ITT we discuss racial anthropology, origins, theories, and plans regarding all things that pertain to race.
-Theories regarding the origin of the Caucasian "race"(phenotype,) the Mongoloid race, and the Negroid race.
-How theories on race will be the scientific basis for political movements.
-Theories on the psychological behavior of the various races.
-Discussion of philosophy and its implications based on the terms of race.
It's never going to make a comeback , except if maybe a nigger or a shitskin reintroduces it, since they have PC-correctness shield.
What is your political ideology?
I am actually planning on doing that.
progressive collectivisim
it's more or less impossible, the person would have to be some kind of psychopath nigger/shitskin that was born in Germany or at least a german speaking country and also have lots of national sentiments to educate himself in that direction
pretty sure you won't find anybody like that , since shitskins, if they are actually smart, tend to go and study STEM, can't speak for niggers since I've never met a smart one
Are whites Eldar?
>progressive collectivisim
I can't seem to find this on Wikipedia, care to explain the premise of this ideology?
Racial Anthropology is to Genetics as Alchemy is to Chemistry.
Stop trying to resurrect dead subjects user
...
Go back to tumblr.
Thanks for posting this.
>Finnischevolker
Rossiya je Finnland!
Hey another /general/ instead of just a fucking thread. Weird how the catalog is flooded with these right now.
Progressive Collectivism is the idea to collect the most racially progressive individuals or at least reward them for breeding to create a positive trend as opposed to whta is occurring today (infantilization of the western europid races + extremely progressive women not breeding at all).
>no fucking logical argument whatsoever
Good on you OP
An early ghost population wave of proto sapiens left Africa over 200,000 years ago and encountered neanderthal, and they interbred. Neanderthal specimens from before this period have mitochondrial DNA that looks like the grandmother of the Devinsovan mtDNA we found that's only 80,000 years old. After this, all later neanderthals - most of the specimens sequenced - have mtDNA that is essentially protosapien. The later wave of fully modern humans, who left Africa around 60,000 years ago after the Mt Toba catastrophe, which caused a 5 year volcanic winter and wiped out many of the Neanderthals, showed up and absorbed the few that were left. Some of their DNA introgressed into the modern human gene pool. There was local variation and uneven pulses on an east-west cline, with Europeans and Asians receiving slightly different contributions. The European indigenous admixture carried back into the modern gene pool a significant portion of the protosapiens DNA that had resided in the neanderthal-protosapiens hybrid population in Europe. A similar thing happened in Asia, only there was some Denisovan, and an even more ancient branch of evolved homo erectus added into the mix. In Africa, several archaic forms held on late, contributing to its current diversity.
>race don't real cuz my bitch feefees
Isn't a logical argument.
...
Physical anthropology is rooted entirely in evolution by sexual selection. The alchemy part would be phrenology, which is ironically being "rediscovered" a bit more rigorously by neuroscientists.
phrenology = attributing feelings/characteristics to different parts of the skull
>race isn't a social constuct cuz my bitch feefees
isn't a logical argument either user. Especially when your argument is based on outdated arguments and theories not based on objective facts
Do you think some racial traits are the results of superficial trend preferances rather than ones which offer an evolutionary advantage in nature? Or does every natural selection preferance inevitably correlate with some evolutionary meaning? And that there is really no distinction between a superficial natural selection trend and a trend that offers an evolutionary advantage?
Evolution by sexual selection is an objective fact. There is literally nothing to "disagree" about.
I keep hearing that racial anthropology is pseudo-science, but nobody ever present any argument why. so I am assuming that it's not pseudo-science and it's labeled such because it's "racist".
I can look at race dumb ass, it is as clear as day, and I can clearly see it's real. Maybe you are retarded? Anyway, fuck off normie, Sup Forums is no place for you unless you are shilling to destroy my people.
Because racial anthropology is based on phenotype instead of the more historically accurate genotype.
How can shapes of face and skull be based on genotype? why does it have to?
Your people are a bunch of racemixed farmer mongrels LARPing as steppeniggers, if you actually paid attention to the science you would understand that already
> superficial trend preferences
yes, you can see many of these preferences in negroid tribes , that are complete nonsense except from a "cultural perspective"
for a selection for social dominant traits to happen, the circumstances have to be extremely "fateful" (good environment, enough food , enough people to select from etc.) , and almost everywhere where these were given you have at the very least the elites/higher castes with extremely greedy types
progressive traits are flexible, new , it means that they COULD offer an evolutionary advantage, at the very least socially, but they are never an overspecialization that will give you a handicap
the price you pay for progressive traits is that you are relatively greedy as a human being in terms of resources and have "higher" requirements overall
progressive people also tend to mature later on (growth spurts with 20+ are not uncommon) , whereas many primitive races are basically fully matured shortly after puberty begins
genotype currently doesn't tell you anything about the morphology of a person
Dumb ass the phenotype is determined by the genome. You should have opted out before you made yourself look retarded.
Phenotype is also determined by epigenetics, so no not really you ignorant simpleton.
Phenotype it's incredible ambient related, it literally relays on your diet.
>genotype currently doesn't tell you anything about the morphology of a person
Correct, which is also why phenotype isn't a great way to divide people into racial groups since their isn't a 1:1 correlation between genotype, phenotype, and then "racial" categories
Have the most genes that effect your facial construction been found? if not, then genes are useless for such a thing.
It's actually an excellent way, because racial traits are inherited and they can be selected for (which obviously happened where it was possible).
Complete nonsense arguments from your side.
Pic related is an atlantid woman from the front
same woman from the side
...
Pic related a nordid woman from "frontal/side" view.
Note that generally for a racial classification you need images from at least 3 sides: frontal, side and "frontal/side" view which is why most race tables will have at least these 3 if not more (for the body types).
In a bad case you only take frontal+Side and in the worst case only frontal/side like pic related.
user, I'm not going to take you seriously if you're just going to ignore everything we've learned in the last 40 years scientifically just because you said so. By all means, genotype is better for dividing people into separate ethnic groups and when you do that Euros are mostly neolithic farmers LARPing as Aryan steppeniggers. There's gradients of varying admixture from North to South and East to West but all European populations are race mixed mongrels with varying degree of steppenigger and neolithic farmer admixture
You are talking about something completely different.
Genotype currently only gives you a vague idea about your geographical heritage.
Physical anthropology is concerned with the hominization, morphology and the physiognomy of human beings, which is basically the degree of greediness that somebody was selected for.
Talking about aryans etc. is completely meaningless in this context, it doesn't matter who you are or where you are from, only how greedily you were selected (racially).
That maybe in europe were you can't keep track of the migration and mixing.
>jihadi
Fighting the good fight with memeflags eh? Kys virgin faggot
Neuroscience is a fucking meme
What's the point of being something great "historically" if you are racially inferior by every measurement?
Racial classification = your business card showing how successful your ancestors were able to select and breed and what they selected for.
Nothing more pathetic than taking pride in people unrelated to you because your little neet virgin ass has nothing to show for itself
But superior ango, scandis are cucked and being replaced, while baby-faced chinks are taking over.
Apply directly to forehead
>swiss
>historically racially inferior since the beginning of time
Pick 2
>Racially inferior.
ofc it's pathetic if the only thing in life you have going for you is your race
Doesn't change the fact that progressive races are greedier selected and socially more dominant (if only because of their looks) by default.
This. I'm looking at that map like "wtf". Africa is genetically diverse as fuck, and Finns are pretty distant from Mongols, despite memes.
I have no problem with referring to people from certain areas with certain appearances as "races" but we have a better system of determining genetic distinction now than comparing people side by side.
he is unfortunately , too neotenous (pretty much infantilized) to be racially competitive
there are much better silvids that you could post
genetic distinction is a meme, what really matters is the degree of selection
that is the ultimate goal of physical anthropology , genetics don't give you any clue about that currently and are thus useless , since two swedes for example could both have 100% "swedish" make up and have completely different classifications (extreme example: nordid and heavily alpinid farmertype)
Girls like that one, regardless your superiority aren't all that solid.
Differences maybe, but claiming that they are just better genes it's exaggerated.
A progressive person can lose some of his traits in one generation if he somehow needs to, but it takes thousands of generations to maximize relative skull volume etc. these are physical constants that can't be achieved in one generation and require constant and repeated selection for them specifically.
Adding to that is that most aurignacoids can't even be reduced anymore, they simply become shorter, more neotenous versions retaining their greedy traits.
Any way you look at it, this is "superior".
Siberians and East Asians have the biggest skull volumes, they mostly aren't progressive.
What benefit do other progressive traits have exactly?
A superior race can come up for a number of genetic coincidences, if darker skin became an standard, having such skin becomes a benefit, if being a part of a certain ethnic generates any social advantage, etc.
Superior it's subjective as it's a judgement of value based in a personal opinion and not in historical trends.
This is just wrong, notice also that I'm talking about RELATIVE skull volume, i.e. mesocephaly.
Siberians and East asians in general tend to brachykephal-reduced cromagnoid types (middle-sinid and sibirid), extremely reduced types which have basically lost almost every progressive trait and physically adapted to their environments.
>skin colour
Skin is largely irrelevant in physical anhropology, it was actually common for nazi anthropologists to just classify north indians (which are nowadas called north-indides) and iranians/persians/afghans (which are nowadays called iranids) as nordids (before Eickstedt became popular)
pic related is an Afghan soldier that was classified as nordid by Günther:
> historical
no it's not, there are just traits that are socially dominant, that make you "look like a boss" , these traits have always been selected for when it was possible
progressive traits have two functions : 1. is that they are flexible i.e. you can lose them if you have to, but you can't gain them quickly 2. they are socially dominant (they show others that you can afford to have them, they can change your physiognomy and make you look more intimidating/dominant); f.e. full lips are phylogenetically progressive , so in that regard a lot of negroids are progressive
Relative to what? body size?
I didn't say that Asians are progressive, so I don't get what your point is.
here with the german original commentary from the book
in general , to maximize skull volume, you want to simply maximize both skull length and breadth
do you understand why the picture you posted is irrelevant when considering this?
I get where you are going but I have the sensation that you are also amerindian races by what you perceive the genotype to look like, and not what it actually did, because you assume a lot more racial mixing than it actually was.
For example both individuals here are full amerindians.
i don't know much about indianid types , there are many classifications for them, but mostly they are not viewed as more progressive types ; the people in your pic the left short one has: prognathy, wide zygomes and most likely a infantile-pueblid body type; the right one is difficult to classify, he could be primitive or simply a robust-cromagnoid type , if you have a side view this could be resolved easily though
the most progressive mongoloid type are silvids, they are actually so progressive that they were usually more progressive than the white settlers that entered their country and which they lost to in the long run (which is where the myth of the beautiful american indian comes from)
and it's wrong to say asians aren't progressive, north-sinids and silvids are very progressive , the only thing they lack is a notable sexual dimorphism (all mongoloids tend to lack it)
I'm skeptical about if some of those traits are really socially dominant, Nordid and Atlantid people don't look very intimidating to me. has it me it sounds like it hasn't been tested much.
You just can't maximize skull length and breadth, if you do you will look goofy, gook breadth makes up for the lack of length.
Those are the people from tierra del fuego, also known as selk nam, onas or yaganes, but the giant tribe was another one different than all of those.
This one it's probably a mixed result.
> goofiness
the idea is that you maximize your skull volume relative to your body type (which ofc also needs to be/remain competitive greedy), which always means mesocephaly for robust mature leptosome-athletic types; less greedier types have generally lost either their length (brachykephal types in cold regions) or their breadth (dolichocephal types in warm regions/unreduced cold regions) and they generally also lost their body types due to passive adaption to their environments (infantile pueblid body types in rain forests, reduced cromagnoid/pyknomorphic energy saver types in cold climates)
and the traits don't HAVE to be "dominant", but they usually are
this one has a nice body type (hard to say with the clothes he has) but one thing is sure: lack of sexual dimorphism remains with mongoloids
also all mongoloids, with the exceptions of silvids, are also not capable of producing robust-mature types
where robust-mature (leptosome-athletic) means the most boney and mature form , it's simply missing in asians in general at least i haven't been able to find a pic yet so maybe you have some indians that have it
agrippa is that you? MASTER? SIR? YOU?
In general amazon races are more sturdy and south natives are more similar to the oldest types in northern tribes, that's because of the selective breeding between olmec, maya, aztec, etc..
And the andean and amazonian races, that's why you have taller individuals average and more well formed.
mountaineous generally lead to "dinaridization" if the rest of the environment is resourceful enough, very tall and hyperbrachykephalic types, so that would explain their height
I get what you are saying, but I still have no proof that progressive people have bigger volumes than gooks, these theories are largely unverified. I don't know why you put so much faith in them. it's hard to find any person with a wide and long skull, can't think of anyone, usually when skull is wide it also is on more of a branchycephalic side from what I observe.
None. He's UGLY subhuman shitskin "Swiss" (not native 99/100) dude can't tell Sardinians from "Slavs" (a race now?) and Bavarians from "French", so you see yourself whether or not he is an expert
archive.4plebs.org
1. it's not about bigger volumes, it's about maximized relative volume
ofc absolute volumes will vary with height, race etc.
> don't know anybody with wide and long skull
2. that's most likely because you don't understand fully what is meant with skull length and width
i suggest you read up on the cephalic index
>Theories on the psychological behavior of the various races
unz.com
unz.com
unz.com
nice. are these from coon?
they are from a book called : "Deutsche Köpfe nordischer Rasse"
notice that nordid was used by Günther for a lot of types that in other taxonomies are their own type (atlantid/north-indide etc.)
>small brained anglos invent modern industry and civilize the planet
>small brained nips are the most successful country in the region
Diamond +1
racialists BTFO
Obviously, but that guy is a legit ugly incompetent mudblooded shitskin, most likely of Albanian extraction
They are pictures from Eugen Fischer and Hans F. K. Günther , not Coon.
Cephalic index doesn't contradict what I'm saying, mesocephalic is balanced, it's not wide and long, it's just balanced, it's average, you don't have bigger brains just because you are mesocephalic, so it's basicly useless.
Damn coal burning neanderthals, also i think i read somewhere that 97% of europeans dont have any african ancestry
Fuck off baiter
100% of Europeans don't have nigger ancestry. ahMeds and Balkanfags are not European
It allows you to have the biggest relative skull size you can have while still fitting your body type.
And more importantly it allows your descendants to have it as well (in case they become taller, they can grow their volume more than somebody that is brachykephalic/dolichocephalic).
It's simply a greedy trait that was lost in many cases or never existed in the first place (unreduced cromagnoids).
Since when are Armenians European Aryan?
say's the (( ))
No, it doesn't why would it allow you to have the biggest skull size? biggest skulled people are East Asians and they are more branchycephalic than Europeans.
Also you don't have any real proof for most of the things you claim, they are just theories. you seem to be overly obsessed with this specific subject too, I'm asking seriously: are you autistic?
Don't you know that Armenians are the first Europeans and the most Europeans people there are, does this guy not look highly European to you?
Difference being that I'm actually Swiss, actually German and actually not an Albo, with my only nod towards their people being honour killings I advocate for myself. With that logic of yours I'm Saudi-Chechen-Jihadi because I praised those too
Armenians are the most disgusting rats out there on par with Jews selected for being victims and leeching
And which Europeans were measured? Do you understand that Europe inhabits , from alpinid brachykephalics, over hyperbrachykephalics, over dolichocephalics etc. everything? Best way to spot somebody that has no idea is that they are talking about ABSOLUTE volumes. That is almost ALWAYS wrong. Obviously because these depend on the factor of height (taller people will have bigger absolute volumes)
What was the height of the people measured? What was their cephalic index?Why is this essential/vital information missing in such a statistic, except if they have no idea what they are actually doing?
And if I give you a rectangle, that you can fill with money, and you are only allowed to increase one side, are you going to be able to fill in as much money as somebody that is allowed to increase BOTH sides?
301 AD
All Europeans were together, do you understand that Mesocephaly is more common in Europe overall? it doesn't matter if there are some branchy Europeans when overwhelming majority of East Asians are branchycephalic.
The whole point of physical anthropology is to show up the differences between the races in Europe (and to a greater extension all europids).
Why would you mix them together for something like this? You realize that they could have simply measured brachykephalic Europeans vs brachykephalic Asians.
Posting something like this, without considering 1. cephalic index and 2. height doesn't make much sense.
Also, while middle-sinids are brachykephalic and the majority of east asians is middle sinid, they are not strictly the only type that exists in East Asia.
Because these measurements were not intended for that purpose, the measurement should be corrected for body size. I don't have data of branchycephalic Euro vs Asians, this is the best proxy for it.
Also Rushton also found that brain size is correlated with IQ, Gooks have higher IQ than Scandis and Beady-eyes, so that's another proxy data for it.
>IQ
IQ is a psychological measure, cephalic index, height and skull volume are physical measures
Not accounting for cephalic index is ridiculous when comparing skull volume.
You also have to consider that the people tested are different , in Asia race correlates much more with socio-economic status i.e. university students (which were most likely measured) are more likely to be north-sinid than students in "White countries" are to be nordid (mesocephal).
IQ is correlated with Brain size, which physical measure connected with skull volume.
at least I have some proof, you have no proof supporting your position at all. why don't you do scientific research on this if you so interested in it?
First of all, IQ is a psychological measure, if you give the same person an IQ test twice, he will most likely have different results. If somebody decides not to answer any question, doesn't mean he has an IQ of 0. It simply means that you have to somehow also measure his "compliance" etc. it's completely irrelevant.
Second of all, it's also a relative psychological measure, compared to a bunch of niggers, you will most likely have an IQ of 150 , compared to a bunch of physicists, maybe 90.
So you are introducing a lot of unnecessary stuff because you don't understand what the cephalic index is about. You also most likely don't understand what IQ is about and how flawed it is as a concept.
Cephalic index is simply the ratio between skull length and width, it's a relative measure for the skull volume; and most importantly is:
it is inherited and passed on to yoru descendants.
So while your descendant can grow a bigger volume in ONE way (since you are dolicho or brachykephalic) somebody that is mesocephalic can grow bigger in TWO ways. Ok?
It's simple geometry.
And why don't you try to refute what I am writing instead of trying to win by argumenting with some "fake authority" , that is completely irrelevant to the topic?
Everything I wrote, is based on: 1. the fact that repeated sexual selection for certain traits happened and 2. happened differently based on the respective environments
>-Theories regarding the origin of the Caucasian "race"(phenotype,) the Mongoloid race, and the Negroid race.
>-How theories on race will be the scientific basis for political movements.
>-Theories on the psychological behavior of the various races.
>-Discussion of philosophy and its implications based on the terms of race.
1. I think the negroid-specific features are just primitive features. Things like prognathism and extreme dolichocephaly are things you also see in aboriginals and pre-Aryan celts.
2. Race will never be a scientific basis for a political movement. The science is already clear that everyone is a rapebaby mongrel, Europeans especially. Things like pigment, IQ, and even morphological differences are not inherently dependent on race.
3. meaningless because there is no evidence that personality traits are largely biologically dependent on race. I will say that blacks are loud and selfish, whites a bit less, and Asians even less.
4. I think eventually the race problem will cease to exist. Either in a decade or a century, CRISPR will be used to change the race of various people. This will be disastrous for those who can't afford it, and it will be disastrous for modern Europeans as well.
>when american subhumans try to sound smart