What went wrong?

What went wrong?

Other urls found in this thread:

scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=19566#.VWq-l0b8vfI
archive.is/JyqyP
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Is ginger still alive??

Feb 11, 2016

Some claim that red-haired individuals are more European and more racially pure than other Europeans. They have the fairest skin, they argue, so they must be the most ‘racially pure’. This fallacy seems to be very widespread, so I will spend some time telling you what red hair really is all about.

It is quite simple really; those with red hair have very little brown melanin (that turns the skin brown, especially when exposed to Sunlight), but they have much red melanin (that turns the skin red, especially when exposed to Sunlight) – compared to blondes who have very little brown and very little red melanin. So even though the red haired people are very pale, they have much more melanin than blondes do.

This means that red haired individuals don’t tan very well and instead they burn their skin when exposed to Sunlight – and get very red skin as a result (the red melanin). So they don’t handle Sunlight or heat in general very well (but on the positive side red haired individuals seems to be more resistant to poison [alcohol] than others and also to pain).

We don’t really know when the first individuals with red hair appeared, but we know it is a mutation that occurred when Europeans (with very little melanin) mixed with non-Europeans (with much melanin) a long time ago. As you might already know ‘mutations’ occur when species and sub-species mix mainly, and the mutation causing red hair and very pale/red skin was no different. This mixing of species created a mutation that left individuals with much melanin (a non-European feature), but with only much red melanin – as explained above. As a result of this these individuals got red hair and very pale skin that turns red when exposed to sunlight, and also freckles.

So to sum it up; the red haired individuals have inherited a set of genes resulting from a mutation that was caused by mixing, and they are not “purer” than others.

With that said though: the individuals with red hair are not less pure than most other Europeans either, they just have inherited this particular set of genes, that were caused by a mutation resulting from the mixing of species. Other Europeans may have other non-European features or other mutations caused by the same mixing of species, such as brown hair (all purely non-Europeans have black hair [and some Europeans have inherited that trait too]), brown or hazel eyes, olive skin, low IQ, laziness, a weakened skeleton (compared to the powerful European skeleton), loss of muscle volume, etc. etc.. Many Europeans have other ‘defects’ too, caused by the same mixing of species, such as hypersexuality, extreme growth, autoimmune system problems, nerve problems (like MS), metabolism issues, brain damages and so forth, all caused by the mixing of species long, long ago…

If you want a rule of thumb though, you can be sure that the more blonde, blue-eyed, intelligent, courageous, strong, creative and beautiful (=healthy) a European is, the more likely it is that he is indeed as racially pure as is possible today.

Red hair is common in non-European peoples too, in particular the Jews, because these peoples are extremely mongrelized (obviously for geographical reasons: the Jews lived where the species from three continents met) and thus suffer from so many of the effects of mixing, including red hair.

I can add that Scandinavians, the most racially pure tribes in Europe, actually normally tan very well, and this is because they are so racially pure: their fair skin is very good at producing “Sunshine vitamins” even when exposed to very little Sunlight, so when exposed to much Sunlight the skin tans very quickly, because they don’t need the skin ‘to use the opportunity’ to produce that much Sunshine vitamins – instead the sensitive fair skin needs to protect itself from too much exposure to Sunlight. Red haired individuals try to do the same, but has so much red melanin that they fail to do so, and thus Sunburn instead and turn red.

Europe today is a colourful species (yes: Europe is a biological term too, a species), but these features are just on the surface. What matters more is what is inside each European man, in terms of intelligence, courage, general health and the will to make sacrifices for causes greater than themselves.

TL:DR
Gingers are crypto shitskins

Genealogy is a load of bullshit, worse than sociology. History is full of tales.

Fuck off Holla Forums

(You)

This is hilarious.

Caucasian is the mutation, you retard. The closest humans today to the original homo sapiens are indiginous south africans. White people came from the albino mutant freaks that were booted out of the villages and had to spread farther and farther north

Hello Jared Diamond.

Yikes, Holla Forums's even further gone than I thought.

...

...

...

WE

DNA doesnt lie

what is his actual name?

holy shit

he's literally a younger louis ck

DNA doesn't lie but your picture and theory sure do

You're right. It doesn't. But you have to be testing the right DNA, i.e. you have to be testing the right data.

Re-Examining the "Out of Africa" Theory and the Origin of Europeoids (Caucasoids) in Light of DNA Genealogy
scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=19566#.VWq-l0b8vfI
archive.is/JyqyP

Out of Africa theory aka muh albino mutant theory is old and busted and was ridiculous to begin with.

...

I thought God created us in his image ;_;

DAS RITE

God created us so he could laugh at something.
Humanity has probably had him in stitches recently.

eric, simply eric

He did, but then the devil corrupted humanity and molded many of us into his image. Just look at niggers, gingers, spics and kikes, they all look like a twisted parody of humanity. They are a cruel joke at the expense of man.

You do know that just because some Russian nationalists want you to think that white people originated in Russia, that doesn't make it true, right?

There's overwhelming evidence that homo sapiens evolved in Africa. I can't see how this should cause any ideological issues.

You do know that that evidence you speak of has been outdated for a very long time and was always based on a faulty assumption, right?

The same applies to you. Just because Russians got the ball rolling on disproving an already faulty theory shouldn't be a problem.

Well, it won't be a problem if in the end we arrive at the conclusion that we've been mistaken and must rectify our view. I am not holding my breath though. But I am not sure how you can call the current understanding of the evolution of man faulty when all you have to show for it is a single study. It merely implies that the huge amount of anthropological, genetic and archaeological data which supports the current interpretation might be flawed. Especially the genetic evidence is compelling, and sequencing mitochrondrial and Y-chromosome DNA are in no way "outdated", as you call it.

So basically, what you're saying is bullshit, and the probability of that Russian study being correct is essentially nil.

Different user, but the Out of Africa theory hasn't been truly disproven. Just because we originated in Africa doesn't mean we all started as Niggers. We probably looked much different then most modern day people, especially because non-Africans most likely also have Neanderthal ancestry too (we inherited some of their traits. I think they had bigger brains, explains a lot, really.)

That's the study that got the ball rolling. I don't have an obligation to link you all the later data.

It was always flawed. The Out of Africa theory was only tolerated.

So basically you have nothing to say.


The Out of Africa theory survives mostly on hypothetical conjecture, anecdotal evidence and correlation, and most prevalently a lack of evidence. The reason why you aren't hearing a big hurrah for its death is the same reason why people still watch the BBC. The only people who care are the ones looking for the real story while everyone else is immersed in intellectual and literal cuckoldry.

russia was founded by vikings, this is old news.

from what i remember, the nigs have a pigment in their skin that keeps them permanently dark since they live in the sun so much. the out of africa theory states that as nigs moved north, they lost this pigment.

that sounds like a mutation to me, i burn up like a motherfucker. but it doesn't make sense that they would lose something they were born with. only way that pigment would leave is through cross-breeding.

Underrated post

Out of Africa theory is wrong.
Lemme guess. The great Aryan race were actually aliens right?

When, long ago, the gods created Earth
In Jove's fair image Man was shaped at birth.
The beasts for lesser parts were next designed;
Yet were they too remote from humankind.
To fill the gap, and join the rest to Man,
Th'Olympian host conceiv'd a clever plan.
A beast they wrought, in semi-human figure,
Filled it with vice, and called the thing a Nigger.

That last rhyme needs work.

so you unironically believe every single proto-humanoid came out of one continent? The very idea of that is silly because of how many different archaic humans originate just from homo erectus. The planet is a massive place yet despite that similar organisms have evolved on most continents even though they're separated by massive oceans. Probably because at one point everything was one super continent.

So how in the fuck would every single flavor of modern humans have come from one particular group on one particular landmass and proceed to cover the planet. You can't seriously compare a Caucasian, Asian, African, and Aborigini and tell me all those guys came from one continent.

Actually I'll think you'll find the lord Yahweh made us all.