Those ancient Europeans were *native Europeans*. Modern day Europeans are their descendants. How does that justify replacement level migration?
>>540784973This is provably false.
>>540784973May we see how do the scientists family names end with ? Just curious
>>540784973I can finally say the n word.
>>540785341No it isn't.
Why would you want a world without white people?
>>540784973>study finds>no linkNigger.
>>540785444Yes it is. Memeflag
>kikes lie to divorce White people from their homelandGas the kikes, race war now.
>>540784973>Study finds
>study findsMay we see it?
So Helen of Troy really did look like that?
3000 years ago makes no sense at all, this has to be a reverse-psychology threat presenting an absurd take to get a reactionary answer. You could argue for the Myceneans having more olive tone and closer admixture with the near east but even they were already gone 3000 years ago because the bronze age collapse occured before that.
>>540784973Except that's fake news. Nice try kike
>>5407849731) Patently false2) Even if it were true, would that not mean that, from an evolutionary standpoint, that being white was superior to having dark skin? If it wasn't, whites wouldn't have taken over the whole island 3,000 years ago.
>>540785491>>540785526>>540785527https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12960https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.01.29.635495v2
>>540785545Europeans having darker shades of skin color many thousands of years ago than they currently have doesn't mean they were sub saharan african.
Wouldn’t there be ancient tales of people magically changing color that seems like a pretty dramatic thing
>>540785451For the kikes, they're still holding a grudge from the days when their ancestor Esau married a Canaanite woman, so both of his parents and his younger brother Jacob conspired to kick him out of the line of inheritance, including inheriting the Covenant with God.Kikes believe that if all the white people are gone, God will HAVE to give them His Covenant, since all the other people in the line of succession are dead. It's literally the "evil stepmother" fairy tale warning, written on a civilizational scale. Not joking.
>>540785728Lol, a nature article.
>>5407856231. He obviously knows that otherwise he would add a 0 to give his claim anything resembling plausibility and would have presented a link to the alleged study.2. Possibly but not necessarily, evolution is about fine tuning, and by fine tuning i mean fine tuning to the environment you evolve in. It could simply mean that lighter skin tones fare better in the European biome and its climate. None of this matters because OP is a stinky professional baiter who made this reverse-psychology thread out of his basement to get exactly the type of offended reactions you're giving him.
>>540784973
>>540785931The reactions are not for OP's benefit. They're for the benefit of anyone else reading this thread who might be on the fence about believing OP's wild lies.It's for the audience, not the guy at the table talking nonsense. Insane retards need to be called out so that everyone else knows he's an insane retard and not to listen to him.
>>540785728Neither of this arguments align with OP's bait and blatantly wrong claim. One refers to 45.000 years ago and refers to some level of pigmentation, not outright dark and the nature article refers to 7000 years ago and hints at the presence of traces of pigmentation alleles in a population at the time which again, doesn't not even remotely hint at the same thing OP states.Dark europeans barely 3000 years ago, a time where Myceneans were already gone, a short time before the advent of Romans, is utter nonsense. OP knows it, he doesn't care, because the purpose of this thread is to sustain the anger and lower the level of discourse in this board and feeling of being besieged.
>>540784973it's all so tiresome.https://www.bitchute.com/video/akFfjkbVh5J6
>>540786114You're right to explain why the argument is wrong. I think it's also noteworthy to highlight how he's neither trying to convince anyone of that nor does he believe what he says, he's just baiting and trying to sustain the anger of the average channer.
>>540784973>3000takes longer than that for darkening or lightening via the natural means
>>540784973Our ancestors had tails at one point. Does that mean we should ship in chimpanzees?
>>540785412
>>540784973Wow, that means that the migrants are the true descendants of Europe!!!!!The whites don't belong there!!!!!!!I now welcome all migrants
>>540786170Thank you, anon. Hope you have a fantastic weekend.
>>540784973How did they conduct this study? And what do they mean by dark skin?
>>540786170>One refers to 45.000 years ago You must have missed this part:>The shift towards lighter pigmentations turned out to be all but linear in time and place, and slower than expected, with half of the individuals showing dark or intermediate skin colors well into the Copper and Iron ages. >and refers to some level of pigmentation, not outright darkWhatever that means. The point is that it was *darker* many thousands ago. So what?
>>540784973This was deboonked
>>540784973That is absolute nonsense, kek. Too bad the retards who believe this shit have the right to vote.
>>540786663Yeah the moment humans stepped foot on the European continent their skin instantly turned a pale white.
>>540786489That was the age of etruscans and the dawn of classical greece and rome, you don't even have to go down the evolutionary line to refute that.>>540786549Likewise friend. Have a great weekend.
>>540784973Having tanned skin does not make you a nigger nor a brownoid.
>>540785754Not least since Europeans 3000 years ago were capable of building civilizations, which niggers still cannot manage.
Well just look at em countries they are even more dark now so that theory is not wrong LMAOOOOOOOOO GOTEEEEEEEEM
>>540784973I can agree on that, more evidence showing whites built egypt and the pyramids, while the blacks where in mud huts in europe.Doesn't matter the location, niggers are always in the mud huts.
>>540784973>accomplish nothing until their skin turns white
>>540786632>So what?So OP's claim refers to 3000 years ago and hints at a non existing study. It says outright "dark" not warmer skin tone.The one you present refers to 45,000 years ago, that's 42,000 years before. As i said, his claim would be more believable if he added a 0 but he doesn't because he's not shilling a point, he's triggering negative emotions in others.On your quote, it's speculative, as in, the interpretative observation of the research paper, and implies that the process started with tan black skin tones getting lighter over time. Speculative in that it doesn't account for the possibility that the skin tone was simply warmer as a baseline and evolved in diametrically opposed paths depending on the biome humans evolved in. >The point is that it was *darker* many thousands ago.Darker than outright pale doesn't mean dark or black. And as a sidenote, the country i come from, Morocco, has a blonde component to some of its lighter skinned population. It turns out that this blonde component always existed in the amazigh substrate because it derives, not from French or Roman colonizers, but is much older and brought from the Neolithic European Farmers who lived in the continent tens of thousands of years ago, before even the advent of West Asian Aryan invaders. So even if there was some warm skinned European group ten thousand years ago, there must have been light skin blondes as well.
>>540787246>So OP's claim refers to 3000 years ago and hints at a non existing study.I already provided two separate studies which confirms this is true.>It says outright "dark" not warmer skin tone.It's a comparison.>The one you present refers to 45,000 years ago, that's 42,000 years before. My God, you posted it again.>The shift towards lighter pigmentations turned out to be all but linear in time and place, and slower than expected, with half of the individuals showing dark or intermediate skin colors well into the Copper and Iron ages. When were the copper and iron ages?>he's triggering negative emotions in others.Only people dumb enough to infer that the headline implies Europeans were Sub Saharan Africans until 3k years ago.>Darker than outright pale doesn't mean dark or black.No one said they were "black" (a colloquialism for sub saharan african)
>>540787521>I already provided two separate studies which confirms this is true.You did not, and i already told you how you didn't. Give me a compelling response to that instead of repeating yourself. 3000 years ago was the age of Etruscans, the dawn of classical Greece, and Rome. We have an endless ocean of genetic data about this white skinned population. It was also long after the development of neolithic european farmer populations and even long after the settlement of western asian aryan hordes.>It's a comparison.Do you know what comparison even means? Dark is not relative, darker is. >When were the copper and iron ages?The copper age came after the stone age when copper was mixed with arsenic to make tools, the bronze age followed it with the use of tin rather than arsenic to produce bronze out of copper and the iron age came after that which is precisely why it's wrong, because by the iron age, we're already in the age of romans and classical greece and in the bronze age, the celts, etruscans and myceneans? Is the study itself necessarily wrong? No. Because you truncated the statement and thus altered it, the full sentence refers to the entirety of Eurasian, including west asia which had a noticeably darker skin tone at the time by everyone's acknowledgement. It was also the area with the larger demography. If half of the individuals showed darker intermediate skins in the entirety of Eurasia, that doesn't hint at Europe (the lightest part of eurasia) featuring any substantial amount of dark pigmentation.>No one said they were "black" (a colloquialism for sub saharan african)A deflection, and a wrong one by the way. Refer to african subreddits and groups, they're full of statements by africans about them being black. Black americans aren't the only ones to refer themselves by skin tone.
>>540787246>>540788227I'll reiterate myself, even before the copper age, the European population was largely white, and even before the Aryan invasions since the Neolithic farmer substrate of europe is what brought Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia their lightest ethnic substrate who also carried blonde genes. They mixed with the olive skinned Iberomaurisian taforalt ethnic groups to make what we refer to today as Amazigh or more commonly Berbers. That's well into the tens of thousands of years ago.
>>540787521>>540788227>A deflection, and a wrong one by the way. Refer to african subreddits and groups, they're full of statements by africans about them being black. Black americans aren't the only ones to refer themselves by skin toneForget about this, i misread your sentence.
>>540788227>We have an endless ocean of genetic data about this white skinned populationGenetic data specifically dealing with genes for skin pigmentation?
>>540784973Was that just before the Yamnaya people (Aryan chads from the steppe) came and killed all the nogs and settled the whole continent? What's the news value of this?
>>540788568Yes, specifically targeted at Myceneans (bronze age with roots in the stone age), Etruscans (bronze age), early romans and greeks (iron age).Myceneans were brown eyed and brown haired with a universally dominant representation of light skin european alleles.Romans, Etruscans and ancient greeks alike were the same with the notable difference of a much larger representation of blonde hair and blue eyes although, in the case of Romans, they saw themselves as darker on average than the Germanic tribes to the north with which they compared themselves, a fact which remains true to this day and which applies to all countries in the european side of the mediterranean bassin.
>>540788624Aryans didn't come and kill nogs. Aryans invaded lands inhabited by neolithic european farmers. They were blonde and light skinned and no, it happened long before 3000 years ago. The largely northwest asian aryan yamnaya invaders brought blue eyes. The Neolithic farmers were however, on average, lighter skinned than Yamnayas.
>>540788938Can you provide a link?
>>540789264https://scispace.com/papers/the-origin-and-legacy-of-the-etruscans-through-a-2000-year-4uqg9rs66jThe study reports a genomic time transect of 82 individuals spanning 800 BCE to 1000 CE across Etruria and southern Italy, detecting Indo-European–associated steppe ancestry and a lack of recent Anatolian-related admixture among the non–Indo-European-speaking Etruscans,which settled the ancient did they migrate from Anatolia? debate in favor of local origins. They also feature nearly no north african or levantine admixture, and they darkened with time rather than the opposite because of later admixture with the near east and north africa.Also backed up by a study on Romans: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019Sci...366..708A/abstracthttps://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aay6826Here it delves deeper into the foreign genetic contributions from north african and western asia which compounded over time to finally result in a darker skinned Italian over time, a trend opposite to what you claim, and a pattern that reflects the darkening of Spain following the Andalucian conquest by north africans despite its genetic footprint being minimal overall, as opposed to the population that inhabited Iberia at the time of Visigothic rule.Even the aryan steppe invaders which brought blue eyes to Europe had darker skin than Neolithic European Farmers and Western Hunter-Gatherers.
>>540784973>memeflag>(((study finds)))>no sourceYou learned English but aren't smart enough to be allowed into a White country? Oof. Considering how utterly retarded the ones who made it here are, you must be spectacularly stupid.
>>540784973>>540785341This has to be false because a genetic mutation couldn't spread that fast and ancient murals from Greece and Egypt dating back 5,000 shows white skin and blue eyed people.
>>540790120refer to:>>540785614>>540786170>>540787246
>>540784973We were also fish before.
>>540784973What would be the biological impetus for dark skinned people living in a place with limited sunlight and UV exposure?
>>540784973Proof?
>>540784973>(((study))) findsKill yourself.
>>540790364The same reasons that push people to migrate and be displaced, also, Spain and Italy weren't hostile biomes for dark skinned people. This take is weak and wrong, simply focus on the fact that the claim is demonstrably wrong as i thoroughly highlighted with evidence at hand and at the fact that the timeline doesn't make sense as this was the time of myceneans, romans, etruscans and greeks.
>>540790212I did, you're not wrong.It's always just a political agenda to make everyone black in the past... It's too obviously one too, no one cared or noticed or said things about this until the Woke Age. I read a lot of older /lit/ too, you'd think they'd mention brown people everywhere. I mean they were obsessed with blue eyes and blonde hair and fair skin the 1001 Arabian Nights and in greek mythology... the furher back one goes, we still see White People.
>>540784973>only 3000 years Good.White skin is the latest peak of evolution.
>>540784973bullshit>https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/02/07/no-the-first-britons-were-not-black/>BUT MUH CHEDDAR MAN WAS A NIGGERLMAO
>>540784973Greeks in 1000BC wrote a few things about white barbarians up north.OP is a shit eating Brahmin like usual the untouchables of the planet.
>>540784973dirt
>>540785444It always is. "Muh we are all niggers from africa n shit"
>>540789860Memeflag left after this. Rat couldn't shill anymore
>>540784973They don't want to be ugly, regardless of how false this is.
>>540784973>Why don't you want to de-evolve back to low IQ subhuman darkiesLMAOThe headline is pure bullshit. Europeans have had fair skin for many, many thousands of years more than just 3k.Also, race is far more than just skin tone. Whites have been sculpted to have higher average IQs than any dark-skinned inferior monkey people on the planet.
>>540784973Europe climate is built for lighter skin. Darkening the next generation does not help them survive in Europe's colder climate
>>540790565There’s no need for a group of people to remain dark skinned if there’s no excessive UV exposure, southern europe has low UV exposure compared to equatorial regions, assuming the out of africa theory to be true, it wouldn’t have taken that long for lighter skin to develop in europe, in siberia and east asia too.
LOL@anon in this thread denying this and who thinks dark skin = sub saharan Africans-the original native inhabitants of Europe (aka ancient hunter gatherers) did have darker skin than modern Europeans-they had blue eyes also-modern Europeans came from central Asia into Europe after the end of the Ice Age-blonde hair came from northern East Asia / Siberia from Ancient northern Eurasians
>>540797709The studies he provided do not deal with skin pigmentation, as I suspected. >Memeflag left after this. Rat couldn't shill anymoreWhat exactly am I shilling? It shouldn't matter to anyone that Europeans had darker skin than they currently do many thousands of years ago. There are no political implications of this.
>>540784973>"Study Finds"
>>540786715Pretty much relatively speaking, we’re psychologically programmed to associate dark things with negativity, if humans move to an environment with low UV, they’re going to turn light skinned simply from the desire to breed with lighter skinned people, within generations.
>>540784973>1pbtid>memeflagWorthless kike
>>540784973They lied about the "out of africa theory", so wehn that got deboonked they doubled down with out of Europe theory where negros originated in Europe.Ok. Seems legit. I will now change my mind to your way of thinking. I used to be black but then turned into a white nord in just 3000 years. All that after being white before that.
