Answer: I have studied the demographics of the true White population, I want you to know that when I say White I don’t mean Caucasian, I’m also not following the United States racial demographics. It’s all incorrect. When I say White I don’t mean Latin Americans (Mestizos) I am not talking about …
Theme: Ethnoculture
-
Answer: I have studied the demographics of the true White population, I want you
Answer: I have studied the demographics of the true White population, I want you to know that when I say White I don’t mean Caucasian, I’m also not following the United States racial demographics. It’s all incorrect. When I say White I don’t mean Latin Americans (Mestizos) I am not talking about … -
Untitled
Source date (UTC): 2018-01-16 05:55:00 UTC
-
How Many White People Are There In The World?
( I want to congratulate Chris Woodbury for trying hard. )
Here is some help. My opinion is that since ‘Aryan’ is a prohibited term for northern europeans who are descendants of the Yamna, most of this discussion is an exercise in trying to define ‘white’ as a substitute for ‘Descendants of the Yamna and their Culture’.
Meanwhile, others want to claim membership in white civilization or ancestry for various signal reasons – and some to escape the pejorative association with the steppe and desert peoples.
Early advancements in the early bronze age (before the 1177 collapse) were made by those west, south, and east of the black sea, the levant, and mesopotamia. Its unclear whether the Yamna expansion was influential on the bronze age collapse or not. It’s logical but we have little evidence. They did combine horse wheel and bronze.
I think the significant advancements in the ancient european world (the bronze age recovery, after the bronze age dark age), and in the modern european world (after the abrahamic dark age caused by imposition of christianity by eastern rome, and by the imposition of islam under the arab expansions) were made by southern migrations of populations from north and west of the black sea, and likely in the river sections of the north sea.And I think this culture and its genetic advantages are what northern european (unmixed) ‘whites’ wish to preserve. (celtic-scandianvian-germanic-north-and-east slavic, above the alps and the black sea, and west of the urals.
I think the broader definition of ‘whites’ includes those with west black sea, and anatolian admixture (mediterraneans and southern slavs).
I think the broader definition of ‘whites’ includes all of christendom (caucuses and anatolians but not turks)
I think there is an attempt by levantines and Mesopotamians to identify as ‘white’ to escape negative connotations of being Semites. This is largely because the arabs destroyed eastern roman, levantine and mesopotamian civilizations – as well as egyptian and north african civilizations, and made the economic and cultural recovery of the western empire impossible.
I don’t think anyone considers north and south semites ‘white’ nor the various step people that arose from the anatolian, mesopotamian iranian (black haired fairer skinned) peoples.
I mean, I can tell the difference between the regional celts, a Frank, A high, middle, and low german, a southern and northern scandinavian and an englishman, and almost all of us can tell the difference between the various slavs (they are more aquiline and have smaller heads). We are inclusive with our greek and southern italian and sardinian cousins. Largely for cultural reasons.
The dirty secret of world history is ‘the steppe and desert people are pretty bad, and the europeans, east asians, indians, and africans have been fighting off the desert and steppe people for thousands of years.
Here is something from one people who know a great deal more than I do about this subject.
That depends on your definition of White; it’s as easy as that.
The truth is that anyone who can read a PCA-plot will know that Europe is genetically divided into two different categories and that is North and South European, with the latter being less homogenous and closer to the Middle East in terms of FST-distance, which strengthens the idea that Southern Europe has received gene flow from West Asia. This becomes more evident when you see that Sardinians do not express this pattern (pulling toward the Middle East) despite having no Steppe ancestry.
With that being said, you should take a look at the plot I attached by Lazaridis et al (2016) which showcases the intra-European division. Ignore the non-European clusters. What you will see is that Chris’ theory of Italy and Spain being supposedly half-White is null and void, although admittedly there is South-North cline within Italy (since Italy is the country with the highest genetic diversity in Europe).
The point is that even the northern part of Italy is well within the Southern European genetic continuum. The only country which has a legitimate North Europe-South Europe crossover cline is France.
https://www.quora.com/How-many-white-people-are-there-in-the-world
-
Is Racism The Ideology Of The Idiots?
I thought race realism was just science. And that lying about it is simply a postmodern pseudoscientific religion.
https://www.quora.com/Is-racism-the-ideology-of-the-idiots
-
How Many White People Are There In The World?
( I want to congratulate Chris Woodbury for trying hard. )
Here is some help. My opinion is that since ‘Aryan’ is a prohibited term for northern europeans who are descendants of the Yamna, most of this discussion is an exercise in trying to define ‘white’ as a substitute for ‘Descendants of the Yamna and their Culture’.
Meanwhile, others want to claim membership in white civilization or ancestry for various signal reasons – and some to escape the pejorative association with the steppe and desert peoples.
Early advancements in the early bronze age (before the 1177 collapse) were made by those west, south, and east of the black sea, the levant, and mesopotamia. Its unclear whether the Yamna expansion was influential on the bronze age collapse or not. It’s logical but we have little evidence. They did combine horse wheel and bronze.
I think the significant advancements in the ancient european world (the bronze age recovery, after the bronze age dark age), and in the modern european world (after the abrahamic dark age caused by imposition of christianity by eastern rome, and by the imposition of islam under the arab expansions) were made by southern migrations of populations from north and west of the black sea, and likely in the river sections of the north sea.And I think this culture and its genetic advantages are what northern european (unmixed) ‘whites’ wish to preserve. (celtic-scandianvian-germanic-north-and-east slavic, above the alps and the black sea, and west of the urals.
I think the broader definition of ‘whites’ includes those with west black sea, and anatolian admixture (mediterraneans and southern slavs).
I think the broader definition of ‘whites’ includes all of christendom (caucuses and anatolians but not turks)
I think there is an attempt by levantines and Mesopotamians to identify as ‘white’ to escape negative connotations of being Semites. This is largely because the arabs destroyed eastern roman, levantine and mesopotamian civilizations – as well as egyptian and north african civilizations, and made the economic and cultural recovery of the western empire impossible.
I don’t think anyone considers north and south semites ‘white’ nor the various step people that arose from the anatolian, mesopotamian iranian (black haired fairer skinned) peoples.
I mean, I can tell the difference between the regional celts, a Frank, A high, middle, and low german, a southern and northern scandinavian and an englishman, and almost all of us can tell the difference between the various slavs (they are more aquiline and have smaller heads). We are inclusive with our greek and southern italian and sardinian cousins. Largely for cultural reasons.
The dirty secret of world history is ‘the steppe and desert people are pretty bad, and the europeans, east asians, indians, and africans have been fighting off the desert and steppe people for thousands of years.
Here is something from one people who know a great deal more than I do about this subject.
That depends on your definition of White; it’s as easy as that.
The truth is that anyone who can read a PCA-plot will know that Europe is genetically divided into two different categories and that is North and South European, with the latter being less homogenous and closer to the Middle East in terms of FST-distance, which strengthens the idea that Southern Europe has received gene flow from West Asia. This becomes more evident when you see that Sardinians do not express this pattern (pulling toward the Middle East) despite having no Steppe ancestry.
With that being said, you should take a look at the plot I attached by Lazaridis et al (2016) which showcases the intra-European division. Ignore the non-European clusters. What you will see is that Chris’ theory of Italy and Spain being supposedly half-White is null and void, although admittedly there is South-North cline within Italy (since Italy is the country with the highest genetic diversity in Europe).
The point is that even the northern part of Italy is well within the Southern European genetic continuum. The only country which has a legitimate North Europe-South Europe crossover cline is France.
https://www.quora.com/How-many-white-people-are-there-in-the-world
-
Nearly everyone will miss my point (in the beauty of races and subraces). Sigh.
Nearly everyone will miss my point (in the beauty of races and subraces). Sigh. How did I end up writing so much on race? It can only be because it’s one of the most common postmodern lies. -
Nearly everyone will miss my point (in the beauty of races and subraces). Sigh.
Nearly everyone will miss my point (in the beauty of races and subraces). Sigh.
How did I end up writing so much on race? It can only be because it’s one of the most common postmodern lies.
Source date (UTC): 2018-01-15 17:38:00 UTC
-
Nearly everyone will miss my point (in the beauty of races and subraces). Sigh.
Nearly everyone will miss my point (in the beauty of races and subraces). Sigh. How did I end up writing so much on race? It can only be because it’s one of the most common postmodern lies. -
The Most Beautiful Race?
Hmm… —-”Are white people really the most beautiful race or do we just think that because we grew up being told that?”—- Well, sort of, yes. And we can measure it. However…. let’s explain why. Because it’s very interesting. In general, humans favor a certain set of ratios, and in general, humans favor pedomorphism(retention of juvenile features) – for obvious reasons of fertility and fitness – especially since we take so long to mature, and because of that can demonstrate our fitness due to our behavior, easily. If an individual possesses those ratios, apparent health, apparent awareness (intelligence), and SUFFICIENT RELATIVE juvenile features, then we tend to judge them as beautiful regardless of skin or hair color, or minor racial features (lips, eye folds, nose sizes). Ratios and pedomorphism are selection criteria for healthy growth through symmetric development over a long time period. This generally means more ‘aquiline’ features (fine features) and lighter coloring. It’s not a mystery why ‘whiteness’ spread in at least two if not three phases. It was a selection preference AND a geographic utility. (The math is pretty simple really.) All populations contain more and less pedomorphic individuals. All populations (races, subraces, tribes, clans) contain a distribution of individuals with hyper mature (masculine) and hyper immature (feminine) features. In general the middle and upper classes are more attractive than the working and underclasses, but only loosely. So to say all white people? No. More white people than other peoples? Yes. It is harder to evolve-out (remove) certain features, and easier to evolve-out (remove) other features through the process of pedomorphic evolution. Whites have for some reason, achieved somewhat less pedomorphic evolution than east Asians, but whites have achieved that evolution from a LATER version of man under greater outgroup competitive pressure than east Asians. There is too much uncertainty about White development compared to the current clarity of East Asian development. Africans have less pedomorphic evolution, Arabs less, Central Asians less, Mediterraneans less, West asians less, Germanics less, Slavs less, Indians the entire spectrum, and east asians the most. Arguably indian women with less Dravidian contribution are only marginally indifferent from Scandinavian women. And low dravidian contribution Indian men and women like european men and women, have developed symmetrically with men and women equally attractive across the class spectrum. (in general, the problem for the world is the steppe and desert people who did not go through sufficient ‘genetic grinding’ under cold weather agrarianism. And in africa there is high value to early maturity since the continent, in disease gradient alone, is extremely hostile to human life. And we can measure the correlation between physical (facial) features and development, by a rather obvious endocrine analysis: testosterone levels. (We aren’t very different from wolves and dogs really. A few endocrine pathways produce profound differences. ) In a perfect fantasy world men could have African physiques, Northern European appearance and brains and east asian fat distribution, and women could have northern european appearance, and height, east asian brains , body size, longevity, fat distribution, scent, and hair-density. I could state the opposite by race, subrace, and ethnicity (or tribe), but it would be too uncharitable. However, a gander at the distribution of features in indigenous Australian women and a gander at the physique of certain southeast Asian men, will demonstrate that the distribution of features in a population can work both very positively and very negatively. One of the ways to interpret the attractiveness of at white populations is that whites successfully killed off large portions of their underclasses, as well as previous generations of european inhabitants, and are a predominantly middle class race. East asians evolved in isolation and killed off vast portions of their underclasses, but more importantly close gene pools can correct better than diverse gene pools** and the han are the largest subrace, and the han, koreans, and japanese are extremely homogenous. Diversity is always and everywhere a bad thing. It makes correction of weakness, defect and error difficult. No matter what Abrahamic religions, Marxists, Postmodernists, and Academic Pseudoscientists propagandize. (Understand this research has been suppressed actively since the second world war. But technology has finally made it possible, and other countries are now providing the information that western peoples suppressed for almost a century.) Stereotypes are the most accurate measurement in the social sciences. They have to survive the market for verification for generations across entire populations. (Yes, really). At present the intermarriage between lower quality white males, and average quality east asian females is doing something very nice in that particular gene pool, because both east asians and europeans have something to positive to contribute to the gene pool. Genes can’t lie. Science isn’t kind. Reproduction is just another economy analyzable and explicable by economic criteria. I hope this was helpful. I work regularly to end denial of our differences, so that we provide institutional solutions to our differences. Markets are always better than monopolies. And large states are always monopolies that compete at the expense of some group or other of their people. Cheers.