Out of Africa: The Jewish Elephant in the Room 

 A lie produces flowers but no fruits.
African proverb 

“You and I, indeed, all of us, all over the world, are Africans under the skin; brothers and sisters separated by barely two thousand generations. The old divisive concepts of race are scientifically false,”1 notes Spencer Wells, the Boasian anthropologist responsible from 2005 to 2015 for the Genographic project of the National Geographic. Led by Susan Goldberg, its Jewish editor in chief from 2014 to 2022, this popular magazine has become a formidable weapon of globalist propaganda whose sole purpose is to promote mass immigration, multiculturalism, inclusion, egalitarianism, race-mixing, and the negation of the concept of race.2 Although the Genographic project has been shelved, the following views on race and evolution remain consistent under current Editor in Chief Nathan LUMP (non-Jewish) since 2022: 

Based on evidence from the Genographic Project and other scientific research projects, humans of the past and present can trace their origins to a single ancestor living in Africa 60,000 years ago.

It is genetically proven that all humans are 99.9% identical. Human beings do not fall into neat physical categories that some people call “race.” The differences between us — like skin colour and hair texture — evolved as humans adapted to different environments. Yet these differences constitute less than 1/10th of 1% of our genetic makeup.

These opinionated notions are repeated almost verbatim by the many social agents involved in promoting immigration, multiculturalism, miscegenation, and race denial such as the African-born recently arrived Quebecer Éric M’Boua: “[…] it has been scientifically proven that humanity originated on African soil. This makes us citizens of the same land called AFRICA [sic].” In an article published in the Huffington Post Quebec, Mr. M’Boua, whose enthusiasm for race mixing and multiculturalism knows no bounds, backs up his statement with a lecture by Spencer Wells, quoted above, presented on the platform TED Talks, Ideas Worth Spreading. 3 

Is Eric M’Boua right? Has it been proven scientifically that humanity originated in African soil? Can humans of the past and present trace their origins to a single ancestor living in Africa 60,000 years ago? What is the truth of the matter? Where does this notion come from? Why is it important? 

Afrocentrism 

The doctrine of Afrocentrism which originated in the United States during the civil rights movement of the 1960s and the creation of post-modern Black Studies programs in American universities has played a significant role in the promotion of the Out of Africa hypothesis. The author of this doctrine is the African anthropologist, Cheikh Anta Diop. He believed that Africa was not only the matrix of humanity, but that the ancient Egyptians were “Negroes” and that humanity owes them all of civilizations and primary inventions. According to the African history specialist, Bernard Lugan, Anta Diop was also convinced that “whites who could not admit this contribution of ‘Negroes’ had then created modern Egyptology in order to destroy the evidence of Egyptian negritude by eliminating black mummies and highlighting only white mummies.”4 

With his best-selling book, Black Athena. The Afroasiatic roots of Classical Civilization, Jewish author Martin Bernal played a major role in the spread of the African origin of humanity. He claimed that Whites had deliberately obscured the immense cultural contribution of Asia and Africa to European civilizations for racist and antisemitic reasons.5 While his primary political aim was anti-racism and postcolonial revisionism (building on Afrocentric scholars like Cheikh Anta Diop), his Jewish background provided personal motivation and shaped his focus on combating antisemitism and racism.6  

Out of Africa Film 

There is no evidence, at first sight, of a direct or intentional impact of this Jewish-produced film on the notions promoted by the National Geographic. However, the film almost certainly played a significant, positive role in the public’s ready acceptance of these ideas. It indirectly created a specific emotional and intellectual backdrop by presenting Africa as a “lost paradise,” a place of profound beauty, and majesty. The aura and prestige of the Stars Meryl Streep and Robert Redford lent the continent a new kind of romantic legitimacy in popular culture. The title itself—Out of Africa—is a powerful, simple, and positively framed phrase. In 1985-86, it was on everyone’s lips: winning 7 Academy Awards including Best Picture. The term “Out of Africa” entered the cultural lexicon associated with love, loss, beauty, and a return to origins. The film’s core is about a deep, personal, and transformative connection between a European woman and Africa—its land and people; it echoed a theme of “origin” and “return.”7 

Mitochondrial Eve 

But what gave these notions their scientific credentials is the “Mitochondrial Eve” study by geneticists Allan Wilson, Rebecca Cann, and Mark Stoneking published in 1987 by the journal Nature.8 The famous phrase, “We Are All Africans Under the Skin,” was then widely popularized by the Jewish controlled main stream media9. At the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance, the good news was also promoted by eminent scientists such as the Jewish geneticist Axel Kahn: 

The surprise of recent scientific discoveries is indeed that man has no more genes than the donkey or the ox, and even much less than the toad… All men are in fact of great genetic homogeneity, because their common ancestor is young in terms of the evolution of life; he lived over 200,000 years ago in Africa. All the continents seem to have been populated from a population whose groups would have left Africa 70 000 years ago. Skin color, which plays such an important role in racial prejudice, does not reflect genetic divergence so much as a progressive browning of the skin as one moves from the north to the equator. There is more genetic diversity, on average, within individuals of a particular ethnicity than between two different ethnicities, even if they are apparently as dissimilar as Scandinavian or Melanesian populations.10 

Globalists and liberal anthropologists of the Boasian school, such as Spencer Wells, quoted above, have meanwhile become obsessed with this notion.11 The fact that we all came out of Africa the day before yesterday, and that we are therefore all fundamentally similar, makes it much easier to mix populations and races, and to make them accept the world dreamed by John Lennon in his song “Imagine.”  

Fortunately for those who do not like to be tossed around in the dreamer’s washing machine like a basket of dirty laundry, thanks to advances in anthropology and genetics, there are many reasons to believe —until proven otherwise, as science never stands still and is open by definition to revision of established truths—, thanks to advances in anthropology and genetics, that Africa is not the cradle of the major subspecies of mankind: Caucasoid (light skin, originating in Europe, Middle East, North Africa, parts of South Asia); Mongoloid (East Asian features, epicanthic folds, originating in East/Southeast Asia); Negroid (darker skin, originating in sub-Saharan Africa); additional minor groups: Australoid (Indigenous Australians, some Pacific Islanders) and Capoid (Khoisan peoples of southern Africa). 

Multiregional Hypothesis  

According to the multiregional view of paleoanthropologists Alan G. Thorne and Milford H. Wolpoff of the Australian National University, mitochondrial DNA is not the only source of evidence; “Mitochondria Eve is not the first woman to come out of Africa. Fossil remains and artifacts represent more reliable evidence.” As Thorne and Wolpoff state, the principal human races began to evolve well before the appearance of anatomically modern humans Homo sapiens. Contrary to mainstream thinking races did not evolve as a result of modern humans leaving Africa to colonize the rest of the world some 60 000 years ago as promoted by National Geographic. They trace racial characteristics as far back as two million years ago to the extinct human species Homo erectus.12  

Anatomically modern humans evolved from this more ancient form simultaneously in different parts of the world, and it was during this period that the racial characteristics of Homo sapiens emerged 300 000 years ago. Stating that all humanoids originated in Africa means very little, but gives the false impression that all of humanity is an undifferentiated African magma. There is no single recent dispersal for modern humans; humans originated from Africa and then slowly developed their modern forms in every area of the Old World.13  

As noted by Kerry Bolton in his book Babel Inc., this was also the view of eminent anthropologists Carlton S. Coon of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists who stated that today’s races evolved separately, in different continents, over different periods of time: “if Africa was the cradle of mankind, it was only an indifferent kindergarten. Europe and Asia were our principal schools.”14 As geneticist, R.R. Gates states, “isolation has been the great factor or at any rate, an essential factor in the differentiation of races.”15 

DNA sequencing allows us to affirm that Europeans of the Caucasoid subspecies are descended from three strains, none of which is African:  

1. The Western European hunter-gatherers, the stem population of all Europeans; 
2. The ancient North Eurasians, whose genes are found in all Europeans and inhabitants of the Near East, notably in the Turks; 
3. The farmers from Anatolia, whose genomecontainsgenes from the above hunter-gatherers (mainly in Mediterranean populations, but not in Danubian and North-European populations).16 

Evolutionary Surge of Domestication 

Since humans started farming roughly 10 000 years ago, for example, new races emerged that had very little or no resemblance to the originals. In their book, The 10,000 Year Explosion, scientists Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending explain that since the beginning of domestication, evolution has been roaring along 100 times faster than during the Stone Age, that it is “madly galloping off in all directions,” and that “the biological equality of human races” is “about as likely as a fistful of silver dollars all landing on edge when dropped.” 17  

Now, for the second National Geographic idea: 

It is genetically proven that all humans are 99.9% identical. Human beings do not fall into neat physical categories that some people call “race.” The differences between us — like skin colour and hair texture — evolved as humans adapted to different environments. But these differences make up less than 1/10th of 1 percent of our genetic makeup. 

The racial reality that the “out of Africa crowd of the left” refuses to accept makes it possible, among other things, to determine in each race the length of pregnancy, the weight of a baby at birth, its precocity, its aggressiveness (the crime gene, MAO-A), the size of its brain, its intelligence and chances of success, physiological adaptations (lactose tolerance, altitude and skin pigmentation adaptation) and even its response to certain drugs and its predisposition to suffer from certain diseases (sickle cell anemia, malaria), cancers, or mental diseases such as schizophrenia. These differences are the product of evolutionary pressures—not social constructs.18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 

While we are identical to all other humans in more than 99.9% of the 3 billion elementary bases of which our DNA is composed, this 1/10 of 1% of our genetic makeup is of paramount importance, for it actually contains the blueprint for all our physical, physiological, and psychological differences not only between individuals, but also between races.26, 27, 28 

The above scientific facts are an affront to the cherished idea of the “we are all Africans under the skin” crowd that believes that races are a category of the mind, the human brain hasn’t changed much since modern Homo sapiens appeared 300,000 years ago, and that we are all the same under the skin and in the head.  

The intention is to challenge notions of biological hierarchy and racial prejudice by insisting on our shared origins and our common DNA, but using human evolutionary history and genetic characteristics to justify modern migration policies and social-political decisions is a disastrous category error—mixing paleoanthropological and biological facts with socio-political decisions has led to the present chaotic world we live in. 

The Jewish Elephant in the Room 

It was Jewish liberal pseudoscientist Franz Boas who at the beginning of the 20th century led the assault on the idea that race was the primary source of the differences to be found in the mental or social capabilities of human groups. He professed that race is merely a category of the mind or a social construct not found in nature, and that behaviour is strictly shaped by environment.29  

As a result, by the middle of the twentieth century, educated Americans no longer thought Darwin and evolutionary theory were relevant; they referred to human differences in cultural terms, and believed that all human races were equal. Research on evolution ceased, and the profession of anthropology completely excluded genetic studies on race.  

This fundamental shift away from race as a biological construct was the result of an ideological shift rather than a scientific shift. At the time, America was a racially homogeneous White Anglo Saxon Protestant country. Immigration to the US was restricted to people of European descent. Antisemitism was common. So, the goal of Franz Boas and his Jewish students was firstly to break the immigration laws which stopped their kind from immigrating to America, and secondly, to make the country more Jew friendly as Jews can only prosper and be safe in the world when the respect for pluralism, the accent on tolerance, the emphasis on individual liberties and egalitarianism are the dominant values. But to fit a square peg in a round hole, Boas based his conclusions on incomplete information, inferences, guesses, and unverifiable assertions ranging from the possible to the preposterous. It was a long and challenging road but this fake Boasian science eventually led to the Hart-Cellar act of 1965, a landmark piece of legislation that opened wide the gates of immigration to non-European populations.30 

Likewise, and for the same reasons, prominent Jewish Harvard scientist Stephen Jay Gould had a major influence on the public’s views on immigration, race, and intelligence. In his book The Mismeasure of Man, for example, he falsely claims that evolution could produce people as different as Australian Aborigines and Europeans, but the brains of the two groups, and therefore, their intelligence, could be exactly the same, a notion that has been thoroughly debunked. So, why would Gould say such a thing if it is false? Was he just mistaken? Or, did he commit fraud like Franz Boas to advance his ethnic/ideological agenda? As evolutionary psychologist Kevin MacDonald says in his book The Culture of Critic, one of the prominent themes of Gould’s book was how hereditarian views on intelligence had been used by the “Teutonic supremacists,” aka the Nazis, to discriminate against his race and justify its persecution. Gould’s views on this subject as well as the IQ debates of the 20s and their link to the immigration issue and eventually the Holocaust are the reasons why he falsified his studies. As MacDonald notes, this “illustrates how skill as a propagandist and ethnic activist can be combined with a highly visible and prestigious academic position to have a major influence on public attitudes in an area of research with great implications for public policy.”31 

Then there was the enormous influence of Jewish linguist Noam Chomsky’s theory of language which claimed that “the general principles underlying the structure of particular languages across the world, the rules which determine the form of their grammar, in such languages as English, Turkish, Yoruba, or Chinese, are indistinguishable in their degree of sophistication.” Chomsky’s goal “was to offer a theory of language consistent with the ideological claim that all humans are genetically equal, in order to encourage the integration of non-White races in the West and make Whites feel there was nothing special about their cultural achievements by reducing all languages down to their lowest common denominator.”32  

What about National Geographic? How does it fit in? Well, it belongs to Walt Disney Corporation. It’s Jewish CEO, Robert Iger, is a notorious liberal advocate, like a disproportionate number of his coreligionists and for the same reasons listed above.33 According to journalist Alyssa Rangel of Culture Wars, after the death of Walt Disney and his brother Roy, this family-oriented business was transformed into a progressive, DEI, anti-racist, LGBT-pedophilic oriented stronghold.34  

Moreover, one of the major shareholders of Disney is asset management firm BlackRock. Its Jewish CEO Larry Fink is the interim chairman of the World Economic Forum (WEF) and BlackRock is a WEF strategic partner. Fink has also participated in Bilderberg and Trilateral Commission events. Big Pharma, the Industrial Military Complex, BlackRock and other firms such as Vanguard, State Street, as well as the Open Society Institute of Jewish currency speculator George Soros are broadly aligned with the money-lenders of Wall Street, the City of London, and the UN-related sustainable development goals of Agenda 2030, a vehicle for a globalist “New World Order” aiming to undermine national sovereignty, control populations, and make the richest richer.35 

In short, Franz Boas, Stephen Jay Gould, Martin Bernal, Axel Khan, Noam Chomsky, Suzan Goldberg, Georges Soros, Robert Iger, Larry Fink are all ethnic activists who support a social engineering political agenda rather than a humanitarian one. In fact, advocating an ideology of cultural pluralism, anti-racism, tolerance, and egalitarianism as a model for Western societies, has been the “invisible subject” of Jewish activists in finance, politics, academia, media, and the entertainment business— “invisible,” notes Kevin MacDonald, because the racial interests of its advocates are hidden by their discretion on their racial identity, humanitarian objectives, and the language of science.36  

In the final analysis, Jewish activists are the main advocates of the “Out of Africa” trope. Whether this “Jewish elephant in the room” truly believes in this trope and whether he thinks race is a category of the mind, all humans are truly equal, and open society, mass immigration, and the mixing of racially and culturally incompatible populations are good for mankind is an open question. Judging by their notoriously strong tribal affinities and Israeli policies on immigration, multiculturalism, and race mixing, it can be argued that the Out of Africa theory is one of the many group evolutionary strategies that Jewish power uses in a deceptive way simply because “it’s good for the Jews.”37