The Birth of Beauty

The European man is the Neanderthal man, the Neanderthal man is the European man!

Quite accurate reconstruction of the Neanderthal man:
544e80e6fe0fd9c28d2d89a27c2bf926

Thanks to Marie Cachet (https://atala.fr/) now we not only know who we really are, but we can also banish from our minds the official theory propagated as a universal truth in the media, in the educational system and in the entertainment industry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_Africa_I

Yes, a mere hypothesis is passed off as the absolute truth about our origins…cui bono? Well, I will just say you that the Out of Africa theory has been made up to sustain as much as possible Marxism and Multiculturalism. “We are all Africans” is a mantra that can strongly influence the befuddled masses (in the unlikely event that they care for who they are on a biological level).

The anti-European and anti-science fool Richard Dawkins: rd-africans-5_resized

Psychotics who wants the extinction of the Europeans (yes, even Frodo…): iamafricancontent

If you have read the work of Marie Cachet on Atala.fr you will know that today the Europeans are on average 99,7% Neanderthals and that the hybridization we have suffered has brought with it, amongst other things, the birth of art. One of the most ancient and beautiful artistic work of our ancestors are the cave paintings of the Chauvet Cave (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chauvet_Cave), realized more than 30’000 years ago.

Some cave paintings from the Chauvet Cave:
c_4_foto_1154942_image
paleoliticka_kresba
lascauxmain

These paintings were made to create a three-dimensional movement when seen in the light of a torch. In the Chauvet Cave also took place an European initiation ritual of the utmost importance.

The Chauvet Cave today is closed to the public but only one year ago a 1:1 replica has been created. What I desire to suggest you is to watch the beautiful film-documentary made by Werner Herzog and shot inside the real cave:

81bcjbofxrl-_sl1500_

Watch it please, the anti-European entertainment industry will rarely have something better to offer if you want to know something about your culture.

Find who you are! Know yourselves! You are your ancestors, their memory lives in you!

Ave Europa!

Oh, I just forgot…Christian art from the Middle Ages:

etior375_18mar09

Advertisements

11 thoughts on “The Birth of Beauty

  1. “Enough for the “Evolution” theory…”

    Why do you think that Marie’s Neanderthal hypothesis disproves the theory of Natural Selection? The theory of Natural Selection isn’t intrinsically entwined with the Out of Africa theory, and a multiregional hypothesis is compatible with the theory of Natural Selection.

    Like

        • Macro-Evolution says that members of a species can develop features for which they have not a genetic predisposition, if that can help their survival. All bullshits. Micro-Evolution exists instead. Progressivism and Evolution are strongly connected in my opinion and they function in a religious way on the masses. They brainwash people to think that we started from shit to then experience a progress/evolution that will only get better with time. “No, we are not degenerating and destroying our world! Don’t look at the past, it MUST have been worse as back as we go, because of Progress/Evolution!”. That’s the purpose of those concepts: to let us take for granted that the past was in every way worse as much as we go back in time: they don’t want us to look at it, to find what we have lost. More, we are not “evolved” in tribal societies, assuming that you are referring to sedentary/agricultural tribes: we are degenerated into that, as a consequence of hybridization and the warm period. Our natural state as Europeans is to be hunter-gatherers in the context of Ice Ages.

          Like

          • I meant hunting and gathering; Hunting and Gathering is our natural state.

            Where, in our phylogenic line, do you distinguish between “Macroevolution” and “Microevolution”? Because, there is more than enough evidence to suggest that the Homo genus came from a bipedal Australopithecus and Oreopithecus, which came from a quadruped Dyropithecus (all of them except for Australopithecus are in Eurasia, so that means Homo didn’t evolve in Africa). I do have to admit: theories proposing that we all came from a Chemtone and a four legged fish are far fetched, but I at least believe that the Homo genus had its origins in Quadruped Apes.

            Like

            • And the Dyropithecus from what came? Necessarily from something else, right? And so on. You can’t accept Evolution without accepting that we were once some sort of amoebas that came out from water. Macroevolution is totally non-sense for me. We don’t have answers to these questions, we simply don’t know. The most sensible answer is that we have always been Neanderthals. Species perdure, expire or hybridize. We are Neanderthals a bit hybridized. Microevolution is related to Natural Selection because it says that e.g. if inside a group the most intelligent men and women do more child than the less intelligent, the next generation will be on average more intelligent. Microevolution refers to the development or degeneration of characteristics inherent to a certain species. About apes, why you think we have something to do with them? We have no genes exclusive of apes…only of Neanderthals.

              Like

              • If Neanderthal Man had always existed, then there needs to be some evidence for that claim, and the first proto-Neanderthals were only found 600,000 years ago (of course, that doesn’t necessarily mean that there could have been Neanderthals existing before 600,000 YA, but the evidence points to the fact that Neanderthal man did not always exist.)

                I still don’t understand the hostility towards MacroEvolution from a scientific standpoint and an ethical standpoint. You can think of MacroEvolution as an extended version of MicroEvolution, with traits such as improved intelligence occurring in our ancestral line for about 22 million years. Darwinism bases itself on 3 premises with a conclusion resulting from each of those premises.

                If an individuals in a population have traits that
                (1) are heritable;
                (2) and are different;
                (3) and result in a difference in reproductive success between individuals who
                have them and individuals who do not have them, then:
                Conclusion: the frequency of the traits that result in greater reproductive
                success will increase in that population.

                Now, the scientific community doesn’t have 100% certain explanations for the origins of bipedalism and hard tissue changes, but our phylogenetic line occurs in such a manner that Species A is succeeded by Species B and Species A and B both have similar traits with the traits in Species B resulting in theoretical better reproductive sucess; therefore, Species B must have evolved from Species A.

                About ethics: Evolution verifies the fact that our natural state is living in Hunter Gatherer tribes in the Ice Age because of the fact that we haven’t done much evolving since the dawn of Agriculture (makes sense, too, because Agriculture eliminates Selective variables that make Evolution possible i.e. the weak don’t die and the strong live amongst the weak). Most Evolutionary Psychologists agree that our minds are of Stone Age humans, and that our natural state is to be wild humans rather than domesticated humans.

                By the way, I enjoy your blog a lot ;).

                Like

                • Yes, evidence of Nenderthal remains go as back as 500’000 years ago. Before? We don’t know, as simple as that. My intuition and common sense tells me that we have always been Neanderthals.

                  To me Macroevolution is not an extension of Microevolution. Microevolution is a change inside the same kind of species: that species never becomes another species, no matter how many Microevolutions occur! Macroevolution tells that a fish can become a bird if that is useful to his survival. Tells that we come from primates, that came from fishes, that came from microbes, etc. I don’t buy that, Macroevolution has never existed. If I don’t have the genetic predisposition to develop wings I will never develop them, point. To hell my survival. Species perdure, hybridize (so called “mutations”) or go extinct.

                  What about the missing link? Guess why, there are no archelogical remains of the transition from a certain species to a new one…nothing about that.

                  You say that we have not “evolved” since the dawn of agriculture and then that we are not made to live as domesticated humans. Well, domestication started from the agricultural revolution and from that point reached the level we suffer today…and you don’t see this as “evolving”(in the sense of sensible changes)!? Damn, Wolf : Dog = Pre-Civilzed Man : Civilized Man. We were static all the time before the hybridization, after which we suffered agriculture/civilization/domestication: our unstoppable degeneration, presented to us as “progress”.

                  Thanks for the appreciations!

                  Like

                  • It is true that a fish in its extant state does not have the genetic capability to develop wings such that the succeeding generation will certainly develop wings or even proto-wings, but that isn’t how MacroEvolution functions. MacroEvolution is a continuous set of MicroEvolutions that, in the broad view of things, make it seem like a rapid change from “Fish” to “Bird”, but in reality, took several million generations to achieve. Since I am most versed in Hominid Evolutionary theory, I will try and give an analogy relating the relationship between MicroEvolution and MacroEvolution.

                    We can start with the Dyropithecus, a quadrupedal ape living in the Tropical Middle East, who evolves into Oreopithecus, a proto-bipedal ape living in the same territory. One or two generations are not adequate enough for the quadrupedal ape to develop into the bipedal ape. Say, in theory, that the Dyropithecus had some members of its population develop inherently stronger hind-legs than the other Dyropitheci, who had weaker hind-legs (this parallels nicely with humans as well, since there is a spectrum in strength when in comes to inherent muscularity/strength) and the stronger hind-legs, for some reason, increased fitness within the species and caused the weak-legged Apes to die out while the strong-legged Apes survived; thus, the entire general genetic makeup of the Dyropithecus changed from weak-legged to strong-legged, and as we know, bone changes must also take place in order to accommodate for muscular changes.

                    And now, say, for whatever reason, that the environment favored those Dyropitheci with a more vertical posture; while the Dyropithecus was not entirely bipedal, Natural Selection favored those Dyropitheci to develop a more vertical posture. Since there is always genetic variation within a given population, it is possible that some Dyropitheci had a more horizontal posture while others had a more vertical posture; the ones with a more horizontal posture would die out and the ones with a more vertical posture will survive. The difference between a single generation would be, in theory, very infinitesimal, but when you factor in a couple million generations into the equation, it is very easy to see how the cycle of Dycropitheci developing into a gradually more vertical posture occurred.

                    We haven’t changed much since agriculture. The Sapiens/Neanderthalensis hybridization occurred in the Paleolithic, and this is stated in Marie’s blog.

                    Like

                    • My opinion was aware of the fact that Macroevolution is believed to manifest itself gradually over very long periods of time. It still doesn’t makes sense to me and my opinion remains the same. By the way, it’s only a theory (as the name suggests) with no evidence to support it (like the “missing link” I talked before), and such will remain.

                      You are right about the Sapiens/Neanderthal hybridization but I think that, on a Microevolutional plane, we are changed (degenerated) much since the Neolithic. Very much.

                      However I thank you for the long comments and explanations, maybe we’ll return to discuss about these topics. See you!

                      P.S. I have read just today an article stating that according to scientists we come from something that came out from the “primordial broth”. So yes, they think our direct ancestors are amoebas or similar…

                      Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s