The Most Beautiful Women of Egypt

Here.

Check out these babes.

As you can see, the vast majority of them are Caucasoids.

These three below look something other than Caucasoid, but the rest are broadly Caucasoid. Some of them look like they could be White Latin Americans,  and quite a few of them look like Italians. One looks something like a Greek or Armenian.

Click to enlarge. Anaya Hayes is obviously part Black, but she is a more of a mulatto than anything else.

Click to enlarge. This woman looks Hispanic, but there are no Hispanics in Egypt. I do not know what sort of racial mix created this look. Perhaps ancient Egyptian? Perhaps she has some Black in her? No idea.

Click to enlarge.This one looks extremely exotic, like she is Asian or part Asian. I really doubt if she is, but a lot of Arab women look Asian or part Asian. Drawings of ancient Egyptians show them with a bit of an Asiatic look, so she may just be of Ancient Egyptian stock.

Look At How White Egyptians Look

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pp3-GmILyPg

I was amazed looking at this video how Caucasian these people look. They don’t look like Black people at all, and modern Egyptians are even Blacker than the ancients. They look like Caucasians, and I was surprised how many many of them had pale White skins and blatant Europid phenotypes. Even the Arabid phenotype just looks like a White person with a funny nose and a tan. They’re simply desert-adapted Caucasoids.

Sure, they have a little bit of Black in them. So what? The overwhelming majority of the genome is Caucasoid. US Blacks have more White in them than the average Arab has Black. Therefore, US Blacks are not Black, instead they are White? Give it up.

Arabs are Whites, get over it.

Further, Arabs consider themselves White. I am friends with some local Yemenis, and I told them they are White just look me and they gave me the thumbs up. They’re not only White, they’re White Priders! WPWW camel jockeys!

“Of course we are White,” they said. They differentiate themselves from Blacks, who they consider a different race. They told me that there are many Blacks in Yemen, but they referred to them as if they were a different race. I also told them that the original European Whites were Arabids. If you go back 12,000 years, the European phenotype and genes look Arab.

“So Arabs are the original Europeans. They’re the original Whites,” I told them.

“Of course we are,” they said. “We know this.”

Look closely at the Arabid phenotype. It’s Caucasoid, and in many cases, it’s downright Europid. So they have brown skin, so what. Caucasian doesn’t equal White. Many Caucasians have pretty dark skins. A White person with a tan is still White.

Pan-Aryanism!

Racial Statistics for Ancient and Modern Egypt

Race %                  NEC    Arab Black      

Group

Ancient Egyptians (LE)  80     0    20?
Ancient Egyptians (UE)  90     0    10?
Modern Egyptians (LE)   75     5    20
Modern Egyptians (UE)   65     5    30

NE Caucasoid = Near East Caucasoid from 8-10,000 YBP
UE = Upper Egypt
LE = Lower Egypt

Note that modern Egyptians have received an injection of about 10% additional Black and 5% additional Arab DNA since the end of the Dynastic period. Arab DNA came in via Arab invasions, etc. and much female Black DNA may have entered via the slave trade.

Racial History of Egypt

Prior to 40,000 YBP: An African population resided here.

40,000 YBP: African population wiped out, to be replaced by a mixed Eurasian/African population.

10,000 YBP: Mixed population mostly replaced by “Capsian” population from the Near East (Asia).

8,000 YBP: Neolithic farmers move in from the Near East and add to the Capsians.

Modern Egyptians derive from a movement of Near Easterners into Egypt 8-10,000 YBP. Maternally, Egyptians are mostly Eurasian. The general appearance of Egyptians is “Middle Eastern.”

Approximately 14% of the mummies and painted statues look Black. Egyptian DNA is only ~5% modern Arab, presumably from Arab invasions and migrations. The Afrocentric theory says that the ancient Black Egyptians mixed with large numbers of Arabs, which is why they look like they do now.

The Y-DNA is largely Near Eastern or Eurasian. The E3b Y DNA and M1 MtDNA originated in the Near East (possibly in Arabia) ~20,25,000 YBP and is also thought to be “ancient Caucasoid.”

Upper Egypt is ~30% Black by DNA. But even upper Egyptians are much closer to the Near East than to Africans. Modern Egyptians are ~25% Black by DNA, but studies on ancient Egyptians show them to much less Black, possibly at ~9%. Most of the Egyptian Black DNA seems to have come in via the Arab conquest and the slave trade.

Ancient Egyptian hair is like modern Egyptian hair, from straight to curly with a small minority having kinky hair. Ancient Egyptians look just like modern Egyptian on the following variables: hair, teeth and skulls.

The paintings do not show people with dark skin. Men are shown with red ochre and women are painted yellow. The lifelike portrait statues don’t have black skin either. The “black land” refers to the color of the soil. The desert was called the red land.

A Eurocentric argument is that the ancient Egyptians were Whites who were replaced by Blacks. Along the same lines, Afrocentrists argue the opposite – that the ancients were Blacks who were then replaced by Whites.

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that ancient Egyptians were European Whites or Nordics. We can see this by looking at the crural index (arm length):

American white 82.6% Modern Egyptian 84.9% American Black 85.25%

Ancient Egyptians had the exact same crural index as modern Egyptians, which is nothing like the European index at all. We can also see that modern Egyptians had the same crural index and ancient Egyptians, so there was no change from Black to White over the period.

Mathilda’s Anthropology Blog on Ancient Egyptians

Here.

Her conclusion is that ancient Egyptians were pretty much the same folks as the modern Egyptians – a North African Caucasoid group with some Black admixture. Sounds about right to me. She says that ancient and modern Egyptian DNA is mainly Asiatic in origin. This is true, but what does it mean. I think she refers to ancient Caucasoid DNA from the Middle East.

85% of modern Egyptian ancestry traces back to Dynastic and earlier times. Only ~5% of modern Egyptian DNA goes back to any Arab input via Arab invasions. They’re the same people as they used to be! The moderns are the same as the ancients.

Matilda did an excellent job taking on Afrocentrist dolts and losers for a long time on her blog.

Modern Egyptian participants in the Miss Egypt contest in Cairo in 2007. These women are the same people as the Dynastic Egyptians.

The Racial Lessons of the Ancient Egyptians

I think one thing both we and the Afrocentrists can agree on about the ancient Egyptians is that at least a little bit of Black in a Caucasoid stock does not render it incapable of functioning.

After all, this was the very nasty argument of segregationists.

They dishonestly used examples of ancient Egyptians, who they incorrectly said were 100% European Whites, and then compared them to modern Egyptians, who may be up to ~30% Black. They described the decline of Egypt as being due to increasing Negroidization over time.

They made a similar argument about the Portuguese. The Portuguese reached the height of their power around the 1500′s if I am correct. This was supposedly followed by a long and slow decline to where now they have one of the poorest economies in Europe. As usual, this decline was attritubuted to “nigger blood.” There were quite a few slaves in Portugal after 1500, and many of them did breed into the population.

However, the Portuguese population, while one of the Blackest in Europe, is still only ~4% Black. That a great White country would decline into the dregs with the infusion of a mere 4% Black genes is utterly absurd, and I refuse to believe it. Anyway, Portugal is still a very civilized society, with a high standard of living, low crime, and an easy, relaxed way of life. It would be the envy of most 3rd World countries.

Many great naval powers declined during this period for a variety of reasons including naval defeats and the loss of their colonies.

The segregationists were advocates of the one drop rule and felt that “nigger genes” were like some sort of a deadly virus. Once they got in your blood line, your great White wonder race, able to build strong bodies 12 different ways, was shot to Hell and polluted into incompetent inferiority for all time. Of course they opposed miscegenation!

I am not saying that mass infusions of typical Black genes would be great for many White populations. It’s possible that Black-White mixes might have IQ’s ~92, if the genetic theory of IQ is correct. The mixing would be fantastic for Blacks but not so great for Whites, who would suffer an IQ decline in the mixed offspring. However, people have a right to breed with whomever they wish whatever the long-term societal consequences. Anyway, the Flynn Effect carries on nonetheless.

Black-White breeding need not be all that detrimental, even with an operative theory of genetic IQ.

Say mostly the highest IQ and the most accomplished Blacks sought out Whites to breed with. This does seem to be the case, and Black men who make the most money and are the most successful (many of whom are probably the brighter Blacks) do tend to seek out White woman as a sort of a marker for success. If most Black-White interbreeding was between highly successful Blacks and typical Whites, the results would be no great shakes for anyone.

However, mass interbreeding of ordinary Whites with ordinary Blacks (Is this going on anyway) would probably result in an IQ decline in the offspring compared to the White parent. On the other hand, there’s no evidence that this is happening, so honestly it’s nothing to worry about at the moment.

One thing the Egyptian example does show is that at least millenia ago, a population with 9% Black genes created some of the greatest feats known to mankind congruent with their era. Compared to competing societies of the time, they reached the pinnacles of success.

Part Black populations have been capable of astounding feats historically. Are they still capable of such things? No one knows. Perhaps what it takes to achieve greatness now is different than whatever it took thousands of years ago. Perhaps now a population with 9% Black genes could not rise to the heights because the requirements of scaling to the skies are different now as compared to then. But there’s no proof of that.

In the absence of other evidence and looking at the Egyptian example, it seems that having ~10% Black genes is surely not fatal for a Caucasoid group and may well be compatible with a highly functioning or even great society.

We Are Not Our Ancestors

“Well, Arabs are ~90% White”

You have to seperate the Non Hijazis from the HIjazis. The former are ‘Arabs’ from Palestine, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq. These appear to be ‘white.’ The Hijazis are the pure Arab stock of the Arabian Peninsula. They aren’t excatly white, but are a mix of caucazoid and Australoid. The Non Hijazis becamse Arabised over time following the Arab conquests.

Modern Egyptians I’m told, are basically a genetic mixed bag. They’re a combination of caucazoid, Negroid and Hijazi genetics. One of my Egyptian friend’s Mother was totally caucasian looking. She identified herself as an Arab and a Muslim, however she looked totally Italian. Straight nose, high cheekbones straight black hair, very striking features. My buddy on the other hand was extremly fair skinned, but had somewhat negroid features, a borad nose and curly hair.

“”We are talking about a race that no longer exists. “””

This makes no sense. I thought there were basically 3 different races and most people were a combination of the 3? (Ok 4 if you include the Australoids). Ethnicities are temporal however (The Romans, Sumerians and Aryans no longer exist even though their decendants still carry their genes).

Well, if you go back in time, you really are dealing with races that no longer exist. There is no longer a minor race on Earth that resembles the ancient Egyptians, nor the ancient Romans, nor the Europeans from 30,000 YBP, nor the Amerindians from 9-12,000 YBP. Ok? Get it? There are some modern races which are most similar to say the Amerindians 9000 YBP. Those races would be the Ainu and the Moriori, but they are not an exact match for either.

So what were the ancient Amerindians? We have to call them Amerindians, but racially they looked like a mixture of Australoid and Polynesian.

No one really knows what race the ancient Egyptians were. They do look like some Caucasoid-African mixture. One theory is that Egyptian Copts, of all ethnicities on Earth, most closely resemble the ancient Egyptians. The fact that we are not our ancestors is one reason why the argument about whether ancient Egyptians were Black or White is sort of insane. Maybe they weren’t exactly either?

The Europeans of 20-30,000 YBP most resembled the Amerindians of the NW coast like the Makah. So were the ancient Europeans Amerindians? Well, not really. They were ancient Europeans.

The Romans represent a race which is extinct (they were incredibly strong), but their descendants are the modern Italians of course.

Europeans of 10-13,000 YBP resembled genetically and physically most closely modern Arabs. So were these Europeans Arabs? Well, not really, they were archaic Europeans.

See what I mean?

As you can see, when we try to assign modern racial categories to ancient peoples, we run into some horrible roadblocks. We are almost better off throwing up our hands and saying ancient races are a social construct.

Bottom line: We are not our ancestors!

Muslims in France

Repost from the old site.

Clearly, the North African, mostly-Caucasian Muslims in France (primarily Algerians) have been a disaster. They are the ones that are rioting all the time and tearing up the country. Contrary to popular rumor, the N African Muslim population in France is ~10%, not 20%. The Black population is not known, but surely it is much smaller than the 10% North African population.

The North Africans are there primarily due to French colonialism and imperialism. Algeria was a former French colony, brutally ruled by France for 134 years, from 1830 to 1964.

The Algerians fought a horribly brutal war of independence, in which 25,000 French and 1 million Algerians were killed. Incredibly, the anti-Communist Right in the US still sings the praises of French colonialism in this war, and makes the revolutionaries out to be the bad guys.

It’s true that the Algerian revolutionaries did not fight a very nice or pretty war. Yet they paid for it with 40 times the casualties of the French. To the dead person, I don’t think it really matters how they got killed (an accusation against the revolutionaries is that they killed people in brutal ways such as beheadings).

It’s true that you can go on the Internet, usually to Zionist sites, and see some horrible photos of those killed by the Algerian revolutionaries. A specialty was chopping the head off, chopping the genitals off, and stuffing the guy’s dick in his severed head.

Anyway, colonialism is always wrong, period. The French were wrong, and they lost. After the war, Algerians started showing up in France in large numbers. White nationalists (who, by the way, never met a White imperialist or colonialist project they did not adore) claim that the Algerians are in France due to insane liberals bringing them there to diversify France and I guess to dilute the European Whites.

The French may be liberal, but they are not retarded like liberal Americans and liberal Scandinavians.

I would like to point out that none of this White nationalist bullshit is true.

First of all, the Algerian Muslim immigrants were not brought in as some loony liberal experiment in diversity, but instead as pro-French refugees fleeing soon before or after the FLN won the war. Think of the fall of Saigon.

The White nationalist line is that the French used to be hardcore and nasty and brutal (after all, the guillotine was still used until the 1970′s) and the French Foreign Legion was brutal as Hell in the Algerian Civil War, but now the French have gone soft and wimpy, and they are letting Muslim punks run all over them.

That hardcore France the White nationalists love so much was rejected by none other than the French people themselves after the criminal colonial wars of Algeria and Vietnam. There was a big scandal about all the murdering and torturing the French Foreign Legion was doing in Algeria.

The US anti-Communist Hard Right, to this very day, sees this humanist sentiment, and its attendant rejection of colonialism, and even, to some extent, at least in popular culture, embrace of national liberation movements (see Régis Debray and Fritz Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth ) as a sign of weakness (see my prior post on the Straussian impulse driving the neocons).

Note that Fanon’s seminal work appeared in 1961, the year of his death, in the midst of the Algerian revolution, and that Debray started pushing his foco theories right around this time ( Revolution in the Revolution appeared in 1967).

The rebels were even worse than the Foreign Legion, but the French did not want to see themselves as brutal, colonialist maniacs.

This was also a period when France was supporting other imperialist and colonial powers in the Suez War in 1956, where British and French colonialism, with their colonial Jewish puppet state, attacked Egypt and tried to grab the Suez Canal back from Nasser, who had rightly and properly seized the canal as Egypt’s property.

After that, the French turned their backs on colonialism (more or less – they still, to their discredit, hold colonies in the South Pacific), and to some extent on imperialism – but not totally – see the crucial French role in the armed coup that threw out President Aristide in Haiti – elected with the support of 92% of the population.

France as a colonial and imperial power was more or less finished by the late 1960′s, Situationists and other crazies were rioting in Paris in the summer of 1968, and the torch of imperialism passed to the US after the British lost stomach for it after Suez.

Suez pretty much led to a “peasant revolt” in the UK against British imperialism due to the blatant and sickening imperialism of the Suez War. British imperialism, of course, continues today, even, outrageously, in the Labor Party, really the last place anyone would hope to find it. See British support for the imperialist invasion and colonial occupation of Iraq for more.

To the dismay of White nationalists, who assume any criminals rioting in the streets must be a bunch of niggers*, the problem kids are North African Caucasians, not Blacks. These Arabs don’t act this way in North Africa. The whole mess is really because they are Muslims and refuse to assimilate. All other theories seem to fall flat on their faces.

White nationalists try to blame this mess on France being taken over by multiculturalist liberal idiots, but France has always been extremely assimilationist and anti-multiculturalist, so this isn’t a failure of multiculturalism at all. In fact, France has been brutal and cruel towards the Bretons, the Basques and the Corsicans, all of whom have every right to take up arms against the French state.

The Algerians are just a problem immigrant group that flat out refuses to assimilate.

One problem here is that the French have always assumed that all immigrants would just lose it all and become Frenchmen. There was never much racism in France and everyone was French anyway, so there was no need for affirmative action.

There is good evidence that the Muslims experience widespread discrimination in employment. The French refuse to remedy this with the only working remedy for discrimination – affirmative action and enforcement of anti-discrimination laws.

White nationalists argue that the discrimination is to be expected based on the behavior of so many of the Algerians, but that misses the point. If amelioration of discrimination against Algerians makes them happier, would they not riot less?

The Muslim areas are not particularly dangerous, unless maybe if you’re a cop. They give off instead the impression that Little Italys used to give off in this country, of a safe zone where the state does not rule and someone else does instead. In the Little Italys, it was the Mafia, and they did keep the crime rate down.

If one were not a resident, people knew that, and you were being watched, but everyone left you alone. The Islamists have, in a similar fashion, taken hold over Algerian zones. Therefore, the Islamist shadow state in the banlieus has a lot of responsibility for the insane rioting that goes on there just about every night.

There is not much to be done at this point except for France to quit importing Algerians. White nationalists like to scream that the French should deport all the Muslims. But I believe that most of these rioting idiots are citizens and hence un-deportable.

If I were running France, I am not sure what I would do.

The Muslims are yet only 10%, so it will be quite a while, if ever, before they have a majority.

*used sardonically.

Two New Caucasian Races Created

The Races of Man post is still being updated. Recently, I spit out the Hunza and Tajik from the West Asian race and created two new races based on them. The relevant paper is here.

The first grouping includes the Hunza of the Karokorams, the Bartangi of the Pamirs and the Roma or Gypsies of Europe. So we can see that the Roma have an origin in the Himalayas-Pamir region of far northern Pakistan and Tajikistan. The same paper points out a close relationship with the Jatt caste of India and Pakistan, which includes many Punjabis, and the Roma.

The second grouping is made of Tajiks, the Shugnan of the Pamirs, the Arabs of Bukhara, and three groups from India – the Kallar of Kerala, the Sourashtran of Tamil Nadu, and the Yadhava of various places.

This is all in the general Himalayan- Pamir – Karokoram – Kashmir region, an area of towering peaks and isolated valleys. A high degree of genetic differentiation is logical here.

From the paper:

The Sinte Romani, or Gypsies, group with the Hunza and Bartangi (from the Pamir region of Central Asia) populations in our tree. This finding is primarily due to the M124 haplotype, which is present at high frequency in all three populations. M124 is not found in Eastern Europe (17),

Cluster VI includes the Sinte Romani (Gypsies), Hunza (a northern Pakistani population speaking a divergent language, Burushaski), and Bartangi (Pamir region) populations. Cluster VII includes the Indian populations (Kallar, Sourashtran, and Yadhava), as well as those Central Asian populations closest to them geographically (Tajik/Dushanbe, Shugnan, Tajik/Samarkand, and Arab/Bukhara).

An international collaboration led by Manir Ali of the Leeds Institute of Molecular Medicine, first identified the ‘Jatt’ mutation in one of four Pakistani families. Further study amongst Roma populations in Europe showed that the same mutation accounted for nearly half of all cases of PCG [Primary congenital glaucoma] in that community. Manir Ali’s research also confirms the widely accepted view that the Roma originated from the Jatt clan of Northern India and Pakistan and not from Eastern Europe as previously believed.

The new lineup looks like this:

General Caucasian Major Race***

European-Iranian Race (Most European – Caucasus – Armenian – Jewish – Turk – Kurd – Iranian – Jordanian – Iraqi – Assyrian – Druze – Lebanese – Georgian – Caspian – Palestinian)

Basque Race (Basque)

Norwegian-Swedish Saami Race*** (Norwegian Saami – Swedish Saami)

Finnish Saami Race** (Finnish Saami)

Sardinian Race** (Sardinian)

Kuwaiti Race* (Kuwaiti)

Arabian Race (Saudi – Yemeni – Bedouin)*

West Asian Race (Pashtun – Brahui – Balochi – Makrani – Sindhi )

Tajik Race (Tajik – Bukhara Arab – Shugnan – Kallar -  Sourashtran – Yadhava)

West Himalayan Race (Hunza – Bartangi – Roma)

Berber Race*** (Berber)

Egyptian Race (Egyptian)

North African Race (Moroccan – Libyan – Tunisian – Canarian)

Algerian Race (Algerian)

North Indian Race** (Punjabi – Central Indic – Punjabi Brahmin – Rajput – Vania Soni – Mumbai Brahmin – Jat – Kerala Brahmin – Koli)

Himalayan Race*** (Gurkha – Tharu – Ladakhi)

Karnet-Uttar Pradesh Brahmin Race*** (Karnet – Uttar Pradesh Brahmin)

South Indian Race** (Munda – Bhil – Maratha – Rajbanshi – Oraon – Parji – Kolami Naiki – Chenchu Reddi – Konda – Kolya – West Bengal Brahmin – Parsi – Gond)

Kerala Kadar Race*** (Kerala Kadar)

South Dravidian Race*** (Sinhalese – Lambada – Irula – Izhava – Kurumba – Nayar – Toda – Kota – Malayaraya – Tamil)

The Difference Between Phenotypical Race and Genetic Race

A commenter asks me some questions about my races of man post.

I believe that a bit more changes are necessary to be made to the race classifications you have here Robert. I believe that the Garos, Nicobarese, Negritos (Orang Asli, Semang, Aeta, Senoi, etc.), Melanesians, Micronesians, and possibly Ainus should be classed as Australoid.

Now, hear me out if you will: They have mixed to varying degrees with Mongoloids, but still maintain Australoid appearances, so it is nonsensical (I believe) to class them as Mongoloid simply due to some Mongoloid admixture.

I also believe that a separate “mixed-race” macro category (or “non-classifiable”) category should be made for those in your categories who are of mixed-race. Caucasoid-Mongoloid: Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, Uzbeks, Turkmen, Uighurs, Tatars, and Hazara. Caucasoid-Negroid: Djiboutians, Eritreans, Mauritanians, Bejas, Somalis, Ethiopians, and certain mixed-race Berbers (all Berbers shouldn’t be classed as belonging to one macro race).

And those certain Pacific Islanders, be they Melanesians or Micronesian, who are obviously a Australoid-Mongoloid mixture.

The Nepalese are a mixture of Indo-Aryans from India as well as Mongoloid groups from the Himalayas (so they are a Caucasoid-Mongoloid mixture).

The Ainus have mixed with the Mongoloid Japanese due to promoted miscegenation by the Japanese government, so many Ainus now have Mongoloid genes, but I still think that they are distinct enough from Mongoloids to be possibly classed as Australoid (which you yourself have called them).

I thank the poster for his input.

The problem here is that the poster is confusing phenotypical race with genetic race. The races of man post dealt only with genetic race, using Cavalli-Sforza as a template and then expanding from there. The problem is that genetic race often does not line up with phenotypical race. For instance, some types are Australoid by phenotype, but not by genes. Only the Andaman Islanders, Papuans and Aborigines seem to fall into an Australoid race by genes.

The Garos are similar to other groups in the far east of India such as the Naga. The Nicobarese are very strange, but the general idea is that they are just archaic SE Asian types, migrated down from Yunnan Province in China maybe 5000 YBP with some of the original Austroasiatic speakers.

I have no genetic data on the Orang Asli or the Senoi. The Senoi at least are certainly Australoid by phenotype. Once again, these are ancient Proto-Malay early Austroasiatic types migrated down from Yunnan 5000 YBP or so. The Orang Asli are some of the original people of the planet outside of Africa, but are they phenotypically Australoid?

The Aeta are phenotypically Australoid, yes, but genetically, they are closer to Filipinos than to anyone else.

Melanesians and Micronesians genetically fit into a nice little category within the Oceanians of the SE Asian race even though they have some Australoid mix – the Melanesians much more than the Micronesians.

A mixed race macro-race of some sort did not make sense to me in terms of a rational classification, though I did think about it. Some groups are just too recent to be classified at all, such as Hispanic mestizos and mulattos.

For groups like the Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, Uzbeks, Turkmen, Uighurs, Tatars, and Hazara, I had to look up percentages of Asian and Caucasian. If they were a bit more Caucasian, they went into Caucasian. If they were more Asian, they went into Asian. Groups for which I had no data were not listed. It was scatter-shot, but I could not think of anything else to do.

For the Djiboutians, Eritreans, Mauritanians, Bejas, Somalis, Ethiopians, and certain mixed-race Berbers, I did try to fit most of these into some race or another. However, I will agree with you here that I may need a new category. I have long contemplated a sort of Horner Major Race, splitting the Horners off from the rest of the Africans. The Horners are just too different from the rest of the Africans. They are about 1/2 way between Africans and Caucasians.

I realize that the Berbers are a mess, but there was not much I could do with them, and I don’t want to make a major race out of them. Sometimes you just have to improvise.

The Nepalese fit well into Caucasian on most charts. Granted, they are some of the most diverse Caucasians out there, but so are the Indians for that matter.

Although the Ainu are phenotypically Australoid, genetically they are quite close to the Japanese and the Koreans, so it makes sense to call them NE Asians genetically.