Welcome to our New Forums!

Our forums have been upgraded and expanded!

Welcome to Our New Forums

  • Our forums have been upgraded! You can read about this HERE

Body hair and curly hair (as the historical appearance of Whites)

Askell

New member
Joined
Apr 27, 2019
Messages
36
Is body hair an "okay" trait to have, or is it caused by genetic degradation and mixing? Caucasoids (which includes not just Whites but Middle Easterners and most Indians) have the most body hair of the human "superraces" (Mong/Negr/Austr, etc). Were we always like this? Are there any gods with notable amounts of body hair (or other ETs?)? Nordics I think have less among the subgroups of whites and they're supposedly purer.

Likewise, what about curly hair? Nordics mostly have straight hair, it seems, almost like Asians except blond. Is curliness a possible result of mixing, and if not, are there any gods with curly hair?

I've heard that there has been mixing over the millennia. Did we look much different, say, 10,000 years ago, or even 50,000 years ago, and if so, how were we different? Were we taller, stronger, more "sharp"/robust looking?
 
My personal opinion is that body hair is a trait of darker subraces, when it comes to the white races. I'm mentioning darker subraces because it is less prominent in blondes and redheads. It might possibly be due to degradation as having body hair aside from areas like armpits, sexual parts, forearms and legs is useless. Or there wouldn't be smooth people. I also believe that with spiritual degeneration throughout the centuries some bloodlines may display excessive amounts of body hair in many areas of their bodies, effectively bringing us closer to apes and animals. I don't think our Gods have any.

This is my personal opinion. For what concerns "is it okay", I think that is a question of personal taste and appeal. I don't like guys with too many body hair. A little is okay and may appear normal, even if dislikeable. Excessive amounts is not a preferable trait I'd look in a partner.
 
Stormblood said:
My personal opinion is that body hair is a trait of darker subraces, when it comes to the white races. I'm mentioning darker subraces because it is less prominent in blondes and redheads. It might possibly be due to degradation as having body hair aside from areas like armpits, sexual parts, forearms and legs is useless. Or there wouldn't be smooth people. I also believe that with spiritual degeneration throughout the centuries some bloodlines may display excessive amounts of body hair in many areas of their bodies, effectively bringing us closer to apes and animals. I don't think our Gods have any.

This is my personal opinion. For what concerns "is it okay", I think that is a question of personal taste and appeal. I don't like guys with too many body hair. A little is okay and may appear normal, even if dislikeable. Excessive amounts is not a preferable trait I'd look in a partner.
I don't think you are right, i posted the same question here https://ancient-forums.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=2346&p=14217&hilit=body+hair#p14217 and HP HoodedCobra replayed with this:
HP. Hoodedcobra666 said:
luis said:
But does having too much body hair has to do something with race mixing? I've just noted that all those race that are evily race mixed have a lot of body hair (indians,Arab and so on)

There are different types of body hair. Africans and other races have wooly hair that does twirls, all over the body, in many cases. Body hair on it's own doesn't say much about your race, other than the shape of it. There are pure europeans who are hairy, others who are not. I doubt it has anything to do with race mixing. The ancient view of body hair was that it's more aesthetic to not having, but if they had it, it wasn't bad either. In some cases it was considered aesthetic. Shaving the whole body and being hairless is a late fashion trend as well for men. As for the general opinion of women, they do not like hairless men, others don't really care, while others find it attractive.

There are three things that make man different than woman in a fundamental way. The penis, the beard, and the body hair.

Environmentally speaking, having hair wouldn't be a bad genetic choice if one lives on the far north or let's say in any remote cold places. And the issue is also many africans and others do not have much body hair because of the same reason, they don't need it for their habitat in their majority.

Asians do not seem to be very hairy as well, because they do not really need hair on their habitat either.

As for arabs and so forth, they are in their majority extremely hairy, which, given the climate, it doens't get explained. However if we are to say that arabs have blood from both populations which were arabian and probably lived in both the upper and the higher hemisphere. Requiring both types of hair and not having hair. In the end creating hair for the whole arabian race. Hindus also live in a hot climate but they seem to have quite the amount of body hair, which I think may also have to deal with climatic change that came before.
 
Many people who are perfectly Scandinavian and so forth have body hair. Women also. In many cases it is not visible due to the color it has and not its non existence. So being hairless is an illusion here. Women shave copiously and have laser treatments etc to get rid of hair, this is why you have SPA Institutes all over the place.

It is not as simple to determine evolution merely by hair. Blacks have in many cases very little ring curl hair, but this does not mean they are so developed nor by its own this proves underdevelopment. Asians in many cases do not even grow a mustache or a beard whatsoever.

Said over simplifications of external traits are not part of race science or actual observation and are more into the realm of just superstition.

Any traits are to be analyzed within the context of a race, not as universal concepts.

Curly afro may be strange in Europe but a sign of virility and life in Africa. In Europe it wouldn't mean the same thing.
 
HP. Hoodedcobra666 said:
Are there any gods with significant amounts of body hair or have they done away with it/never had it? Would working toward godhood have any effect on it? Did whites, especially Nordic whites, have the amount they/we have today tens of thousands of years ago?
 
luis said:
Stormblood said:
I don't think you are right, i posted the same question here https://ancient-forums.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=2346&p=14217&hilit=body+hair#p14217 and HP HoodedCobra replayed with this:

Now, now. Just because someone is clergy it doesn't mean every word they type is golden. We're allowed personal inquiry and theories.

We know the climatic changes happened all over the world and that the whole planet used to be in a subtropical climate before Phaeton was destroyed and caused the seas to rise and the axis to be titled creating the variety of subclimates we have now, as well as the ice caps at the poles. This is why I believe the environmental factor to be invalid. In the end, everything we say is speculation. It would take a post-grade in racial genetics both before and after the spiritual degeneration to understand exactly how it works here.

I don't believe the Nordic subrace is completely unchanged either. If a change happen spiritually, emotionally, mentally, sexually and culturally, I don't see why it can't extend to the physical level as well.
 
Askell said:
HP. Hoodedcobra666 said:
Are there any gods with significant amounts of body hair or have they done away with it/never had it? Would working toward godhood have any effect on it? Did whites, especially Nordic whites, have the amount they/we have today tens of thousands of years ago?

Whites are not the same as they were thousands of years ago, for all intents and purposes, not even the same as 500 years earlier, or in the last 100 years.
 
Stormblood said:
luis said:
Stormblood said:
I don't think you are right, i posted the same question here https://ancient-forums.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=2346&p=14217&hilit=body+hair#p14217 and HP HoodedCobra replayed with this:

Now, now. Just because someone is clergy it doesn't mean every word they type is golden. We're allowed personal inquiry and theories.

We know the climatic changes happened all over the world and that the whole planet used to be in a subtropical climate before Phaeton was destroyed and caused the seas to rise and the axis to be titled creating the variety of subclimates we have now, as well as the ice caps at the poles. This is why I believe the environmental factor to be invalid. In the end, everything we say is speculation. It would take a post-grade in racial genetics both before and after the spiritual degeneration to understand exactly how it works here.

I don't believe the Nordic subrace is completely unchanged either. If a change happen spiritually, emotionally, mentally, sexually and culturally, I don't see why it can't extend to the physical level as well.

He didn't say this is the holy word of "God", he just told you why he thinks you are not right, and that a question has been addressed before.

You are essentially just contradicting yourself. You say there have been 'changes', put forth an overextended theory of climatic change affecting even the axis of the earth, and then saying that the "environmental factor is invalid". What changed if not the 'environment', be this energetically or otherwise?

Even internal changes are facilitated and work in conjunction with the environment. You can read Hitler's words in regards to the mental constitution of the Germanic people, and how this has to do with long winters, the weather, and so forth. These are sensible arguments.

People get sick or experience all sorts of changes directly from the environment. The form is clearly affected by the environment, unless you think you are very well suited to live in the desert or in Africa with 40+ degrees Celsius as a European.

The thing is people are so flung over and against sensibility and nature at this point, which is observable in sexuality, food, and everything else, where it is only sensible that everyone can have their own "Opinion" and "Conclusions" as part as of the era of individuality, not necessarily in pursuit of any fact.
 
The question Luis asked you was different than what I replied. I never mentioned other races, I only mentioned the racial groups present inside the White race.

What I meant by "the environmental factor is invalid" is that it doesn't affect, in my opinion, the original racial blueprint of someone. It's a little convoluted as a statement, I know. I will elaborate further. I mean that, since before Phaeton's event there was no such great climate distinction, climate has little or nothing to do with how we were before. In other words, we can't determine by that if we all White subraces had body hair and how dense and extended the presence of body hair was in one's body, according to the subrace they belonged to.

But I see where the contradiction could. You probably mean that over time the climate change has triggered changes in our body to adapt or has activated genes we might have already had but didn't need to use them until the excessive cold came. And then the rest you told. Am I right?

I usually speak in relation to the original blueprint which is what shaped my original answer. The other problem is that it difficult to translate thoughts into words, which makes up for communications skills. Probably my natal Neptune interfering with natal Mercury, not to mention the current Neptune transit which just won't end l
 
I see what happened. It's all good, I just didn't quite understand what you meant.

Our race does not change by environmental factors, very true. However, we may experience slight mutations [very slight], but not to our racial blueprint. We don't like go to Jamaica and two white people suddenly have a black baby, to name a stupid example.

Neptune Mercury is a bitch. For one, I believe I mailed you for an order. Finding you in the e-mail was like searching for the last of the Mohicans.
 
Stormblood said:
luis said:
Stormblood said:
I don't think you are right, i posted the same question here https://ancient-forums.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=2346&p=14217&hilit=body+hair#p14217 and HP HoodedCobra replayed with this:

Now, now. Just because someone is clergy it doesn't mean every word they type is golden. We're allowed personal inquiry and theories.

We know the climatic changes happened all over the world and that the whole planet used to be in a subtropical climate before Phaeton was destroyed and caused the seas to rise and the axis to be titled creating the variety of subclimates we have now, as well as the ice caps at the poles. This is why I believe the environmental factor to be invalid. In the end, everything we say is speculation. It would take a post-grade in racial genetics both before and after the spiritual degeneration to understand exactly how it works here.

I don't believe the Nordic subrace is completely unchanged either. If a change happen spiritually, emotionally, mentally, sexually and culturally, I don't see why it can't extend to the physical level as well.
I just thought what he said made more sense, that is it. I may have misunderstood what you said too.
 
Thank you for your answer. I won't comment further about Neptune and Mercury as you already did a great job talking about it when I received my full birth report last year.

Unfortunately, I didn't receive any email from you. It's not in the inbox, the spam folder nor in the thrash. Maybe you sent it to my old Yahoo email account I haven't used in years or it didn't come through? My SS email address is [email protected] just in case. I sent you an email on July 15 to inquire what my queue position was.

It's nice talking to you guys again.

@luis I understand. It's all good for both of us.
 

Al Jilwah: Chapter IV

"It is my desire that all my followers unite in a bond of unity, lest those who are without prevail against them." - Satan

Back
Top