February 7th, 2018
The argument seems to be “this ancestor of yours had dark skin, so you shouldn’t mind us importing niggers who kill you and ruin your country.”
Seems logical, no?
A cutting-edge scientific analysis shows that a Briton from 10,000 years ago had dark brown skin and blue eyes.
Researchers from London’s Natural History Museum extracted DNA from Cheddar Man, Britain’s oldest complete skeleton, which was discovered in 1903.
University College London researchers then used the subsequent genome analysis for a facial reconstruction.
It underlines the fact that the lighter skin characteristic of modern Europeans is a relatively recent phenomenon.
No prehistoric Briton of this age had previously had their genome analysed.
As such, the analysis provides valuable new insights into the first people to resettle Britain after the last Ice Age.
The analysis of Cheddar Man’s genome – the “blueprint” for a human, contained in the nuclei of our cells – will be published in a journal, and will also feature in the upcoming Channel 4 documentary The First Brit, Secrets Of The 10,000-year-old Man.
Cheddar Man’s remains had been unearthed 115 years ago in Gough’s Cave, located in Somerset’s Cheddar Gorge. Subsequent examination has shown that the man was short by today’s standards – about 5ft 5in – and probably died in his early 20s.
Prof Chris Stringer, the museum’s research leader in human origins, said: “I’ve been studying the skeleton of Cheddar Man for about 40 years
“So to come face-to-face with what this guy could have looked like – and that striking combination of the hair, the face, the eye colour and that dark skin: something a few years ago we couldn’t have imagined and yet that’s what the scientific data show.”
Your ancestor had slightly darker skin. Therefore you should be fine with this being your neighbour.
The Jew’s favourite trick of ‘coming up with a statement you have no hope of being able to falsify’, on full display. “It’s not us saying this, goyim, its the data. What, you’re telling me you don’t believe data?” Obviously it’s impossible for the average person to understand the inner workings of all scientific fields to be able to analyse the data. But that’s what the Jew takes advantage of. “You don’t understand this, goy, but we do and it means you’re the same as a nigger and look here’s infinity niggers we brought into your country seeing as you are all the same. Also, they are going to replace you and take your country from you. Science.”
Fractures on the surface of the skull suggest he may even have met his demise in a violent manner. It’s not known how he came to lie in the cave, but it’s possible he was placed there by others in his tribe.
The Natural History Museum researchers extracted the DNA from part of the skull near the ear known as the petrous. At first, project scientists Prof Ian Barnes and Dr Selina Brace weren’t sure if they’d get any DNA at all from the remains.
But they were in luck: not only was DNA preserved, but Cheddar Man has since yielded the highest coverage (a measure of the sequencing accuracy) for a genome from this period of European prehistory – known as the Mesolithic, or Middle Stone Age.
They teamed up with researchers at University College London (UCL) to analyse the results, including gene variants associated with hair, eye and skin colour.
They found the Stone Age Briton had dark hair – with a small probability that it was curlier than average – blue eyes and skin that was probably dark brown or black in tone.
“There’s a small probability, so we’ll depict him as a kinky-haired nigger. Science muffugah.”
This combination might appear striking to us today, but it was a common appearance in western Europe during this period.
Steven Clarke, director of the Channel Four documentary, said: “I think we all know we live in times where we are unusually preoccupied with skin pigmentation.”
Prof Mark Thomas, a geneticist from UCL, said: “It becomes a part of our understanding, I think that would be a much, much better thing. I think it would be good if people lodge it in their heads, and it becomes a little part of their knowledge.”
Unsurprisingly, the findings have generated lots of interest on social media.
Cheddar Man’s genome reveals he was closely related to other Mesolithic individuals – so-called Western Hunter-Gatherers – who have been analysed from Spain, Luxembourg and Hungary.
Dutch artists Alfons and Adrie Kennis, specialists in palaeontological model-making, took the genetic findings and combined them with physical measurements from scans of the skull. The result was a strikingly lifelike reconstruction of a face from our distant past.
Pale skin probably arrived in Britain with a migration of people from the Middle East around 6,000 years ago. This population had pale skin and brown eyes and absorbed populations like the ones Cheddar Man belonged to.
Notice at this point there is no evidence that his skin was dark other than “it was in the DNA, trust us.” This will now be used politically to say we should let in infinity niggers because we found a skull and decided it had dark skin.
No-one’s entirely sure why pale skin evolved in these farmers, but their cereal-based diet was probably deficient in Vitamin D. This would have required agriculturalists to absorb this essential nutrient from sunlight through their skin.
“There may be other factors that are causing lower skin pigmentation over time in the last 10,000 years. But that’s the big explanation that most scientists turn to,” said Prof Thomas.
The genomic results also suggest Cheddar Man could not drink milk as an adult. This ability only spread much later, after the onset of the Bronze Age.
Nigger confirmed lol
Present-day Europeans owe on average 10% of their ancestry to Mesolithic hunters like Cheddar Man.
Britain has been something of a boom-and-bust story for humans over the last million-or-so years. Modern humans were here as early as 40,000 years ago, but a period of extreme cold known as the Last Glacial Maximum drove them out some 10,000 years later.
There’s evidence from Gough’s Cave that hunter-gatherers ventured back around 15,000 years ago, establishing a temporary presence when the climate briefly improved. However, they were soon sent packing by another cold snap. Cut marks on the bones suggest these people cannibalised their dead – perhaps as part of ritual practices.
Nigger double-confirmed lol. Naw but really. Cut marks on the bones would be far more likely to suggest injuries sustained in warfare. I mean, you’re telling me they cut him up and ate him, then put him back together to bury him? Naw, fam.
Britain was once again settled 11,000 years ago; and has been inhabited ever since. Cheddar Man was part of this wave of migrants, who walked across a landmass called Doggerland that, in those days, connected Britain to mainland Europe. This makes him the oldest known Briton with a direct connection to people living here today.
This is not the first attempt to analyse DNA from the Cheddar Man. In the late 1990s, Oxford University geneticist Brian Sykes sequenced mitochondrial DNA from one of Cheddar Man’s molars.
Mitochondrial DNA comes from the biological “batteries” within our cells and is passed down exclusively from a mother to her children.
Prof Sykes compared the ancient genetic information with DNA from 20 living residents of Cheddar village and found two matches – including history teacher Adrian Targett, who became closely connected with the discovery.
Science, democracy, and the holocaust are the only three sacred cows in society now.
None of these three were ever part of our ancestors’ belief system. Democracy (as it is now, with women voting and everything being an art of public mass deception) was never something our ancestors wanted. The monarch/empire is the traditional European form of society, with a guy at the head who uses his power to move the society in the best direction for it.
The holocaust is obviously just a lie, there’s not really anything else that needs to be said about that.
Now, when it comes to science, obviously our ancestors put a great deal of stock in methods of inquiry, which delivered the ‘truth’ by repeated trials. For example when they tried to make bows, or fires, out of different woods, they would establish scientifically which were the best ones for the purpose, and as such would survive.
But this modern idea that some twat in a labcoat can say whatever politically charged, Jewish financed, SJW-flavoured statement is in vogue that week, and the lowly mortals all have to accept it as divine truth – it’s not scientific at all, it’s just another form of hoax.
The only things that are sacred, now that Jews slaughtered every sacred cow, are things that further the Jews’ agenda. Science fits the bill for the Jews as it gives them a platform that sounds lofty and well-educated, from which to spout their nonsense, lies, and confusion.
The three sacred cows are all hoaxes. The holocaust is a hoax that can be summed up as “you gassed us 6 million times so you are bad people and can’t be allowed to exist.” Democracy is a hoax that can be summed up as “you are free and it’s wonderful; you are free to gather you news from any approved source, say any approved statement, and vote for any approved politician, and then we will do what we were gonna do anyway which is genocide you – enjoy your freedom, goyim.” Science is a hoax that can be summed up as “you are destroying the planet goyim so you need to destroy yourselves instead. Also, you come from Niggers.”
Obviously I’m not saying every scientist is ‘in on the conspiracy’, science is a huge institution. But just think of it like the government. Not everyone in every town council needs to be an anti-white puppet of the Jews, for the whole political machine to move in that direction.
What exactly makes something ‘scientific truth’? It’s a phrase you hear all the time now; ‘proven science.’ Well what makes it proven science is that scientists have looked at the evidence and agreed on a conclusion.
Problems with that:
1) Scientific studies are expensive and researchers are constantly appealing to rich companies for funding, and it is sort of an unwritten agreement that they will find a conclusion that suits their economic or wider social agenda of the Jews funding the study.
2) Jews have this magnificent habit of finding ways to silence people who disagree with them, and if you do that enough, everyone agrees with you because the people who don’t no longer have a voice.
3) This leaves open the possibility that scientists can ‘create truth’ simply by agreeing on a conclusion that is actually bullshit. This is what happens in the Jewish dominated fields of anthropology and psychology, where Jews basically rub their chins and then all agree that the goyim want to shag their mums (thanks, Freud), or that race doesn’t exist (Franz Boas).
So basically we see that the problem is Jews.
It’s the same problem that is in the media or politics. Basically whenever you have anything that has a grain of reliance on trust and goodwill built into it’s systems, Jews will jump in there and co-opt that thing. So with the media they jump in and lie and just go “well we are neutral objective journalists just bringing you the facts, goyim!” With politics they get their puppets to say “this is what is best for you, the people” and then do something completely different which serves the Jews. And with science they say “all those people who are so much sarter than you, agree, so the matter is settled and if you don’t agree you are a flat-earth lunatic.”
And then every day it’s “scientists discover that you are related to Uncle Remus” and then some big-brained Jew tells us that this means we should accept niggers raping the shit out of our women for some reason.
What the fuck has this ancestor of modern Britons having dark skin, even if it is true, got at all to do with allowing yourself to be invaded by people who are objectively terrible for stability, safety, and social cohesion?
Is the argument from race realists “you can’t let other races in, it will never work because their skin is different”? Do you hear us saying “If we had the same skin, their behaviour would be acceptable, but seeing as their skin is a different colour, we hate them”? No. The argument is not ‘prejudice based on skin colour, but observation based on THEIR BEHAVIOUR.
If they had white skin, or we had darker skin, it wouldn’t change the fact that they do not belong in our country and are genetic terrorists, raping our women and chimping out for their own groups furtherance at any opportunity. What has skin colour ever had to do with racism? Nothing. It’s always been about recognising that they are fundamentally different from you. Not merely different in appearance.