Red Dead Redemption is Sexist

In what I suppose isn't a surprising move in the current climate, there has been an outcry on the internet over the new Red Dead Redemption. Not for any important reasons, just that the developers might not include women as playable character in a fictional game. This outrage is all from a fucking teaser trailer, so let's see what bollocks these morons have come up with this time.
______________________________________________________________________
http://www.themarysue.com/red-dead-redemption-2-confirmation/
http://www.themarysue.com/rdr-2-trailer-released-i-guess/
______________________________________________________________________

In case you haven't quite caught onto the message of these articles, yes this is a tantrum over a single picture that teases the release of a game next fucking year. We haven't even seen a shred of gameplay yet, but predictably the feminazis of the internet think this is sexist. Just extraordinary. Even more extraordinary is how we're complaining about women being excluded from the second game, but also complaining that they were included in the first. I'm struggling to find anything to suggest that this is a genuine critique to try and improve the quality of video games, because this is just another excuse to claim someone is being oppressed somehow from such a trivial issue. What's even more inexcusable is the huge assumption that women have been left out of the game entirely when we know jack shit about the actual contents of the game. You're basing this pathetic whinge on a teaser trailer. You even admit you know absolutely nothing about the contents of the game, so what's the point in this so called 'journalism'? And more importantly, how the fuck am I supposed to take this kind of shit seriously when you come out with crap like this? There is however an apparent justification for this random whinge, as the author will now explain:

No the stories of real life female outlaws are absolutely great, really they are interesting. However, I hate this kind of revisionist argument. The ancient demographics and societal roles of the given time period should be used to influence characters in a game, not dictate them. Obviously the term 'trend' is unknown to this writer, who prefers to cherry pick information instead of actually providing an insightful view of the times. Never do we get an explanation of why developers Rockstar would craft a character specifically male, because instead the argument is just a pathetic cry for attention. John Marston for the record was an entirely fictional character from the first game. What the role of female outlaws had in the Wild West is irrelevant because that's not who the developers center their game around. This is a bit like saying there's historical evidence that disabled people had a role to play in the Wild West, therefore disabled people have to be catered to in this game. For that matter why isn't the main character a talking fucking horse; they had a huge role in the time-frame this game will be dedicated too. Or here's an ever better thought: How about we stop comparing different people who have never cohabited and actually critically analyse what the developer intends their game to be? That might be what a journalist of arts would maybe try; especially not try and dictate a FICTIONAL GAME.

The author then tries to back this argument up by claiming that featuring female characters would be their personal preference. Just because something is what you would like doesn't mean you should be able to enforce demands on the developers you self centered asshole. Art is best when creators don't pander to the lowest common denominator, so maybe we should actually give them a fucking chance before branding them with the damning title of 'sexists'. I would have assumed this social justice moron would have loved a game that shows the unjust society in which the Old West was founded on. That's certainly what the original did with its two main female characters, Bonnie MacFarlane and Abigail Marston, who were both empowering women growing up in what was depicted as a man's world; in fact that's a heavy theme surrounding their beautifully crafted stories. Apparently that's not good enough for this moron because context is irrespective when blindly crying sexism in video games, and it's much better to just force women into roles out of a sense of morality rather than artistic integrity.

Do you know what? I'm not actually angry about this situation, because not only is it the most predictable article ever, but to be honest it's more plain laughable. The thing that does piss me off however is is how this gender based nonsense would be used to prevent people from enjoying what could be the greatest game of all time. The first one was just that, absolute perfection in a video game that portrayed a perfect depiction of the American West in all its brutality and beauty. If we start dictating what can and can't be featured in video games then we reject this idea of developer integrity, degrading video games from a work of art into didactic simulations that pander to pressure groups by shoehorning elements in for absolutely no reason. Deciding what characters should and shouldn't be present in a game is the job of the developer, not some political activists. Maybe these political activists could stop whinging and make their own version with a full female cast. Let's just say the competition between those two franchises would be interesting to watch unravel, although I have a strong feeling it would be a very one sided contest. Until that day arrives however, expect plenty more of these pitiful articles to keep cropping up all over the internet.

Science Must Fall

I've heard a lot of shit in my time from the black liberation movements of the world, but this here just might be the most idiotic of that shit. For some reason that confounds any form of rational thought students at Cape Town University have decided that science as a discipline must fall. No I'm being deadly serious, this is an argument that some human beings on the planet genuinely support. I suppose it's up to me to cross examine this horseshit objectively as possible, so wish me luck.

For some reason this group of students have decided that science cannot possibly be true because it's a form of Western imperialism, and that by effectively starting the whole concept of scientific reasoning again from an African perspective we can somehow improve humanities ability to discover the singular world truths. I have no idea how any competent human being can draw that conclusion from the bullshit spewed in this video, but if there was any integrity to this video then it was instantly lost when the student got out their tablet, which could only be possible thanks to Western engineering and science. Would you have a tablet or any computer if we relied on witchcraft instead of science? No of course you fucking wouldn't. Here in the West dear we've realised that what you're preaching would put humanity back into the dark ages. The counter argument is even more entertaining: Because science cannot explain an event that is clearly fraudulent bollocks it has therefore failed. I would like to hear this woman explain the theory of relativity to me, and her failure in doing so would apparently prove that her point is also invalid since her decolonised view of science couldn't explain the theory. Of course that's not a valid form of argument for this group of morons as disagreeing with the panel is apparently an incrimination of the house rules. No wonder these idiots are not open to scientific debate considering they shut down any opposing argument. The audience here aren't allowed a differing opinion in case they have some inherent desires to overthrow this moronic panel, which is a fucking pathetic excuse to start censoring opinions. All this in the name of 'progression'. Funny how as a scientist I don't find this very progressive at all.

It would be incorrect to say that science is totalising by its very nature, as the whole point of science is that all the information is falsifiable. So no, we haven't universally decided that Isaac Newton's theory of gravity is correct full stop, as science is constantly developing this revolutionary theory, some of which may eventually prove that Newton was wrong. It doesn't matter what anecdotal evidence you choose to cite because Newton has nothing to do with the physical existence of gravity, rather he was the man who first discovered the concept. That's like arguing that fire can't exist because I don't know the circumstances onto which it was originally discovered. The discipline of science however will not be invalidated because you claim it's racist; that's bigotry, not rationalism. What this group are really complaining about here is that science, which is constantly developing, is more powerful than your witchcraft or black magic, which hasn't been believed in civilised society for centuries. The argument presented by this woman is 'I didn't understand science at high school because I'm a clueless idiot, so I'll just brand it racist'. And if you disagree with this argument you're instantly branded a Western imperialist. Funny how scientific rationalism has become a norm in modern society and not some didactic conjecture that relies on anecdotes and marginalising demographics in the name of 'progression'. I personally would think progression would entail such actions as eradicating diseases such as smallpox. I don't recall witchcraft eradicating smallpox from Africa, rather Western vaccination programmes. So yeah by all means, let's progress by replacing science with magic.

The whole point of science is that race has no bearing on its progression. I thought students at this university would love the inclusivity of a discipline that revolves around the search for the truth, but unfortunately they moronically decide to reject the principles based on their notion of institutionalised racism. Their only solution to this is the plainly ridiculous notion that humanity should start science 'all over again'. That might just be the most stupid proposal of all time. Fuck decolonising your mind, this woman needs a lobotomy.

Morons of the Internet: Jess Phillips

This is the segment where I scour my favourite forums around the internet and find some particularly interesting articles about current affairs told in the words of my favourite human beings.

In this edition we have an idiotic Labour MP, who confuses gender equality with being a sexist bigot. Here we have yet another example of men being demonised for absolutely no reason other than their sex, which you might expect on 'Tumblr', but not in the British Parliament.
_______________________________________________________________________________
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/labour-should-ban-all-men-from-standing-in-byelections-
_______________________________________________________________________________

Wow, what a piece of work this Jess Phillips is. If there's anyone in Britain who needs to be prevented from being a member of parliament then maybe that person should be Mrs. Phillips. I don't know what world this woman is living in, but it appears to be one that takes the number of MPs at face value. We'll ignore the fact it's equally possible for a woman to be the Prime Minister, like now for example, because true gender equality lies in the basic leveling of politicians. No wonder the Labour Party has never had a female leader in power, because their members are constantly whinging about imaginary boundaries. The Conservative Party on the other hand have elected a woman, whereas the voice of women for the Labour Party happens to be some misandrist bitch who frequently abuses her male peers in the name of equality. Funny how this equality malarkey works. However the thing that really fucks me off with Jess Phillips is that instead of promoting women as suitable candidates she would rather just flat out ban the arguably more capable male candidates solely because of their sex. How the fuck is that fair or just in any way?

44%. The gender split in your party is just 6%, so why the fuck are we even taking your drastic overhaul seriously when it's based around such a minuscule proportion? Why is 50% this magic figure? If there were an equal number of male and female MPs it would make fuck all difference to the Labour Party considering they're almost at that level now. I hate this obsession that just because there's a disparity instantly means there must be an inequity somewhere, despite the fact this apparent institutionalised sexism isn't actually explained, which for something so prevalent I thought would be fucking easy to prove. Simply quoting statistics and taking them out of context is moronic, but it's then another thing to start punishing an innocent party based on this nonsense. If raw gender equality is the way forward then why stop at MPs? How about we stop admitting women into universities? How about we refuse to put away any male prisoners until that's even as well? I just find it funny Mrs. Phillips how there's only an outcry to artificially place women into positions of authority.

'Women are more likely to have a marginal seat.' That's a strong statement that completely undermines the idea of democracy, backed up by zero evidence. I was under the impression that women candidates undergo the same process as men to be elected into a parliamentary seat; that's the point in democracy, not this totalitarian gender based nonsense you're preaching. This is just an outrageous argument. Politics should be about electing the best person for the position, not by first analysing their genitals, because genitals have no say in how a person will act in the corridors of power.

I would like to add that this woman triumphing gender equality is also the one who laughed when even the notion of having an 'International Men's Day' was suggested, because she's an absolute self centered bitch. It's clear this statement has nothing to do with gender equality, rather boosting the position of Mrs. Phillips, who freely admits with these statements she thinks her seat is under attack. Maybe you have to forgive Jess Phillips for just trying to strengthen her position, but I have absolutely zero respect for someone who just blames their own personal issues on institutionalised sexism with out any reasoning. Keep your gender based nonsense on 'Tumblr' Mrs. Phillips, and stop demonising innocent male MPs who actually work their way to the top of the food chain instead of being shoehorned into roles they don't deserve only because they have the right set of genitals.

The Giant Panda Argument

The news recently that giant pandas are no longer listed as endangered was met with widespread jubilation. Not so much jubilation from me, who makes up a minority of people who think pandas should be left to die out. Sounds extreme, but let me address the common critics of this argument who unfortunately are too naive about the current state of affairs.
________________________________________________________________________________
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-08/how-argue-someone-who-smirkily-says-pandas-deserve-die
________________________________________________________________________________

To start with I'd just like to clarify that I don't wish death on pandas. I'm not a sadistic asshole, rather a zoologist that would actually like to see a positive change being made to the world, which won't happen unless we curb the funding of pointless projects trying in vain to save an evolutionary flawed species. The diet is a primary example of just why pandas have become threatened. This article is correct in saying that the recent decline in pandas is due to human activities rather than their diet, which has been primarily vegetarian for millions of years, but that doesn't instantly make their diet alright. If we're serious conservationists then we have to play the hand we're dealt, and a diet that provides barely any energy combined with a pathetically low fertility rate is a monumental problem when trying to bring a species back from the brink of extinction. This isn't a question of how evolution works, although unfortunately I have to say an unsuitable diet for a healthy physiology does decrease relative fitness, so actually the diet is heavily selected for in ecosystems, thus changing the evolutionary path in many organisms. So contrary to what this article would have you believe the panda's diet is a huge concern when deciding where conservation resources should be applied.

This writer can shift the goalposts as much as they want and compare the panda's evolutionary traits to adaptations of the vastly different modern human population, but the fact is that humans aren't endangered, whereas a lot of the planet's wildlife is, with sacrifices needing to be made in what conservation funds can be spent on. If you're pouring millions of pounds into a project then you damn sure should be able to ensure the animal you're sponsoring is not eating what has proven to be an unhealthy and energy deficient diet. Maybe there is an advantage to bamboo that would explain why pandas decided against radically reverting their diet back to what their physiology was once adapted too, but this hasn't been proven yet, and so has no place in this conservation based argument.

Again, if we're to use Darwinian principles here we have to concede that a panda has very low fitness, and as such has a very low ability to withstand environmental change. That makes conservation methods difficult considering this organism makes survival an impossibility without human intervention. So to say there are no good or bad breeding strategies is absurd when the limited funding for conservation is taken into account. Not only is that a completely unrealistic statement, but it's completely against the idea of natural selection. I'm not blaming pandas for this, but we have to face the facts that when conservation resources get as low as they are now only the strong and most important organisms should be allowed to survive; which evidently isn't the panda. You have all the evidence here to see that panda's are an evolutionary dead end, yet for some reason the moral high ground is more important.

The main issue here again is that we're bothering with this expensive conservation method in the first place. If a captive panda has a lack of energy to reproduce then it's stupid spending all these valuable monetary resources on something that faces far greater threats than mere population. Maintaining a solely captive population is even more stupid, but I'll address that point later. This argument here is just shifting the goalposts again by comparing the vastly different behaviors of pandas and humans. The fact's are that pandas do not adapt well to captive conditions as you quite rightly state, so what's the point in funding this obviously flawed system? It's again this assumption that I'm blaming pandas. I'm not, I just want to see their funding cut from this useless system.

A reason why you might sink some money into the panda conservation scheme is that there's a huge amount of evidence to suggest that funding panda's also helps other local wildlife. In fact I'm not aware of a better ambassador species that helps it's native habitat. However the point made in this article is hypothetical. Conservation is a game of risk and reward, and if you think we shouldn't change a critically failing system because the alternative might not work then we might as well admit defeat for global conservation efforts. I can and will complain about the cost of pandas because it's relative to the pittance spent on other key conservation issues around the world. The disproportionate amount spent on various endangered species is alarming, yet wasting money on pandas is suddenly acceptable because 'hey it's less than the defense budget'. Obviously the defense budget is going to be fucking higher than the budget for conservation because they're two totally different things.

The real problem is that we're stuck with this outdated principle of conservation that revolves around the individual. Ecology and conservation have moved on to people integrating with nature rather than isolating themselves from it. Managing ecosystems is the key, not pouring money into individual organisms with the hope that the umbrella effect they produce will bring prosperity to a region. And let me tell you there is far more worrying trends in China to pour money into. You inadvertently raise a good point here that China is essentially using the Panda as a commodity. This is from a country with the worst record of animal trafficking on the planet by an absolute country mile, so why should we be encouraging the funding of the Chinese state? The conservation sites set up for the Panda's are numerous and unsustainably managed, instead relying on captive populations as a primary source of individuals, which is a completely top heavy pyramid destined to fail. with the Panda scheme being there attempt at blowing smoke up the asses of worldwide conservationists.

It sounds barbaric but humans are at the stage now where we do have to start selecting which species are going to have to expire. There's a huge amount of naivety in this post that simply bypasses the serious argument in favor of defending pandas without ever justifying why we should be spending so much on their conservation. Essentially what this argument all boils down too is that we have a moral responsibility to save everything we put in a position of peril, which just isn't possible. Yeah sure pandas are a great ambassador species, and they've helped protect other animals, but there are alternatives that have much more effective and sustainable conservation schemes; such as tigers or rhinos. I have personally been arguing to ignore this single species policy, but that approach is never really alluded to in this article, just hypothetical points from 'Mystic Meg' about which areas would be doomed if not for pandas. How the fuck can you possibly make the argument that bamboo, an incredibly fast growing weed, is reliant on pandas without a single source? It's these huge points made with little explanation that make me realise this article hasn't got a clue about the larger picture.

So no, it's not simply 'edgy' for me to make a serious argument here, and actually one out of necessity. I wish we could say at the current time humanity is in a position to save every animal out there, but we are not. Conservation is now a question of counting our losses and protecting the greatest amount of critical habitat by whatever means necessary, which I would argue doesn't incorporate the struggles of pandas. I certainly think we should cut the huge financial foothold that panda's are relying on to survive. Conservation is all about targeting the richest areas of biodiversity and attempting to sustainably maintain them, not creating a system where individual species rely on a generous financial footing to survive. Rural China is by no means a biodiversity hotspot, so isn't desperately in need of a great umbrella species like the panda. The giant panda conservation scheme, although notable, certainly isn't sustainable for the bucketloads of cash that are continually poured into it, and is only doing a satisfactory job of boosting the numbers of a species that's favorable to various organisations but actually in terms of ecology does relatively fuck all for it's habitat. All this for such stupid money is why we should give up on pandas.

The Christoforge Column (16/10/2016)

The Problems With Charity

The way in which we as a society go about donating towards medical research is alarming. A prime example of this is the recent news that Mark Zuckerberg and his wife have simply thrown a whole heap of their massive fortune in the vain hope of curing all diseases by the end of the century. This is a nice gesture from such a well off man, but an action so desperate and vague it hints of a man so detached from any form of reality that he has no clue what issues face the normal man anymore. You just can't throw money at something as serious and widespread as 'disease' with the intention of getting any form of meaningful result. That just shows a lack of understanding and a way to appease a population who spite anyone with more money than they do. I respect the man for his 3 billion dollar generosity, but throwing money at something aimlessly; come on mate.

Bill Gates understands this issue; he prefers to finance mosquito nets for malaria sufferers rather than chucking money vaguely in the direction of wellbeing. The Gates solution is even more important today considering there is already a widespread belief that research money isn't used particularly economically, so it's imperative that Zuckerberg doesn't rely on a bold statement rather than a positive move aimed at helping medical research. I understand this wasn't Zuckerberg's intention, and I respect the man for being such a philanthropist, but this lack of care towards charity is a trend in society as a whole that blindly donates without any indication of where the money is going. You just can't cure all diseases, especially considering that viruses have the ability to mutate, and many diseases are caused by unhealthy lifestyles. So how about instead we try and fund individual programmes which actually have a hope of succeeding? Money is a very limited resource in the world of charity, so people really need to start donating with their brains rather than their hearts.


The Media and Video Games

The media will never understand video games because it likes to weave a narrative around anything controversial. I'm sure at one time there was a narrative around comic books or rock and roll music. Hell, Alfred Hitchcock's 'Psycho' was criticised for showing some shit in a toilet bowl, so these stupid smear campaigns are hardly anything new. Nowadays however the media won't allow gamers to separate themselves from reality without some opposing narrative being woven to despise them and their allegedly dangerous habit; and I'm sick of it. This isn't quality journalism, just constant bullshit with zero integrity.

It's always the same one sided argument, constantly written by someone who is obviously never going to enjoy video games and always misses the point. I could just as easily write an article about how Werther's Originals taste like shit and how 'Countdown' is fucking boring to watch, only to then call everyone who likes those two things sadistic assholes. However I don't write anything as stupid as that because I'm never going to relate to them, and would end up writing a narrow minded piece stuffed with misinformation. That's the thing with video game journalism; never do we get articles surrounding the positive effects of video games or how people like to have fun in their lives, it's always the doom and gloom of them being poorly linked to violent behaviour with scientifically flawed studies. We'll ignore that there is no causative evidence of video games causing violence, because remember: Scaremongering and misleading stories get the attention of readers, which means shit articles on video games are going to be around for a while.


Realistic Video Game Characters

I keep seeing these articles where some artist desperate for attention decides to pander to a whinging demographic by drawing realistic looking female video game characters or superheroes. Admittedly the one I've shown above is actually to do with eating disorders, so there is a point to be made there, even if that point should have nothing to do with video game characters themselves. It's when people start taking these concept images at face value that this trend starts becoming a nuisance. They all follow the same basic idea where what was once a nice character model has been ruined by essentially creating some obese lump of lard that nobody enjoys looking at. Nobody wants to see these 'realistic' characters or superheroes, they only exist to appease these morons that think it's okay to say that every body is beautiful. How do you fucking think the game would sell if these monstrosities were included instead of some attractive figure that's designed to look good on the eye? Very few is the answer. Nobody seems to understand that these characters aren't real, and if people do choose to be inspired by the original unrealistic figures, then what's the big deal? Better than being inspired by some obese whale. How about we just let the developers make the game as they intend. Stop forcing your narrow minded standards on a whole industry and fuck off.

The Real History of Britain

Afrocentric history might just be the biggest load of bollocks I've ever encountered on the internet. It's a shocking discipline where assumptions and misleading sources accumulate to destroy the very basis of rationalised historical facts. I could have just ripped the shit out of this, but instead let's cross examine the 'factual' points made to highlight the stupidity of this discipline. And what a better way to do it than with the history of my own country told by some crackpot imbecile on the internet.
____________________________________________________________________
http://realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/Misc/Crests/Crests.htm
____________________________________________________________________
Edit: Since originally writing this piece there has been a section added claiming that the number of slaves purchased by Western powers and the 'black artifacts' they accumulated are intertwined. I'm not sure how this adds up considering I have never cohabited with a single American in my house, yet still have the possession of an American made Xbox One, so really these two points bare no relation to each. Apparently the idea of buying or acquiring something is mysterious to this author, which is funny considering how the original point was based around the buying of people. 

I think we can already see where this 'factual' website is headed just from that introduction. Ignoring that this author can barely string a sentence together yet alone make a coherent point, we essentially have an opening paragraph of utter bollocks. I will admit that I did feel amazed at reading this. I'm amazed how stupid a single human being can be. Apparently the Hellenistic civilisations of ancient Europe were founded by African Americans, who must have mysteriously vanished over the past few thousand years and throughout the majority of recorded history. Either that or they succumbed to an impossibly rapid form of evolution that changed their skin colour. In any case, the first actual argument presented by this author is a complete straw man fallacy. Putting words in my mouth is one thing, but it's then another thing to say that Western history is flat out wrong in terms of its origin, when all you have as evidence is a plain conspiracy theory masquerading as 'factual' information. Still, let's commence with the evidence.

The first pointers of Afrocentric history are based around a pygmy race of so called 'negroids'. 'The Grimaldi Man' is certainly a well documented case of a pre-civilisation human, but to then claim that these people were responsible for Western civilisation as a whole is a huge leap in logic that unfortunately quickly becomes the standard form of argument. Again, the further sources only conclude that these people inhabited an area, and have nothing to do with the origins of British culture. Sparrows also inhabit the British Isles, and there's fossilised evidence that there descendants did too. So does that mean sparrows are also responsible for Western civilisation? Really this faux history of humanity is just a warmup for the following statement that only emphasises this author's sheer ignorance.

I'm sorry mate but there's plenty of evidence to suggest that not only do black people have less vitamin D in their bodies, but that also a deficiency in vitamin D leads to health complications, as does a deficiency of any vitamin. The counter argument provided for this apparent lie is even more ludicrous. I didn't know you could quantify the term 'epidemic', but then as we can see here you critical thinking skills need a lot of work. You are however correct in saying that diet has a heavy influence on rickets, although I hate to add there really isn't a racial divide in vitamin D rich foods, only a national one. Rickets is still heavily prevalent in African countries, so this idea of black people not needing vitamin D couldn't be any further from the truth.

Further down the article this author claims Europeans 'turned white', which is not only a very impressive claim, but also one that's in complete denial of how genetics play a role in human evolution. A whole population cannot simply 'turn white' over such a short period of time. Even the sources provided don't back up anything this man says, he only cherry picks the individual pieces of information that conform to his narrative. Even then all of these sources still predate the dawn of civilisation in the Western World, which didn't arrive until approximately 3000 years before Christ in modern day Greece. If any logical source is provided then they're just humorously dismissed by this fanatic, often with the most desperate of reasons. Claiming that you cannot draw an accurate face of a historical person unless you're an anthropologist is my personal favorite. Of course we don't actually know who drew the pictures in the first place, but they can't possibly be right because that doesn't fit the narrative. This whole website suffers from unbelievable confirmation bias. This author loves to use modern day sources that show DNA evidence of blacks being in ancient Britain, and then subsequently switches to ancient historians famed for their abilities of telling the truth depending on whether it supports his argument. For some reason when this man uses revisionist sources it's factually correct, yet when white imperialists support the same tactic that's an odious lie. Funny that. And this biased and often crackpot trend continues with a fantastic scientific description of how genetics work in race.

What a surprise, more blind accusations and guesswork, but the science is actually fairly interesting if inaccurate. Firstly, I'm amazed this moron has any concept of genetic variation, but in layman's terms he's sort of understood how genetics change over time. However it then goes horribly wrong. This argument relies on the inheritance of sex chromosomes, which unfortunately have zero effect on the racial phenotype of an individual, whereas many other alleles in the human genome will have dependent on the environment of the individual. You see the science of genetics doesn't rely on logic, rather illogical variances that give rise to different phenotypes. So this little equation you're doing although surprisingly complex is something for the GCSE biology textbook I'm afraid. You haven't taken into account mutations, which is how different haplogroups arise, or the high chance of genetic drift due to the small population size in your hypothesis. You simply cannot determine where white people came from with this basic and fundamentally flawed equation, and certainly not the proportion and emergence of ancient demographics. Funnily enough the current models for haplogroup migration don't follow your hypothesis, with the most common haplogroup being R1B which is thought to have originated in Asia, not Africa.

The rest of the 'factual information' on the page is exactly the same. There are admittedly some interesting sources that shine light on the commonly developing study of anthropology, however the real history of Britain is currently so far adrift from this racially biased cherry picked shit that it's a wonder anyone takes this stuff seriously. Never does this piece prove black people were the sources of civilisation in Britain, yet this author has the audacity to shun whitewashed imperialistic history when his own version is another side of the same coin.