"Blonds are becoming extinct"
This was the title of a report in a Dutch magazine in 1998. ---
It reported about a paragraph in weekly magazine Vogue, of which a correspondent contacted Prof. S. Jones of London University, with a question about blond hair.
The Professor replied that "blond" is becoming extinct; due to this mainly is the fact that the gen, that causes black hair, generally dominates the blond-gen in case of mixed procreation.
Now that people on Earth have more and more contacts with persons of other races, this leads to a growing percentage of births of blackhaired children, and as a result a continuously decreasing
occurence of blondhaired persons.
The content of that article was felt as very alarming on Northern-Europide side and was one of the main causes of Norteurom coming to existance.
Naturally people in tropical and subtropical area's (so from equator, up to both 50th degrees of latitude) are blackhaired.
In the Northern Hemisphere there is also normally habitable land between the 50th and the 75th degree of latitude. (Canada, Northern-Europe and Siberia). The not so sunny climate there is called "temperate".
This temperate climate zone in its turn, can be divided in three sub-zones; the upper, the middle and the lower one. So inside this zone there are differences in climate as well; generally spoken the more southern the subzone is situated, the more sunny and warm climate is; (in Iceland for instance, as the name already indicates, it is mostly quite a bit colder, than in Belgium).
Corresponding with the differences in climate and sub-climate are the differences in temperament and outward of autochtone humans there. The more Northern the zone or sub-zone, the lighter the haircolor naturally is. As a result, not all people in the temperate climate zone are very light- (sometimes called white-) haired. In principle (naturally) this is only the case above the seventieth degree of latitude (so about off Finland). In the middle sub-zone (between te 60th and the 70th degree of latitude; so about off Denmark and southern Sweden)) in principle hair color is medium blond (lighter to darker variants of beige); in the lower one (between te 50th and the 60th degree of latitude; so about off Belgium and Netherlands) , in principle it is darkblond or goldblond. Still, in principle in all of the temperate main zone autochtone people naturally are blond (= otherwise than black or brown) haired, blue-eyed and more or less light skinned.
The cause of this is assumed to be in the fact, that sunbeams in this area are not very intense, so that no or hardly any protection against certain of their elements (mainly ultraviolet-radiation) has to be present in the form of
(brown coloured) pigment. As a matter of fact it's better that there's little of this present in skinn, eyes and hair, because only then sufficiently of the needed elements out of the relatively weak temperate sunbeams will 'get through' the skin to do their laudable work inside (like generating D-vitamins).
As for "darkblond" and "goldblond"
The terms "darkblond" and "goldblond" (mentioned above as the natural inhabitants of the sub-zone between the 50th and the 60th degree of latitude) may (still) need some explanation. In principle (= naturally) these two variants of blond (of which the first mentioned in fact is some kind of darker gray and the secondly mentioned still often uncorrectly is called "red") genetically are resulting from mixed procreation of sub-tropical black and temperate blond, which naturally especcially occurs in transitional area's between both mentioned main climate zones. If in case of this 'mixed' procreation the blond gen dominates, one of these two variants of blond is the result, whereas in case the black gen dominates, this mostly results in black hair combined with bleu eyes or in brown hair, which mostly is combined with subtropical brown eyes; (both naturally 'at home' between the 40th and the 50th degree of latitude; so about off France and southern-Germany).
About the danger of blond becoming extinct
Naturally there is no danger that blond will become eliminated by black. For if mankind lives in just its naturally own region, there is only 'mixed' procreation in transitional zones. Now that however by use of especcially motorised means of transportation humanity is swarming around all over the planet, the danger of blond genetically and in other ways becoming eliminated by (sub-)tropical black and brown is very realistic.
For not only the fact that there is about five times as much land in the joint (sub-)tropical zones than there is in the 'blond' ones naturally causes that there are at least five times as much blackhaired than blondes, but moreover, due to certain unnatural causes, (in NPF's vision mainly use of the wrong food (such as animal stuff), which naturally cannot be eaten by humans) population numbers in (sub-)tropical zones have increased that much, that in the mean time there are more than fifty times as much (predominantly) (sub-)tropical persons than blondes. Indeed, by now not 20%, but only less than 2% of mankind is blond any more.
If nowadays developement would continue unchanged, in about 20 years there would be more than hundred blackhaired on one blond, as nowadays total Earth's population of more than 7 miljard then would have raised up to 10 miljard, whereas the number of blonds would be decreased further.
But according to scientists, it will not get that far, because by that time allready overpopulation of the planet (with mainly blackhairds) will have caused a total exhaustion of natural resources, essential for it's liveability. ---
So it's also very much in their own interest, that (Sub-)Tropicals stop growth of their number as soon as possible. Otherwise they will become extinct as a result of Earth's unliveability, at about the same time as blonds will genetically.
Norteurom and Climate(zones)
Why is it so important that people on Earth in principle should (take care to)
live in the climate zone in which they racially ( = naturally) (predominantly) belong?
One of the reasons for this is their own health and well-being, another one is sustainability.
As for their health and well-being the crucial factors are intensity of sun beams and pigment in skin, eyes and hair.
Briefly one can say that if a person lives in a zone where the dose of pigment in his skin is less than necessary, ultra-violet radiation in sunbeams will ruin his skinn, as his protection against this radiation is unsufficient. Of course he can stay out of the sun to prevent this, but this as well is not very positive for his health.
For on the other hand it's very important to receive sufficiently sun beams as this is the one and only source of the D-vitamins everybody needs.
And there also lies the problem for those who permanently live in a climate zone where sun beams are that relatively faint that they don't get through the relatively thick layer of pigment, that natural inhabitants of more sunny (sub-tropical or tropical) zones racially posess.
So one of the health and well-being problems they will face sooner or later is a chronical shortage of D-vitamins, as this vitamin is produced inside the skinn, under the influence of sunbeams.
As for sustainability in brief can be remarked that the fact that since centuries already many persons are living in another climate zone than the one in which they racially belong, is one of, if not the most serious, cause of all environmental problems our planet by now is faced with.
People who are living in a for their physical constallation too sun-intensive zone, will have to stay inside there most of the time and often need a lot of energy using devices, such as cooling ones, to find their way in there.
Many more people furthermore are living in a climate zone, where sunbeams are far from sufficiently intens in view of their dose of pigment, but also of the temperature they naturally need to find their way. In order to compensate this they use to do and use a lot of artificial things, that all have in common that they have rather or very negative consequences for nature and environment.
To mention a few:
- Heating their residence during several months of the year.
- Repeatedly traveling (often by airplane) to (vacation) area's, where climate is meating their natural demands.
- Transporting themselfs mainly by car, in order to avoid confrontation with climatological circumstances in the zone where they live, but naturally not really belong.
- Use a lot of energy absorbing devices (like television etc.) in order to find that much diversion, that they don't have to face reality.
All this they wouldn't need, if they would live in their own natural kind of biotope.
Now that we, or at least some of us, know a lot about the causes of so many person's permanent stay in a different kind of biotope than their own, and more in special about the big mistake, that leads to such kind of punishment, it will be hard to find one or more decisive reasons for not striving after a fundamental improvement in the situation in question.
By the way apart from own health and sustainability as reasons for taking care to live as nearby the naturally own climate zone as possible, a third one can be mentioned.
For those who are living in another zone than the one they naturally belong in it often is frustrating to see how autochtone people in such a zone are doing fine there, whereas they themselves constantly have to fight the fact that they cannot, simply because they physically need other climatological circumstances for that.
Depending on ethnical level, character and temperament their reaction can be different.
Some will more or less depressedly rest with that reality, but others will forcedly try to reach the same measure of well-being as they see with autochtone's; in many a case they then don't even care as much as they should about legal rules, which as a result leads to serious social problems in the relevant countries. For they are confronted with a much higher degree of criminality, than they had and most likely still would have, when much less or no persons from different climate zones would have immigrated.
Of course for the relevant immigrants themselves as well such a developement is very negative, as they then have become (more heavy) criminals and in many a case convicted delinquents, just as a result of their emigration to a country in which they figured they would reach a higher social level as the one they were on in their own natural territory.
Norteurom and Philosophy
A cardinal question in all of the migration problemacy is the one about why in fact people emigrate to countries that are situated in a climate zone that by far is not the one that corresponds with their physical (racial) characteristics.
In the vision of Norteurom ('s author) no matter whether the most direct reason is a political, a social, or an economical one (for instance that 'the grass simply looks so much greener on the other side of the road'), the deepest reason in fact is always that they deserve it as a punishment for what they have done wrongly to nature in their naturally own place.
This even goes for emigration through political or even military occupation of an other country. This as well in fact is always caused by dissatisfaction about the own situation, which in its turn is a result of a many years long lasting de facto misbehaviour against especcially animals, plants and other kinds of living beings in among other their own natural environment. As a consequence these other parts of nature have become more and more angry for what has been done to them, their biotope, and/or their (in many a case eaten, otherwise killed, or captured) congeners, which leads to a constantly growing pressure to fuck off.
Now when something kindlike, but less or more heavyly, has been happening in other, sometimes far away, places it can be that there one deserves a lighter, repectively heavier punishment from nature, which is executed in the form of immigration of quite different kinds of persons, like the ones that in fact were pressed to leave in the situation as mentioned above.
At the mean time, those who stay behind in this last mentioned situation also are punished, namely by the fact that several (often relatively young) members of their community went far away and as a result cannot exercise their essential social role in the relevant community any more.
In case immigration takes place with military or some other kind of physical violance, this leads to a punishment for inhabitants of the immigration country, no matter whether they resign themselfs to that reality, try to hold it militarily, or take to flight, as in all cases they will get into a significantly less desirable situation.
Is there a way out of this downward spiral?
There most likely is some hope left. It is expressed in the following text (of the same author) that for now has been copied to here from somewhere else: