Shamanistic traditions

[Ejudy]

I have been listening to a lecture on the history of shamanic
traditions.

They were making the point that shamans fit better into hunter
gatherer lifestyles, at least quite a good deal more so than
into the conformity needed in the agrarian societies. Is that
debateable?

And they also attempted to follow the tradition into our
modern societies in considering the continuation of function.

Apparently, shamans took roles positioned on the perifery of
the group akin to outcasts just so they could catch and be the
voice for diagonal and oblique perceiving modes sort of to
inject creativity or laterally thought extentions into the
mainstreams of thinking (and those are my awkward words not
theirs). This being only partly their function.

They also went into great detail as to the differences
apparent from early in the lives of those chosen to live such
a functionary life. They apparently have the personality
(genetic predisposition) to become the dreamers/semi-psychotic
in a controlled disciplined and many times heavily apprenticed
passing on of these traditions. This seems like a rather
fascinating subject as it extends out into questions of how
humans function as groups. The shamans (medicine men, doctors,
curanduras, artists, poets, einsteins,etc...) extend and carry
the torch for the group. Delegated specialized functions, IOW.

My question is how are these shamans functions lost or
modified in agrarian societies? What form does it take when
hunting magic changes to planting within the good dispositions
of the gods of weather and climate? And how did these two
different society structures contribute to differing
traditions of the spiritual structure of gods and thereby how
humans view themselves.

I guess you'd have to narrow some of these subjects down a bit
to gain some clarity.

thanks, ejudy

[Leif]

ejudy:
> They were making the point that shamans fit better into
> hunter gatherer lifestyles, at least quite a good deal more
> so than into the conformity needed in the agrarian
> societies. Is that debateable?

I think that's perfectly reasonable. I believe the origin
is 30-50ky BP in the moon-culture that evolved as a
consequence of Neanderthal and AMH coexistence. The
remainder of this culture is seen world-wide, although only
superficially in Africa.

> They also went into great detail as to the differences
> apparent from early in the lives of those chosen to live
> such a functionary life. They apparently have the
> personality (genetic predisposition) to become the
> dreamers/semi-psychotic in a controlled disciplined and many
> times heavily apprenticed passing on of these traditions.
> This seems like a rather fascinating subject as it extends
> out into questions of how humans function as groups. The
> shamans (medicine men, doctors, curanduras, artists, poets,
> einsteins,etc...) extend and carry the torch for the group.
> Delegated specialized functions, IOW.

Autistic, Neanderthal, functions IMHO.

> My question is how are these shamans functions lost or
> modified in agrarian societies? What form does it take when
> hunting magic changes to planting within the good
> dispositions of the gods of weather and climate? And how did
> these two different society structures contribute to
> differing traditions of the spiritual structure of gods and
> thereby how humans view themselves.

That's a good question, that I also would like an answer to
:-)

Leif

[Ejudy]

"leif" <leif@rdos.net> wrote in article
<aE1H8.39471$n4.8778941@newsc.telia.net> :
>ejudy:
>> They were making the point that shamans fit better into
>> hunter gatherer lifestyles, at least quite a good deal more
>> so than into the conformity needed in the agrarian
>> societies. Is that debateable?
>
>I think that's perfectly reasonable. I believe the origin is
>30-50ky BP in the moon-culture that evolved as a consequence
>of Neanderthal and AMH coexistence. The remainder of this
>culture is seen
world-wide,
>although only superficially in Africa.

I think you are mistaken about the africa part and this goes
back to the basic flaw in your theory. I wonder if it maybe
goes back to when we started to use symbolic means of
organising our thinking structure.

>
>> They also went into great detail as to the differences
>> apparent from early in the lives of those chosen to live
>> such a functionary life. They apparently have the
>> personality (genetic predisposition) to become the
>> dreamers/semi-psychotic in a controlled disciplined and
>> many times heavily apprenticed passing on of these
>> traditions. This seems like a rather fascinating subject as
>> it extends out into questions of how humans function as
>> groups. The shamans (medicine men, doctors, curanduras,
>> artists, poets, einsteins,etc...) extend and carry the
>> torch for the group. Delegated specialized functions, IOW.
>
>Autistic, Neanderthal, functions IMHO.

>
>> My question is how are these shamans functions lost or
>> modified in agrarian societies? What form does it take when
>> hunting magic changes to planting within the good
>> dispositions
of
>> the gods of weather and climate? And how did these two
>> different society structures contribute to differing
>> traditions of the spiritual structure of gods and thereby
>> how humans view themselves.
>
>That's a good question, that I also would like an
>answer to :-)
>
>Leif
>
>

I think if you start from a conclusion you will see your
theory everywhere. Can you look without your theory attached?
I think that's called BIAS and gets in the way of seeing whats
in front of you as if you had made a symbol and were using it
to interface with the world as your portal. Could you imagine
a world without neanderthals? Would you feel naked? Probably
sends a chill right thru you eh?

;-) ejudy

[Leif]

ejudy:
> >I think that's perfectly reasonable. I believe the origin
> >is 30-50ky BP in the moon-culture that evolved as a
> >consequence of Neanderthal and AMH coexistence. The
> >remainder of this culture is seen
> world-wide,
> >although only superficially in Africa.
>
> I think you are mistaken about the africa part and this goes
> back to the basic flaw in your theory. I wonder if it maybe
> goes back to when we started to use symbolic means of
> organising our thinking structure.

It's not my conclusion that this is not seen more than
superficially in Africa. It's a conclusion of a guy who thinks
Africa is part of the scheme, but he could only dig up
evidence that seems to point in the direction of adaption of
things they didn't really understand. What's more, the bad
treatment of women after the fall of the moon culture
certainly did penetrate Africa.

As for symbolic means, this really goes back a LONG time.
Certainly longer than the perspective of AMH and Neanderthals.
The problem is that this kind of things don't fossile.

> I think if you start from a conclusion you will see your
> theory everywhere.

I didn't start with a conclusion. In the begging I started
with the accepted notion that Asperger is some kind of
disorder. However, as I got to know more, I happened to get
the idea that this is related to Neanderthals.

> Can you look without your theory attached? I think that's
> called BIAS and gets in the way of seeing whats in front of
> you as if you had made a symbol and were using it to
> interface with the world as your portal. Could you imagine a
> world without neanderthals?

Of course, but then there would be no credible answer to many
questions. It would be back to a point of total ignorance of
our present condition.

> Would you feel naked?

No, it would be like beeing an alien without roots once more.

> Probably sends a chill right thru you eh?

Not really. I'm totally convinced I'm right, and all new
evidence points in this direction. Most importantly, I'm not
discovering the evidence, others are.

Leif

[Ejudy]

"leif" <leif@rdos.net> wrote in article
<I08H8.8705$p56.2484718@newsb.telia.net> :
>ejudy:
(snip)
>What's more, the bad treatment of women after the fall of the
>moon culture certainly did penetrate Africa.

I don't know what you are referring to in the above statement.

>
>As for symbolic means, this really goes back a LONG time.
>Certainly longer than the perspective of AMH and
>Neanderthals. The problem is that this kind of things
>don't fossile.

I agree heartily on your point here. So we only have a %
confidence on any conclusion arising from the evidence, right?
And as far as cultural thinking structures we can only infer
not a whole lot. Unless gets a special time travel ticket....

>
>> I think if you start from a conclusion you will see your
>> theory everywhere.
>
>I didn't start with a conclusion. In the begging I started
>with the accepted notion that Asperger is some kind of
>disorder. However, as I got to know more, I happened to get
>the idea that this is related to Neanderthals.
>
>> Can you look without your theory attached? I think that's
>> called BIAS and gets in the way of seeing whats in front of
>> you as if you had made a symbol and were using it to
>> interface with the world as your portal. Could you imagine
>> a world without neanderthals?
>
>Of course, but then there would be no credible answer to many
>questions. It would be back to a point of total ignorance of
>our present condition.
>
>> Would you feel naked?
>
>No, it would be like beeing an alien without roots once more.
>
>> Probably sends a chill right thru you eh?
>
>Not really. I'm totally convinced I'm right, and all new
>evidence points in this direction. Most importantly, I'm not
>discovering the evidence, others are.
>
>Leif
>

So you say you are totally convinced but again how can you be
100% sure? You cannot, right? So could you come up with an
idea of what percentage convinced would be a rational
confidence based on the data pointing towards your idea AND
the data pointing away from it? And when you do this can you
factor in the confidence of each piece of data which you are
using? And when you do that can you throw out any data which
has less than a certain amount of confidence associated with
it? And then when you factor all of these pieces together can
you come up with a "reality" version of how probable your
scenario is based on these logical weighings of stronger and
weaker evidence?

And if you will not go to the trouble of doing these types of
de-bunking solidifying strategies will you give a useful
reason as to why not?

And perhaps that is tedious? But it makes a big difference in
the time spent constructing one's dwelling if you make a solid
foundation as if it does collapse you will have wasted your
time and that of other people. And that makes it both
efficient and logical to work within a valuable and respected
methodology, right?

;-) ejudy

[Ejudy]

"leif" <leif@rdos.net> wrote:
>ejudy wrote:
>
(snipped stuff)

>> And perhaps that is tedious? But it makes a big difference
>> in the time spent constructing one's dwelling if you make a
>> solid foundation as if it does collapse you will have
>> wasted your time and that of other people. And that makes
>> it both efficient and logical to work within a valuable and
>> respected methodology, right?
>
>The problem is that there is no hard evidence. Most evidence
>can be interpreted in various ways, and nobody is around to
>tell us what happened or how people behaved. Therefore, my
>methology of collecting a full scenario that is compatible
>with most evidence is the only way. The same used by OoA as a
>matter of fact.
>
>Leif
>
>

Do you actually have proof that asperger, adhd, and autism is
almost nonexistant in africa?

I bet you do not. We should drag this subject somehow back to
the need for you to produce proof. And if you are taking OoA
as your model then you are stating that OoA is unproven yet
your theory works better maybe you should expand your
reasoning to include the modified version of OoA which is not
so purist. Maybe then the argument can grow a bit in
complexity to match reality a bit closer? I think that has
come up before.

And why couldn't you take each element and come out with a
confidence zone that you can lay on the table for
examination? Are you setting up your old magic act again?
Sleight of hand motions sets off the buzzer. I would think it
basic to have some idea of the percentage of probability for
each factor you use. Without these types of considerations
the bullshit meter goes off cuz you are picking, choosing and
doing some awfully creative mixing and matching. Ultimately,
the proof will fall to pieces if you ignore finding how good
your information is. GIGO

ejudy

[Leif]

ejudy:
> So you say you are totally convinced but again how can you
> be 100% sure? You cannot, right?

Of course not

> So could you come up with an idea of what percentage
> convinced would be a rational confidence based on the data
> pointing towards your idea AND the data pointing away from
> it? And when you do this can you factor in the confidence of
> each piece of data which you are using? And when you do that
> can you throw out any data which has less than a certain
> amount of confidence associated with it? And then when you
> factor all of these pieces together can you come up with a
> "reality" version of how probable your scenario is based on
> these logical weighings of stronger and weaker evidence?

I really don't have a clue on how you would do this. I
certainly know what OoA is basing it's evidence on. Mainly
larger diversity in Africa, and really nothing else.

Here is a list of things you might evaluate:

1. Genetic evidence.

There is really no big difference in this regard. I've already
presented the type of hybridization that's most likely, and
which has happened in various other species. There is
certainly no difference in mtDNA, Y and neutral alleles
between the two theories. In my theory, African majority
contribution can be a factor of social organisation,
reproduction, stature and a host of other factors. There is no
way to prove any of this, but all those factors have been
involved in other similar situations.

This really means there is only one definite proof here. It
concerns origin of Euroasian haplotypes. If they are
improbable "mutational" events in large amounts centered
around 30-50ky, this means my model is more likely.

There are also various aspects of auto-immune disorders that
is more compatible with my model.

2. Archeology evidence

There is no evidence of Africans inventing much before exiting
Africa. There is likewise no evidence of superior cognitive
abilities. There is indications that various Neanderthal sites
had the things of UP before AMH. After Africans met
Neanderthal, there was fast development. This means that this
cohabitation boosted development. This is a strong indicator
that Neanderthals possessed some talents that complimented
AMHs. I propose this was creativity, while AMH provided more
advanced social organisation.

3. Current "disorders"

DRD4 7R is associated with ADHD and was founded 30-50ky ago.
It cannot be derived by simple mutation or gene conversion
events. It's also in strong LD with surrounding nucleotides,
unlike the common 4R version. The 7R version in Africa has
lower diversity than in Europe / America, and therefore looks
like back-breeding.

> And if you will not go to the trouble of doing these types
> of de-bunking solidifying strategies will you give a useful
> reason as to why not?

I have.

> And perhaps that is tedious? But it makes a big difference
> in the time spent constructing one's dwelling if you make a
> solid foundation as if it does collapse you will have wasted
> your time and that of other people. And that makes it both
> efficient and logical to work within a valuable and
> respected methodology, right?

The problem is that there is no hard evidence. Most evidence
can be interpreted in various ways, and nobody is around to
tell us what happened or how people behaved. Therefore, my
methology of collecting a full scenario that is compatible
with most evidence is the only way. The same used by OoA as a
matter of fact.

Leif

[Leif]

ejudy:
> Do you actually have proof that asperger, adhd, and autism
> is almost nonexistant in africa?

Yes, although you cannot "prove" this issue, just like you
cannot prove replacement of Neanderthals. Many people have
tried to prove that autism, ADHD and Asperger is found in
Africa, but nobody has succeeded in finding anything else than
affected white people. On a US AS-forum, virtually nobody knew
any black people with AS-diagnosis.

> I bet you do not.

I don't have to be 100% convinced about it. It's clear that
colonization and more ancient migration has imported a small
number of Neanderthal traits into Africa. Therefore you will
inevitably be able to find some Africans with AS. The only
important thing is that you will find it in far lower
frequency than everywhere else.

> We should drag this subject somehow back to the need for you
> to produce proof.

You cannot provide any proof for that, just like strict OoA
can never be proved, only disproved.

Well, I guess you could prove AS is infrequent in Africa, if
you check-up on a large amount of people, but this is not
possible to do with Neanderthal replacement. You cannot
analyze every human beeing living between 30-50ky BP, since
they're not around anymore.

> And if you are taking OoA as your model then you are stating
> that OoA is unproven yet your theory works better maybe you
> should expand your reasoning to include the modified version
> of OoA which is not so purist. Maybe then the argument can
> grow a bit in complexity to match reality a bit closer?

Weak OoA certainly suits my needs. Some parts of my theory
draws from it.

> I think that has come up before.
>
> And why couldn't you take each element and come out with a
> confidence zone that you can lay on the table for
> examination? Are you setting up your old magic act again?
> Sleight of hand motions sets off the buzzer. I would think
> it basic to have some idea of the percentage of probability
> for each factor you use. Without these types of
> considerations the bullshit meter goes off cuz you are
> picking, choosing and doing some awfully creative mixing and
> matching. Ultimately, the proof will fall to pieces if you
> ignore finding how good your information is. GIGO

That's equally applicable to strict OoA. Our heritage is not
something that can be proved. It's all a matter of which model
best fits our limited set of data. To try to provide
percentages of confidence would only be more guess-work.

Leif

[Ejudy]

"leif" <leif@rdos.net> wrote in message
news:<I08H8.8705$p56.2484718@newsb.telia.net>...
> ejudy:
> > >I think that's perfectly reasonable. I believe the origin
> > >is 30-50ky BP in the moon-culture that evolved as a
> > >consequence of Neanderthal and AMH coexistence. The
> > >remainder of this culture is seen
> world-wide,
> > >although only superficially in Africa.
> >
> >

You are incorrect in your statement that shamanic traditions
are not seen in Africa except superficially and must have
originated with neanderthals. I am looking at this enormous
two book set here on my shelf "African Ceremonies" of which a
great and grand portion of the rich enormous photographs and
much of the text is devoted to the different belief systems
including ancestor spirit worship and healing ceremonies and
the ways many of the various tribes organise their world with
less secular boundaries between the spirit world and daily
life. IOW, africa is tied closely in their trancendent
experiences thru shamanic traditions which closely resemble
the same kinda thing you can see thru most of the world. One
of the oldest traditions is vodou which originated in the
rainforests and southern savannas of Benin, Togo and Eastern
Ghana. Voodoo has more than fifty million believers in west
africa alone.....

The highest state of being for a vodou believer involves the
complete abandonment to to the spirit of a particular deity.
That's essentially the same stuff as shamanism and is very
deeply rooted in Africa.

How could one go about studying the role shamanism played in
human evolution? I don't exactly know....... Sometimes folks
need to be bit by angry deities i suppose. Sorta re-aligns the
old backbone or something... whomps you back into deeper
respect? Certainly throws a wrench in the works for modern,
hypercontrolling, super-intellectualized, technowhizo,
magician humans who find new illnesses without cures and
cultures who can't resolve differences who produce spinoffs
resorting in desparation to fancy terroristic schemes.....just
newer versions of the same old themes addressed by shamanism,
IMO. Bungo, jabba!

ejudy

[Ejudy]

"leif" <leif@rdos.net> wrote :
>ejudy wrote:
(...)
>
>> The highest state of being for a vodou believer involves
>> the complete abandonment to to the spirit of a particular
>> deity. That's essentially the same stuff as shamanism and
>> is very deeply rooted in Africa.
>
>This type maybe, but not the shamans of later dates. They're
>not into voodo or ancester beliefs.
>
>> How could one go about studying the role shamanism played
>> in human evolution?
>
>Depends on which type of shaman you mean.
>
>Leif
>
Funny cuz i sorta thought you fit in their pretty clearly.
1.deified ancestor worship (neanderthal)
2.complete abandonment to merging of genes to deified
neanderthal genes
3.resulting in power over disabilities ;-) and people
4.deeply rooted in ~african~ shamanistic traditions.....
5.engages in regular visionary attempts to think oneself
into deific roles to be awarded special knowledge (you
could place your chatting with the aperger syndrome folks
on the "internet" into this catagory of hearing the
special voices).

BTW, no big deal, leif, we all do this sorta thing in private
anyway......... heheh.... ejudy

[Philip Dei]

On 24 May 2002 08:17:35 -0700, ejudy@my-deja.com (ejudy)
wrote:

>You are incorrect in your statement that shamanic traditions
>are not seen in Africa except superficially and must have
>originated with neanderthals. I am looking at this enormous
>two book set here on my shelf "African Ceremonies" of which a
>great and grand portion of the rich enormous photographs and
>much of the text is devoted to the different belief systems
>including ancestor spirit worship and healing ceremonies and
>the ways many of the various tribes organise their world with
>less secular boundaries between the spirit world and daily
>life. IOW, africa is tied closely in their trancendent
>experiences thru shamanic traditions which closely resemble
>the same kinda thing you can see thru most of the world. One
>of the oldest traditions is vodou which originated in the
>rainforests and southern savannas of Benin, Togo and Eastern
>Ghana. Voodoo has more than fifty million believers in west
>africa alone.....
>
>The highest state of being for a vodou believer involves the
>complete abandonment to to the spirit of a particular deity.
>That's essentially the same stuff as shamanism and is very
>deeply rooted in Africa.
>
>How could one go about studying the role shamanism played in
>human evolution? I don't exactly know....... Sometimes folks
>need to be bit by angry deities i suppose. Sorta re-aligns
>the old backbone or something... whomps you back into deeper
>respect? Certainly throws a wrench in the works for modern,
>hypercontrolling, super-intellectualized, technowhizo,
>magician humans who find new illnesses without cures and
>cultures who can't resolve differences who produce spinoffs
>resorting in desparation to fancy terroristic
>schemes.....just newer versions of the same old themes
>addressed by shamanism, IMO. Bungo, jabba!

Why are you wasting your time with this guy. He believes
Neandertals sailed the DRD4 gene over to the new world. He
believes culture originated from europe and he believes
religion originated in europe from the Neandertals. OK. so if
this is not proof positive of 'lunar' worship (i.e. Lunacy)
then I don't know what is.

Lief, sorry to say this, up till now you have presented 'a
different' interpretation of the facts, but now you have moved
to ethnographic based fabrications of evidence, which
qualifies as killfile material. Bye-bye.











Philip [pdeitik at bcm.tmc.edu]
http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnthro

[Leif]

ejudy:
> You are incorrect in your statement that shamanic traditions
> are not seen in Africa except superficially and must have
> originated with neanderthals.

No, I didn't say that. Stan Gooch believes that in his book,
but I think he's wrong. The moon culture is a MIX of AMH and
Neanderthal beliefs. Some things are obviously of AMH origin,
while other things are clearly inspired by a creative people
living at high latitudes for a long time.

> I am looking at this enormous two book set here on my shelf
> "African Ceremonies" of which a great and grand portion of
> the rich enormous photographs and much of the text is
> devoted to the different belief systems including ancestor
> spirit worship and healing ceremonies and the ways many of
> the various tribes organise their world with less secular
> boundaries between the spirit world and daily life. IOW,
> africa is tied closely in their trancendent experiences thru
> shamanic traditions which closely resemble the same kinda
> thing you can see thru most of the world. One of the oldest
> traditions is vodou which originated in the rainforests and
> southern savannas of Benin, Togo and Eastern Ghana. Voodoo
> has more than fifty million believers in west africa
> alone.....

Nothing new. There is no relation whatsoever to the
moon-culture in this. Voodo surely isn't, nor is
ancester worship.

> The highest state of being for a vodou believer involves the
> complete abandonment to to the spirit of a particular deity.
> That's essentially the same stuff as shamanism and is very
> deeply rooted in Africa.

This type maybe, but not the shamans of later dates. They're
not into voodo or ancester beliefs.

> How could one go about studying the role shamanism played in
> human evolution?

Depends on which type of shaman you mean.

Leif

[Leif]

ejudy:
> Funny cuz i sorta thought you fit in their pretty clearly.
> 1.deified ancestor worship (neanderthal)

Not really. Ancester worship is aimed at SPECIFIC ancesters,
not at a evolutionary model. I don't worship my closest
ancesters.

> 2.complete abandonment to merging of genes to deified
> neanderthal genes

Clear-sighthedness not possessed by African heritage..

> 3.resulting in power over disabilities ;-) and people

What power? Power of understanding maybe, but that's a
mental power..

> 4.deeply rooted in ~african~ shamanistic traditions.....

Deeply rooted in the Neanderthal influenced moon culture,
regretibly poluted by ~african~ compulsive aggressive
behaviour.

> 5.engages in regular visionary attempts to think oneself
> into deific roles to be awarded special knowledge (you
> could place your chatting with the aperger syndrome folks
> on the "internet" into this catagory of hearing the
> special voices).

No, that's called social relations in the Neanderthal way (IT
and computers are dependent upon their special qualities)..

Leif

[Ejudy]

"leif" <leif@rdos.net> wrote in article
<37xH8.39798$n4.8861250@newsc.telia.net> :
>ejudy:
>> Funny cuz i sorta thought you fit in their pretty clearly.
>> 1.deified ancestor worship (neanderthal)
>
>Not really. Ancester worship is aimed at SPECIFIC ancesters,
>not at a evolutionary model. I don't worship my closest
>ancesters.

Yeah, you worship only the neanderthal ones right?

>
>> 2.complete abandonment to merging of genes to deified
>> neanderthal genes
>
>Clear-sighthedness not possessed by African heritage..

hmmmm......you don't know what you are talking about and i am
not interested in going down this road as it is a ignorant
waste of time. I was joking but it does tend to get you to
reveal your less than reasonable motives for obsessing on
certain issues and avoiding others.

>
>> 3.resulting in power over disabilities ;-) and people
>
>What power? Power of understanding maybe, but that's a
>mental power..
>
>> 4.deeply rooted in ~african~ shamanistic traditions.....
>
>Deeply rooted in the Neanderthal influenced moon culture,
>regretibly poluted by ~african~ compulsive aggressive
>behaviour.

Compulsive aggressive behavior can be characteristic of ADHD.
I think it supposedly has to do to with something like a
filtering and regulation problem so when there is an urge is
ends up being acted on before the the intellectual moderation
function kicks in. Impulsivity. AND are not neanderthal
remains riddled with evidence of broken and scared bones? For
one to state that Neanderthal's were "regretibly poluted by
~african~ compulsive aggressive behaviour" is just going about
as blatantly overboard as one may imagine into the racism
cesspool. But we know you Leif and we know you will not see
anything whatsoever problematic in this. Pure unadulterated,
uninformed, insecure, BS bigotry.

We have been thru this before. If you have "neanderthal"
genes, what percentage neanderthal might you be? Maybe
1/10000? What percentage would make a difference to you? In
the usa folks like to claim certain admirable genetic
inheritances and they ussually fail to note the ones they are
not proud of. Like i could claim a certain group in my
heritage and even saw a photo of the lady who contributed the
genes to my heritage and the older folks tend to ew and ah,
but you know, who the heck cares anyway? 1/32nd is not some
percentage of a group one should claim heavy pride in, IMHO.
So you are sitting over there bellyaching over all but your
so-called neanderthal inheritance and it just is the same
sorta deal except taken to blinding unimaginable extremes even
if you are perhaps sublimating towards a theory development
based somewhat on interesting genetic patterns and mutations.
Make it useful. Cut the bigoted biased ignorant rascist trash
and use honesty and integrity in your "proof" or you are bound
to be totally insignificant forever in this quest of yours to
prove you history as being less tainted and more endowed than
those you fear and hate and condemn without even so much as
knowing those "african" people as real people not just your
imagined, dispicable, unfortunate, shadow inheritance.

SO ........

ejudy

>
>> 5.engages in regular visionary attempts to think
>> oneself into
deific
>> roles to be awarded special knowledge (you could place your
>> chatting with the aperger syndrome folks on the "internet"
>> into this catagory of hearing the special voices).
>
>No, that's called social relations in the Neanderthal
>way (IT and
computers
>are dependent upon their special qualities)..
>
>Leif

[Leif]

So where back to the off-topic racist agenda again? I
certainly don't have any intention of defending myself from
racist accusations. It should be pretty easy for anybody to
see that the Neanderthal theory is not racist. It's far less
racist than OoA, where the intent is to claim that the
majority is the norm, and everything else is dysfunctional.
This indeed is full-blown racism at it's worse. If it's
triggered by looks or behaviour really doesn't matter at all.

As for ADHD and aggressiveness, I don't think you understand
this at all. That type of aggressiveness can be shown by
virtually anybody who is treated bad.

Leif

[Lorenzo L.]

ejudy wrote:
>
> "leif" <leif@rdos.net> wrote in article
> <37xH8.39798$n4.8861250@newsc.telia.net> :
> >ejudy:
> >> Funny cuz i sorta thought you fit in their pretty
> >> clearly.
> >> 1.deified ancestor worship (neanderthal)
> >
> >Not really. Ancester worship is aimed at SPECIFIC
> >ancesters, not at a evolutionary model. I don't worship my
> >closest ancesters.
>
> Yeah, you worship only the neanderthal ones right?
>
> >
> >> 2.complete abandonment to merging of genes to deified
> >> neanderthal genes
> >
> >Clear-sighthedness not possessed by African heritage..
>
> hmmmm......you don't know what you are talking about and i
> am not interested in going down this road as it is a
> ignorant waste of time. I was joking but it does tend to get
> you to reveal your less than reasonable motives for
> obsessing on certain issues and avoiding others.
>
> >
> >> 3.resulting in power over disabilities ;-) and people
> >
> >What power? Power of understanding maybe, but that's a
> >mental power..
> >
> >> 4.deeply rooted in ~african~ shamanistic traditions.....
> >
> >Deeply rooted in the Neanderthal influenced moon culture,
> >regretibly poluted by ~african~ compulsive aggressive
> >behaviour.
>
> Compulsive aggressive behavior can be characteristic of
> ADHD. I think it supposedly has to do to with something like
> a filtering and regulation problem so when there is an urge
> is ends up being acted on before the the intellectual
> moderation function kicks in. Impulsivity. AND are not
> neanderthal remains riddled with evidence of broken and
> scared bones? For one to state that Neanderthal's were
> "regretibly poluted by ~african~ compulsive aggressive
> behaviour" is just going about as blatantly overboard as one
> may imagine into the racism cesspool. But we know you Leif
> and we know you will not see anything whatsoever problematic
> in this. Pure unadulterated, uninformed, insecure, BS
> bigotry.
>
> We have been thru this before. If you have "neanderthal"
> genes, what percentage neanderthal might you be? Maybe
> 1/10000? What percentage would make a difference to you? In
> the usa folks like to claim certain admirable genetic
> inheritances and they ussually fail to note the ones they
> are not proud of. Like i could claim a certain group in my
> heritage and even saw a photo of the lady who contributed
> the genes to my heritage and the older folks tend to ew and
> ah, but you know, who the heck cares anyway? 1/32nd is not
> some percentage of a group one should claim heavy pride in,
> IMHO. So you are sitting over there bellyaching over all but
> your so-called neanderthal inheritance and it just is the
> same sorta deal except taken to blinding unimaginable
> extremes even if you are perhaps sublimating towards a
> theory development based somewhat on interesting genetic
> patterns and mutations. Make it useful. Cut the bigoted
> biased ignorant rascist trash and use honesty and integrity
> in your "proof" or you are bound to be totally insignificant
> forever in this quest of yours to prove you history as being
> less tainted and more endowed than those you fear and hate
> and condemn without even so much as knowing those "african"
> people as real people not just your imagined, dispicable,
> unfortunate, shadow inheritance.
>
> SO ........
>
> ejudy
>

If Leif was the only person advocating a Special Ancestry for
Europeans, he could be safely ignored as he is after all just
a fool. But there are a great number of people who should know
better, including frequent posters to this group, who also
fall into this Neandertal "ancestor" worship mindset. They may
not be as overtly racist as Leif, and may not realize how
racist their unfounded belief in their Special Ancestry
sounds, but sadly, they are all cut from the same racist
cloth. Some of these people may honestly believe that they are
not racist, but what else can you call a unsupported belief in
a unique Special Ancestry?

Lorenzo L. Love http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove

"Prejudice, which sees what it pleases, cannot see what is
plain."
Aubrey T. de Vere

[Leif]

Philip Deitiker:
> Why are you wasting your time with this guy. He believes
> Neandertals sailed the DRD4 gene over to the new world.

I certainly don't. I believe this was done during the ice-age
maximum by desperate AMH people. Kind of the same desperation
that drove millions of peope to America in historical times.

> He believes culture originated from europe and he believes
> religion originated in europe from the Neandertals.

Not that either. I believe Euroasian culture was born in the
coexistence between Neanderthal and AMH. That's quite
different.

Leif

[Leif]

Lorenzo L. Love:
> If Leif was the only person advocating a Special Ancestry
> for Europeans, he could be safely ignored as he is after all
> just a fool. But there are a great number of people who
> should know better, including frequent posters to this
> group, who also fall into this Neandertal "ancestor" worship
> mindset. They may not be as overtly racist as Leif, and may
> not realize how racist their unfounded belief in their
> Special Ancestry sounds, but sadly, they are all cut from
> the same racist cloth. Some of these people may honestly
> believe that they are not racist, but what else can you call
> a unsupported belief in a unique Special Ancestry?

Try to figure out what to call cognitive superiority of
Africans? Isn't that the very definition of racist? IOW, OoA,
and replacement in particular, is extremely racist, especially
when Neanderthals didn't die out.

As for unsupported, this is only for people who don't want to
read more than evidence that supports their own prejuduces.

Leif

[Bob Keeter]

in article 3CEFC778.750CF4FC@thegrid.net, Lorenzo L. Love at
lllove@thegrid.net wrote on 5/25/02 12:16 PM:

Snippage. . . . .

>>
>
> If Leif was the only person advocating a Special Ancestry
> for Europeans, he could be safely ignored as he is after all
> just a fool. But there are a great number of people who
> should know better, including frequent posters to this
> group, who also fall into this Neandertal "ancestor" worship
> mindset. They may not be as overtly racist as Leif, and may
> not realize how racist their unfounded belief in their
> Special Ancestry sounds, but sadly, they are all cut from
> the same racist cloth. Some of these people may honestly
> believe that they are not racist, but what else can you call
> a unsupported belief in a unique Special Ancestry?
>
> Lorenzo L. Love http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove
>
> "Prejudice, which sees what it pleases, cannot see what is
> plain." Aubrey T. de Vere

Leif has his own agenda, as we round out early on. Its not so
much racist in the classic sense as it is to somehow get
certain "disorders" that he has an emotional connection to,
described in terms of "holdover" traints from Neanderthals
rather than simply as disorders. IOW, I think he wants to see
some degree of Neanderthal inheritance as being the "reason"
for something that he would otherwise consider to be a
"lessening" of himself.

So, not entirely racist, just misguided. Some of the other
comments Ive read I have no problem with labeling them racist,
with Leif, deluded will
do.

Regards bk

[Michael Cl]

"leif" <leif@rdos.net> wrote in message
news:iFSH8.40019$n4.8915980@newsc.telia.net...

[snip]

> As for unsupported, this is only for people who don't want
> to read more than evidence that supports their own
> prejuduces.

@$%&%^--SPROINGGG!!!!---%*%)(

Darn it! A spanking new irony-o-meter, too.

> Leif

[Philip Dei]

On Sat, 25 May 2002 22:10:56 -0500, "Michael Clark"
<mclark@skypoint.com> wrote:

>"leif" <leif@rdos.net> wrote in message
>news:iFSH8.40019$n4.8915980@newsc.telia.net...
>
>[snip]
>
>> As for unsupported, this is only for people who don't want
>> to read more than evidence that supports their own
>> prejuduces.
>
>@$%&%^--SPROINGGG!!!!---%*%)(
>
>Darn it! A spanking new irony-o-meter, too.

ROFLMFAO. Philip <pdeitik at bcm.tmc.edu