At this point -- at this point -- I would still let my newborn receive his "shots" vaccinating him against this disease and that disease.
Let me repeat that: At this point I would still let my newborn receive his "shots" vaccinating him against this disease and that disease.
Let me repeat that again: At this point I would still let my newborn receive his "shots" vaccinating him against this disease and that disease.
Let me repeat that again: At this point I would still let my newborn receive his "shots" vaccinating him against this disease and that disease.
Let me repeat that again: At this point I would still let my newborn receive his "shots" vaccinating him against this disease and that disease.
LET ME REPEAT THAT AGAIN: AT THIS POINT, I WOULD STILL LET MY NEWBORN RECEIVE HIS "SHOTS" VACCINATING HIM AGAINST THIS DISEASE AND THAT DISEASE.
The reason why I keep repeating that line again and again and again is because of one of the games liberals play when lying liberals lie: They radicalize what the thinking conservative is saying, when they lyingly "play-back" what he has said, and so they portray him as a simple-minded buffoon jumping up-and-down like a monkey on LSD saying crazy black-hearted nonsense.
Having tried to avert lying liberal nonsense, let me proceed to the subject at hand: ARE VACCINE OPPONENTS A BUNCH OF CRAZIES, OR DO THEY HAVE A POINT?
Suppose I were to invite a group of parents to bring their infant children into a vaccine manufacturing facility and I stand in front of a cauldron and I were to say out loud, into a microphone, as the parents who love their babies watched and listened, "Okay, guys in the warehouse, I want the pharmaceutical operators who make the DTaP vaccine -- the Diphtheria/Tetanus/Pertussis shot -- to stand ready.
"First, bring me a cup of uncooked, undigested cow heart;
then, a cup of aluminum sulfate;
then, a cup of aluminum phosphate;
then, a cup of formaldehyde;
then, a cup of polysorbate 80 soap surfactant;
then, a teaspoon of organic mercury;
then, a cup of uncooked African green monkey kidney; then, the uncooked human lung tissue of that boy aborted in England in 1966."
This is not a joke. This REALLY IS the stuff put into that liquid containing the weakened microorganisms which immunize.
Let me say that in a special way, so that the folks here don't miss the point ...
THOSE
REALLY
ARE
THE
SUBSTANCES
WHICH
THE
DOCTOR
INJECTS
INTO
YOUR
BABY'S
BLOODSTREAM.
While I carefully stir these ingredients into the water in the cauldron, the parents of the newborns are asked to put their babies on a row of gurneys.
Then, at the end of the row of babies on gurneys, members of Congress, and the President of the United States, all of whom watched me mix this stuff into the water in the cauldron, are made to stand in line.
I then take a syringe, stick it into the mix, suck-up a quarter of a syringe full of the uncooked meat/metal/preservative/surfactant soup, and walk up to the President and say, "Pull up your sleeve."
The President says, "NO, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO PUT THAT UNDIGESTED FOOD AND POISON DIRECTLY INTO MY BLOODSTREAM!"
Then a group of other technicians plunge their syringes into the goo, and run up to members of Congress and say, "Pull up your sleeve."
They reel back defensively and say, "NO, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO PUT THAT UNDIGESTED FOOD AND POISON DIRECTLY INTO MY BLOODSTREAM!"
Then the technicians run over to the babies on the gurneys and turn them over to stick the needles into their butts, but the parents object.
A bunch of other technicians run into the room and point firearms at the parents to make them stand back while uncooked, undigested cow heart; aluminum sulfate; aluminum phosphate; formaldehyde; polysorbate 80 soap surfactant; organic mercury; uncooked African green monkey kidney; and the uncooked human lung tissue of that boy aborted in England in 1966 are injected into their babies' behinds.
The parents look to the President and to members of Congress and say, "THESE GUYS WANT OUR NEWBORNS' BLOODSTREAM DIRECTLY INJECTED WITH THIS UNDIGESTED FOOD JUNK AND POISON AT GUNPOINT! THEY DON'T EVEN GET TO SWALLOW IT SO AT LEAST THE UNDIGESTED FOOD IS DIGESTED BEFORE IT GOES INTO THEIR BLOOD!"
The technicians tell the President and Congress, "Well, when you folks say that you want parents to be 'legally required' to have their children immunized, ISN'T THIS EXACTLY WHAT SUCH A LAW WOULD MEAN, IN ESSENCE?"
As far as I can tell, yes.
So, vaccine opponents aren't crazy. They do have a point.
Sunday, February 15, 2015
Saturday, January 24, 2015
UFOs: Easter Island Statues: Ancient Aliens?
Again and again and again, cable TV's "Ancient Aliens" program portrays the big Easter Island statues as creations of ancient aliens ...
However, aren't they overlooking the obvious? Compare the Easter Island statue with a traditional statue of a begging Buddhist monk of Southeast Asia ...
Both the Easter Island statue and the Buddhist monk have topknots.
Both the Easter Island statue and the Buddhist monk are staring stonily ahead.
Both the Easter Island statue and the Buddhist monk have long ears.
Both the Easter Island statue and the Buddhist monk are holding something. The monk is holding a begging bowl. What is the Easter Island statue holding? His penis?
Take a closer look at a photo of another Easter Island statue, in which the thing being held is clearer ...
It's a bowl, isn't it?
The Easter Island statues are begging Buddhist monks.
Not aliens.
Undoubtedly, the religion of the Easter Island "long ears," long recognized by the locals as a separate cultural group, was Buddhism. While they forgot their religion -- descendants of the "long ears" still live on the island -- they preserved the memory of their symbol for their faith, the monks with begging bowls.
Additionally, it didn't take aliens with rock-dissolving particle beams and anti-gravity levitators to make them and put them in place.
Scientist / explorer Thor Heyerdahl, whom the natives called "Senior Kon-Tiki," during his months as a resident there researching the history and archaeology of the culture, simply asked the natives to make him a statue.
They readily complied, chiseling the statue out of the cliffs there in a Stone Age fashion, with stone tools, in a few weeks, only ...
From "Aku-Aku," by Thor Heyerdahl
George Allen & Unwin, Ltd., 1958
The book is still highly readable.
Hunt it down, buy it and give it a read.
Other researchers appear to have deduced what the natives meant when they said that the statues "walked" to the sites of final placement. The bottom ends were carefully shaped so that when the statues were rocked left and right with ropes, the statues pivoted forward down the path ...
Finally, when it was time to raise the statue up and slide it into the hole in the ground which supported it, instead of anti-gravity levitators supplied by aliens the natives took logs out of hiding and used them as levers to pry-up the end of the statue farthest from the hole, and shove dirt, pebbles and stones under it until the incline was steep enough for gravity to take over ...
So, when the folks who produce the "Ancient Aliens" series on cable TV include images of the Easter Island statues, what they do not reveal is that the statues are evidence against their basic premise.
However, aren't they overlooking the obvious? Compare the Easter Island statue with a traditional statue of a begging Buddhist monk of Southeast Asia ...
Both the Easter Island statue and the Buddhist monk have topknots.
Both the Easter Island statue and the Buddhist monk are staring stonily ahead.
Both the Easter Island statue and the Buddhist monk have long ears.
Both the Easter Island statue and the Buddhist monk are holding something. The monk is holding a begging bowl. What is the Easter Island statue holding? His penis?
Take a closer look at a photo of another Easter Island statue, in which the thing being held is clearer ...
It's a bowl, isn't it?
The Easter Island statues are begging Buddhist monks.
Not aliens.
Undoubtedly, the religion of the Easter Island "long ears," long recognized by the locals as a separate cultural group, was Buddhism. While they forgot their religion -- descendants of the "long ears" still live on the island -- they preserved the memory of their symbol for their faith, the monks with begging bowls.
Additionally, it didn't take aliens with rock-dissolving particle beams and anti-gravity levitators to make them and put them in place.
Scientist / explorer Thor Heyerdahl, whom the natives called "Senior Kon-Tiki," during his months as a resident there researching the history and archaeology of the culture, simply asked the natives to make him a statue.
They readily complied, chiseling the statue out of the cliffs there in a Stone Age fashion, with stone tools, in a few weeks, only ...
George Allen & Unwin, Ltd., 1958
The book is still highly readable.
Hunt it down, buy it and give it a read.
Other researchers appear to have deduced what the natives meant when they said that the statues "walked" to the sites of final placement. The bottom ends were carefully shaped so that when the statues were rocked left and right with ropes, the statues pivoted forward down the path ...
Finally, when it was time to raise the statue up and slide it into the hole in the ground which supported it, instead of anti-gravity levitators supplied by aliens the natives took logs out of hiding and used them as levers to pry-up the end of the statue farthest from the hole, and shove dirt, pebbles and stones under it until the incline was steep enough for gravity to take over ...
So, when the folks who produce the "Ancient Aliens" series on cable TV include images of the Easter Island statues, what they do not reveal is that the statues are evidence against their basic premise.
Sunday, January 18, 2015
HUMOR: Skin Ointment
A lady with very bad skin problems goes to her pharmacy, and asks the pharmacist to recommend one of the over-the-counter skin ointments available on the pharmacy floor. The pharmacist recommends the best and most expensive ointment out there on the shelves. The lady selects a jar, takes it to the front, pays for it, and takes it home.
When she gets home, she opens the jar, and is shocked to see a fly struggling in the sticky ointment.
The lady immediately takes the jar of ointment back to the pharmacy, and with lip-quivering rage she opens the jar in front of the pharmacist and growls, "THERE'S A FLY IN MY OINTMENT !!!"
The pharmacist calmly looks at the fly struggling in the ointment and calmly says, "Oh, yes. I'm sorry. I forgot to tell you. That fly suffered from some very serious burns when he had an accident involving hot soup."
When she gets home, she opens the jar, and is shocked to see a fly struggling in the sticky ointment.
The lady immediately takes the jar of ointment back to the pharmacy, and with lip-quivering rage she opens the jar in front of the pharmacist and growls, "THERE'S A FLY IN MY OINTMENT !!!"
The pharmacist calmly looks at the fly struggling in the ointment and calmly says, "Oh, yes. I'm sorry. I forgot to tell you. That fly suffered from some very serious burns when he had an accident involving hot soup."
Sunday, January 4, 2015
HUMOR: How I Say "Goodbye" to the Wife When One of Us Goes Somewhere
I've got nicknames for my wife: "Littlest," "Tiny," "Tine" and "Tininess."
She knows me very, very well, including the bizarre ideation about everything which fills my head.
When I leave the house to go someplace, I'll sometimes kiss her and say, "Bring underwear." She'll answer, "Absolutely."
What in Heaven's Holy Name does that refer to?
It's actually a religious joke. She knows that I am poking gentle fun at those Christians who preach The Rapture -- the notion that someday, perhaps soon, thousands will suddenly disappear, leaving us less worthy slobs to fend for ourselves in the chaos of the less fortunate.
I am implying, "Look, if the police call, and they report that they found my car running, and my clothes in a pile on the driver's seat and floor, it is because I have been raptured. I want you to rush over there with a clean pair of underpants and substitute that in for the not-so-clean pair in the pile."
When Littlest leaves the house, I'll tell her, "Remember, shout 'Stop! Don't!' repeatedly!"
That's a not-so-religious joke. I'm telling her, "Look, if some ruffian grabs you and tries to drag you into the woods and rape you, I want you to to keep yelling, "STOP DON'T STOP DON'T STOP DON'T STOP DON'T STOP ..."
She knows me very, very well, including the bizarre ideation about everything which fills my head.
When I leave the house to go someplace, I'll sometimes kiss her and say, "Bring underwear." She'll answer, "Absolutely."
What in Heaven's Holy Name does that refer to?
It's actually a religious joke. She knows that I am poking gentle fun at those Christians who preach The Rapture -- the notion that someday, perhaps soon, thousands will suddenly disappear, leaving us less worthy slobs to fend for ourselves in the chaos of the less fortunate.
I am implying, "Look, if the police call, and they report that they found my car running, and my clothes in a pile on the driver's seat and floor, it is because I have been raptured. I want you to rush over there with a clean pair of underpants and substitute that in for the not-so-clean pair in the pile."
When Littlest leaves the house, I'll tell her, "Remember, shout 'Stop! Don't!' repeatedly!"
That's a not-so-religious joke. I'm telling her, "Look, if some ruffian grabs you and tries to drag you into the woods and rape you, I want you to to keep yelling, "STOP DON'T STOP DON'T STOP DON'T STOP DON'T STOP ..."
THE BIBLE: Who Were the "Magi" ?
Ever since I started going to Sunday Mass at St. Rose of Lima Catholic Church on Kings Highway near the White Horse Pike in Haddon Heights, New Jersey, I have been greatly pleased with the quality of the homilies at Mass. They are always about the readings from Scripture, and they are always a digestible scholarly analysis of history and theology comprising the background of the readings.
In other words, they are what the Church intends homilies to be !
Which makes Mass what the Church intended Mass to be -- a gathering of the family at the dinner table; accompanied by good talk. Right ?
So, congratulations to the Pastor at St. Rose of Lima, Fr. E. Joseph Byerley ! Good job ! Good job !
The Masses of January 4, 2015 celebrated the Epiphany of Our Lord -- the Mass of the Adoration by the Magi.
Who were the Magi ?
Fr. Peter Idler, in his homily, discussed the gradual mutation of the magi in Church iconography from 3 Babylonian Zoroastrian scholar/occultists to 3 diverse kings of the East, as insight into the significance of the kings in Matthew's gospel -- namely, the extension of the salvation process to non-Jews -- matured.
And both Fr. Brown, in The Birth of the Messiah, and The Jerome Biblical Commentary, focus-in on the fact that these guys from the east are interpreting the appearance of a "star." They are astrologers, in other words.
While I believe that, indeed, the primary role of the story is to illustrate the opening of the salvation process to Gentiles, not just Jews, I always favored the analysis that while the "magi" might have started-out referring to Zoroastrian scholar / occultists, it gradually came to refer to "scholars," generally -- including the Jewish scholars still living in Persian society after the Babylonian exile.
And, note that while interpreting the appearance of a star seems "astrological" and therefore occultic, Matthew's inspired gospel takes the appearance and movement of the star very seriously.
And so those who see in the story a reference to a "conversion" of "sinful occultists" to Christianity are probably wrong.
In any event, note also that the allegedly Zoroastrian "magi" prove to at-least-nominally-Jewish Herod that the star is significant by quoting Micah 5:1-3 -- inspired Hebrew Scripture -- to Herod.
I.e., Herod the at-least-nominally-Jewish king accepts the magi's instruction on Judaism !
In other words, the "magi" were in fact Jewish scholars from Babylon.
That does not eliminate their role as pictures in the gospel of the extension of the salvation process to Gentiles. Matthew uses Jesus' move to Zebulun and Naphtali -- lands of Jewish tribes -- as pictures of the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles.
In other words, they are what the Church intends homilies to be !
Which makes Mass what the Church intended Mass to be -- a gathering of the family at the dinner table; accompanied by good talk. Right ?
So, congratulations to the Pastor at St. Rose of Lima, Fr. E. Joseph Byerley ! Good job ! Good job !
The Masses of January 4, 2015 celebrated the Epiphany of Our Lord -- the Mass of the Adoration by the Magi.
Who were the Magi ?
Fr. Peter Idler, in his homily, discussed the gradual mutation of the magi in Church iconography from 3 Babylonian Zoroastrian scholar/occultists to 3 diverse kings of the East, as insight into the significance of the kings in Matthew's gospel -- namely, the extension of the salvation process to non-Jews -- matured.
And both Fr. Brown, in The Birth of the Messiah, and The Jerome Biblical Commentary, focus-in on the fact that these guys from the east are interpreting the appearance of a "star." They are astrologers, in other words.
While I believe that, indeed, the primary role of the story is to illustrate the opening of the salvation process to Gentiles, not just Jews, I always favored the analysis that while the "magi" might have started-out referring to Zoroastrian scholar / occultists, it gradually came to refer to "scholars," generally -- including the Jewish scholars still living in Persian society after the Babylonian exile.
And, note that while interpreting the appearance of a star seems "astrological" and therefore occultic, Matthew's inspired gospel takes the appearance and movement of the star very seriously.
And so those who see in the story a reference to a "conversion" of "sinful occultists" to Christianity are probably wrong.
In any event, note also that the allegedly Zoroastrian "magi" prove to at-least-nominally-Jewish Herod that the star is significant by quoting Micah 5:1-3 -- inspired Hebrew Scripture -- to Herod.
I.e., Herod the at-least-nominally-Jewish king accepts the magi's instruction on Judaism !
In other words, the "magi" were in fact Jewish scholars from Babylon.
That does not eliminate their role as pictures in the gospel of the extension of the salvation process to Gentiles. Matthew uses Jesus' move to Zebulun and Naphtali -- lands of Jewish tribes -- as pictures of the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles.
Friday, January 2, 2015
CONSPIRACY THEORY: Why I Remain a 9-11 "Truther"
On 9-11, my Dad called me shortly after the first plane struck and said, "Pete, turn on your TV ! Watch what is happening to the World Trade Center !"
So, I turned on the TV and watched the planes hit the towers. I looked at the Pentagon damage. I studied the matter of the plane slamming into the ground in Pennsylvania. The first thing that caught my attention, as I grew increasingly depressed as the day wore on, was how, though each of the World Trade Center towers was hit on the side, and though, in each case, the steady streams of fire and smoke came out of one side, each building fell down into its footprint.
I thought, "Huh !!! Two cases where a big building was injured on the side. Two really good chances for a building injured on the side to collapse toward the injured side after uneven burning and melting.
"And yet, neither building fell to the side. Both buildings fell down into their footprint!
"And, in each case, the collapse and aftermath bore substantial resemblance to a controlled demolition!"
But that is not the reason why I am a 9-11 "Truther." That is only the first thing which caught my attention and made me a little bit suspicious.
The reason why I became a "Truther" is because after the twin towers fell, I began surfing the channels to see what the rest of the world was seeing and saying in response, and I caught this ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltP2t9nq9fI
As I watched, I thought, "Wait a second ! I've been watching coverage all morning ! As far as I can tell, that is Building #7, the Salomon Brothers Building, peeking out from the right hand side of Jane Stanley's head ! Why is she saying that it 'collapsed'???!!! It hasn't 'collapsed' !!! We are looking at it ! Live ! All she has to do is turn around, and she will see it !"
And then someone pulled the plug on the report, in the middle of the report.
And then, about 20 minutes later, what did the world see ?
The world saw Building #7, the Salomon Brothers Building, collapse for no good reason, but not in a fashion which "substantially resembled" a controlled demolition.
It fell precisely like a controlled demolition ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnLcUxV1dPo
Now, World Trade Center 7 wasn't just any New York skyscraper. It was the one skyscraper which was specially hardened against collapse. In effect, it was one of the world's toughest, un-collapsible buildings. New York authorities had wanted to put their emergency management center there, for that reason.
And though a floor was burning about a third of the way up, on one side, this building, too, fell in perfect order, straight down, into its own footprint.
So, I don't care what anyone says.
Even if "they" pay the world's most expensive engineer to go on television and say, "Well, the reason why Building 7 fell is that fire heated the salagadoola which was attached to the mechika boola, and, you know, that impacted the phased system actuator which caused rapid frequency harmonics in the steel superstructure so that a rapid energy singularity caused the thing to collapse from the basement up, and -- bippity boppity boo ! -- it fell !," don't believe it ! Don't believe it !
Think: Why did BBC (and CNN, also), before Building 7 fell, say that Building 7 fell ?
Because it was already set-up for controlled demolition with explosives, and whoever was orchestrating Building 7's demolition screwed-up the timing of their news release.
And why did BBC suddenly lose its live coverage of the Building 7 collapse?
Because whoever was orchestrating the whole fraudulent thing was watching BBC, realized that that was Building 7 in the background, peeking out from behind the BBC reporter's head, and realized, "Holy crap ! We issued the news release too early ! Quick ! Cut off BBC !"
Now, think a little more: Those things could not have happened to Building 7 unless "they" knew that the twin towers were going to be attacked and caused to fall.
So, "they" knew that the twin towers were going to be attacked, but they did nothing to stop it; they collected on the insurance; and whatever they wanted destroyed in Building 7 was destroyed.
So, I turned on the TV and watched the planes hit the towers. I looked at the Pentagon damage. I studied the matter of the plane slamming into the ground in Pennsylvania. The first thing that caught my attention, as I grew increasingly depressed as the day wore on, was how, though each of the World Trade Center towers was hit on the side, and though, in each case, the steady streams of fire and smoke came out of one side, each building fell down into its footprint.
I thought, "Huh !!! Two cases where a big building was injured on the side. Two really good chances for a building injured on the side to collapse toward the injured side after uneven burning and melting.
"And yet, neither building fell to the side. Both buildings fell down into their footprint!
"And, in each case, the collapse and aftermath bore substantial resemblance to a controlled demolition!"
But that is not the reason why I am a 9-11 "Truther." That is only the first thing which caught my attention and made me a little bit suspicious.
The reason why I became a "Truther" is because after the twin towers fell, I began surfing the channels to see what the rest of the world was seeing and saying in response, and I caught this ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltP2t9nq9fI
As I watched, I thought, "Wait a second ! I've been watching coverage all morning ! As far as I can tell, that is Building #7, the Salomon Brothers Building, peeking out from the right hand side of Jane Stanley's head ! Why is she saying that it 'collapsed'???!!! It hasn't 'collapsed' !!! We are looking at it ! Live ! All she has to do is turn around, and she will see it !"
And then someone pulled the plug on the report, in the middle of the report.
And then, about 20 minutes later, what did the world see ?
The world saw Building #7, the Salomon Brothers Building, collapse for no good reason, but not in a fashion which "substantially resembled" a controlled demolition.
It fell precisely like a controlled demolition ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnLcUxV1dPo
Now, World Trade Center 7 wasn't just any New York skyscraper. It was the one skyscraper which was specially hardened against collapse. In effect, it was one of the world's toughest, un-collapsible buildings. New York authorities had wanted to put their emergency management center there, for that reason.
And though a floor was burning about a third of the way up, on one side, this building, too, fell in perfect order, straight down, into its own footprint.
So, I don't care what anyone says.
Even if "they" pay the world's most expensive engineer to go on television and say, "Well, the reason why Building 7 fell is that fire heated the salagadoola which was attached to the mechika boola, and, you know, that impacted the phased system actuator which caused rapid frequency harmonics in the steel superstructure so that a rapid energy singularity caused the thing to collapse from the basement up, and -- bippity boppity boo ! -- it fell !," don't believe it ! Don't believe it !
Think: Why did BBC (and CNN, also), before Building 7 fell, say that Building 7 fell ?
Because it was already set-up for controlled demolition with explosives, and whoever was orchestrating Building 7's demolition screwed-up the timing of their news release.
And why did BBC suddenly lose its live coverage of the Building 7 collapse?
Because whoever was orchestrating the whole fraudulent thing was watching BBC, realized that that was Building 7 in the background, peeking out from behind the BBC reporter's head, and realized, "Holy crap ! We issued the news release too early ! Quick ! Cut off BBC !"
Now, think a little more: Those things could not have happened to Building 7 unless "they" knew that the twin towers were going to be attacked and caused to fall.
So, "they" knew that the twin towers were going to be attacked, but they did nothing to stop it; they collected on the insurance; and whatever they wanted destroyed in Building 7 was destroyed.
Thursday, January 1, 2015
POLITICS: African Americans in My White Family Tree
Because my family tree -- my "pedigree chart" family tree showing lineal ancestors, only, namely 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great grandparents, 16 great great grandparents, and so on -- has been extremely well researched by others, I am able to actually name virtually all of my ancestors back 4 generations, and in the case of a few family lines, running through certain Mayflower passengers to royal ancestry, I can go back about 1,000 years, with respectable reliability. (To a certain extent, the Pilgrim families represented descendants of dispossessed royalty, and because royal pedigree was so jealously protected and fought-over in Europe, including by the law, royal pedigree ended-up being fairly well documented and well established in Europe.) About one-fifth of the population of the United States has been subsumed into the "descendancy cone" of at least one of the Pilgrims. I and my brothers and sisters and our cousins on our mother's side are lucky enough to have been subsumed into the distinct descendancy cones of four (4) of the occupants of the Mayflower, which gives us four (4) good shots at being a descendant of one of the extremely-well-established descendancy cones of European royalty.
I also had my DNA tested by Ancestry.com.
The results only confirm what is on my pedigree chart, except that one of the unknowns -- a great great grandfather surnamed "Fuller" who was probably a Protestant Northern Irelander living in Londonderry -- turns out to have been a very "purebred" Scandinavian, not a "Scotch Irishman" as family legend predicted. And, lo and behold, Londonderry had a Scandinavian quarter capable of generating such a walking bundle of Nordic chromosomes.
Relevant to this article, it is solidly Caucasian, all of the way back. That includes some European Jewish stock, some European Mediterranean stock, some Finno-Ugric stock and some Turko-Caucasoids from the Middle East.
But none of it leads to Africa.
That's on the PEDIGREE chart -- the chart of parents, grand parents, great (or "G1") grandparents, G2 grandparents, G3 grandparents, and so on back into the mists of time.
However, on the NON-PEDIGREE FAMILY chart -- the chart showing not just the "lineals," the line of direct ancestors who gave me their genes, but also the "non-lineal consanguines," the lines of those humans who are descendants of a lineal -- more and more African American blood cousins, or in my case African Americans sharing one of the white ancestors in my pedigree chart as one of his or her ancestors, are showing up.
So far, Ancestry.com is showing 5 living people who had their DNA tested who are African American and my distant cousins.
And if 5 are actually showing, because only about 1 in 10 people who get their DNA tested post their photos with their results then there are probably about 50 within the actual results.
And since only a tiny percentage of the American people have had their DNA tested by Ancestry.com, the total number of blacks who are distant blood cousins can probably safely be multiplied by 100, and not be an exaggeration at all.
In other words, statistically, I and my brothers and sisters probably have a good 5,000 African American blood cousins.
There is a pattern in the results.
Ancestry.com restricts all such cousins, so far, to the 5th-to-8th cousin level of relationship.
That means that the white ancestor which I and my African American cousin have in common was a G4 to G7 grandparent.
At least two of the families who comprise "lineals" in my pedigree chart were "respectable Southern slave owners" -- the Pitman's, and the Snapp's, all of them G-4s, G-5s, G-6s or G-7s.
Members of one of both of those families, apparently, engaged in sex with and begot cousins with slaves or with emancipated descendants of slaves.
One of my African-American cousins pictured above, without realizing the significance of his action, even managed to connect himself as a matter of documentation with the unusually-named Snapp line.
When I first saw this, I felt good about my connection to the Family of Man at Large via my African American cousins. I assumed that the undeniable sexual connection between my white ancestor and a slave or an emancipated slave or a descendant of a slave was consensual.
But, today, after I read an article about rape by soldiers in the Civil War ...
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/25/rape-and-justice-in-the-civil-war/
... it suddenly dawned on me that things may not have been so consensual between white ancestor and African American.
Hmmmmm. Hmmmmm.
No matter what, friends, remember that God doesn't see color when He judges.
All He asks is, What did YOU do with the time I gave you on Earth ?
I also had my DNA tested by Ancestry.com.
The results only confirm what is on my pedigree chart, except that one of the unknowns -- a great great grandfather surnamed "Fuller" who was probably a Protestant Northern Irelander living in Londonderry -- turns out to have been a very "purebred" Scandinavian, not a "Scotch Irishman" as family legend predicted. And, lo and behold, Londonderry had a Scandinavian quarter capable of generating such a walking bundle of Nordic chromosomes.
Relevant to this article, it is solidly Caucasian, all of the way back. That includes some European Jewish stock, some European Mediterranean stock, some Finno-Ugric stock and some Turko-Caucasoids from the Middle East.
But none of it leads to Africa.
That's on the PEDIGREE chart -- the chart of parents, grand parents, great (or "G1") grandparents, G2 grandparents, G3 grandparents, and so on back into the mists of time.
However, on the NON-PEDIGREE FAMILY chart -- the chart showing not just the "lineals," the line of direct ancestors who gave me their genes, but also the "non-lineal consanguines," the lines of those humans who are descendants of a lineal -- more and more African American blood cousins, or in my case African Americans sharing one of the white ancestors in my pedigree chart as one of his or her ancestors, are showing up.
Me
African-American distant cousin,
according to DNA results
African-American distant cousin,
according to DNA results
African-American distant cousin,
according to DNA results
African-American distant cousin,
according to DNA results
African-American distant cousin,
according to DNA results
So far, Ancestry.com is showing 5 living people who had their DNA tested who are African American and my distant cousins.
And if 5 are actually showing, because only about 1 in 10 people who get their DNA tested post their photos with their results then there are probably about 50 within the actual results.
And since only a tiny percentage of the American people have had their DNA tested by Ancestry.com, the total number of blacks who are distant blood cousins can probably safely be multiplied by 100, and not be an exaggeration at all.
In other words, statistically, I and my brothers and sisters probably have a good 5,000 African American blood cousins.
There is a pattern in the results.
Ancestry.com restricts all such cousins, so far, to the 5th-to-8th cousin level of relationship.
That means that the white ancestor which I and my African American cousin have in common was a G4 to G7 grandparent.
At least two of the families who comprise "lineals" in my pedigree chart were "respectable Southern slave owners" -- the Pitman's, and the Snapp's, all of them G-4s, G-5s, G-6s or G-7s.
Members of one of both of those families, apparently, engaged in sex with and begot cousins with slaves or with emancipated descendants of slaves.
One of my African-American cousins pictured above, without realizing the significance of his action, even managed to connect himself as a matter of documentation with the unusually-named Snapp line.
When I first saw this, I felt good about my connection to the Family of Man at Large via my African American cousins. I assumed that the undeniable sexual connection between my white ancestor and a slave or an emancipated slave or a descendant of a slave was consensual.
But, today, after I read an article about rape by soldiers in the Civil War ...
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/25/rape-and-justice-in-the-civil-war/
... it suddenly dawned on me that things may not have been so consensual between white ancestor and African American.
Hmmmmm. Hmmmmm.
No matter what, friends, remember that God doesn't see color when He judges.
All He asks is, What did YOU do with the time I gave you on Earth ?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)