Interesting idea. I've never been a fan of the whole "all whites are equal" thing. I do believe that all whites should have peace with each other.
But the fact that Mediterranean countries have begun to falter once cheap credit was available, while Nordic and Germanic countries developed under the same credit conditions is not some coincidence. Whether someone can see a loan as an opportunity to do something productive for the future or an opportunity have what you want today is a huge divide that seems to correlate with genetics very strongly.
But I do agree with another here, evidence would be nice.
We are a mix of Western European Hunter Gatherers (WHG) and Early European Farmer (EEF— a middle eastern population from Anatolia which has some basal eurasian ancestors) as well as Yamnaya/Steppe herder/Eastern European Hunter Gatherer (EHG) which was mostly descended for Ancient North Eurasians (ANE) and spoke Indo-European and possibly Uralic.
Yamnaya were also partly descended from Caucasus Hunter Gatherer (CHG not on the graph) who were more closely related to the EEFs
Middle easterners have most of the same components but in different proportions. Northern Europeans have higher levels of Steppe/ANE and WHG. South Europe will have higher levels of EEF, CHG, and basal eurasian/natufian. Middle easterners even more so.
Its important to remember that the “character” or behavior of a population can change pretty fast under changing economic conditions even without admixture, so we shouldnt assume that because northern europe has more steppe ancestry that the steppe herders were the swellest people and that caucasus hunter gatherers or anatolian/EEFs were a pack of niggers. Climate and the economic and marriage patterns of civilizations can rapidly impact behavior eugenically or dysgenically. People with “good” roots can go bad. Warm weather and imperialism seem to be particularly dysgenic. @x0x7
The greek Mycenaeans were perhaps more directly descended from the Yamnaya culture, which was a mix of Eastern European Hunter Gatherers and Caucasus Hunter Gatherers and is probably what alot of faggots would call Aryan, although that term is not strictly correct
The Latins and the Celts and the Germanics seem to have all come from the Corded Ware/Bell Beaker culture, which was a result of the Yamnaya mixing with Eastern European Hunter Gatherers again. The closeness of those languages to each other compared with Greek and Armenian, seems to support this. The Germanics may have additionally mixed with another group, the Scandinavian Hunter Gatherers ( which were a mix of Eastern and Western Hunter Gatherers) to get what we call Nordic. I dont think we can include Mycenaeans in that club, and we shouldnt assume that all these groups had blue eyes and blond hair either
Europeans and Middle Easterners are heavily related within the last 30 -40 thousand years. But whites are a mix of a lot of different groups that evolved within that time frame. Middle Easterners are descended from most of the same groups but in different proportions.
I think it is correct to say that the Myceneans and the Latins, as well as Germanics and Celts, had alot of what they term steppe ancestry, particularly from the Yamnaya, who presumably had either R1a or R1b y haplogroup and spoke an early indo-european language. These people were probably whiter than the previously existing early european farmers ( of anatolian extraction ) in places like Greece and Italy, who were btw really not native there either. Otzi the Iceman is of this early european farmer group, as are modern Sardinians, more or less.
The steppe herders/proto-indo-europeans would have had a massive military advantage over their competitors, as they appear to have invented or perfected the domestication of the horse and use of war chariots and wagons. They also had excellent metallurgy. The farmers were fucked. Pastoralists are usually more aggressive as well.
Im going to disagree about the mixing thing. I think that typically the male conquerors avail themselves of the local ladies and create hybrids. Elites would have had higher steppe herder ancestry and higher IQs than the lower classes but by the classical period I would guess that they were at least 50 mixed. There is some data on this from genetic analysis of ancient remains.
Interestingly the Etruscans turn out to have very high steppe ancestry even though they seem to have adopted the local language and not kept the indo european tongue.
Rome literally had to move its capital northwards because of this, once the slaves and merchants and immigrants had ruined Rome and the Emperors wanted to be around better people.
The emperors themselves became mixed. You can see the change in ethnic phenotype from the sculptures and depictions of these emperors. One of the later emperors is literally called Philip the Arab. The demographics shifted to a more middle eastern population during the empire and then Rome again became more european in the middle ages.
No, the majority stayed Germanic. Only a few of them degenerated as the empire went through crises, and during the very late stages of the eastern half. Philip the Arab was not an arab. Do you think Constantine looks degenerated? Here you go, you can look at them yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_emperors#Dominate_(284%E2%80%93476)
Basically only Theodosius' line becomes degenerated. And the capital was moved way before then. Dna studies shows the huge influx of arab/jew genes into the empire from basically 70-270 then begins to reverse with German genes starting to flow down more due to the Goths etc.
Once again you try to disagree with me when you're wrong.
https://files.catbox.moe/8u194b.jpeg I dont think so. First of all the roman emperors were not germanic! They were latins. That doesnt have the same meaning as today —they were lighter skinned — but they were not germanic or nordic. Those are different albeit related groups to the white italics that ruled rome and conquered Italy during the Iron age.
Constantine was the son of a low born Christian from Turkey. Highly unlikely to have much Roman anr Latin tribe ancestry, or high steppe herder ancestry. A stable girl. Absolutely could have been jewish or semitic. Read up on Helena (no relation)
Dna studies shows the huge influx of arab/jew genes into the empire from basically 70-270 then begins to reverse with German genes starting to flow down more due to the Goths etc.
I know the study you are speaking about. It doesnt make your case at all. Upper class romans would have made politically beneficial matches with wealthy middle easterners to increase their power. Theres no indication that there was any taboo against marrying dusky types, and they made all kinds of foreigners citizen in Rome including jews.
Hell they were already mixed with Early European Farmers which were presumably a darker phenotype that predated their arrival in southern europe. But you think they said “These middle eastern darkies are fine but not those middle eastern darkies?”
They were Germanic. All the old Roman nobility were. Again, DNA study proven. You can talk crap all you want, I can tell from a single look if someone is Germanic or otherwise, and I can see the truth with my eyes. Constantine is so fucking Germanic it's not even funny, he's not even close to latin let alone fucking semitic. Stop wasting my time with your bullshit.
The only Italians that are light complected are those who were raped by the germanic tribes. Same in Northern Spain
if you put it that way yes. but there were already the lombards in northern italy for what its worth. the rest of the country is latin through and through though even then italy as a nation was divided by several dialects because despite of being latin there were a few differences here and there. modern italian was being officialized by 1950!
And before the Lombards the language of Northern Italy was Lepontic, essentially Welsh. As it was in parts of Turkey. This doesnt really prove that these areas were inhabited by people like modern Welshmen, but the ethnic and genetic landscape is very, very muddy. The people who spoke the early indo-european language of proto Italic were likely to have been pretty white if not very white and almost certainly whiter than todays average Roman. They mixed with a slightly darker group of people when they founded Rome, but were still lighter than they are today because additional immigration from the middle east occured during the empire.
No you are wrong. The Italic/Latin tribes that founded Rome were from Yamnaya/steppe derived Corded Ware/Bell Beaker culture, same as the celts and germanics. They would have probably had lighter coloring and they conquered darker skinned Early European Farmers who had a lot of Anatolian ancestry. Same with the Etrsucans. The Roman elites would have had more Yamnaya/steppe ancestry and the lower strata would have had darker EEF ancestry. Romans also conquered a bunch of Greek colonies in south Italy and they were also a bunch of Yamnaya derived elites who conquered EEFs, although they were not from corded ware culture. It was during Imperial Rome that alot of immigration of semitic middle easterners flowed into Rome/Italy. This was a different group of middle easterners than the EEFs.
Its important to understand how it happened in the past to avoid it in the future.
how about simply reading their books? 'red-headed menelaus' 'blonde-headed bla bla'. plus you can literally tell they're germanic from their statues. fuck off brainwashed clown.
“Greece” aka the Mycenaean civilization was founded by the basically same group of people that he refers to as Nordic, i.e. the Yamnaya/steppe herders. Northern Europe is the highest in this ancestry.
The Minoans were a different group derived mostly from Caucasus Hunter gatherers. The Yamnaya were about 20% Caucasus Hunter Gatherer, but mostly they were descended from Ancient North Eurasian via Eastern European Hunter Gatherer. Like the Romans.
The classical eras of both Rome and Greece were periods in which a more northern lighter skinned ethnic group had conquered and ruled over a previous group of more middle-eastern-like farmers. I wouldnt call them Nordics, but he’s basically right.
In fact these more middle eastern like populations like Early European Farmers/Neolithic Anatolians were also the result of more northern populations moving southwards and colonizing/conquering and eventually mixing with a more primitive Mediterranean group, the Basal Eurasians. Many examples of this trend throughout history. People surviving in colder climates “get smarter” and then later colonize areas that are more clement, replacing/mixing with less advanced groups.
All the people who lived continuously in the tropics for the last 60,000 yrs are dumb—really dumb. Australoids, Negroids, etc. All the tan “midwit” groups like middle easterners, south east asians, indians all have some cold climate ancestry. Even native americans are not extremely stupid because their ancestors survived cold climates.
I think Jews made Rome and Greece fight each other. Otherwise they would be ruling the world even now as allies. Both countries had the best scientists and military in the world at that time.
Niggers in apefrica made slaves out of each other for thousands of years. Not one great empire ever came of it. Feather indians in north America made slaves of each other for hundreds of years. Not one tribe ever grew to greatness because of it.
The retarded myth that you great empires/nations became great because of their use of slave labor is nothing more than more jew lies.
The reason that mexicans and a lot of darker skinned people are more “laid back” and “happy” are the same reason why they tend not to be great builders and achievers. Nobody smiles more than the blacks. Do you think they built the 7 wonders of the world?
The truth is that both in eastern eurasia and western eurasia similar trends occured where groups living in colder climates developed higher intellects and greater levels of cooperativity and then migrated southward to warmer areas and conquered and eventually mixed with lower IQ populations. Middle easterners and North africans have alot of genetics from colder climates like the caucasus as do Indians. A similar trend of southward migrations lead to the formation of modern populations in south east asia.
Governance is the white necessity myth,
Theres nothing particularly white about this. Did Mayans have a government? Did the Chinese? Stop drinking the jew juice.
The truth is that both in eastern eurasia and western eurasia similar trends occured where groups living in colder climates developed higher intellects and greater levels of cooperativity
some of what you say its true but that also wasnt the case. you are making up a fantasy.
for example the scandinavians often invaded england in order to pillage it. and that's just one example of many.
its too late for me to talk about this, but please educate yourself better. history is full of violence in europe. the continent has been at war with itself almost since there were people in it and no, none of them were niggers or beaners or some other low IQ races. and this is an historical fact
Not relative to everybody else but sure, plenty of violence, particularly organized violence. Compare that to what blacks do. They cant take over shit. Because they are not cooperative.
Colder climates necessitated higher levels of monogamy and patriarchy in Europe and elsewhere. Monogamy decreases in group competition between males i.e. murder, and the tend to compete for who is the best provider instead of who is the most prolific murderer/humper. Women in the tropics are able to shift for themselves to a greater degree because of a lower reliance on meat.
The practicality of monogamy in cold climates makes male cooperatively possible within related groups which lowers individual competition and increases group competition.
There are other things that affect the aggressiveness of groups. For instance farmers tend to be less agressive and pastoralists tend to be more aggressive. Pastoralists tend to succeed reproductively by raiding each others livestock and mates. They also tend to be more polygynous, which of course increases aggression even in cold climates. Often aggressive pastoralists conquer farmers and install themselves as nobility/royalty etc. Then they mix with agrarians and one might ask “why are these agrarian monogamists going to war?” But there is a genetic legacy from the pastoralists.
I speak of larger racial trends. Nobody knows exactly how all this went down but I have indeed educated myself on this very thing and I know what the trends are.
Rest up and come at me tomorrow. I think I can ably defend my assertions here.
railroads were built under the direction of whites. in other words, they would have been built eventually even without nonwhites, as they were all over europe
People from colder climates do on average seem to develop higher intelligence. They also usually have lighter skin.
Actually melanin does have a link to behavior and lighter colored animals tend to be less agressive so there may be a behavioral reason why more sophisticated societies seem to select for lighter skin while hunter gatherers have somewhat darker skin even in cold climates. Of course many will argue that has more to do with grain based diets, but I digress.
OP is a little off but not that far off. BTW every society that was smart enough to develop agricultural civilization had slaves. The “civilized” tribes of pre-columbian america all had slavery, so did more advanced tribes in africa, and slavery was all over asia. Its political retardation to believe it was somehow a particularly white thing to exploit slave labor or invade/colonize/genocide other groups. Everyone did that. Native american conquered and wiped out each others’ cultures all the time.
White were the first to outlaw slavery in the middle ages but there were a few backslides, every one of which had heavy jewish involvement.
[ + ] x0x7
[ - ] x0x7 4 points 2.1 yearsMay 8, 2023 18:02:09 ago (+4/-0)
But the fact that Mediterranean countries have begun to falter once cheap credit was available, while Nordic and Germanic countries developed under the same credit conditions is not some coincidence. Whether someone can see a loan as an opportunity to do something productive for the future or an opportunity have what you want today is a huge divide that seems to correlate with genetics very strongly.
But I do agree with another here, evidence would be nice.
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted 0 points 2.1 yearsMay 8, 2023 20:32:19 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 1 point 2.1 yearsMay 9, 2023 10:59:10 ago (+1/-0)*
https://files.catbox.moe/fw9e1h.jpeg
We are a mix of Western European Hunter Gatherers (WHG) and Early European Farmer (EEF— a middle eastern population from Anatolia which has some basal eurasian ancestors) as well as Yamnaya/Steppe herder/Eastern European Hunter Gatherer (EHG) which was mostly descended for Ancient North Eurasians (ANE) and spoke Indo-European and possibly Uralic.
Yamnaya were also partly descended from Caucasus Hunter Gatherer (CHG not on the graph) who were more closely related to the EEFs
Heres another pic. I like pictures https://files.catbox.moe/fms162.jpeg
Middle easterners have most of the same components but in different proportions. Northern Europeans have higher levels of Steppe/ANE and WHG. South Europe will have higher levels of EEF, CHG, and basal eurasian/natufian. Middle easterners even more so.
Its important to remember that the “character” or behavior of a population can change pretty fast under changing economic conditions even without admixture, so we shouldnt assume that because northern europe has more steppe ancestry that the steppe herders were the swellest people and that caucasus hunter gatherers or anatolian/EEFs were a pack of niggers. Climate and the economic and marriage patterns of civilizations can rapidly impact behavior eugenically or dysgenically. People with “good” roots can go bad. Warm weather and imperialism seem to be particularly dysgenic.
@x0x7
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted 0 points 2.1 yearsMay 9, 2023 20:33:08 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 1 point 2.1 yearsMay 8, 2023 23:00:16 ago (+1/-0)
The greek Mycenaeans were perhaps more directly descended from the Yamnaya culture, which was a mix of Eastern European Hunter Gatherers and Caucasus Hunter Gatherers and is probably what alot of faggots would call Aryan, although that term is not strictly correct
The Latins and the Celts and the Germanics seem to have all come from the Corded Ware/Bell Beaker culture, which was a result of the Yamnaya mixing with Eastern European Hunter Gatherers again. The closeness of those languages to each other compared with Greek and Armenian, seems to support this. The Germanics may have additionally mixed with another group, the Scandinavian Hunter Gatherers ( which were a mix of Eastern and Western Hunter Gatherers) to get what we call Nordic. I dont think we can include Mycenaeans in that club, and we shouldnt assume that all these groups had blue eyes and blond hair either
Europeans and Middle Easterners are heavily related within the last 30 -40 thousand years. But whites are a mix of a lot of different groups that evolved within that time frame. Middle Easterners are descended from most of the same groups but in different proportions.
I think it is correct to say that the Myceneans and the Latins, as well as Germanics and Celts, had alot of what they term steppe ancestry, particularly from the Yamnaya, who presumably had either R1a or R1b y haplogroup and spoke an early indo-european language. These people were probably whiter than the previously existing early european farmers ( of anatolian extraction ) in places like Greece and Italy, who were btw really not native there either. Otzi the Iceman is of this early european farmer group, as are modern Sardinians, more or less.
The steppe herders/proto-indo-europeans would have had a massive military advantage over their competitors, as they appear to have invented or perfected the domestication of the horse and use of war chariots and wagons. They also had excellent metallurgy. The farmers were fucked. Pastoralists are usually more aggressive as well.
Im going to disagree about the mixing thing. I think that typically the male conquerors avail themselves of the local ladies and create hybrids. Elites would have had higher steppe herder ancestry and higher IQs than the lower classes but by the classical period I would guess that they were at least 50 mixed. There is some data on this from genetic analysis of ancient remains.
Interestingly the Etruscans turn out to have very high steppe ancestry even though they seem to have adopted the local language and not kept the indo european tongue.
Expansion of Yamnaya descended groups
https://files.catbox.moe/uu58wj.gif
Expansion of R1b haplogroup
https://files.catbox.moe/bn5q9a.jpeg
[ + ] BlueEyedAngloMasterRaceGod
[ - ] BlueEyedAngloMasterRaceGod 1 point 2.1 yearsMay 8, 2023 21:44:39 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena -1 points 2.1 yearsMay 8, 2023 23:13:17 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] BlueEyedAngloMasterRaceGod
[ - ] BlueEyedAngloMasterRaceGod 0 points 2.1 yearsMay 9, 2023 01:04:37 ago (+0/-0)
Basically only Theodosius' line becomes degenerated. And the capital was moved way before then. Dna studies shows the huge influx of arab/jew genes into the empire from basically 70-270 then begins to reverse with German genes starting to flow down more due to the Goths etc.
Once again you try to disagree with me when you're wrong.
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 2.1 yearsMay 9, 2023 10:05:28 ago (+0/-0)*
I dont think so. First of all the roman emperors were not germanic! They were latins. That doesnt have the same meaning as today —they were lighter skinned — but they were not germanic or nordic. Those are different albeit related groups to the white italics that ruled rome and conquered Italy during the Iron age.
Constantine was the son of a low born Christian from Turkey. Highly unlikely to have much Roman anr Latin tribe ancestry, or high steppe herder ancestry. A stable girl. Absolutely could have been jewish or semitic. Read up on Helena (no relation)
Hell they were already mixed with Early European Farmers which were presumably a darker phenotype that predated their arrival in southern europe. But you think they said “These middle eastern darkies are fine but not those middle eastern darkies?”
[ + ] BlueEyedAngloMasterRaceGod
[ - ] BlueEyedAngloMasterRaceGod 0 points 2.1 yearsMay 9, 2023 21:35:14 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] HeyJames
[ - ] HeyJames 1 point 2.1 yearsMay 8, 2023 19:14:48 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] dosvydanya_freedomz
[ - ] dosvydanya_freedomz 0 points 2.1 yearsMay 8, 2023 22:36:00 ago (+0/-0)
if you put it that way yes. but there were already the lombards in northern italy for what its worth. the rest of the country is latin through and through though even then italy as a nation was divided by several dialects because despite of being latin there were a few differences here and there. modern italian was being officialized by 1950!
https://www.europassitalian.com/learn/history/
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 2.1 yearsMay 9, 2023 11:25:45 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 2.1 yearsMay 9, 2023 11:15:22 ago (+0/-0)
The Roman elites would have had more Yamnaya/steppe ancestry and the lower strata would have had darker EEF ancestry. Romans also conquered a bunch of Greek colonies in south Italy and they were also a bunch of Yamnaya derived elites who conquered EEFs, although they were not from corded ware culture.
It was during Imperial Rome that alot of immigration of semitic middle easterners flowed into Rome/Italy. This was a different group of middle easterners than the EEFs.
Its important to understand how it happened in the past to avoid it in the future.
[ + ] dosvydanya_freedomz
[ - ] dosvydanya_freedomz 1 point 2.1 yearsMay 8, 2023 15:03:22 ago (+2/-1)
τι?
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted 1 point 2.1 yearsMay 8, 2023 20:31:35 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Master_Foo
[ - ] Master_Foo 0 points 2.1 yearsMay 8, 2023 15:27:05 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] BlueEyedAngloMasterRaceGod
[ - ] BlueEyedAngloMasterRaceGod 0 points 2.1 yearsMay 8, 2023 21:41:21 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Dafurius_Nigario
[ - ] Dafurius_Nigario 0 points 2.1 yearsMay 9, 2023 08:02:50 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 2.1 yearsMay 9, 2023 17:31:36 ago (+0/-0)
The Minoans were a different group derived mostly from Caucasus Hunter gatherers. The Yamnaya were about 20% Caucasus Hunter Gatherer, but mostly they were descended from Ancient North Eurasian via Eastern European Hunter Gatherer. Like the Romans.
The classical eras of both Rome and Greece were periods in which a more northern lighter skinned ethnic group had conquered and ruled over a previous group of more middle-eastern-like farmers. I wouldnt call them Nordics, but he’s basically right.
In fact these more middle eastern like populations like Early European Farmers/Neolithic Anatolians were also the result of more northern populations moving southwards and colonizing/conquering and eventually mixing with a more primitive Mediterranean group, the Basal Eurasians. Many examples of this trend throughout history. People surviving in colder climates “get smarter” and then later colonize areas that are more clement, replacing/mixing with less advanced groups.
All the people who lived continuously in the tropics for the last 60,000 yrs are dumb—really dumb. Australoids, Negroids, etc. All the tan “midwit” groups like middle easterners, south east asians, indians all have some cold climate ancestry. Even native americans are not extremely stupid because their ancestors survived cold climates.
[ + ] Conspirologist
[ - ] Conspirologist -3 points 2.1 yearsMay 8, 2023 14:11:00 ago (+1/-4)
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted -5 points 2.1 yearsMay 8, 2023 13:44:41 ago (+0/-5)
[ + ] Peleg
[ - ] Peleg 3 points 2.1 yearsMay 8, 2023 14:38:27 ago (+3/-0)
The retarded myth that you great empires/nations became great because of their use of slave labor is nothing more than more jew lies.
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted -4 points 2.1 yearsMay 8, 2023 14:45:00 ago (+0/-4)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 1 point 2.1 yearsMay 8, 2023 22:16:56 ago (+1/-0)*
The truth is that both in eastern eurasia and western eurasia similar trends occured where groups living in colder climates developed higher intellects and greater levels of cooperativity and then migrated southward to warmer areas and conquered and eventually mixed with lower IQ populations. Middle easterners and North africans have alot of genetics from colder climates like the caucasus as do Indians. A similar trend of southward migrations lead to the formation of modern populations in south east asia.
Theres nothing particularly white about this. Did Mayans have a government? Did the Chinese? Stop drinking the jew juice.
[ + ] dosvydanya_freedomz
[ - ] dosvydanya_freedomz 0 points 2.1 yearsMay 8, 2023 22:41:29 ago (+0/-0)
some of what you say its true but that also wasnt the case. you are making up a fantasy.
for example the scandinavians often invaded england in order to pillage it. and that's just one example of many.
its too late for me to talk about this, but please educate yourself better. history is full of violence in europe. the continent has been at war with itself almost since there were people in it and no, none of them were niggers or beaners or some other low IQ races. and this is an historical fact
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 2.1 yearsMay 8, 2023 23:45:25 ago (+0/-0)
Not relative to everybody else but sure, plenty of violence, particularly organized violence. Compare that to what blacks do. They cant take over shit. Because they are not cooperative.
Colder climates necessitated higher levels of monogamy and patriarchy in Europe and elsewhere. Monogamy decreases in group competition between males i.e. murder, and the tend to compete for who is the best provider instead of who is the most prolific murderer/humper. Women in the tropics are able to shift for themselves to a greater degree because of a lower reliance on meat.
The practicality of monogamy in cold climates makes male cooperatively possible within related groups which lowers individual competition and increases group competition.
There are other things that affect the aggressiveness of groups. For instance farmers tend to be less agressive and pastoralists tend to be more aggressive. Pastoralists tend to succeed reproductively by raiding each others livestock and mates. They also tend to be more polygynous, which of course increases aggression even in cold climates. Often aggressive pastoralists conquer farmers and install themselves as nobility/royalty etc. Then they mix with agrarians and one might ask “why are these agrarian monogamists going to war?” But there is a genetic legacy from the pastoralists.
I speak of larger racial trends. Nobody knows exactly how all this went down but I have indeed educated myself on this very thing and I know what the trends are.
Rest up and come at me tomorrow. I think I can ably defend my assertions here.
[ + ] Master_Foo
[ - ] Master_Foo 2 points 2.1 yearsMay 8, 2023 15:28:56 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] bonghits4jeebus
[ - ] bonghits4jeebus 1 point 2.1 yearsMay 8, 2023 15:12:29 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted -4 points 2.1 yearsMay 8, 2023 15:34:05 ago (+0/-4)
[ + ] oppressed
[ - ] oppressed 2 points 2.1 yearsMay 8, 2023 19:36:45 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] BlueEyedAngloMasterRaceGod
[ - ] BlueEyedAngloMasterRaceGod 0 points 2.1 yearsMay 8, 2023 21:42:33 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 2.1 yearsMay 8, 2023 22:02:46 ago (+0/-0)
Actually melanin does have a link to behavior and lighter colored animals tend to be less agressive so there may be a behavioral reason why more sophisticated societies seem to select for lighter skin while hunter gatherers have somewhat darker skin even in cold climates. Of course many will argue that has more to do with grain based diets, but I digress.
OP is a little off but not that far off. BTW every society that was smart enough to develop agricultural civilization had slaves. The “civilized” tribes of pre-columbian america all had slavery, so did more advanced tribes in africa, and slavery was all over asia. Its political retardation to believe it was somehow a particularly white thing to exploit slave labor or invade/colonize/genocide other groups. Everyone did that. Native american conquered and wiped out each others’ cultures all the time.
White were the first to outlaw slavery in the middle ages but there were a few backslides, every one of which had heavy jewish involvement.
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted -1 points 2.1 yearsMay 8, 2023 13:53:52 ago (+0/-1)