>>15351977The thing with eye theories is that they are very easy to disprove. Like
>>15351979 is disproved by the cashier down the street being an A10. The interesting thing is: where do all these theories come from?
First, all the nuttery about atlantis and such is mainly spread by boomers. Indo-europeans tended to have blonde hair and blue eyes - but not always. Still, it was very, very prominent, enough for their conquest of europe to make the image of the ruler as a blonde haired, blue eyed man topical. In the Iliad, for instance, many noblemen as well as Achilles himself are described as having these traits. But this also made it an archetype that polluted later historical efforts, as well as many other factors. An example is Alexander the great, where we really don't know how he looked like for sure, as later roman sources give him more eastern traits, while the closer in time historian Polybius himself admits that even then there were conflicting accounts, but generally make him out to be of average greek build. This is a lesser example, but there are many more, like the poor Etruscans that have been basically retconned by phony historians so many times it's not even funny anymore. Point being, history is complex, images and factors combine and often come to us tangled. This image was compounded by conquerors after the fall of the Roman Empire and even the Third Reich for instance. But in the end, it ends up being just some more divide and conquer over meaningless info.
Is this useful to raise White identity? No. Is this theory true? No, just think logically: whole areas of the planet are populated by people with blue eyes, are they all kings and inventors? I think Sweden destroyed the myth that northern nations are perfect. If we want to come out of this century alive, we need a unified white identity. These theories are popular because they appeal to the aforementioned mess of imagery and eugenetic conceptions. All this to say pls stop posting this
