Got 'em.
(media.scored.co)
New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
Toast message
But yes, it depends on the person. You can't infer the race of a person from his nationality.
In fact, a quick search online shows me that around 16% of Spanish people have blue eyes, and also around 10% of Turks have blue eyes (probably descendants of the White women they kidnapped).
A person with blue eyes is definitely, without a shadow of a doubt, White as blue eyes means you have a substantial amount of Nordic / Germanic genes.
Then of course a lot of White people don't have blue eyes, so I'd say the vast majority of Spanish/Portuguese/Greeks are White and a decent percentage of Turks too.
That doesn't explain why Europe look the way it does, ie: many people from the southern lands are not only darker but have racial features more similar to the peoples from North Africa and Middle East than to Central and North Europeans.
Adaptability to climate/environment doesn't do that, as you know there are people with nordic features not only in Southern Europe but also in North Africa and the Middle East, they descend from Visigoths, Vandals, women slaves, etc (obviously disconsidering recent migrations).
Also, let's not forget a sizeable number of Russians who, despite having blue eyes, have visible Asian racial features.
I'm not trying to be divisive here but these are facts, there are various levels of mixing within Europeans even if we are to consider all native Europeans white. We tend to draw the line with more recent mixings, for example there is a member here who is half German and half Indian and he said that he can pass as Mediterranean, if that's true, is he white? If he and a nordic woman have children, would they be white?
We know historically that all countries of North Africa and potentially even the Middle East were populated by White people, of the *Mediterranean* subrace. Madison Grant distinguishes 3 subraces of White: Nordic, Mediterranean, and Alpines. These subraces migrated in ways that have little to do with modern countries. For example, the British are a mix between Mediterranean and Nordic, and there's a bunch of Nordics in Northern Italy. If you want to know more, read his book or at least [look at his maps](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Passing_of_the_Great_Race).
> as you know there are people with nordic features not only in Southern Europe but also in North Africa and the Middle East
Yes, because the Nordic race colonized a good chunk of the planet.
---------
The process of racial replacement is not something new to Europe. The shitskins have been replacing the great civilizations of the past, which includes the Ottoman. Or the Egyptian. Of the Assyrians. etc.
In fact this explains why these regions were at some point very prosperous, with today's Iraq having been the most advanced and prosperous area of the entire planet at some point, and now they are third world countries.
It's like a tidal wave of shitskins that is submerging everything that is White. This was happening during the Roman Empire, just like it's happening in today's Italy. The only difference is that today every single country on earth is being submerged and not just the southern countries.
> there is a member here who is half German and half Indian and he said that he can pass as Mediterranean, if that's true, is he white?
Again, "German" and "Indian" doesn't mean anything because these are just geographical places and not races. Indians come in all colors, as India used to be ruled by Aryans to then be submerged by subhumans with the skin the color of the shit.
If the Indian was not White (which is extremely likely), then this guy in question is not White. To be considered White you need to have all 4 grandparents who are White.
I don't know if you are familiar with Varg Vikernes and his wife's Neanderthal theory, if you are you are probably aware of their very cringey fanbase, I'm not part of it mind you, but I think there is some truth in that theory, [take a look](https://web.archive.org/web/20171115211630/https://thuleanperspective.com/2014/08/04/the-cro-magnon-is-our-forefather/) (They might have updated it as the original post was deleted, I haven't followed them for some time now but it still makes some sense to me).
Interesting. What do you think are the problem with Grant's book?
I haven't read Coon's book (wait, wait... a book about race written by someone named *coon*? LOL), is it good? I just found it online, and it's 900 pages...
> Varg Vikernes and his wife's Neanderthal theory
I listen to anthropologists like Grant and this Coon, not to a "musician" that made stupid noise, and this comes from someone who used to listen to Black Metal.
His theory is absurd: the Neanderthal reconstructions that we have now look very different from a modern human. It looks like a completely different species.
I don't believe that Homo Sapiens were dark, not even when they lived in Africa. Science says that White people are like 95% homo sapiens and 5% Neanderthal, and this makes more sense.
Nordic subrace evolved its traits (e.g. blue eyes, abstract thinking) around 6,000 to 4,000 years ago in the Baltic region.
Niggers are probably the result of homo sapiens breeding with homo erectus or some other ape and this is why they are so different from us.
Just to be clear, even if we accept the "out of Africa" hypothesis, which is just a hypothesis, that doesn't mean that the old homo sapiens were niggers. I believe niggers came after.
Africa is a big and rich continent and niggers are just one of the species in it. It's a shame that we now connect Africa = niggers. Even if my long long long time ancestors come from Africa they had never been niggers.