0
Thumbs Up |
Received: 4,446 Given: 5,771 |
Thumbs Up |
Received: 26,242 Given: 43,791 |
Thumbs Up |
Received: 4,446 Given: 5,771 |
Thumbs Up |
Received: 26,242 Given: 43,791 |
Thumbs Up |
Received: 4,446 Given: 5,771 |
Thumbs Up |
Received: 2,190 Given: 3 |
What are you talking about? The majority of Scandinavians are blondes or fair-haired, it’s in the 50% - 80% blond or light-haired. They are never predominantly dark-haired.
Your 40%-50% blonde-haired is more appropriate for places such as Latvia, parts of Lithuania, Kaliningrad (historical East Prussia), Northern Germany, Friesland and Groningen provinces (Northern Netherlands).
Last edited by Septentrion; 02-26-2024 at 02:49 AM.
Thumbs Up |
Received: 1,052 Given: 1,937 |
Tooting Carmen and I apparently both agree that true blond is Fischer #9-26 and that near blonds like #8 are only blond in an expanded sense. By blond we both mean noticeably lighter roots than Rui Caetano.
Even in the blondest European countries Fischer #9-26 is not much more than about 50% of young adults. For Bryn's largest survey of Norwegian recruits (https://books.google.com/books?newbk...volume&q=braun) it was almost exactly 50% Fischer #9-26 (calculated by subtracting 1.34% Fischer #1-3 , 48.5% #4-8, and 0.1% #27) This approximately means only half of Norwegian young adult males are noticeably blonder than Rui Caetano without photobleaching. XenophobicPrussian may have not have included certain dark blond shades (dark ash blond Fischer #25-26 in particular which is quite common in Norway) or was just more rigorous than Bryn's observers. It could even just be that his sample of 255 Norwegians is not as representative as Bryn's sample of almost 12,000 recruits. In any case it is not more than about 50% for Norwegian young adult males.
Non-photobleached hair at least as light as this is not much more than 50% for young adults even in Northern European countries:
Last edited by Melkiirs; 02-26-2024 at 05:24 AM.
Thumbs Up |
Received: 8,666 Given: 5,623 |
1. Agree.
3. The question is, the Senegalese consume less because their country is not developed, if you ask the senegalese people what would they prefer, they would certainly answer they wish their country is more industrialised and that they could afford to consume like developed countries do.
That whole green agenda promoted exactly by many of the biggest 500 corporations and by the maniacs of the WEF and other slimmy globalist organizations is just a scheme to extort tax payers money and to keep countries like Senegal in perpetual poverty with the pathetic excuse of "saving tge Planet".
Don't get me wrong, I am all on favour of taking care of our environment, reduce pollution, litter etc but that whole green agenda is based on fallacies and lies.
4. Except that even the boundaries of Europe are not natural or undisputed, there's plenty of grey, transitional zones.
5. I never wrote that, I often point that Europe and the global West in general are in a rapid decline. But it's idiotic and against the facts to deny the economic, military, scientific and cultural hegemony of Europe (and later the US) over the past 500 years at least.
6. Or Singapore, Emirates, Saudi Arabia, China...possibly El Salvador in the future, there are many examples. But they all have in common one thing, they went through an industrialization process and a technologic revolution, which is exactly what those climate change fanatics want to deny to the poor countries. The worst kind of neocolonialism possible, "you guys in the poor countries are morons, we know what is good for you and for the planet, meanwhile your countries remain shitholes no problem, we allow your young working force to migrate to the West). Sickening.
Thumbs Up |
Received: 26,242 Given: 43,791 |
Quite a few might want that indeed, but there are also some who are relatively content with their traditional rural lifestyles, as long as they are not starving or homeless. While we should certainly be very wary and sceptical about romanticising and exoticising people who live in much poorer conditions than us in the West, equally nor is it true that they all want to be the same as us.
The main problem with the green agenda is that it focuses too much on changing consumption patterns, however trite and minor (and are really more about governments and businesses exercising greater control over us) and too little on changing production patterns. One reason why I cannot envisage joining the Green Party, even if I agree with a fair amount of their programme and even general ethos, is their rigid and ideological opposition to nuclear energy. If we want to move away from fossil fuels and the often despotic regimes that sell them to us, and at the same time still live reasonably comfortable and decent lives, then nuclear will have to play its part. Renewables alone will not suffice. It is a case of cost-benefit analysis, and unfortunately too many Greens do indeed have a rather black-and-white way of seeing everything.That whole green agenda promoted exactly by many of the biggest 500 corporations and by the maniacs of the WEF and other slimmy globalist organizations is just a scheme to extort tax payers money and to keep countries like Senegal in perpetual poverty with the pathetic excuse of "saving tge Planet".
Don't get me wrong, I am all on favour of taking care of our environment, reduce pollution, litter etc but that whole green agenda is based on fallacies and lies.
Indeed, and that is why I find it tragicomic when people in this and other similar fora get so angry about Mediterranean Europeans and Balkanites being compared to Jews, Turks or Kavkazians, or apparently worse still actually labelling Jews, Kavkazians and Turks as White/European.4. Except that even the boundaries of Europe are not natural or undisputed, there's plenty of grey, transitional zones.
Alright I agree. But then why did even the 'whiter' parts of Latin America like Argentina, Uruguay and Southern Brazil never develop to the same degree? (Yes I know Argentina at one point was very wealthy, but even that was mostly due to cattle and beef and not really either industry or finance). Furthermore, as I discussed in a thread called The Rise Of The West, it is not entirely due to Communism why Eastern Europe was and to an extent still is poorer than Western Europe either. It dates much farther back than that.5. I never wrote that, I often point that Europe and the global West in general are in a rapid decline. But it's idiotic and against the facts to deny the economic, military, scientific and cultural hegemony of Europe (and later the US) over the past 500 years at least.
Economic colonialism is indeed dubious and pernicious. But at least equally dubious and pernicious IMHO is the moral and cultural colonialism of NGOs and to an extent corporations: "Whether you like it or not, you must abolish the death penalty and legalise gay marriage, or we shall sanction and humiliate you". (I am saying that as someone who myself opposes the death penalty and supports gay marriage, but I recognise they are contentious issues and that sovereign nations and peoples - within reason - have the right to live according to their own mores, beliefs and cultures).6. Or Singapore, Emirates, Saudi Arabia, China...possibly El Salvador in the future, there are many examples. But they all have in common one thing, they went through an industrialization process and a technologic revolution, which is exactly what those climate change fanatics want to deny to the poor countries. The worst kind of neocolonialism possible, "you guys in the poor countries are morons, we know what is good for you and for the planet, meanwhile your countries remain shitholes no problem, we allow your young working force to migrate to the West). Sickening.
Last edited by Tooting Carmen; 02-26-2024 at 10:04 AM.
Thumbs Up |
Received: 2,320 Given: 1,211 |
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks