Where’s the evidence, they ask.
There’s a whole bloody article on a medical site.
And this picture.
Where’s the evidence, they ask.
There’s a whole bloody article on a medical site.
And this picture.
It is (mis)applied to everything/everyone, therefore is valid for almost nothing.
Europe, Middle-East, Asian and African? That’s at least 80% of the planet, no.
Changing the pigment isn’t scientific!
Must I really point this out?
They’d be scared to put me on trial because they’d be forced to admit I’m correct.
On court records for the next thousand years.
It felt churlish to point this out before, I considered it obvious.
We use the term race to be polite, technically they don’t have one.
However, circumstances compel me to explain.
They believe in superiority but not race (mixed isn’t a race).
That is irrational.
The rhetoric that “mixed race are superior” is absurd on many levels.
Here’s one, the most biological and side-stepping value judgements.
A few sharper ones claim to be raceless, this is true.
As updated for clarity:
A race evolves over millennia in precise environments and overcoming specific (natural) selection events, it’s like saying you invented a primary colour. A human group can’t evolve in ALL/NO environment, especially with no advantageous mutational benefit to the organism’s fitness (why I emphasize health).
Mate selection requires informed consent. Medicine isn’t telling them about these things until it’s too late and they experience the problems firsthand. With no warning.
Naturally, not knowing the information (usually they are never told!), they’ll tend to blame themselves as individual parents when it’s really the mating strategy combination. It used to cause health problems in royalty too, since they’d marry across vast distances. Repeating the behaviour made it cumulative. They became too inbred by outbreeding too much, narrowing to a smaller and smaller niche of potential breeding partners with every generation.
There are no separate human groupings (sub-species) made from pre-existing groups! It’s logically impossible! It’s a little like cutting a slice of cake and acting like it’s a new, whole cake. The genetic tree doesn’t sprout from air!
It’s called a phylogenetic tree and I made you one to illustrate my point.
See? I care.
This is the easy to read version because it fits well on the timeline of history.
Rest of the edit:
Genetically, they’re creating niche sub-subraces with severely restricted breeding opportunities (explaining the IVF rates) and I’ve yet to see a mixed race fertility study go into grandparents and great-grandparents, which could already be done.
Maybe it was done and never published.
Cult of silence.
Parental attitudes of mixed children would also be a thrilling read.
As a niche group whose rarer, more recessive mutations are swiftly lost in the blend, we would expect their fertility overall to drop with each generation (this includes mixed White and could explain secular America below replacement level).
A Northern Italian subrace man mixed with an Austrian subrace woman is mixed race (of the White European thede) but we never think of it that accurate way, do we?
We think of a more PC form of mulatto, which is narrower and limited as an idea.
(50% “black”/50% “white” and up to two generations applicable tops).
They’re toying with the definitions of the levels.
Again, because I love you. I want you to understand. Origin of the Species isn’t on the national school curriculum, causing me to write in full earnest. Someone must tell you.
Subraces you have likely heard of includes Celts, Picts, Basque, Angles, Saxons, Normans, the Cornish and so on.
The modern concept of “mixed race” is false in every conceivable permutation.
Tell me, where do they fit in? On the tree, show me. Where’s the root? Nobody is allowed to ask about the details because it’s political, it isn’t scientific.
A liger is neither a lion nor a tiger. Those are exclusive categories.
We’re defining them by their parents for linguistic convenience.
They are a mix of their parent’s race/s (evolved identity) but they themselves as an individual organism don’t have one.
There are hundreds, if not thousands, of novel sub-subraces. Precise combinations. It depends the fine-grain you want. The mixed part itself is also a category error because it lumps them all in together.
An individual whose mixture is of Celt, Basque, Alpine and Nord heritage has nothing in common neither biologically nor culturally with a combination in one individual of Sub-Saharan African, Aboriginal Australian, Inuit, Yayoi and South American.
Yet they’d lead you to believe this (lie).
It’s called a voting bloc.
Sometimes you can destroy many group’s unique interests by making them sacrifice for a larger group they don’t truly belong to (Empires fall).
Politically, they’re being played because each type will have its own issues and needs and this means none can truly be studied (similar to how most clinical trials are done on men and there are medical problems* applying their findings to women).
Subraces arose naturally in evolutionary history, they evolved. Their mutations are stable because they’ve weathered thousands of years of events including war or since gone extinct.
This artificial combination called both mixed (too ambiguous) and race (just no, too specific and wrong) when it is neither, is novel (practically born yesterday, unproven) and in mutational terms, that isn’t a good thing.
Surely people deserve to know this information as teenagers or earlier before they consider how to marry?
A lot of people, when thinking of who should father/mother their children, consider the child’s health their primary concern. This is too important to ignore. Studies must be conducted, the burden of proof is directly heaped upon those making the positive claims e.g. sunny Pollyanna health and life outcomes, magically.
From what little I can find on the subject, the evidence points in quite the opposite trajectory.
Whatever happened to consent?
It’s a clear public interest case especially where healthcare is taxpayer funded.
Assuming you want governments lead by science than superstition?
While I’m here “there’s one race, the human race” is bullshit, I trust you knew that too?
“Human race” predates Darwin’s work and the formal classification of species.
“That I might all forget the human race,
And, hating no one, love but only her!”
Charles Darwin was a toddler at publication.
Homo is our genus, sapiens our species. Humans/humanity/mankind is a species.
We have a race (or not). We are always a species.
If you want to deny your brain, (sapiens), go ahead!
It’s totally unscientific to say “human race”, in fact, it’s anti-science.
Congratulations, if you use that term seriously you’re a Creationist.
A liberal Creationist.
Atom predates particle physics too, STFU.
An ancient term of philosophical speculation (in Leucippus, Democritus); revived scientifically 1805 by British chemist John Dalton. In late classical and medieval use also a unit of time, 22,560 to the hour.
“Just being a Negro doesn’t qualify you to understand the race situation any more than being sick makes you an expert on medicine.” [Dick Gregory, 1964]
So in conclusion, yes, contrary to another lie, the idea of race has always existed.
Racial erasure is a form of genocide. Race is exclusive as a sub-category of species. No false equivalence here today, thank you. One is not zero, blue is not red and water is not fire.
Anglo- peoples (please research others at your leisure) simply called it something/s else.
Americans are too uneducated to bloody check!
Sorry, I’ve revealed my power level, haven’t I?
Edit: to really put the cat among the pigeons, advocates of a raceless world are genophobic.
Contrary to https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/genophilia and scientific.
They personally fear breeding with their own kind but an extension of the term would easily apply to a strong sociosexual aversion to one’s own people, culture or kin. Expansions happen all the time if there’s a need in behaviour (see ‘gay’).
OR geno-cidal, a willful termination of their group included, which we knew.
Medically, they would be suffering from:
Because I can.
“Native American”, they cant presumptuously.
Allow me to continue dispelling this myth.
“This week, two major studies of the DNA of living and ancient people try to settle the big questions about the early settlers: who they were, when they came, and how many waves arrived. But instead of converging on a single consensus picture, the studies, published online in Science and Nature, throw up a new mystery: Both detect in modern Native Americans a trace of DNA related to that of native people from Australia and Melanesia. The competing teams, neither of which knew what the other was up to until the last minute, are still trying to reconcile and make sense of each other’s data.”
Australasian, work with me here.
“The prevailing theory
is that the first Americans arrived in a single wave, and all Native American populations today descend from this one group of adventurous founders. But now there’s a kink in that theory. The latest genetic analyses back up skeletal studies suggesting that some groups in the Amazon share a common ancestor with indigenous Australians and New Guineans. The find hints at the possibility that not one but two groups migrated across these continents to give rise to the first Americans.”
And they murdered the real natives they found there. Don’t mention that. Must have happened.
““Our results suggest this working model that we had is not correct. There’s another early population that founded modern Native American populations,” says study coauthor David Reich, a geneticist at Harvard University”
Also, suggests multi-regional hypothesis.
Unless you’re going to be claiming they wuz Africans too?
The funny part of the “everyone wuz African” rhetoric is the unfortunate logical consequence – they implicitly argue non-Africans are more evolved.
Who were the original Americans?
130, 000 years ago?
Typical of Europeans and Neanderthals.
When r is low or r=0, you’re actively harming your genetic kin due to competition.
The resources are no longer in equilibrium between groups, one has the resources of the other.
This is why families encourage loyalty and the state competes with doting teachers.
Every war is actually about competing genetics, even in chimps.
This is about genophilia.
Strangers have high genetic distance, highest for race.
No, the 20th century didn’t ruin your country.
You were meritocratic.
For a brief period after the American Revolution, some women
were allowed to vote, in one of the thirteen new states. The New
Jersey Constitution of 1776 enfranchised not only men who met the
property requirement but women as well. The specific language:
[A]ll inhabitants of this Colony, of full age, who are worth fifty
pounds proclamation money, clear estate in the same, and have
resided within the county in which they claim a vote for twelve
months immediately preceding the election, shall be entitled to vote
for Representatives in Council and Assembly; and also for all other
public officers, that shall be elected by the people of the county at
No taxation without… ah, that’s right!
Wait – it gets weirder. Other states.
Before 1820, free black men could vote and white women couldn’t.
So much for your IQ and race realism, huh?
Plenty of states were just male supremacist and misogynist, regardless of qualification.
[Checked: Deadlink from bookmarks, damn. Well, 1820 was the date to look up.]
Now you know why the first feminists were generally “white supremacists*“, because if you let someone you consider subhuman vote before your sister, something isn’t right. Clearly, that person isn’t meritocratic, AKA the American Way. Let the person who can (usually) barely read and write have a say, against the highly educated, who can’t?
Women were preferentially home-schooled with a governess, which we now know is better!
Plus finishing school, which everyone forgets. Bring back those.
They ended black and female voting in New Jersey in 1807 because white MEN were dressing in drag or blackface to cast extra votes.
*They wanted to be treated the same as black men so I dunno how that logic works.
It’s funny when I must correct Americans on their own sodding history.
If it weren’t so sad.
And where’s the female incentive to contribute to a society that provides no incentive?
This isn’t Communism, everyone needs incentives. Women aren’t respected by men generally as feminine or wives any more…so fewer are feminine or wives. People can (and do) suppress their natural instincts if society actively punishes them for it (say, you lose the Vote when you marry), a dysgenic outcome. And men are suppressing their paternal instinct because losers on the internet disrespect fatherhood as stupid (but Homer Simpson is insulting!).
Nobody can honestly answer that question. Incentives must come to the individual, so the reward can’t be another person e.g. men, children. And men had the “reward” of a family too, plus the Vote (when property ownership was dropped). Ancient tribes survived because they were meritocratic. You contribute, you have a say. This includes the choice to elect representatives, those representatives don’t get to turn around and limit the Producers in the society that supports their existence. And who produces more vitally than women?
Homogeneity is based on shared values and fair incentives. So for example, everyone values Christian charity and all members could have a seat at the table for free food if they fell on hard times.
It’s like how lower class men have been too stupid to realize they celebrated their own replacement for the profiteering of the rich men. Robots work in factories instead of you. Drones are soldiers instead of you. Immigrants in lower-middle job roles like taxi driver and cook, instead of you. And you welcome sexbots? Seriously?
Men celebrate their replacement for laziness and cowardice and wonder why they’re in a weaker bargaining position.
Less contribution (more restriction), less incentive rewarded.
You cut off your own opportunity, welcome to the inevitable outcome.
If I don’t correct the pedophiles trying to feel normal, who will?
Humans are considered by some biologists to be a youthful looking species. We have weak (gracile) jaws compared to say, gorillas and large heads compared to say, chimps.
Stop trying to snowflake a biological possibility of prevalence.
It isn’t Asian or even characteristic of Asians (anime isn’t real!), it’s more prevalent in women than men (but common to humans) and can occur in Asians. However, most Asians have narrow, upturned (i.e. not round) and small eyes – thus cannot count under that heading. They are the least youthful on that feature!
You know, on average and before Daddy’s plastic pays for new plastic.
There are plenty of Asians who don’t have it (most by definition, attractive people are always a minority in their own population) and get the most surgery in the world to reset their masculine bone structure where possible in easy areas like the jawline and brow bone.
The technical un-PC term is “pedomorphic” so….
Don’t go round telling people you find that hot.
Another error made on purpose by perverts?
Young isn’t the same as sexually immature. Men are sexually disgusted by signs of sexual immaturity so quit pushing that or show me some amazing, ironclad studies to back up your claim.
p.s. A fetish isn’t covered by sexual selection. Please stop getting evolution wrong, America! If you’d pass over the many white, black, whatever else women with larger eyes and smaller gracile (not under-developed/inbred/immature) chins then what you really have is Yellow Fever, a paraphilia (fetish). The Kibbe gamine type exists in all races and Asian culture expects women to fake it. So they do.
Youthful (but NOT immature!!!) features indicate health. That’s it. That’s all.
As in, an Asian looking really cute by plastic surgery with no waist, boyish hips and poor fertility doesn’t count under the biological model as fit. Because it isn’t real. Biology covers what is natural only. It also covers evolved historical conditions, new transportation and the race mixing that is possible isn’t covered because it’s novel. I’ve covered as much as possible that’s available to discuss online with the medical issues boyish women have with childbirth. If C-sections didn’t exist, a lot of Asian women would die, especially if the baby is half-white. Most women who go in for IVF are Asian (and have a higher failure rate than White women) and nobody knows why because nobody is allowed to study racial differences openly.
If they cared about these women, they’d study things to actually help them.
Fetishists miss the part about the eye shape and size because the common black eyes (again, contacts don’t count as genetic!) cue to their stupid brain that the woman is in love with them (pupil dilation) and not a threat.
Their cartoons look like white women, they get surgery/hair dye/makeup/skin glue/fake eyelashes to look like white women and their husbands cheat with Russian prostitutes. Actions speak louder than words.
What’s been called “psychological neotony” by some obvious pedophiles is emotional retardation and intellectual immaturity. That’s all retardation is, being stuck in an earlier stage of development. Humans have life stages, to not grow up is disturbed. They are just as bad as the vapid Valley girl.
If it’s vapid and stupid when white women do it, it’s the same when Asians do it. Stop white (yellow?) knighting. Fake femininity is obnoxious.
Neotony or in accurate anthropological terms, pedomorphology is allowed in society because we’re decadent, it is a sign of civilizational regression to encourage showy incompetence. It’s literally the female equivalent of the soyboy. They’re useless and act like children to get out of their citizen’s duties in life. And you’re falling for that?
It’s your life to ruin, I guess?
Black women have a tendency to act strong to get male resources, Asian women have a tendency to act weak to get male resources. White women can go either way with Eastern European acting weak and Western Europe acting strong(er).
But your hierarchy is fake science.
As a race, the “neotonous” features as characteristic belong to Europeans.
Show me a mathematical computer study that tops this.
Marquardt female ideal, sexually mature and youthful.
Proportionately large eyes, high, well-formed cheekbones, full but not huge lips and narrow mouth (youthful mouth indicator for femininity, not fullness which men have moreso) and a fine nasal bridge, soft brow bones and cherry chin, gracile thin jawline and thinner overall face shape closer to oval ideal, 2:1 ratio.
Shapely philtrum (predicts uterine health), proportionate ears and nostrils (evolved to climate), healthy eye distance (neither too big or too small, beauty is healthy average because it shows a low mutation load)!
Fits closest to Europeans, matching up to corroborating dating site selection data and male preference attitude surveys who would preferentially date a European woman.
European fits it best based on youthful features, then Africans because they have large eyes and full lips and THEN Asians. The eye area is crucial for this. If you don’t have youthful eyes, you don’t have it.
Looking like a baby also means looking like a boy, femininity is different. It is not childish, it’s womanly.
The classic beauty within her race does not look like a girl.
Femininity has certain features which coincide with youthful and healthy.
Women have longer, thinner faces including noses and paler skin than their racial male counterparts. This is constant throughout all races. Don’t look at models for an average, they’ve had work done.
Basic rundown for you to begin your own research.
I hate explaining the obvious. The white woman picture has filled lips, ignore that detail.
You might argue, where’s the Marquardt data for that?
Here’s the face-on beauty ideal for women from their global dataset.
Name that race.
Fully feminine and neotonous face with the contours shaded correctly.
Note the longer nose but more delicate bone structure (as opposed to yang angular).
Note the thinner face and reduced mouth width.
Basically everything above it.
Oval, check. Thin but not under-developed nose, check. Round curved brows, check. Narrow mouth with full lips (so incredibly proportionately feminine). Soft features including round normal eye shape, check. Heavily dimorphic, check. Long face compared to male average, check. Small but developed chin, check. High delicate cheekbones, check.
Example of those IRL.
This is so blitheringly obvious to me I struggle to put it into words.
I guess I’ve been trained to see this but did you never notice?
Pretty/cute/sexy are absolute shit compared to beauty.
Black women are higher on this trait of neotony than Asians and everyone talks about them like dirt when they don’t deserve it.
Africans have great eyelashes too, unlike the majority of Asian women.
The eye area is the hallmark of this trait. So African women can look great in 20s makeup.
I’m redpill which means I tell the truth, even when it isn’t about my own group.
Compare with the Asian standard model based on the dataset of averages.
Looks very masculine to me. Very angular, very strong, very yang.
No, neotony is the least Asian thing. I’m sure their surgeons will be pleased to hear you ever considered otherwise. One sign an Asian woman had surgery is that her chin now looks inbred and under-developed, like European royalty sometimes did.
Her larger Asian skull formed in the uterus and by chopping and sliding and trashing the bones to look more European, by proportion it now looks weird and doesn’t fit with the rest of the head’s bones.
There’s a definite look. Example in white people.
The chin looks weird. Not a good look.
You can’t hide your real bone structure, even with surgery.
The skeleton is inside you.