I may have Mongoloid ancestry. (srs)

Joined
Feb 12, 2016
Messages
178
Reputation
0
Shovel Shaped Incisors




Shovel incisors are relatively more common in East Asian populations, particularly among certain Japanese and Native American populations. The trait is rare or not present in European and African populations.[1]





Lack of Wisdom Teeth 
Perhaps 10 to 25 percent of Americans of European ancestry are missing at least one third molar, Mann said. For African Americans and Asian Americans, the figure is 11 percent and 40 percent, respectively, he said. But the Inuit, a group of people who live in the Arctic regions of Canada, Greenland and Alaska, have the fewest wisdom teeth; about 45 percent of them lack one or more third molar, he said.

There are probably a couple reasons for this. For one, this group originated in Asia, where the oldest fossils lacking wisdom teeth were found, Mann said. Secondly, like other Asians, the Inuit tend to have flatter faces (when compared to Europeans and Africans), meaning they have even narrower jaws, leaving less room for teeth, he said. Third, Inuit teeth also tend to be larger than average, meaning that this mutation would be even more advantageous in this population, Mann said.

Agenesis = failure to develop
Agenesis of wisdom teeth differs by population, ranging from practically zero in Tasmanian Aborigines to nearly 100% in indigenous Mexicans

Myopia (near-sightedness)
The prevalence of myopia has been reported as high as 70–90% in some Asian countries, 30–40% in Europe and the United States, and 10–20% in Africa.

In some parts of Asia, myopia is very common.
  • Singapore is believed to have the highest prevalence of myopia in the world; up to 80% of people there have myopia, but the accurate figure is unknown.[73]
  • China's myopia rate is 31%: 400 million of its 1.3 billion people are myopic. The prevalence of myopia in high school in China is 77.3%, and in college is more than 80%.[74]
  • In some areas, such as China and Malaysia, up to 41% of the adult population is myopic to 1.00 dpt,[75] and up to 80% to 0.5 dpt.[76]

Postinflammatory hyperpigmentation (and general greater pigmentation than almost all white people I know, coupled with thicker skin another common 'ethnic' trait)


Rare in White (fair) people, common in darker/ethnic skin.


Large Brachycephalic skull with broad Cheekbones(zygomatics).


  • Mongoloid characterized by a medium brachycephalic skull, projecting zygomas, small brow ridge and small nasal apertures.

Asians           Europeans             Africans
Largest          Intermediate        Smallest
1400-1449cc.  1350-1399 cc.  1250-1299 cc.


I had epicanthic folds ('asian' eyes) for the first 2-3 months of my life


NW0 ethnic hairline


I have larger lips than the vast majority of White people


A Lookism user said I looked like a 'fat asian'


My great-grandfather & great-grandmother were from the USA, never seen them...but my grandfather was very swarthy with pitch black hair and it is this lineage where I get my exotic (by white standards) coloration. This is obviously the most likely place where by Mongoloid genetics infiltrated my Caucasoid bloodline. Seems likely some Mexicano-Spic defiled my lineage.












it's over tbh, I'm handing my master race™ card back
 

Aparat

Normie
Joined
Sep 30, 2015
Messages
1,787
Reputation
1
"[font=Open Sans', Verdana, Helvetica, 'Sans Serif]it's over tbh, I'm handing my master race™ card back"[/font]
[font=Open Sans', Verdana, Helvetica, 'Sans Serif]:fingerwave: [/font]
"[font=Open Sans', Verdana, Helvetica, 'Sans Serif]Asians           Europeans             Africans[/font]
[font=Open Sans', Verdana, Helvetica, 'Sans Serif]Largest          Intermediate        Smallest[/font]
[font=Open Sans', Verdana, Helvetica, 'Sans Serif]1400-1449cc.  1350-1399 cc.  1250-1299 cc."[/font]
 
Joined
Dec 4, 2015
Messages
1,936
Reputation
1
shovel teeth are not a native trait whatsoever.
[hr]
Dusk said:
More proof that Asians (denisovans) are in actuality a separate species.
theyre midget   like ant,alien,downsyndrom  negritos that got depigmented circ  10,000 BCE  .
 

Brutus

King of Chads
Birds
Joined
Aug 25, 2015
Messages
14,710
Reputation
2,524
I have shoveled incisors and I look 100% white but I actually do have a tiny bit of asian ancestry
 
Joined
Feb 12, 2016
Messages
178
Reputation
0
ChiefofThechoctaws said:
shovel teeth are not a native trait whatsoever.
[hr]
What makes you say that ? Everything I've read indicates that Shoveled Incisors are exceptionally common in many Natives, it's one of their major defining traits. They mostly have Sinodonty Dentition, which is Mongoloid and is theorized to have originated in Central/Northern Asia, the same regions many people believe Natives originated from. And as far as I'm aware, their dentition is one of the main reasons they've been branched under 'Mongoloid' in conventionally racial anthropology.


The skeletal remains of a 13,000-year-old teenage girl pulled from an underwater cave below Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula provides fossil evidence for a persistent, but mostly resolved question on the descendants of early Americans.

Native Americans and the earliest American skeletons, known as paleoamericans, have markedly different faces, skulls and teeth, which has raised questions about their origins, and whether their ancestors traveled along separate migration routes. But most geneticists agree that Native Americans descended from Siberians who traveled to America via a land bridge over the Bering Strait toward the end of the last glacial period. This study supports that


By studying the mitochondrial DNA from the girl’s wisdom tooth — that’s genetic material inherited from the mother — researchers have determined that she derives from the same genetic lineage as early Native Americans, and likely descended from those who crossed the Bering Strait.



By contrast, he found the Sinodont pattern in the Han Chinese, in the inhabitants of Mongolia and eastern Siberia, in the Native Americans, and in the Yayoi people of Japan.

Anthropologists for more than a century have been intrigued by the biological similarities between Siberians and North American Indians. Christy Turner II of Arizona State University has studied the changing physical characteristics of Native American teeth, especially in their crowns and roots, and has compared them with those of Old World Asian populations.

The dental features studied by Turner are more stable than most morphological traits. There is a high genetic component that minimizes the effect of environmental differences, sexual dimorphism, and age variations. Turner has studied more than 4000 individuals, ancient and modern. From this, he has developed a series of hypotheses about the first settlement of the Americas based on dental morphology.



Shovel Shaped Incisors.
The highest frequencies (greater than 90%) are found amongst Asians and Native Americans and lowest amongst Europeans. Shovel shaped incisors appear in Homo erectus, suggesting that this is a very ancient trait.




Brutus said:
I have shoveled incisors and I look 100% white but I actually do have a tiny bit of asian ancestry
Yeah...the Mongoloid dentition seems dominant and as mentioned above it seems to be less likely to deviate and change, it's relatively fixed. It occurs from 3-20% in areas of the middle east (west asia), they got it from the Mongols and later the Ottomans, in all likelihood. As mentioned above, it's seemingly least common in Europeans, so for a 'white' person to have it, is a tell tale sign.

It was the nail in the coffin for me, tbh.




Other Mongol Dentition (Sinodonty) traits.

Single Rooted First Molar (caucasians have two)
Lower First Molar with Three Roots (caucasians have two)
Carabelli Trait




When present as a cusp, that feature is variable in size. The trait may express itself as a pit. The cusp version may rival the main cusps in size. In its pit version, it may appear as a small ridge, pit, or furrow. Sometimes the trait is a sort of lingual cingulum; a similar feature is found amongst the gibbon, chimpanzee, gorilla, and orangutan.


The Carabelli trait has a high incidence of expression in Caucasoid populations with a low level of frequency of shovel-shaped incisors. Conversely, the Carabelli trait is seldom fully expressed in Mongoloid populations, which possess a high frequency of shovel-shaped incisors.
 
Joined
Dec 4, 2015
Messages
1,936
Reputation
1
Gala Gado Ressureccion said:
ChiefofThechoctaws said:
shovel teeth are not a native trait whatsoever.
[hr]
What makes you say that ? Everything I've read indicates that Shoveled Incisors are exceptionally common in many Natives, it's one of their major defining traits. They mostly have Sinodonty Dentition, which is Mongoloid and is theorized to have originated in Central/Northern Asia, the same regions many people believe Natives originated from. And as far as I'm aware, their dentition is one of the main reasons they've been branched under 'Mongoloid' in conventionally racial anthropology.


The skeletal remains of a 13,000-year-old teenage girl pulled from an underwater cave below Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula provides fossil evidence for a persistent, but mostly resolved question on the descendants of early Americans.

Native Americans and the earliest American skeletons, known as paleoamericans, have markedly different faces, skulls and teeth, which has raised questions about their origins, and whether their ancestors traveled along separate migration routes. But most geneticists agree that Native Americans descended from Siberians who traveled to America via a land bridge over the Bering Strait toward the end of the last glacial period. This study supports that


By studying the mitochondrial DNA from the girl’s wisdom tooth — that’s genetic material inherited from the mother — researchers have determined that she derives from the same genetic lineage as early Native Americans, and likely descended from those who crossed the Bering Strait.



By contrast, he found the Sinodont pattern in the Han Chinese, in the inhabitants of Mongolia and eastern Siberia, in the Native Americans, and in the Yayoi people of Japan.

Anthropologists for more than a century have been intrigued by the biological similarities between Siberians and North American Indians. Christy Turner II of Arizona State University has studied the changing physical characteristics of Native American teeth, especially in their crowns and roots, and has compared them with those of Old World Asian populations.

The dental features studied by Turner are more stable than most morphological traits. There is a high genetic component that minimizes the effect of environmental differences, sexual dimorphism, and age variations. Turner has studied more than 4000 individuals, ancient and modern. From this, he has developed a series of hypotheses about the first settlement of the Americas based on dental morphology.



Shovel Shaped Incisors.
The highest frequencies (greater than 90%) are found amongst Asians and Native Americans and lowest amongst Europeans. Shovel shaped incisors appear in Homo erectus, suggesting that this is a very ancient trait.




Brutus said:
I have shoveled incisors and I look 100% white but I actually do have a tiny bit of asian ancestry
Yeah...the Mongoloid dentition seems dominant and as mentioned above it seems to be less likely to deviate and change, it's relatively fixed. It occurs from 3-20% in areas of the middle east (west asia), they got it from the Mongols and later the Ottomans, in all likelihood. As mentioned above, it's seemingly least common in Europeans, so for a 'white' person to have it, is a tell tale sign.

It was the nail in the coffin for me, tbh.




Other Mongol Dentition (Sinodonty) traits.
. NATIVE AMERICANS ARE ENTIRELY HYPERCAUCASOID

Dr. Erik Trinkaus has shown that Native American's skulls are entirely Caucasoid, and infact exceed European skulls in measurements which define the Caucasoid racial type: zygomatic recession and nasal projection. These features have never been and will never be found on east Asians, including Tibetans. It was also stated by Dr. Carleton Coon, and Earnest Hooton stated that they were Caucasoids resembling "an Iranian plateau or Proto-Nordic type", and that their Mongoloid features were negligible.

2. NATIVE AMERICANS ARE NOT SINODONT, DO NOT HAVE DRY EARWAX AND HAVE HIGHER NUMBERS OF APOCRINE SWEATGLANDS

Contrary to rumor mill; Plains Indians do not have shoveled incisors, display Caucasoid tubercle patterns and the shoveling of their incisors closely matches that found on the Vindija V3 level Neanderthals in Croatia.

3. TIBETANS DO NOT RESEMBLE NATIVE AMERICANS WHATSOEVER

Unlike Native Americans, Tibetans are Sinodont, have dry earwax, epicanthic folds, alveolar prognathism, do not have projecting noses, do not have zygomatic recession, and are a useless comparison to any population as they represent a highly mutated (not adapted), highly isolated people with very low genetic variation.

4. PLAINS INDIANS ARE THE TALLEST, MOST LATERALLY BUILT PEOPLE ON EARTH

The skeletal frames of East Asian males are as robust as those of White females. Native Americans on the other hand, of the Plains and Patagonian type especially, recapitulate Middle and Upper Paleolithic Europeans, as shown by Dr. Morant.


he only Mongoloid features that appear on Native Americans occur with regards to skin coloration and hair texture; and even then it is questionable whether or not these are features originating from East Asian Mongoloids. It could be that this configuration has ancestral origins dating back to the times of Erectus; and that it was present on the ancestors of both East Asians, Native Americans and Paleolithic Europeans. Or it could be that it is a result of low levels of genetic variation. You must also remember that Mongoloids are thought to be at least partly Caucasoid origin; and that there are no Mongoloid skulls older than 10,000 years old.

It is understood that coloration and hair texture have little to do with race. For example, it is impossible to judge the difference between a Nordic and a Mediterranean skull, even though, in the flesh, a Nordic may have a drastically different hair coloration than a Mediterranean. Hair coloration and skin texture are traits most susceptible to rapid mutation, especially under conditions of low genetic variance, and we know that Native Americans descended from an unusually limited number of people. East Asians, particularly Japanese, are notoriously inbred.

In any case, the supposedly "similar" traits between the two different groups reveal themselves to be less than similar upon closer examination, and the resemblences between the skin texture and hair coloration of a Native American and East Asians rather frankly resemble the similarities between that of a Med and a Mongoloid -- which is to say they're not really similar at all.






The problem here is that when anyone finds a non-Caucasoid feature on an Indian; they claim it to be Mongoloid. Again there is an assumption that if a feature on an Indian is not White, then it must logically be Mongoloid, because there is an illogical and un-founded tendency to assume that Natives are Mongoloid. Native Americans tend not to grow much facial hair; but this need not be a Mongoloid trait -- it could just as easily be a Negroid trait, an Erectus trait, a Neanderthal trait or a Denisova trait. Yellow nationalists like Zhaoyun and Hexochordia/Butlerking are quick to point out that Native Americans can't grow a beard, but when one mentiones the hirsute face of an Ainu, they pull the "paleo-Mongoloid" card. On the other hand, when one points out the Caucasoid cranio-facial characteristics of Plains Indians, again: they cry "paleo-Mongoloid".

Furthermore, most "Mongoloid" features, when they appear on Indians, appear only on women and children -- because they are not in fact Mongoloid features but simply characteristics of youth and female sex.

The traits of Native Americans, Ainu and Polynesians are overwhelmingly Caucasoid, they were originally classed as such, and anything to the contrary is quite simply pan-yellow-brownism. It's that simple. There's no way around it. No one cares if you think Tibetans look like Native Americans; because they look neither like Native Americans nor east Asians. They are a weird, marginalized, ultra-mutated group of people. Their noses, which do not approach the degree of fore-aft projection as seen in Native Americans, and are not seated in front of the same retreating zygomata, are due to recent mutation and nothing more. That is why they look unique. Additionally, mainstream science has developed a system of classifying racial features based on empirical data; measurements of features and inherited cranial traits. It is far more comprehensive than an uneducated twit googling a picture of a Native American and deciding based on pure instinct what he or she might "look like." And this data has proven incontrovertible certainty that Native Americans are Caucasoid.
 
Joined
Feb 12, 2016
Messages
178
Reputation
0
Seems silly to me to act like Natives are not related to Mongoloids when almost everything points towards it.



Height is neither here nor there, many Africans can be little midget bops and others are lanky. And I'm sure I don't need to remind you all of the height differences amongst Caucasians/Europeans, the differences are notable.

And the same applies to the claim that 'mongoloid' traits only develop in Native Females & Children and are thus not Mongoloid but rather Neotenous...how can one claim that they're not genetic traits that are manifesting ? They don't show in Caucasians females or children. And would it not make more sense that, in fact, it is their Mongoloid genetics which give rise to these traits and that it's simply the greater robusticity, masculinity and archaic looks of some Male Natives that lessens these traits ? It's much more readily explainable that some Natives are simply hyper-masculine Mongoloids as opposed to arguing that Natives are hyper Caucasoids who randomly and inexplicably share many traits with Mongoloids...and that many of them randomly appear hyper Mongoloid.


Many Natives are overbearingly Mongoloid, how it can be denied is beyond me.























Shoveling in early Atacama Indians (Chile).

They naturally come to the conclusion that Atacama Indians had a strong Mongoloid ancestry.



Shoveling rates are highest amongst Pima & Pueblo Indians (Natives from regions now part of the USA).
[hr]
Central, followed by Lateral. the Pima Indians (Arizona region) have an 99% incidence of Central Shoveling.
The highest rate that I'm aware off, the lateral shoveling is also the highest. Mongolians & Japs have an 75 and 72.7 percent lateral shoveling rate, versus the 81 percent found in both Pima & Pueblo samples.





Countless genetic studies link Natives to Central/Northern/Eastern Asians.


 
Joined
Dec 4, 2015
Messages
1,936
Reputation
1
natives from north america have 0 mongoloid genetic ancestry,for one.and secondely,youre cherrypicking  natives with round faces,when the same can be said for  alpinids in europe or many  africans who have those traits.

natives have completely different cheekbones than mongoloids when you actually measure them,for one theyre high and sharp,and protrusive,whereas mongoloids have low,bulbous fat things people call cheeks.its not the same and if you read anything,youd know anthropology doesnt work by simpely seeing some superficial commonalities between two people.


their psuedo  slanted eyes are due to actually having orbital rims,wich both caucasoids and mongoloids lack the latter having fat pads wich keep their eyes from rolling out.  give a caucasian good orbits and he also has psuedo  slanty eyes,it isnt the same mechanism at all.natives look like  looksmaxxed whites.whites are in a way,devolved natives who have bad bone development.the paleolithic caucasoids would have resembled  natives.

bodytype too is completely different in natives and gooks !
Brasilids are a isolated case as are istmids because they underwent greter alpinization and are very neotenous subtypes wich are NEW to the native continents.

kennewick man is the oldest native and he is hypercaucasoid.the oldest skulls in baja california are australoid.the northern mexican natives morphologically,are still considered anthropological  australoids,though genetics say they relate to other tribes around them.


again,the first people that crossed the bering strait were not psuedo mongoloid looking,your cherrpicking of andeans is fuckign retarded because most andeans look dinaric and even in chile you have silvid types nown as patagonians  .

you cherrypick  jungle tribes aswell as for every psuedo-gook type you have caucasoid types aswell .

there is not a single mongoloid native,the most mongoloid natives look austronesian at best  .by your logic baltids should be considered negroid.
 

Tyger

Banned
Joined
Jul 30, 2015
Messages
1,492
Reputation
0
@"ChiefofThechoctaws" 

Out of reps, will neg you tomorrow.
 

OccamsRazorBurn

Gigachad
Joined
Aug 11, 2015
Messages
7,138
Reputation
4
What's the deal with the Patagonians? I don't know very much about them. 


As for the rest, I'm not entirely sure what your argument was. That NAs are Caucasian, & not Mongoloid? My understanding was that Caucasians & East Asians in particular branched off of a proto-Eurasian group in Central Asia, with NAs becoming a more distinct group later on. They seem to have some traits that are similar to both Caucasians, & Mongoloids, along with plenty they developed in the thousands of years since the split happened.



ChiefofThechoctaws said:
shovel teeth are not a native trait whatsoever.
[hr]
Dusk said:
More proof that Asians (denisovans) are in actuality a separate species.
theyre midget   like ant,alien,downsyndrom  negritos that got depigmented circ  10,000 BCE  .

What is your stance on NE Asians, vs. SE Asians? Iirc, you've mentioned wanting to marry a Hmong woman multiple times, yet a lot of your posts suggest you think East Asians are subhumans.
 
Joined
Dec 4, 2015
Messages
1,936
Reputation
1
OccamsRazorBurn said:
What's the deal with the Patagonians? I don't know very much about them. 


As for the rest, I'm not entirely sure what your argument was. That NAs are Caucasian, & not Mongoloid? My understanding was that Caucasians & East Asians in particular branched off of a proto-Eurasian group in Central Asia, with NAs becoming a more distinct group later on. They seem to have some traits that are similar to both Caucasians, & Mongoloids, along with plenty they developed in the thousands of years since the split happened.


nope.thats false.  native americans are the direct offshoot from australoids that became  cold adapted.i you consider australoids  Hominids and apes,they would technically be the original  humans.

Asians are also derived from australoid,but thenegrito type and only very recentely relative to human history.

caucasoids are  native american mixed  with some eastafrican  .
ChiefofThechoctaws said:
shovel teeth are not a native trait whatsoever.
[hr]

theyre midget   like ant,alien,downsyndrom  negritos that got depigmented circ  10,000 BCE  .

What is your stance on NE Asians, vs. SE Asians? Iirc, you've mentioned wanting to marry a Hmong woman multiple times, yet a lot of your posts suggest you think East Asians are subhumans.
I  changed my mind on that.for one I dont want to get married and pass on my genetic line,and secondely,I mentioned multiple times asian looks are deceptive due to their supposed paedomorphy.all asians look like crap without makeup  .asians ARE the ony option for a non-abrahammic man who wants a traditional,non-slut wife in general.

Im repusled by other races too  and tbh I dont find any race  of women particularly attractive except Margid and Brazilid.

humans to me arent that attractive.

I  do think asians are subhumans but more so unnatural.Negroids have a natural primitiveness and in tune with nature,caucasoids have some genuity and ideals.mongoloids dont,they  are materialistic and very fake and shallow to the core and very greedy and darwinian.



Miao people are actually originally from the yellow river delta,not really sea asian.

I find SEA asians okay,but to me a sea asian is a austronesian and not the numerous  neomongoloid types that have invaded the southeast for `1000 of yrs.  they arent as bad as northerners and they do have a spirituality and primitivity that is in tune with forces of environment moreso than their cousins.

neomongoloids despise naturality,primitiveness and  are very neolithic in their mindsets probabely because they developed it forst but maybe they are just evil(dominance hierarchies,capitalism,greed,property obsession,anhedonism are all neolithic ills)
Im also someone that does NOT respect weakness or think weak,defective types should breed and we should somehow feel sorry for them,I can feel  empathy for gooks as individual but not as a racial group  .
 

OccamsRazorBurn

Gigachad
Joined
Aug 11, 2015
Messages
7,138
Reputation
4
ChiefofThechoctaws said:
OccamsRazorBurn said:
What's the deal with the Patagonians? I don't know very much about them. 


As for the rest, I'm not entirely sure what your argument was. That NAs are Caucasian, & not Mongoloid? My understanding was that Caucasians & East Asians in particular branched off of a proto-Eurasian group in Central Asia, with NAs becoming a more distinct group later on. They seem to have some traits that are similar to both Caucasians, & Mongoloids, along with plenty they developed in the thousands of years since the split happened.


nope.thats false.  native americans are the direct offshoot from australoids that became  cold adapted.i you consider australoids  Hominids and apes,they would technically be the original  humans.

Asians are also derived from australoid,but thenegrito type and only very recentely relative to human history.

caucasoids are  native american mixed  with some eastafrican  .


What is your stance on NE Asians, vs. SE Asians? Iirc, you've mentioned wanting to marry a Hmong woman multiple times, yet a lot of your posts suggest you think East Asians are subhumans.
I  changed my mind on that.for one I dont want to get married and pass on my genetic line,and secondely,I mentioned multiple times asian looks are deceptive due to their supposed paedomorphy.all asians look like crap without makeup  .asians ARE the ony option for a non-abrahammic man who wants a traditional,non-slut wife in general.

Im repusled by other races too  and tbh I dont find any race  of women particularly attractive except Margid and Brazilid.

humans to me arent that attractive.

I  do think asians are subhumans but more so unnatural.Negroids have a natural primitiveness and in tune with nature,caucasoids have some genuity and ideals.mongoloids dont,they  are materialistic and very fake and shallow to the core and very greedy and darwinian.



Miao people are actually originally from the yellow river delta,not really sea asian.

I find SEA asians okay,but to me a sea asian is a austronesian and not the numerous  neomongoloid types that have invaded the southeast for `1000 of yrs.  they arent as bad as northerners and they do have a spirituality and primitivity that is in tune with forces of environment moreso than their cousins.

neomongoloids despise naturality,primitiveness and  are very neolithic in their mindsets probabely because they developed it forst but maybe they are just evil(dominance hierarchies,capitalism,greed,property obsession,anhedonism are all neolithic ills)
Im also someone that does NOT respect weakness or think weak,defective types should breed and we should somehow feel sorry for them,I can feel  empathy for gooks as individual but not as a racial group  .



I don't understand why this should be accepted over what I mentioned. While I do think there may be some austronesian admixture (particularly in some of the central american tribes) that arrived via polynesian & other sailers, I don't understand why you would jump to the pure austronesian ancestry theory first. Also, are you including Melanesians in your idea of "australoids?"
 
Joined
Dec 4, 2015
Messages
1,936
Reputation
1
OccamsRazorBurn said:
ChiefofThechoctaws said:
I  changed my mind on that.for one I dont want to get married and pass on my genetic line,and secondely,I mentioned multiple times asian looks are deceptive due to their supposed paedomorphy.all asians look like crap without makeup  .asians ARE the ony option for a non-abrahammic man who wants a traditional,non-slut wife in general.

Im repusled by other races too  and tbh I dont find any race  of women particularly attractive except Margid and Brazilid.

humans to me arent that attractive.

I  do think asians are subhumans but more so unnatural.Negroids have a natural primitiveness and in tune with nature,caucasoids have some genuity and ideals.mongoloids dont,they  are materialistic and very fake and shallow to the core and very greedy and darwinian.



Miao people are actually originally from the yellow river delta,not really sea asian.

I find SEA asians okay,but to me a sea asian is a austronesian and not the numerous  neomongoloid types that have invaded the southeast for `1000 of yrs.  they arent as bad as northerners and they do have a spirituality and primitivity that is in tune with forces of environment moreso than their cousins.

neomongoloids despise naturality,primitiveness and  are very neolithic in their mindsets probabely because they developed it forst but maybe they are just evil(dominance hierarchies,capitalism,greed,property obsession,anhedonism are all neolithic ills)
Im also someone that does NOT respect weakness or think weak,defective types should breed and we should somehow feel sorry for them,I can feel  empathy for gooks as individual but not as a racial group  .



I don't understand why this should be accepted over what I mentioned. While I do think there may be some austronesian admixture (particularly in some of the central american tribes) that arrived via polynesian & other sailers, I don't understand why you would jump to the pure austronesian ancestry theory first. Also, are you including Melanesians in your idea of "australoids?"
Dude,austronesians dont  have anything to do with central americans.Im saying that all native americans are australoids.Margids are clearly  black--silvid  transitionals as they have black skin(colloquilly,no human has actual black color except some andamanee and mimor african tribes) and  many times psuedo negroid features.some natives are australoid  mongoloid transitionals in terms of traits.the first humans in the americas weer australoid and black skinned,some of these remnants survived   .

also all native americans come from south america(via the west coast migration) and not north america,the amazon natives have the oldest dna strains and are the original natives,you can see australoid,paleomongolid and caucasoid types among their people.  its well  known the Muskogeans came from Central  america and even have the same art patterns and dresses,while the blackfoot and other aridomamerican  and plains tribes came from mexico aswell,as far north as montana the shoshone are of mexican origins.many southeastern native americans even mixed with Amazonian tribes very recentely via  Arawakan sailors.the northeastern natives also  have a story about how their orignal  birth mother was a australoid  from melanesia/polynesia i think.  Remember that polynesians are half black on genetic graphs and are very recent arrivals having swamped out melanesians,so those''polynesian''sailors were actually just black.you overestimate the time of austronesians in polynesia its only the last 3000 yrs,hawaai and tahiti about  1000 yrs before european arrival ,and  by  the time of the olmecs  polynesia was still largely  melanesian and the central american race was very distinct and already formed.




it bothers tons of people that natives have black ancestry and are VERY close to blacks in phenotype  but thats just the way it is.


australoid  types were predominant 60,000  yrs ago in the amazon,you can still see australoid features in amazonian natives  ,in fact most australoids in amazon look no different to southeastern united states natives,dont   think you cant find caucasoid types among all natives either,most native groups are largely mixed with different subtypes because natives are a transition of australoid to other races(european,austronesic,middle eastern).natives are basically  australoid transitionals stuck in time because of isolation  and interbreeding and not going thru the same selective pressures wich complete it for caucasoids or mongoloids in the old world.


do you understand it,now   ?
 
Joined
Dec 4, 2015
Messages
1,936
Reputation
1
natives=Transitionals of all races .its what you get when you take a black man out of africa  80,000  yrs ago with some leaning towards  a caucasoid form some toward a austronesian form   and let him breed among himself and not fall under any major genetic changes or selection pressures.

thats why some natives look negrid,some protomongolic,some look caucasoid and some a mix of all human races.

natives are THE missing link.

also  all these subraces of amerinds are largely trash,you can find all types in different degrees among all tribes from brazil to  new york state  .most natives dont look that much different from each other.
 
Top