So Jews really aren’t white?

They’re pissed off at genetics. Are they going to buy me a straightener?

I think they’re confusing Europeans with Asians, which is the worst part.

Asians don’t have curly hair. But they say white people.

Okay, ban hair styling treatments as a kinda cosmetic racism? Nah, they wouldn’t. They don’t have the ladyballs.

Shape and hair growth are genetic. And RACIAL, yes.

You’re appropriating long hair with your weaves?

And what’s with the red dye? That’s racist against the Irish.

Contact lenses? What’s wrong with looking black and having dark brown eyes?
You seem to have internalized racism, bitches.

See, it’s worth pushing this point because cultural heritage triggers them.

Freedom of appearance is part of freedom of association.

Think how circumcision is “justified” for Christian Americans, aka it might make Jews feel left out, no freedom of choice!

And differences in appearance allow you to make informed choices about who to associate with. It’s critical information. Personally, I avoid forearm tattoos, there’s always some abuse background there.

First they ridiculed looking white, then acting white…

Believe me, I know. This is how they eventually boiled the frog until they could steal a MAGA hat because suddenly they can dictate your racial appearance.

It’s like biting into a fruit, to get at the seeds, they must start with the skin (appearance), then attack the flesh (personality, behaviours) and then finally they can outright attack the seed (whiteness).

Unexpected idol

I came across this picture again.

And it reminded me of something.

Side by side.

Coincidence, right? Same face shape, chin, all features of the mouth (that’s a lot of data), philtrum, eye distance. Change the eye makeup, stop squinting into the camera and look at the shape of her new nose (thinner). It’s a match.

Even the bloody hair parting is the same. The so-called Asian (Korean “ideal”) face didn’t have the characteristic Asian flatness of face (which babies do NOT have but they share in common with Africans, since it’s typical in the centre of the face, with a depressed nasal bridge and broader, flatter cheek area).

It can look younger, can but not guaranteed.

It’s called Asian flat face if you go and look for it, I’m not being mean.

NB: “Caucasian” shouldn’t be a real term, that’s European.

Because I know someone will take issue:

http://www.manuelbastioni.com/guide_asian_phenotypes.php

CENTRAL ASIAN (general racial type)

“This category of phenotypes includes Asians and Amerindians, identified by some recognizable features: ephicantal fold, flat profile, prominent cheekbones. Often the legs are shorter than the trunk, with narrow hands and feet.”

Type mainly from central Asia, and also present in the whole Asian area.

“Skull:

Mesocephal to brachycephal

Main features:

Round head, small mouth, wide face and small eyes.

I’m really not being mean, it’s forensic. It literally isn’t personal.
It can be proven with a ruler. There is no room for subjectivity here.

NORTH ASIAN:

Type characterized by the cold adaptation features.

Left profile almost African? Same nose. Different jaw.

“Skull:

Mesocephal to brachycephal.

Main features:

Very small eyes with “double eyelids”, prominent cheekbones and a long, flat face, squaring at the bottom. Flat and broad nose.”

Not being mean. It’s literally genetics.

EAST ASIAN:

“Type mainly diffused in East Asia and east islands.

Skull:

Mesocephal to brachycephal.

Main features:

Small nose, wide mouth, longer chin and thin lips. Presence of prominent face angle.”

Angle is unusual but not infantile, as seen on left profile.

Prominent on lower face.

SOUTH ASIAN:

“Type mainly diffused in South and South-West area, in particular isles.

So South-East is political, not biological.

Skull:

Mesocephal to brachycephal.

Main features:

Fuller lips and larger eyes In comparison with previous types, a less pronounced curve to up, flat and wide nose.

Okay, definitely an African styled mouth.

For giggles

CENTRAL AMERICAN (we know there’s Asian origin DNA):

“Type mainly diffused in Central and South America.

Skull:

Brachycephal.

Main features:

Straight or slightly convex nose, receding forehead, broad mouth.”

Breadth is the similar feature, Europeans are more compact.

This breadth of feature can give a very sexualized look e.g.

very popular and very modern

regardless of race e.g.

Above: her jawline has changed since but this is a good face-on photo.

Breadth of features does vary by race but you can find rare, extreme examples in each.

With the disadvantage that it easily looks heavy with any makeup other than “natural”.
So it isn’t that Asians lack the skills or cultural taste to do any other makeup “look”, it just doesn’t suit their bone structure.

NORTH AMERICAN:

Type mainly diffused in North America.

Skull:

Mesocephal to dolichocephal.

Main features:

Long face, pentagonoid head, receding forehead, pronounced cheekbones, convex nose, broad mouth.”

Seems about right.

Mixed race isn’t a race

Must I really point this out?

1,000 words

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.

Illustrated:

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).

*fatal problems

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?

Information first!

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.
e.g.
http://classicalpoets.org/lord-byrons-romantic-ode-to-the-ocean-2/
“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.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/Atom

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.

Read more.

“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]

I have.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/thioda#Old_Saxon

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.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/thede#English

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:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/xenomania#English

What “Native” American?

This again.

Why?

Because I can.

“Native American”, they cant presumptuously.

Allow me to continue dispelling this myth.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/07/mysterious-link-emerges-between-native-americans-and-people-half-globe-away

ASIAN.

“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.”

ASIAN.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dna-search-first-americans-links-amazon-indigenous-australians-180955976/

Australasian, work with me here.

“The prevailing theory

bullshit

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.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/multiregional_hypothesis.htm

AGAIN.

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?

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/mastodon-bones-humans-north-america

130, 000 years ago?

Typical of Europeans and Neanderthals.
https://www.livescience.com/60088-stone-age-cannibals-engraved-human-bones.html
https://www.inverse.com/article/44462-neanderthal-art-engravings-culture