Australian Aborigines, as far as we can tell, migrated in at least two or three waves, from at least forty thousand years ago to eighty or a hundred and twenty thousand depending on your leaning.)

This FORWARD PROGRESSION concept of human development is fabricated to fit in with the Darwinian theory. Well, I'll be a monkey's uncle if I'm gonna fall for that theoretical pseudo-science. Hang on a sec - no I won't (insert your own caveman joke HERE). Sure, we've made wonderful advances in medicine, technology, the arts etc yet at the same time millions of  people in society are becoming increasingly alienated from natural lifestyles,  billions of people are still suffering all over the world, and we've managed to wipe out a huge fraction of species of life in our relentless pursuit of PROGRESS.

Time for ... (?)

[ although I can claim authorship for this (it took me quite a while cos I get a bit OCD about spelling and grammar) I must confess that the ideas aren't really mine. I've just taken bits I've read from various sources and tried to correlate it into one congruous piece. I'll try to add more later ]

Folklore Pre-dates History

Attempts (lies) by Europeans to Compile (fabricate) the History of the World vs Folklore of Ancient Civilisations; which is closer to the Truth?

Have you ever wondered why folklore and 'scientific' history are so at loggerheads? Why it is that traditional knowledge passed on by Elders and held as sacred is written off as 'mythology' and disregarded as inherently 'unscientific'? Because it challenges the Modern Christian View – that until the "Advent of Our Lord Jesus Christ", all humans were 'hopelessly drifting in an ignorant world of chaos devoid of sophistication and spiritual meaning'. Nothing could be further from the truth! People were much more tuned-in prior to 5,000 years ago, or at least 'in harmony with nature'.

To get a perspective of the difference between accounts we must compare the folklore handed down through generations with modern observations by outsiders who are completely removed from any first-hand experience – a prerequisite known as 'independent objective analysis', deemed as compulsory by Western 'experts' in any valid assessment.

Several cultures have histories that go so far back that their origins cannot be traced or determined, making them for want of a better word 'pre-historic'. India and China and to some extent Egypt and Meso-America have no known beginning, at least according to outside observers. Yet these and many other Ancient Civilisations, cultures and tribes have their own version of history at odds with the so-called 'experts'. Some do not put an exact figure to it, in that the origins are so lost in time that it is pointless to even try to callibrate dates. Others are more precise, using age-old complex calenders to record the passing of Time.

White Christian Europeans proselytise a version of history that fits in neatly with the Biblical account of The Flood ie 4,000 years ago, even to the point where non-Creationist Evolution theories are almost secretly tolerated because they aid in denying the concept of intelligent, civilised peoples inhabiting the Earth long before and independently of the Coming of Jesus - merely as a bunch of primitive, ape-like subhumans grunting and behaving like animals, incapable of higher thought.

Actually, these lost-in-time modern nations still survive today by virtue of their innate moral refinement, developed social structure, and highly advanced survival skills - the most important technical advancement necessary to thrive. Technology has up until now been unimportant, simply because it wasn't needed for survival, and actually made life unnecessarily complicated, being largely at the expense of Mother Nature.

Many 'facts' are misunderstood by modern historians. Take writing, for example. Older cultures are painted as being undeveloped, dumb cavemen hardly capable of anything requiring such expertise as language let alone calligraphy. Yet these Ancient Civilisations all attest to not needing to write anything down, as their highly developed memory removed any need of such tiresome practices as recording in writing pictograms, hieroglyphics, calligraphy, etc. Only due to the deterioration of memory (a symptom of Kali-Yuga as the Hindus call it, beginning c. 3012 BC) did writing etc simultaneously emerge all over the globe in many remote cultures independently around the same time, ie the last couple of thousand years. Strange thing, that. Progress - my foot!  

It is not unreasonable from this perspective to say that the Human Race is actually devolving, systematically jeopardising our own survival by bit by bit destroying the very substance of our existance - Planet Earth - all in the name of 'Progress'! Up until the Industrial Revolution of the Middle Ages, every corner of the globe was relatively safe from wanton 'development'. With colonisation by White Christian Europeans of each and every yet unexploited nook and cranny of the Third World, came genocide of the indigenous population, rape of the countyside and mass extinction of multitudes of species, irreversibly altering the face of the Earth forever.

Progress it certainly ain't. The intellectual elite responsible is preoccupied with sensual pleasures, all at the cost of natural instinct. In fact these 'refined' barbarians are so twisted that they try to pretend that it is the only way 'forward' when we smarter folk know that getting back to our roots is the only key for a meaningful existence and successful survival. Far from being a regression, it is a necessity in terms of Quality Of Life.

Take for example, 2012 of the Mayan Calendar. Anyone in the know was aware that this date represents the beginning of a new calendar cycle upon the completion of the outgoing measurement cycle. Yet this was widely publicised by Western propagandists, in an attempt to discredit the Ancient Civilisations, falsely as a 'Doomsday Event', thereby inviting mockery in its inevitable failure to materialise due to it being a complete falsification.

Or, take the Boden Chair, Oxford University, 1832. It was created to 'translate' (with alteration; to weaken and discredit) the Vedas into English with the sole purpose of converting Hindus into Christians. To this day Monier Monier-Williams is regarded by Western Scholars as the most influential in the formation of the Sanskrit-to-English dictionary. Yet its inception was maligned right from the very beginning. Who knows how much has been meddled with, deliberately lost - even the 'original' Devanagari script may have been tampered with! There is one classic questionable incidence in the Garuda Purana where it supposedly 'says', "Two things improve with beating - a drum, and a woman". I kid you not. This is decidedly 'un-Vedic', totally against the tone of the vast body of work, the Veda.

There is much controversy as to the dating of the Vedas, conveniently  contrived by Western scholars to be post-Flood, contrary to indications and references contained within the texts. There are astronomical constellations and transits, configurations, etc mentioned throughout, that over and over again place the dates many thousands of years earlier than The Flood. Yet these twisted Christians won't allow it. Ask the indigenous Hindus, and they will all tell you that The Veda are anywhere from 4-6,000 BC to 10,000 even 20,000 BC, not 1500 BC!

As for the Chinese - well, good luck with that, especially considering their record for censoring sensitive information from public scrutiny. Even if they had a solid handle on their history, it's unlikely they would make it available for scholarly disection. All those dynasties, Ming, Tang, whatever, dates are a bit muddled, but we get the general picture - prebiblical, same as the Indian dynasties well recorded in detail as far as names of families go, just not so hot on the dates due to conflicting use of different calendars.

End of Part 1.

Part 2: Giants, Ogres, Fairies and other Little Folk 
(to be continued...)