ShiiOfTheSPLC
KILL EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM
★★★★★
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2020
- Posts
- 18,131
And we will lead them and when this society collapses the ER-worshipping abo currycels will reforge the world in an incel empire under our command.
OkayI'm not black I'm .OJ.
Abos ARE black. They're abosSo basically, the sentenils or whatever they are called. But I think those are black not abos.
''Blacks'' is not a single ethnic group. Africa is the most genetically diverse place on earth. I think we can include Abos under the ''black'' umbrella because most blacks are unrelated anyway.Wrong. These are abos
View attachment 1189323
Abos and blacks are totally different genetically. Blacks(even the ones from Africa), are better looking then these people.
@Made in Heaven
Yeah, Just like a gulf Arab and Levantine are different from each other, doesn't mean a Levantine and gulf Arab are separate races. Somalis and Ethiopians have more casuacian blood, but they're still black, because, that's their race. Most Sub-Saharan Africans have Sub-Saharan DNA.''Blacks'' is not a single ethnic group. Africa is the most genetically diverse place on earth. I think we can include Abos under the ''black'' umbrella because most blacks are unrelated anyway.
I'm not black I'm .OJ.
They are jfl. Levantines are descended from Aramaic and Canaanite populations mostly. Not the case for gulf Arabs. Hence why Gulf Arabs look akin to Indians whereas Levantines look more Mediterraneandoesn't mean a Levantine and gulf Arab are separate races.
Gulf Arabs have more Nufian DNA. That's all. The Greeks called people who lived in the levant, Arab. Aramaic is a language btw. Using that logic slavs would be considered a different race since, they have slight Asiatic DNA. And gulf Arabs don't look Curry.They are jfl. Levantines are descended from Aramaic and Canaanite populations mostly. Not the case for gulf Arabs. Hence why Gulf Arabs look akin to Indians whereas Levantines look more Mediterranean
??? Who are the Nufians?Nufian DNA
Also was a cultural/ethnic group.Aramaic is a language btw.
Yes??? Who denies that the slavic race is a thing?Using that logic slavs would be considered a different race
Compared to Levantines they doAnd gulf Arabs don't look Curry.
So if you can include slavs into the white category purely because of their skin color why can't you do the same for the sentinelese? They have black skin.Slavs are white.
Yes, I said the sentinlese are black lol. I said abos are not black. And all European populations have yamnaya DNA, slavs included. That's why they are considered white, while, levantines no matter how white passing are not considered white/European. I just used slavs as am example, They barely have any Asiatic DNA. If slavs are considered Asian, then so are Turks, because, they have around 5% gook DNA on average, but modern Turks are the same as northern Arabs. @DarkStarDownSo if you can include slavs into the white category purely because of their skin color why can't you do the same for the sentinelese? They have black skin.
Abos make Blacks look like Aryans by comparison. That's how subhuman they areWrong. These are abos
View attachment 1189323
Abos and blacks are totally different genetically. Blacks(even the ones from Africa), are better looking then these people.
@Made in Heaven
Yeah, only women along with pure Asians who I would never fuck.Abos make Blacks look like Aryans by comparison. That's how subhuman they are
I hate it when Americans or people subject to their Americanized ideas about races and their Americentric racial sensibilities try to claim every brown population that's not too recognizable as Amerindian, Indian, Arab or SEA as "Black".Yeah, Just like a gulf Arab and Levantine are different from each other, doesn't mean a Levantine and gulf Arab are separate races. Somalis and Ethiopians have more casuacian blood, but they're still black, because, that's their race. Most Sub-Saharan Africans have Sub-Saharan DNA.
Abos are not the same as blacks in Africa. And the people on that island in India, are black because, they immigrated there 10k years ago, and have no contact with the outside world. And they look black as well. abos primarily have Aboriginal Australians largely descended from an Eastern Eurasian population wave during the Initial Upper Paleolithic. They are most closely related to other Oceanians, such as Melanesian
Ok, if you can consider the sentinelese black then why not abos?Yes, I said the sentinlese are black lol. I said abos are not black.
They're considered white because they have pale skin. The Yamnaya migrated to India as well, but they aren't white are they?That's why they are considered white
Never said thatIf slavs are considered Asian
False, most of the modern Turkish DNA is from the native Anatolians like the Hittites, as well as Armenian in the eastern mountains and Greek settlers in the western coast. Northern Arabs as I mentioned before descend from Semitic populationsbut modern Turks are the same as northern Arabs.
Exactly what I'm saying. You might as well consider abos black because ''black'' is such a nonsensical umbrella to begin with. Western Europeans lumped them in together because they couldn't tell the differenceAndamese, Melanesians, Abos, Papuans and the likes are now suddenly all "Black" despite some of these populations literally being genetically closer to non Africans than they are to Africans. It's cultural and ethnic erasure.
Yeah it's not useful for racial classification purposes under the vague overly broad definition that they give that's far too excessively inclusive and not exclusive enough. It's only helpful once it's defined in a more precise specific manner to clarify the concept better.Exactly what I'm saying. You might as well consider abos black because ''black'' is such a nonsensical umbrella to begin with. Western Europeans lumped them in together because they couldn't tell the difference
Because, they're genetically not the same buddy boyo. That's why. Sentinelese are GENETICALLY black.Ok, if you can consider the sentinelese black then why not abos?
Because, most pajeets barely have any Aryan DNA today that's why. The Aryan immigration happened thousands of years ago. Slavs are still primarily white.They're considered white because they have pale skin. The Yamnaya migrated to India as well, but they aren't white are they?
The Hittites were mostly obliterated by the powerful Assyrians. Their Indo European language is extinct now. Some Hittites may have survived in small groups in the the areas of modern populations in Syria, Turkey, Lebanon, Greece, and Armenia. Some may have been absorbed by the Assyrians. They are not a distinct people today, but DNA can be traced to the populations I mentioned.False, most of the modern Turkish DNA is from the native Anatolians like the Hittites, as well as Armenian in the eastern mountains and Greek settlers in the western coast. Northern Arabs as I mentioned before descend from Semitic populations
We are not Americans. So we don't need to be as stupid as them. Abos are not genetically black.Exactly what I'm saying. You might as well consider abos black because ''black'' is such a nonsensical umbrella to begin with. Western Europeans lumped them in together because they couldn't tell the difference
Yeah, it's fucking annoying. The only races Americans know other then white are black, Indian, Chinese and MexicanYeah it's not useful for racial classification purposes under the vague overly broad definition that they give that's far too excessively inclusive and not exclusive enough. It's only helpful once it's defined in a more precise specific manner to clarify the concept better.
So are Abos. They have black skin as well.Sentinelese are GENETICALLY black.
Don't tell me you genuinely think the Yamnayas were the only ones in Europe. Look into Pre-Indo-Europeans. White people were in Europe before the Yamnaya.Because, most pajeets barely have any Aryan DNA today that's why. The Aryan immigration happened thousands of years ago. Slavs are still primarily white.
But their genetic presence was not.The Hittites were mostly obliterated by the powerful Assyrians.
Why do you say Slavs are not White? Jfl, what’s next Irish aren’t White?So if you can include slavs into the white category purely because of their skin color why can't you do the same for the sentinelese? They have black skin.
It's not just about skin colour. It's the features.So are Abos. They have black skin as well.
Read this againBut their genetic presence was not
I didn't say that?Why do you say Slavs are not White? Jfl, what’s next Irish aren’t White?
False, most modern turkish DNA is native anatolian followed by greek and armenianIn small traces.
And what features would those be? I don't think we've had a North Sentinelese test subject to analyze the features of.It's not just about skin colour. It's the features.
True. I even remember an interview with the Ugandan president where he was freely talking about Bantus, Nilotics and others being completely different populations from each other.Exactly what I'm saying. You might as well consider abos black because ''black'' is such a nonsensical umbrella to begin with. Western Europeans lumped them in together because they couldn't tell the difference
So if you can include slavs into the white category purely because of their skin color why can't you do the same for the sentinelese? They have black skin.
The Siberian admixture in Slavs is almost only found in East Slavs (and Finns, but they aren't Slavs). And given that very few, if any, people online have been calling Finns non-white, or even noticed said Asian admixture before those studies have showed it, that about shows how "imoportant" it actually is. Among West Slavs, it's about as common as among Scandinavians. I specifically remember sharing a study when talking about this with @DarkStarDown, where my ethnicity (Slovaks), had as much of it in our genes as the Swedes had (in both cases this being the only non-European admixture present), which is funny, because Swedes are the absolute last people anyone would accuse of not being white, people would sooner call Germans or Dutch non-white then they would Swedes.If slavs are considered Asian, then so are Turks, because, they have around 5% gook DNA on average, but modern Turks are the same as northern Arabs. @DarkStarDown
How the hell do greeks have congo DNA? How the hell do French have asian DNA?
No idea, but i’ll show some other studies I find more reputable & anthropological/phenotype stuff that even the NSDAP of all people used, which combined with the fact many Slavic SS units existed is why I find some of the stuff propagated by the mainstream to be false.How the hell do greeks have congo DNA? How the hell do French have asian DNA?
You did above, re-read what you said.I didn't say that?
Hittites were only one the many people in Anatolia. Anatolian doesn't mean hitties. The majority of modern Levantines, Turks and Iranians Carry Haplogroup J2, which is what cananites are believed to have carried.False, most modern turkish DNA is native anatolian followed by greek and armenian
Black skin doesn't mean black. In that case this Dravidian man would be considered black.And what features would those be? I don't think we've had a North Sentinelese test subject to analyze the features of.
I simply said that if you can call slavs white, you can also call abos black.You did above, re-read what you said.
It was just one example...Hittites were only one the many people in Anatolia.
I never claimed otherwise...Anatolian doesn't mean hitties.
What does black mean then?Black skin doesn't mean black.
So your point is that since their features are varied, they must be of different races? Makes no sense at all. With that logic, blondes, redheads would all be considered their own race instead of white.He looks like a dark causacoid, not a sub Saharan African. Likewise, Aboriginals and blacks do not look the same.
Abos are very genetically different from Blacks & have different morphology facially, why did you include Slavs in this?I simply said that if you can call slavs white, you can also call abos black.
Race has a lot more to do with just “muh skin tone” it has a lot to do with genotype, hair-eye color, cephalic measurements(skull shape) as well as facial morphology which I consider the main indicators.It was just one example...
I never claimed otherwise...
What does black mean then?
So your point is that since their features are varied, they must be of different races? Makes no sense at all. With that logic, blondes, redheads would all be considered their own race instead of white.
You mean sub-saharan africans? Because as far as I know ''black'' just means someone with black skin which abos fulfill that requirement.Abos are very genetically different from Blacks
He brought up slavs firstwhy did you include Slavs in this?
I agree with you though. Read all my posts on this thread, I'm just trying to point out that ''black'' is a stupid umbrella and is not a race. I'm genuinely curious as to why the other guy can call the sentinelese black but not abos. Neither are related to sub-saharan africans, hell, most sub-saharan africans aren't related to other sub-saharan africans. This is why ''black'' is a stupid term for a raceRace has a lot more to do with just “muh skin tone” it has a lot to do with genotype, hair-eye color, cephalic measurements(skull shape) as well as facial morphology which I consider the main indicators.
Niggers are just retarded lol. You will even see Indians arguing amongst themselves, about who is more superior Because, one of them is is one shade lighter then the other kek. All Africans (blacks)have sub Saharan DNA.True. I even remember an interview with the Ugandan president where he was freely talking about Bantus, Nilotics and others being completely different populations from each other.
100% agreed. I was Just using slavs as an example. Wasn't calling slavs Asians lol.The Siberian admixture in Slavs is almost only found in East Slavs (and Finns, but they aren't Slavs). And given that very few, if any, people online have been calling Finns non-white, or even noticed said Asian admixture before those studies have showed it, that about shows how "imoportant" it actually is. Among West Slavs, it's about as common as among Scandinavians. I specifically remember sharing a study when talking about this with @@DarkStarDown, where my ethnicity (Slovaks), had as much of it in our genes as the Swedes had (in both cases this being the only non-European admixture present), which is funny, because Swedes are the absolute last people anyone would accuse of not being white, people would sooner call Germans or Dutch non-white then they would Swedes
Yes, most genealogists ignore anything below 5% usually,(2% and under isn't even considered lol)irrelevant outside of Finland and East Slavic lands, that researchers in a study not specifically focusing on EE populations are just ignoring the tiny traces of it there
Only, about 5-15% on average that's not significant. And @Made in Heaven was telling me how Turks who have slanted eyes, are made fun of in Turkey, these people probably have higher East Asian DNA. But these people who get bullied don't look as bad as pure Asians. Most Turks today are sandniggers.Also, since you guys are now also talking about Turks' genetics, they also have a notable EA admixture, as well as some South Asian
As well as Somalis/Ethiopians, Afro-Latinos, and African-Americans.You mean sub-saharan africans?
Nah, to me it means Sub-Saharans & the group above.Because as far as I know ''black'' just means someone with black skin which abos fulfill that requirement.
See, another reason why black is a stupid term. It's not even clear which black-skinned races it refers to.Nah, to me it means Sub-Saharans & the group above.