Do you agree that the most distinct feature of Europeans is the high prevalence of light hair/eyes?

[Oliver109]

Even if not on the same scale, the 'regions' saw plenty of those immigrants too. And what's more, asylum-seekers in particular are dispersed largely to the poorer parts of the UK, precisely because the accommodation remains cheaper.

Apart from Birmingham and perhaps Manchester the bulk of the migrants have gone to London and the SE, for example a lot of agricultural and warehouse workers in east Anglia and Northamptonshire are from eastern Europe.

[Tooting Carmen]

Apart from Birmingham and perhaps Manchester the bulk of the migrants have gone to London and the SE, for example a lot of agricultural and warehouse workers in east Anglia and Northamptonshire are from eastern Europe.

Neither East Anglia nor Northamptonshire are in SE England as such...

[Oliver109]

Neither East Anglia nor Northamptonshire are in SE England as such...

They are basically, I think SE England is basically anywhere within 100 miles of London while the southwest or east midlands would be more like Dorset or Lincoln etc.

[Tooting Carmen]

They are basically, I think SE England is basically anywhere within 100 miles of London while the southwest or east midlands would be more like Dorset or Lincoln etc.

East of England is a separate region from SE England (although there are some counties that are ambiguous, like Essex and Herts) and Northamptonshire is the southernmost part of the East Midlands.

[Oliver109]

East of England is a separate region from SE England (although there are some counties that are ambiguous, like Essex and Herts) and Northamptonshire is the southernmost part of the East Midlands.

Culturally and financially speaking they are basically part of the home counties though, even rural Norfolk has commuters into London and of course many expats from the city.

[Septentrion]

Do you mean individuals like Suha Arafat? OK then.



Even the Scandinavian countries are only 40-50% true blondes, yet no one regards them as "predominantly dark-haired". And yes, Europeans as a whole have in the majority either blue, green or grey eyes.



OK.



Richer countries have more money to invest in environmental protection. However, as those articles you quoted themselves clearly state, most of the forestry in Europe is in Russia, which as a whole is extremely sparsely-populated, more-or-less on par with Canada and Australia in that regard. Take Russia out, and you'll find that Europe is the most densely-populated and overcrowded part of Earth apart from the Indian Subcontinent and Southeastern China.



No, the double standard is when people like to claim Jewish achievements as being European achievements, yet usually like to say that Jews are non-white in order to distance themselves from them. Do you see Jews as White or not?

As for NE Asians, China for a long time was very complacent and insular and didn't have the zeal to expand and develop in a way that the West (and in its own way the Islamic world) did. However, things are rapidly-changing and it will be the world power sooner or later. On the other hand, even you have praised the Japanese, saying they are in many ways the most civilised nation on Earth and have done remarkably well considering their topography and lack of natural resources. South Korea has also been a miracle: in a few decades it has emerged from being one of the poorest to one of the richest countries on Earth, with strong manufacturing and technology sectors most Western countries nowadays could only dream of.

Lastly, do you really think that Albania is not much different to Norway? That is surely nonsense-on-stilts.

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).

[Melkiirs]

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).

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:

[Sebastianus Rex]

Well even her natural colouring is still among the lightest 3% or so of Levantines, but she has quite Semitic features either way.



Is it? Because the difference between light brown and dark blond can be quite blurry.



Do you really believe that there is no fundamental difference between how much the average Brit and average Senegalese respectively consume?



Person of mostly if not entirely European descent.



Still even then, they'd have been more developed than almost all of Asia and Africa and even parts of Europe.



Because you were sounding as if Europe shall always be on top by default, when that is really ahistorical. And IMHO the main factors behind the West's decline are social and economic policies, beginning in particular with the Reagan and Thatcher governments. Even though demographic and immigration trends may not always be ideal either, to say the least.



Well the stories of both Norway and Ireland prove that it is not true that some countries are destined to fail and be permanently trapped in poverty and ignorance.

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.

[Tooting Carmen]

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.

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.

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.

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.

4. Except that even the boundaries of Europe are not natural or undisputed, there's plenty of grey, transitional zones.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

[Avicenna]

Culturally and financially speaking they are basically part of the home counties though, even rural Norfolk has commuters into London and of course many expats from the city.

Did you know the most amount of ethnic English Muslims are from east Anglia? They have a whole community of second generation born English Muslims in Norwich.