‘Colourism’ and the dominant genes fallacy


In order to rope Afrikan peoples in with the mulatto offspring biology had to be overrun with propaganda as physically black and mixed people do not resemble each other. The racism of mixed people, the self-hatred of black people had to be collapsed into the same league when in reality they are different issues with different outcomes and resolutions.

Simple biology and chemistry points out that the SAME item can be made of different chemical and genetic bases just by it’s outward appearance. Bananas for example go through three main stages of colouration when cut of the tree, the peel is green, then yellow then black, when you peel them at any of the three stages the inside is of a different composition. Also noted is that the different sizes and colours of these bananas indicate that not only is the surface different but so is the contents, many wild bananas been short and heavily seeded, some bananas are red some are purple. If this can occur within the banana family why can’t humans have variation which is noted by physical appearance alone?

Just a basic biological, anthropological check should easily dismiss the nonsense of dominant genes, mixed people having only Afrikan features.




One can easily define the AVERAGE features of all three groups, this simple picture role shows that the races have different features, within these groups there is variety too, but between them a clear correlation of features can be distinguished. Mixed people are a mixture of the groups with new features appearing to some degree as the genetic make up of such individuals to produce the phenotype is rarely possessed by member of the other group.

The dominance of black phenotypical traits comes into question as the mixed people look physically different. A quick run down of their traits immediately show they are different: light coloured eyes, beige skin, loose curly hair, sharper jawlines, thin lips none of these are Afrikan traits and in fact suggest the opposite which is what biologists have noted.

‘This surprised me. The reason is that the emergence of light skin seems to be a case of a loss function mutation. Europeans and East Asians have been subject to sweeps which selected for lighter skin within the last 20,000 years, and these sweeps tend to be independent. This is what you would expect from simple loss of functions which constantly occur in the genetic background of the population, but are normally purified because they are deleterious. In contrast, the genetic architecture for very dark-skinned peoples is very similar; the skin color related genes of Bougainville Islanders show identity by state with those of Africans, though these populations are not closely related (Bougainville Islanders are more closely related to East Asians than the typical African since the former are both descended from a Northeast African ancestral population). ‘

This should be obvious to the public if it wasn’t for the fact white people have lied and muddled information to disguise and trick people. Most Indo-European migrations were documented by Romans, Persians, Egyptians and Dravidians as these peoples major migrations were less than 3000 years ago, only in Europe and the Middle East did large waves of pale peoples come in before. White people and other pale peoples have the same root and their genes became refined via natural selection despite their recessive nature, as they were frequently reintroduced via nomadic movements. They mixed with the aboriginal and conquered peoples of most lands they invade this gives them some diversity and an be seen in Australia and Brazil which were conquered about a millennium later. They are still less diverse then Afrikans genetically notwithstanding the fact within Afrika is a much smaller land mass than the rest of the planet.





This bar can be noted easily by looking.


This destroys the myth of the the father’s race been the child’s too, who is the baby’s skin colour closer to? Does this explain why mulattoes have consistently chosen white partners over black as a group and why whites find mulattoes to be more attractive?

Two other obvious signs of the mulatto/IMA features been dominant is the fact that they are genetic mutations that occur regularly from mixing, both distant and direct.

Take a look at the Wikipedia page about mixed twins, it immediately points out BIOLOGICAL reasons for the babies differing skin colours, further proving race is not skin deep but something more than that.

‘From a BIOLOGICAL point of view, the differences in these fraternal or dizygotic twins from two biracial parents are not surprising. In humans, a relatively small number of genes are thought to be responsible for human skin color. Different alleles or gene variants code* for differences in the melanin found within the skin. Within some groups are high frequencies of dark skin alleles, while others have high frequencies of light skin alleles, for example. The parents of such twins, who are typically both of mixed race, have a combination of alleles for light and dark skin in their genome.’

*This further proves nonsense to the idea phenotype is skin deep, the alleles for colours of skin, hair and the iris are correlated by different alleles which ARE genes, but different versions of genes. When people have recent or heavy admixture in their past a variety of alleles will passed on, whereas the groups that were mixed with would have relativity different alleles.

‘Your cells have two sets of chromosomes, called homologous pairs. These chromosomes have the same genes, but might have different versions of those genes. The different possible versions of the genes are called alleles. For example, one homologous chromosome may have the allele for blue eyes, while the other has the allele for brown eyes.’



Mixed twins visually show how what I have said is correct, the Afrikan phenotype IS NOT dominant at all. Only one image can I find of mixed twins with the dark skin mulatto phenotype present. The white phenotype is also able to occur from mixing black and white directly, how else did many mulattoes pass for white in the American south during Jim Crow?





Then is the case of throwback genes (atavism) from Afrikans in other groups. This is a phenomena that was documented by the Spanish casta system, no other admixture is recorded to do this. But never does the person appear Afrikan but mulatto instead.


White people still worried about this throwback genes.


Then there is the strange case of Afrikans giving birth to a white child, with no known white ancestry, the parents from Nigeria were also told the child does not suffer from defective albinism. IMA’s want to claim atavism for this one, but it can’t be as it is not a throwback of anything. This image, could it be how the IMA first arrived on earth?



In all of this where are the black babies, no where, so how exactly are our genes dominant when our phenotype seems to be erased via direct mixture and atavism?

Easy way to tell a black baby is hair, showing you hair texture is just as relevant as skin colour. Before they grow the baby might have lighter skin as a newborn than what will eventually be their skin colour in later life. The hair is loose curls but much thicker than other races babies, this hair has to develop. Normally within a year it thins out and thick afro-textured hair grows in it’s place.



The dominance ideology allows for self-loathers to feel guiltless, which is what they seek. They want to debase Afrikans to save face that their own progeny not been the same race, why can’t they be like Taye Diggs, it’s a sad front. The colourism craziness is implicated in this lie as it becomes an excuse for blatant self-hate despite the fact it is supposed to be negative.

The media treatment of mixed woman is not colourism either, as I pointed out in the previous article, white men have pointed out that they prefer mixed females. I have witnessed this from non-black men regularly and have heard it personally from non-black men that they don’t like black girls but mixed girls are attractive to them. This is basic prejudice against black woman and in terms of the media representation is an obvious major sign of discriminatory racism from the white media establishment.

In America, to further prove my point, those that like and prefer mixed woman make NO DISTINCTION between mixed woman and ‘light skin’ multi-generational mulattoes. The media included.  This is due to the obvious anthropological, biological reality that 95% of people calling themselves light skin have no bred out the white genes but have continued to harbour them as mulattoes.

‘He’s asking if you can tell the difference between some admixed NW blacks (with two identifiably black parents) and mulattos (with one white parent and one black parent).

Truth is you cannot.’

‘light skin does make a black person suspicious of being mixed, but Caucasoid looking facial features are a far greater indication of white/european/Caucasoid mixing than lighter skin can ever be

take this girl, she has clear Caucasoid influences in her face and no one would ever think she was predominately black, even if she doesn’t have light skin.’

‘Light skinned blacks and mulattoes cannot be told apart most of the time and there are lighter skinned SSAs, European slave traders even made note of that, I hate when people when laymen make claims about Aframs and Africans when they don’t even study Africa and their claims are based on rubbish from early 20th century anthropology books.’


These quotes from an anthropology forum make it clear mulattoes and ‘light skin’ people are effectively one in the same biologically, which explains their appearance.


Feb 17 2012, 08:19 PM
What I always admired in the African American community was that even if you were very white looking you were accepted as black. That’s some kind of unity that other black comunities are lacking in my opinion, for example in Brazil, Colombia etc.

well this was more or less as reaction to the one drop rule racism of whites!!’

This comment stood out to me in particular, this shows you that whites are not unaware of the unreal basis of the one drop rule and they know it is key to weakening blacks by claiming racism from mulattoes in infighting aka colourism it can never be resolved as racism won’t. It is reactionary and degrade blacks down to white peoples opinion a group who we should never live for.

It is also understood by the multi-generational mulattoes themselves who parrot the folly of their white masters about slave rape, in spite of common sense showing if ONE ancestor was white from 1800 how likely would you be likely to have a thin lips and curly hair? The US census never removed the distinction between black and mulatto until 1930. The ‘we all black’ talk was never present in slavery, mulattoes is was and always will be non-black in phentoype, genotype and treatment. It is not even hard to figure out with vision but for further confirmation any family tree can be traced at least 100 years and on census’ you will mulatto instead of black for these light skin people.

‘In my research, I found Great Grandpa as an infant in the 1870 census. His race was listed as “Mu” which was the abbreviation for “mulatto”. The term mulatto was officially used as a racial designation on the United States census from 1850 to 1930. By definition, at least in this country, a mulatto is a person who has a White and a Black parent. There are good discussions of mulatto at Blended People of America and Afrigeneas – helpful if you want to better understand the historic nuances of race that have an impact on African American genealogy.

As I reviewed the census records, though, they showed both Great Grandpa and his father, Luke Bachelor (sic) listed as mulatto. But Great Grandpa’s mother was listed in the same 1870 census as Black. Later in the 1900 census and beyond, Great Grandpa’s race was listed as Black. Hmmm…’

One  must realise mulattoes are hip to the game, they know how to confuse negroes. Not one person in this person’s family is black, not at all. The person proceeds to not placing the race of other ancestors but points out that their great-grandfather was listed as mulatto and later black, but tried to question whether they are mixed when the image proves more than enough.

‘Could Luke actually have been mulatto? Yes – if he had a White father, although I have no documentation of that yet in my research. But could Great Grandpa be officially designated as mulatto if he had a mulatto father and Black mother. No – and that’s where the disconnect comes into play’ Having a white grandparent doesn’t make you not mixed, the US census said nothing of the sort for this woman to claim this.


The Mulatto Factor in Black Family Genealogy

The dominant genes utterance is mere folklore not rooted in reality, it must be erased too as it excuses the ‘colourism’ claims of others and weakens Afrikans ability to reclaim the narrative. This idea of colourism has also spread to other nations and is infecting Afrikans globally it must be nipped in the bud before it amasses strength in the motherland.

There are dark skin mulattoes but once again these people defy the definition of an Afrikan person, dark to brown skin with afro-textured hair, occasional lighter skin individuals who are Afrikan are the exception and not the rule, they maintain the feature other than skin colour. They are from defects not from genetically preserved genes that will pass on with regularity by most of the population  and are not representative of anything.


Dark skin mulatto

Certain people in Afrika are disgusted and are fighting back letting their opinion be known, we can’t continue outside of Afrika to allow this trend to go on, mulattoes with multigenrational or directly mixed must be treated like other non-Afrikans .

‘There is an undeniable scarcity of black female actors in film and television. Of the female actors that we see, it’s even rarer to see one of a darker skin tone. When British dual-heritage actor Thandie Newton was cast as Olanna, the voluptuous, brown-skinned and beautiful Igbo heroine of the film adaptation of Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s novel Half of a Yellow Sun, there was a furore. The 2006 book, which won the Orange prize for fiction, tells the story of the Biafran war. Many saw the casting of Newton as a step in the right direction for Hollywood, which has been notoriously slow to greenlight films featuring black actors in leading roles, but not everyone was happy. An online petition sprang up, demanding the film be recast.

The petitioners wrote: “Thandie Newton is an accomplished and talented actress. However, she is not Igbo, she is not Nigerian, and she does not physically resemble Igbo women in the slightest. This petition is important because we live in a world where mass media sells us the belief that white, and anything close to white, is right, and black is not only wrong, it is unattractive, and undesirable. The casting of Thandie Newton as an Igbo woman is not only false, it helps promote the idea that light skin and curly hair is the only way a black woman can be represented in the media, because that is the only way they are attractive. This casting choice is an abomination to Igboland.” ‘

It’s not as if Igbos don’t know what actual light skin Afrikans look like versus mulattoes, in Jamaica there is fond memory of the old Afrikan tradition of dark skin been favoured, none of this foolishness of infective Europeanised negroes in Afrika who love pale skin. The term that used to be commonly used for brown skin and light skin blacks in Jamaica was Red Igbo, during slavery the Igbo who have a high rate of lighter skin were targeted by other ethnicities for their abnormal high rates of lighter skin, which was not viewed in positive light.



Light skin Igbo


Mulatto half-Igbo

As you can see the actual light skin Afrikan is a genetic mutation, hence he retains the features and hair texture, afro-textured hair which clearly exposes the fact his is of West Afrikan stock. The mulatto has loose facial hair which was groomed to appear similar to afro-textured hair but the facial features and hair are dead giveaways that that he is not Afrikan person.




  1. Kushite Prince · April 19, 2016

    “‘This surprised me. The reason is that the emergence of light skin seems to be a case of a loss function mutation. Europeans and East Asians have been subject to sweeps which selected for lighter skin within the last 20,000 years, and these sweeps tend to be independent. This is what you would expect from simple loss of functions which constantly occur in the genetic background of the population, but are normally purified because they are deleterious. In contrast, the genetic architecture for very dark-skinned peoples is very similar; the skin color related genes of Bougainville Islanders show identity by state with those of Africans, though these populations are not closely related (Bougainville Islanders are more closely related to East Asians than the typical African since the former are both descended from a Northeast African ancestral population)”
    Very informative post! I had to share this on Twitter. Thank you for this.

    Liked by 1 person

    • afrikaneedstoownitsresources · April 21, 2016

      This is well known to archaeologist, geneticists, biologists and bio-anthropologists. Remember the IMA has an isolated origin from dark skin peoples, not just Afrikans. IMA’s are speculated to have arose from and their earliest bones were found in Central Asia, they don’t even know where they originate. The reason for modern clines is admixture from constant migrations by pale skin people, as clines are gradual changes in phenotype from one area to another. The thing is there wasn’t always a cline from dark to light as light skin developed completely separately NOT gradually which is what clines do, so modern clines are the result of successive waves of one group encroaching and invading another’s area.

      Remember there was successive waves from Central Asia to Europe, South Asia, East Asia and Southeast Asia originally and dark skin people still exist in South and Southeast Asia who originated their phenotype there.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Kushite Prince · April 21, 2016

        Very good point about modern clines and successive waves. Very well put. Thanks for this breakdown.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. TheThinkingAfrican86 · May 2, 2016

    I’m not buying the “white baby” born to Nigerian story. I suspect the baby looks different now that it has had time to grow. Most likely, the child looks phenotypically Afrikan except without the melanin due to some deficiency or mutation.

    Liked by 1 person

    • That should be obvious hence the point of this post, I put out phenotypic observations of newborn Afrikans and an Afrikan with a genetic mutation (which caused paler skin). I mentioned the hair of a newborn Afrikan is curly and thick, it becomes kinky after 6 month – 18 months, you really think that pale baby had the same hair after 1 year? No, the British media refused to make a follow-up story about the child for this reason.

      It has happened before, not uncommon with Igbos.

      Melanin deficient child, not albino.

      Melanin deficient newborn, melanin in hair, actor Mike Ezuruonye.

      Mike Ezuruonye and wife.

      The thing is in Afrikan traditional spirituality melanin deficiency (light skin) is a sign of been out of harmony with nature and of degeneration (the latter of which science has confirmed).

      Liked by 2 people

  3. atumnova · July 7, 2016

    I found myself wanting to know more about you as an individual while looking through this blog. I know that may sound odd but I am interested in knowing why some of us black people are able to ‘come to the light’ or ‘see the truth’ and others are not. One of my theories is that it is a choice once we have the ability to reason. Anyway, my question for you is if “melanin deficiency (light skin) is a sign of been out of harmony with nature and of degeneration” then how do you explain non-blacks? Maybe I missed this. I just want to push back on your blog a little because often times people will talk about African Spirituality without talking about the dark side of it. If you have any books out side the bible that talk about this I would appreciate your suggestions.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Pale skin alleles have been scientifically proven to be recent in the history of humans. Just like cancer cells a recent change is a sign of something sinister going on. Just like cancer cells these people used to look normal, dark skin, until recently a few thousand years ago. Cancer cells are cells that behave out of order with nature, they are not doing their job in the body hence become cancerous, their aim is consumer and destroy the whole body and in turn kill themselves as they live of the host body. This is how they were formed people who are anti-nature, they prove it in their own image of themselves they cuss blacks for been ‘monkeys’, ‘animals’, ‘primitive’ but they view themselves and their world as artificial.

      They are anti-nature wherever they turn up mass extinctions of wild life occur, look at Europe’s loss of animals, there used to be lions and bears in North Afrika even under the Roman Empire but whites become dominant much animal life dies out, all the oil spillages, all the cancer pushed into the air. These people are cancerous cells to humanity and how do you deal with cancer, extermination because it is deadly. They have brainwashed blacks to believe we were friendly with whites during the Afrikan spirituality era, when Kamit and Khanit were CONSERVATIVE societies, when Europeans couldn’t even get past the coastline until the late 1700’s and they had been there since the 1400’s. Afrikans who were corrupted by Abrahamic religions were friendly with whites, white Europeans, white ‘Arabs’, white East Asians ect. even though these groups have always viewed Afrikans negatively. When Afrikans fought whites during slavery, we were not raping and pillaging, we were destroying whites, massacring them, that is how you remove cancerous cells, not breeding with them so they infect you ancestral circle and you consciousness, not trying to have a comfortable life in this society once you find a good position build until you can make your own nation, not trying to look for legal equality which can never change social inequality.

      Liked by 1 person

    • One of the key things to seeing ‘the light’ as you said is your parents. Even if they are not necessarily conscious or into black empowerment, the mentality is key. If your parents instil in you a mentality of you been separate and different from non-Afrikans not just negatively then you are far more likely to think independently from non-Afrikans. From there you do your own research stratify and find reality. If your family downplays blackness and only wants to mention it in a negative connotations (weakness, poverty, beauty standards ect.) it will be hard to develop a good Afrikan psyche. As the saying goes your home is the first school.

      Many blacks are so self-defeatist though, they make dumb points about how society attacks us as the reason for why most blacks don’t see the light. From what I see other groups attacks by Gentile Europeans such as Somalis, Jewish Europeans, Eastern Europeans, Pakistanis, these groups have their own self-confidence because of what their parents taught them, TV doesn’t define their life. Unlike negroes who seek approval from whatever white dominant group in their country.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s