You are aware that North Africa was first heavily populated with Caucasoid Mechta - Afalou? Mechta - Afalou closely resembled European Cro Magnon man.
Vinca Culture which centered in Serbia might be the first civilization, which likely had the earliest writing script, and had the first metal smelting / Copper Age. Ancient Europe was a lot more advanced then people give them credit for. The wheel for example most likely was actually invented in Central - East Europe, the first wheeled toys found in the Cucenti - Trypillian Culture of Ukraine - Romania, then the first wheeled wagon depiction from the Bronocice Pot in Poland, while the first physical wheel found was found in Slovenia as the Ljubljana Marshes Wheel.
Southern Italy seems to have Middle - Eastern DNA that predates the Moors, and I don't think Northern Italians are mostly blonde, just they're not quite as swarthy as Southern Italians. Southern Italians are genetically very close to Greeks, who Greeks of course were not really invaded by the Moors. In fact, Greek DNA just looks like Sicilians with touches of Eastern European DNA, which isn't surprising given Greece's location.
Tunisians whether Carthaginian, or Arab of today are basically the same people, there's truly no DNA evidence for any kind of major Arab takeover. (The proof is in E1b1b haplogroup dominating on the male line in North Africa, while J haplogroup dominates in Arabia) But, these people are probably actually racially like Quadroons, they're part Black, but more Middle Eastern Caucasoid.
Ironic that we find none of this in Mesolithic European history, it was introduced to Europe with Neolithic farmers from the Near - East who had traces of African DNA. Ironic that the most Mesolithic European by DNA are Balts, Finns, Slavs, Scandinavians, and Celtics who were much less likely to be involved in this. As a Polish American I'd say our Polish history is pretty clean. Poland abolished slavery in the 14th century, and remained virtually slave free ever since. Meanwhile, African tribes most notably the Kings of Dahomey sold other Africans into slavery. Heck, even African - Americans went back to Liberia, and enslaved Liberian natives in the plantation method of slavery.
Stormfront goes way too far in the conspiratorial direction. The Jews look out for their own interest, are probably genetically inclined to be liberal, as we discussed, and it influences culture and government policy; however, there is no Zionist conspiracy to take over the world or subjugate Goyim. We agree on this. I'm also naturally heavier, with a healthy weight of about 200--I'm 5'11. I also have a giant head and cannot wear most caps comfortably. I was 10 pounds as a newborn. I am quite lazy unless motivated, though I am very mentally active at all times. I actually took the WAIS III when I was a teenager (somewhere between 16-1, and my Verbal/performance split was almost 2 standard deviations (favoring verbal ability), but I still had an above-average performance IQ. I believe it was a 142-115 split, but I can't recall the precise numbers. The full-scale score was 127. I've taken several professionally administered tests in my life, and they varied between the low 120's and mid 130's (overall, with some even higher verbal scores). I was very weak (below average) at coding and sequential reasoning, but my scores in the areas that rely on abstract reasoning ability were very high. I scored high on every verbal sub-test, especially similarities and vocabulary, as well as on the matrices and block-design sub-tests. Off-topic, but I will say that IQ extrapolations based on college admissions, both graduate and undergraduate, are greatly over-inflated at the higher end. I do not believe for a second that most of the people who are acing these tests actually have IQ's of 150. Those tests simply aren't that hard. Perhaps by definition they do, but they would not be able to get perfect scores on every section of the WAIS.
A lot of immigrants only exist in the West because goyim hire them, and goyim politicians have forced people to hire them. I suppose it's easier to blame everything on Jews, than to blame many White Christians. But, there's no doubt when it comes to racial science, the media, and Hollywood that a lot Jews have helped to steer us in the egalitarian Liberal direction.
The very high verbal Jewish IQ, but the low Jewish IQ on spatial ability actually makes sense for natural selection, not only do they come from ancient Semites who had some of the earliest writing, once they came to Europe they had to switch languages frequently, not to mention language would help them in banking fields / money lending fields they often went into once the Catholic church banned these activities.
Why did we develop such drastically different cultures, isn't a culture a reflect of the general tendencies the people within in it have?
"All Europeans have one or another gene or genes that places them in the group called Europeans or whites" This isn't entirely true and here is where double standards kick in; watch this: Even though the literal definition of a European is of, relating to, or characteristic of Europe or its inhabitants, those who are related to Europe by bloodlines won't get classified as European unless they meet a series of social standards. From my observations, only light-skinned people with almost pure, if not pure, Europeans genes get to be considered 'White/European.' Mixed-raced people are either considered mixed or considered the race of their non-White parent even if they contain significant amounts of European genes. This same rule is not consistently applied to other races. For example, Barack Obama, though half "Black" and half "White," will never be called "White/European." However, even though he is only 50% African and fairly light-skinned, somehow he is still called "Black." If the rules were consistent, many of the Black Americans would either be called "African-European-Indigenous Americans," "Americans," or a different race altogether. Many Latinos have over 65% of European DNA, but many people claim these guys aren't "White/European." This is even though many Latinos are visibly light-skinned. Since the standards aren't the same, we should be able to safely conclude that it's not based on biological rules, but on social rules. Otherwise, the social construct would be consistent for each race with what's happening biologically. "If I said that Asian-ness is nothing but a social construct, I would be called an anti-Asian racist." It wouldn't be the same. Asian literally means a native of Asia or a person of Asian descent. White is European with all the social rules and restrictions to it.
Those of us who actually know what we are talking about are not so inconsistent. You are attacking straw men, again.
When the head of the Human Genome Project and a former President of the United States both assure us that we are all, regardless of race, genetically 99. 9% the same, the clear implication is that racial differences among us are superficial. The concept of race, many would argue, is an inadequate map of the physical reality of human variation. In short, human races are not biologically valid categories, and the very ideas of race and racial difference are morally suspect in that they support racism. In Race, Vincent Sarich and Frank Miele argue strongly against received academic wisdom, contending that human racial differences are both real and significant. Relying on the latest findings in nuclear, mitochondrial, and Y-chromosome DNA research, Sarich and Miele demonstrate that the recent origin of racial differences among modern humans provides powerful evidence of the significance, not the triviality, of those differences. They place the "99. 9% the same" figure in context by showing that racial differences in humans exceed the differences that separate subspecies or even species in such other primates as gorillas and chimpanzees. The authors conclude that scientific honesty requires forthright recognition of racial differences. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Race-Reality-Differences-Vincent-Sarich/dp/0813340861 The fuzziness of boundaries between races does not, mean that races do not exist. Many real categories have fuzzy boundaries. In their book Heredity, Race and Society, the evolutionary biologists L.C. Dunn and Theodosius Dobzhansky pointed out that By looking at a suburban landscape one cannot always be sure where the city begins and the countryside ends, but it does not follow from this that the city exists only in imagination. Similarly, just because the dividing lines between races are frequently arbitrary so we should not conclude that races are imaginary entities. Races, they argued, exist regardless of whether we can easily define them or not. Among many non-human animals subspecies are often separated by a continuous gradation rather than by a sharp boundary. The herring gull (Larus argentatus), for instance, has a dove-grey back in northern Scotland. As you move eastwards around the Arctic, the gulls back gets darker until, by the time you return to Western Europe, it has a charcoal-grey back and is classed as a different subspecies (the lesser black-backed gull, or Larus fuscus). There are, therefore, two subspecies but, travelling eastwards, it is impossible to say where one ends and the other begins. Human races, say the race realists are, like gull subspecies, fuzzy sets groups with imprecise boundaries. In their book Race: The reality of human differences, anthropologist Vincent Sarich and journalist Frank Miele suggest a simple answer to the objection that races are not discrete, blending into one another as they do: Theyre supposed to blend into one another, and categories need not be discrete. It is not for us to impose our cognitive difficulties upon Nature; rather we need to adjust them to Nature. Humans might want everything neatly parcelled up and clearly labelled. But nature is not like that. And we just have to get used to the messiness of natural divisions. In any case, recent genetic studies suggest that it is possible to divide up humanity into a number of major groups that closely resemble commonsense concepts of race. Consider, for instance, the study by Noah Rosenberg and his colleagues that showed that the difference between races accounts for as little as 3-5 per cent of total human variation. The same study also showed that it is nevertheless possible in fact quite easy to distinguish genetically between races. Rosenberg and his colleagues studied 377 DNA sequences from 1056 individuals spread across 52 populations worldwide using a computer programme called structure. Structure takes any set of data, and attempts to find a rational way of dividing it into as many groups as it is asked to. In this study, structure was asked to divide up the populations of the world (represented by the 52 DNA samples) into two, three, four and five groups according to how similar or dissimilar were their DNA sequences. When the scientists asked the computer to divide the population of the world into two groups, one group comprised of DNA samples from Africa, Europe and western Asia and the second group of samples from eastern Asia, Australia and the Americas. When the DNA data was divided into three groups, the group consisting of populations from Eastern Asia and the Americas remained unchanged. But the populations of sub-Saharan Africa were separated from those of Europe and Western Asia. In other words, the three groups were the populations of sub-Saharan Africa, those of Europe and Western Asia, and those of Eastern Asia, Australia and the Americas. When asked to create four groups, structure created a new group by separating the populations of eastern Asia and the Americas. And when asked to break the data into five groups, structure kept all the other groups as they were but separated off the populations of Australasia from the rest of Asia. There are two things remarkable about these findings. First, the computer programme divides the population of the world according to the continent on which they live, and as we move from two to five groups, the boundaries of the continents become ever more distinct. Second, when the worlds populations are divided into five groups, those five groups correlate closely with what we commonly call races: Africans, Caucasians, East Asians, Australasians and Native Americans. And all this from DNA sequences in which only 4 per cent of total human variation is apportioned out among the races. Rosenbergs study shows, however small the differences between races, they are nevertheless sufficient to pick them out. https://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2012/03/04/why-both-sides-are-wrong-in-the-race-debate/
Interesting point, I wasn't aware of these gulls but it makes sense, and exposes the hypocrisy that many egalitarian Liberals hold, including ones in science.
The racial social structure is no strawman. History has already written that race was developed for social classification.
First let me say that I acknowledge that there is such thing as race. Yes, for example, we have Africans, Europeans, native Australians, Asians, etc. Now, that's out the way. My issue is that terms like "White" and "Black" are not based on biology. What people are calling races are actually hierarchical-class labels that were assigned to stereotyped features. This is why there are differences in how race is used depending on where you go. Again, that's because it's not based on a consensus or science, it is based on social and political structures that developed over time. America & Race How racial terms developed When the English began practicing slavery, the Irish and the African servants received similar treatment from their masters. Since nothing differentiated the two socially, it was no problem for the two groups to combine efforts in order to fight against the harsh colonial laws. Meanwhile, for the English, the Irish and the Indians made terrible slaves. The Irish would become ever demanding of privileges and lands. Colonial leaders used Africans as buffers to the poor Irish. As buffers, the Africans generally had a good image. "They were farmers and cattle-breeders; they had industries, arts and crafts, governments and commerce. In addition, Africans had immunities to Old World diseases. They were better laborers and they had nowhere to escape to once transplanted to the New World. The colonists themselves came to believe that they could not survive without Africans" (pbs). Let me fast forward a little to the end of the 18th century. Major antislavery movements were emerging. These movements grew and strengthened during the Revolutionary Era. Some felt there needed to be a justification to maintain the institution of slavery. So, colonizers develop the current ideas for race. They basically focused on the physical and status differences between European, conquered, and enslaved people. They added on political status and physical traits for new social identities. Next, they maintained this social hierarchy by keeping the new found races separate and kept them from mixing with one another. Out of these ideas grew the following races/classes: White = superior/master Black = inferior/slave Indian = in between (pbs, 1997) The racial categories reflect sociopolitical categories not biological ones. For an overview of how the racial category changes over time on the US Census click here. Latin America & Race South America themselves started off with the following social categories: White = colonizer Black = slave Brown = colonized Maybe more later. [hr][/hr] References Silverblatt, Irene (2004). Modern Inquisitions: Peru and the colonial origins of the civilized world. Durham: Duke University Press. p. 115 Smedley, Audrey (1997). RACE - The Power of an Illusion: Origin of the idea of race. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-background-02-09.htm. Wade, Lisa (2015). The US Census and the Social Construction of Race. The Society Pages. Retrieved from: https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2015/10/02/the-census-and-the-social-construction-of-race/.
I'm completly agree. The problem with whrite people is that we excuse ourself so much that it make the whole rest of the world think they are free to injure and blame us... One have a completly stupid behavior by doing that. So much other people made worse than us, but they don't feel the need to blame themself all the time about that (and they're right), so that most of the world forget all the bad things they made... Then, as you said, I also think whrite people have been the most generous people: when you try to understand why European colonized the world, you see that it was not only for enrich them, but also for religious, humanitarians reasons, they thought - maybe it was false but it what they used to believe - that what they where doing was quite good for the people of colonized coutries... Chinese, for exemple, look to don't care of the population of the countries where they go...
How does it feel to be able to post politically correct "dogsheet" without it being labelad as flamebating or having no basis for respectful debate. Your utter stupidity aside, I can guarantee you that there is such a thing as a spi-ck or nig-ger. How do you like them apples.
The DNA of Celts is almost identical to that of north Africans. You must be mistaking Germanic ppls in Britain for Celts because Celts are not Germanic, the ones that have similar DNA to germanics are relatively recent with waves of Saxon invasion. Celts are historic allies of Africans and the enemy of Germanic Romans, sorry to disappoint you but we have no allegiance to Romans and Germans
Dodecad, and Eurogenes both put Ireland ,and West Scotland as being more slightly more Northern European than England. English are more slightly Mediterranean. This Mediterannean component peaks in Basque, and Sardinians, and is closely linked to Neolithic farmers from Anatolia. Sorry, no Celtic DNA is not close to North Africans.
Basque is not Russian, sorry to dissapount you. We have historically pledged allegiance to north Africa and we see Roman germanics as the true enemy which is represented in our bloodline and Hebrew faith in the Israelite saviour from African continent.
You got it....the politically correct always want to blame a certain minorities deficiencies on cultural factors...like that somehow minimizes the pathology. Culture is a direct result of the desires,capabilities, tendancies, religion, i.q. and morals of a group of related people. Put a thousand Negroes raised in America and given the best education they can absorb on a mountain and isolate them for a thousand years.....and at the same time put a thousand East Asians likwise from America etc. on a mountain and isolate them for a thousand years.... what you would get with the Negroes would be what you have now in Africa....a bunch of negroes living in huts, raising goats and chickens with a witch doctor in control of their health system. The East Asians would have schools, modern hospitals and a exceptional living standard etc.etc.etc. Of course I cannot prove it. bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
The problem with this is Dobzhansky following Sewall Right re-defined race as a Mendelian population. No biologist (not even Richard Lewontin) denies these exist, so we have a semantic issue. Dozbhansky from the 1940's attempted to re-define race as part of the modern evolutionary synthesis, but if race is a Mendelian (breeding) population does this mean the Amish people are a race? This re-definition is nonsensical. This is wrong since those gulls are parapatric. There is only a narrow zone of interbreeding between them. While connected by gene flow, this continua is not a smooth gradient, but a slope. Like Dobzhansky, Sarich re-defines race to something it never originally meant. For example, Sarich calls Athenians a race. He defines race as a population, any population (not even a breeding population, but just a group of individuals in a town or city). That study has been debunked. Note how Rosenberg's second study identifies different clusters than his first study. So what does that tell you? These clusters are arbitrary.
