.
You know, this one actually explains a lot:

.
And it still gets worse and worse:

Not quite accurate
Muslim IQ has been dropping since the the end of the Early Modern Era, that was the time when they started breeding extensively with Sub-Saharan & Swahili Africans, partly due to the shut-off of all major slave markets around the world except for the African one
that was also the time when their political power went to shit and became, for the first time, and inferior nation, unlike their past days
there are a lot of other factors to count but these two are the most noticeable

.
Also, differentiate between "Arabs" and "Muslims"

Including European Muslims ? Well I would like to see some comprehensive evidence for that
.
as for your question, do some research about Muslim Slave Trade, you'll find out that during the 19th century, slavery was officially abolished in the Ottoman Empire (hence No more White slave flow to the Middle East), the Barbary Piracy has been crippled after few wars, so the only remaining source of slaves for Muslims was the African continent, and that's what they did
North African Muslims imported Sub-Saharan Africans while Arabian Muslims enslaved African along the entire East African coast

there's No "cousin marriage tradition" in Islam, you're confusing later incorporation of retarded Asian traditions into Muslim practices

Did you read about the ethnic history of Pre-Islamic, Early & Medieval world of Islam ? it's 180 degrees different than the shit-hole it came to be today

.
as much surprising as it might be, the Middle East was actually "Whitened" up, so to speak, after the coming of Islam, not darkened and "Negrofied" as many assume
it was not until the final years of Muslim political power (that is, the fall of major Muslim super powers i.e Ottoman, Safavid, etc...) that the Middle East became almost genetically similar to Sub-Saharan Africa

.
Sorry for the long-ass text but history can't be easily summed up in few words

.


































































































































































































































.

RoderickToday at 11:57 PM
.














































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































.

.
Plague be like:

@ikillu I thought Etruscans were just the forerunners of Romans ? they weren't ?

>seperate peeps
genetically or just culturally ?

logically speaking, given the info above, I believe Etruscans can be labelled as the forerunners of Romans, partially at least

I think Greeks have to do more with Minoans & Mycenaeans than with Estruscans
Not to deny any Estruscan influence, but I think Minoans & Mycenaeans influence and heritage is more supported by both genetic & archaeological evidence

@ikillu agree....I once read a study concluding that the genetic forerunners of Eropean peoples diverged from a Levantine group severl thousand years after that Levantine group diverged from an Arabian one

Phoenicians are late
I would suggest using "Natufian" as a more accurate term describing early inhabitants of the Levant

@YaneG73 No "We Wuz Kangz" bullshit here
all the population mentioned above have a significant Neanderthal admixture, meaning they cannot be African

Neanderthal genes = 100% Non-African Homo Sapien

the more Neanderthal genes, the more distant from Africa

@I change my username often jealous of what ? of primitive clay huts ?
or maybe ur ancestors Wuz Kangz too ?

@ikillu even tho not fully elaborated, but still the most accepted theory in scholarly circles
@I change my username often the existence of Neanderthal skull in Africa proves nothing, since they all date to the post-OOA period, which indicates reverse migration into Africa from the outside
OOA = Out Of Africa

both ?
⠄⢸⣿⣿⣿⡇⣏⣾⡞⡯⣥⣽⣷⡘⢶⡀⠡⣌⡔⢣⣿⣿⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄
⠄⢸⣿⣿⣿⣷⢹⡖⠬⣚⣛⣯⣭⣛⢂⣙⠦⠈⡇⣾⣿⣿⡆⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄
⠄⠘⣿⣿⣿⣿⢰⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡼⣿⣿⣷⡆⣿⣿⣿⣧⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄
⠄⠄⣿⣿⣿⣿⠘⡿⢛⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⢻⣿⣿⠃⠸⣿⣿⣿⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄
⠄⠄⣿⣿⣿⣿⢀⠼⣛⣛⣭⢭⣟⣛⣛⣛⠿⠿⢆⡠⢿⣿⣿⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄
⠄⠄⠸⣿⣿⢣⢶⣟⣿⣖⣿⣷⣻⣮⡿⣽⣿⣻⣖⣶⣤⣭⡉⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄
⠄⠄⠄⢹⠣⣛⣣⣭⣭⣭⣁⡛⠻⢽⣿⣿⣿⣿⢻⣿⣿⣿⣽⡧⡄⠄⠄⠄
⠄⠄⠄⠄⣼⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣶⣌⡛⢿⣽⢘⣿⣷⣿⡻⠏⣛⣀⠄⠄
⠄⠄⠄⣼⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣦⠙⡅⣿⠚⣡⣴⣿⣿⣿⡆⠄
⠄⠄⣰⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⠄⣱⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠄
⠄⢀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠄
⠄⣸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠣⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠄
⠄⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⠛⠑⣿⣮⣝⣛⠿⠿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠄
⢠⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣶⠄⠄⠄⠄⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡟⠄
⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠇⠄⠄⠄⠄⢹⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠁⠄
⣸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠏⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⢟⣣⣀⡀

@Spicy

>admin
even worse

deep-throating in that case