What do you think a future led by blacks and Mexicans would look like? Do you thinks would get better or worse? Because according to the UN (look up replacement migration), the plan is to replace whites with Africans, mexicans and muslims
I mean you would be okay with that right? Obviously Mexicans blacks and muslims have proven to be just as capable hardworking and fair as whites right? Surely you think they can steer society just as well as whites?
Other urls found in this thread:
kevinmacdonald.net
archive.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
youtu.be
youtu.be
youtu.be
tightroperecords.com
humanphenotypes.net
blackwell-synergy.com
genetics.plosjournals.org
en.wikipedia.org
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
blogs.discovermagazine.com
heartiste.wordpress.com
breitbart.com
twitter.com
>you would be okay with that right?
Absolutely. White genocide is not a bad thing
>What do you think a future led by blacks and Mexicans would look like?
3rd world country
>Do you thinks would get better or worse?
worse, especially for white people
>Because according to the UN (look up replacement migration), the plan is to replace whites with Africans, mexicans and muslims
it's a jewish plot
proven here: kevinmacdonald.net
>This paper discusses Jewish involvement in shaping United States immigration policy. In addition to a periodic interest in fostering the immigration of co-religionists as a result of anti-Semitic movements, Jews have an interest in opposing the establishment of ethnically and culturally homogeneous societies in which they reside as minorities. Jews have been at the forefront in supporting movements aimed at altering the ethnic status quo in the United States in favor of immigration of non-European peoples. These activities have involved leadership in Congress, organizing and funding anti-restrictionist groups composed of Jews and gentiles, and originating intellectual movements opposed to evolutionary and biological perspectives in the social sciences.
mad max land
I say this as a citizen of one of the more civiled latin american countries
>What do you think a future led by blacks and Mexicans would look like?
terminal pollution everywhere
>the plan is to replace whites
>source: Trust me bro
You don't have to wonder, there are countries where nonwhites are the leaders. They're shitholes.
the perfect obedient, non questioning consumer race a ruler class can desire
>he doesn't know the kalergi plan
>he thinks it's a "conspiracy theory" simply because it sounds absurd, although it's proven to be real
yeah....
This country went from 90 percent white to about 50 in roughly 50 years. Whites have less kids, low IQ low impulse control browns breed like rats, and the end goal of the liberal plan is to have free and open boarders with Mexico and unlimited refugee status for muslims and Africans. Most whites are boomers left over from the 50s, there are less younger whites than the other races. once the boomers die off it woildnt surprise me to see America become a 30% white country and it only gets worse from there.
You clearly have no reading comprehension if you think the Kalergi plan is white replacement
Or you heard it on Jow Forums and didn't question what you were told at all
In his own words:
>(European) man of the future will be mixed races. Today's races and classes will disappear due to the disappearance of space (nations) and time.
Jews are the master race so why not
Nigga that's not replacement. That's demographic change due to intermixing and changing definitions
Remember how Irish used to not be considered white? its like that
>capable hardworking and fair
>literally the only race to get so into colonialism
Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi was the man to whom the idea of the European Union is attributed to, and he continues to be honored as such by the modern EU.
He was half Hungarian and half Japanese.
He wrote a book called "Practical Idealism" in which he literally said that Europe should be flooded with Africans who would breed with the native population of the continent to create a "Eurasian Negroid race similar to the ancient Egyptians" that would be ruled over by - wait for it - the Jews.
full English translation here: archive.org
This is not a conspiracy theory, as much as it sounds like that. It is a documented fact.
Every year an award in his honor is given out by the European Union, and Angela Merkel has been given this award: en.wikipedia.org
So for anyone who was confused about why it is that this woman decided to flood the continent with millions of nonwhites, you no longer have to be confused.
They are openly attempting to breed white people out of existence.
Again: this all sounds like a conspiracy, but it is absolutely factual, and here I have given more than enough documentation to support that this is exactly what is going on.
It is exactly why they are pushing to flood Europe with all of these brown people.
It is the agenda behind the "migrant crisis," it is the agenda behind this new UN migration pact.
No one can deny that this is what is happening, so instead they just don't talk about it, and show you pictures of dead babies on beaches.
>most whites are boomers left over
>they're literally called boomers because they gave birth to so many kids so by definition they can't constitute "most whites" unless the overwhelming majority of their kids died
jesus christ why are white people such iqlets
>Irish used to not be considered white
that's a hoax though. they were always legally considered white, even if they were seen as subhuman and inferior to anglos
>Nigga that's not replacement. That's demographic change due to intermixing and changing definitions
it is literally "replacement" because they are importing millions of foreigners to share the living spaces, while simultaneously telling [white] people they need to have less children
Didn't read due to reddit spacing
no, it's the opposite. they are the babies that were boomed
>
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
The middle of the twentieth century was marked by significant and persistent increase in fertility rates in many countries of the world, especially in the West, resulting in the famous baby boomer generation.
Boomers are the children not the ones who gave birth to them you stupid faggot. They're the product of the massive birth of returning ww2 vets and are a majority of the white population most are in their 50s to 70s holy shit shitskins are stupid
that's ok, you can always just believe whatever you want, and ignore any opposing facts that refute your narrative
that's perfectly reasonable behavior, i guess
So when america becomes fully 3rd world where will everyone take refuge to then? Japan has a declining population and they need to open up their borders eventually.
USA is enormous
there will be parts of the USA that remain very clean, safe, and high quality living spaces.
the property value will be enormous though.
it'll basically be slums/favelas but with very nice parts too
even haiti has some nice places to live. 99% of the population just lives in the shitty parts
The end of mankind as we know it.
No more space exploration.
No more medical or technological innovations.
It would also be the death of justice considering black and hispanic run nations are all comically corrupt.
Pretty much this. Pretty much any non-white country is a giant dumpster fire. I'm not saying that a few white countries aren't dumpster fires either, just slightly smaller and less on fire than their brown counterparts. But more importantly, why is this polshit on Jow Forums?
Notice how r9ks leftist are hiding. They usually damage control ethno nationalism but when you confront them the facts of what their ideology will create they wont acknowledge it. Its the low IQ, it makes them see short term gibs instead of beimg able to plan for the future
i can tell you. it wont be good.
youtu.be
youtu.be
youtu.be
blacks are over represented in
sex or porn, movies. acting.
music and sports
none of these things have anything to do with making a good quality of life or a good country.
>posting this shit everyday
On here of all boards
Lol, what happened to Guangzhou?
I imagine myself in Europe, leading my platoon with my BLACK AFRICAN brethren. Our aim is to shoot wh*Te dogs, we shoot wh*Te dogs but they keep coming.
As the leader of my platoon, I instruct my BLACK brother - Jamal to check the trenches for any remnants of wh*Te subhumans and then there was an explosion and my vision turned wh*Te. I was shocked. But then I in the disgusting wh*Teness I saw something BLACK - and she materialized in front of me right after that -- the BLACK Goddess KALI.
"Maa!", I said falling into her BLACK arms as she caressed my BLACK hair.
"My BLACK son, you are a man now."
"You must choose what to do, either you become a BLACK BULL and cleanse the Earth of wh*Te dogs, or come with me to Svarga (BLACK Heaven), where you can meet your BLACK ancestors who were kings."
It was difficult choice, I could wait to go to Svarga where I would meet my BLACK brethren and be welcomed, but then the Earth would be left for the wh*Te dogs. I could not let this happen. Moving on from my emotions, I wiped my tears, and told her, "Mother, it is my duty as a BLACK man to save the Earth from wh*Te subhumans. I shall stay here and slay them in battle wherever I shall find them."
She looked at me with the most motherly look only a BLACK woman can give, after a long pause she said:
"You are a warrior my son. A fighter for our race. I shall bless you with the most supreme of all powers."
She waved her Trishul (trident) and my vision turned BLACK. I felt the new power in my hands. BLACK Power.
My right arm had the symbol of a bull, and there was a tattoo reading "KALABAILA" (BLACK BULL). I had become the wh*Teoid's greatest fear, the infamous BLACK BULL.
I found myself once again left on the battlefield, my brother Jamal had died, shot by the wh*Te subhumans. I decided to unsheathe my BLACK sword and unleash hell upon the army of the wh*Teoids.
This is BLACK POWER. The future belongs to the BLACK race.
Brown communists are the new fact of the Democratic Party. They are becoming increasingly powerful in politics and are given jobs in STEM as diversity hires. The problem is getting worse and worse.
t. incel Ioser
t. defender of jews and niggers
black people are fucking retarded they only band together and call each other brother because they see white people as an enemy. if there was no white people blacks would just be retarded niggers.
Once whites are out of the picture it womt take long for the entire house of cards to fall over. Liberals are made up of groups united by their hatred of straight white males. Feminists, muslims, blacks, Mexicans, trannies, gays none of them really have a reason to be on each others sides and they are all fighting over which group is the most victimized and special, you already see it with TERFs v trannies and muslims v LGBT. Once whites are out of the way theyll start pointing the finger at each other
Anything is preferable to a future run by Chinese people.
The chinks are building up and biding their time. Whoever wins after whites are annihilated will than be annihilated by the chinks
>The chinks are building up and biding their time. Whoever wins after whites are annihilated will than be annihilated by the chinks
If we have to go, better that the Chinks inherit the Earth than the niggers.
Humanity might still reach the stars with the Chinks in charge. With niggers in charge for TEN FUCKING MINUTES, we will lose high-energy civilization - and once it goes, there will never be another one. Ever.
this, dont fall for the flea faggots plus the us has like 25 years left anyway
Ironic, considering that black people have made more contributions to civilization than chinks.
Just try and come up with one Chinazoid who's on Beethoven or Miles Davis' level.
Quick would you rather live in Hong Kong or Johannesburg
>just as capable and hardworking
are you fucking for real?
i know amerimutts are ignorant retards but holyshit that's such a blunt lie
fuck off schlomo
I dunno I definitely think blacks have made more contributions to society than chinks in the years of our lord but china did a lot prior to the birth of christ
>chinks or yarpies
I'd rather kill myself.
Name 5 things besides music
tightroperecords.com
niggers only invented the super soaker
peanut butter is a recipe, also aztecs invented it
What's white? Another name for Germans? French? Irish? Italian? Slavic? Jews? What makes something a "white race"?
Aren't you destroying diversity by trying to act as if Europe is a monolithic "white race" and "white culture"?
"White" people don't even consider Americans white. Yet we're supposed to be the so called "white race" is the only thing holding the world together, even though Jews and Mutts are the ones who openly control the world.
white = gentile caucasoid of european descent
it can be determined with basically 100% accuracy
tell me more about "there is no such thing as human species, because humans are not monolithic"
just like race/subspecies, species designations are also totally arbitrary, darwin explained this well
>Jews and Mutts are the ones who openly control the world.
lolwut?
source please
>"White" people don't even consider Americans white
that's a meme. there are white people in america, and non-white people. it's a mixture
>white = gentile caucasoid of european descent
>gentile
If you are implying Jews are caucasoid, then why are you making such an arbitrary distinction? I thought race was objectively real.
>caucasoid
That's a taxon. Taxons are arbitrary classifications that are used by scientists to identify organisms. They are imperfect and often just outright wrong (Dolphins and Whales used to be considered fish instead of mammals).
>of european descent
What does descent mean in this case? Their genetic lineage goes back to Europe? In that case 56% mutts would be "white", even some blacks. So you must mean they were born in Europe, or their recent ancestors were European. Either way you're making an arbitrary distinction on something that is apparently objective.
>it can be determined with basically 100% accuracy
It can't, that's just ignorance of taxonomy and biology, both of which are very inexact fields of study in science.
> tell me more about "there is no such thing as human species, because humans are not monolithic"
>just like race/subspecies, species designations are also totally arbitrary, darwin explained this well
Why are you trying to create a "white race" then? To make it easier for the Jews and Mutts (such as myself) to make you into an easy enemy for the public to hate? It's working fantastically so far.
>lolwut?
>source please
Israel and the United States of America.
>that's a meme. there are white people in america, and non-white people. it's a mixture
If it's a meme then why worry about genetics at all? Clearly cultural heritage would be more important to maintaining a future for white children. But no, genetic traits such as the color of your skin, eyes and hair, as the OP posted, are clearly important to your kind.
Stop pretending your community isn't full of people who unironically think Americans are non-white. No one believes it.
This, we Europeans hate to much other Europeans(from other countries)
>If you are implying Jews are caucasoid, then why are you making such an arbitrary distinction?
it is not arbitrary at all. jews can be genetically distinguished from actual whites. however, they are also caucasoid and migrated into europe. jews are a unique population because they are minorities that lived amongst a host population. this is pretty rare, which is why the exception is made. a DNA test can distinguish a white person and jew with 100% accuracy
>I thought race was objectively real.
it certainly is
>That's a taxon. Taxons are arbitrary classifications that are used by scientists to identify organisms. They are imperfect and often just outright wrong (Dolphins and Whales used to be considered fish instead of mammals).
indeed, it's just as arbitrary as "human" -- that doesn't mean it's bullshit though.
Johan Blumenbach (1795), the founder of physical anthropology, when arguing that a 5 race scheme was better than 3, 4 or 6, race scheme, said:
>"Five principal varieties of mankind may be reckoned. As, however, even among these arbitrary kinds of divisions, one is said to be better and preferable to another, after a long an attentive consideration, all mankind, as far as it is at present known to us, seems to me as if it may best, according to natural truth, be divided into the five following varieties: which may be designated and distinguished from each-other by the names Caucasian, Mongolian, Ethiopian, American, and Malay."
Note that he refers to "varieties" or, what today would be called subspecies/races, as an arbitrary division. He does also mention "natural truth", and this is referring to the fact that man made categories sort natural variation. None the less, Blumenbach clearly recognizes that racial categories are invented, rather than discovered.
>What does descent mean in this case? Their genetic lineage goes back to Europe? In that case 56% mutts would be "white", even some blacks
wholly european ancestry, back 2000 years ago
please note: it can be determined by a DNA test with 100% accuracy.
>So you must mean they were born in Europe, or their recent ancestors were European
at least 90-95% of their ancestors from 2000 years ago resided in europe and were gentiles
>Either way you're making an arbitrary distinction on something that is apparently objective.
i never said it was 'objective'
i said race/subspecies, like species, is arbitrary
should we not distinguish between humans and chimps because the distinction is 100% arbitrary?
>It can't, that's just ignorance of taxonomy and biology, both of which are very inexact fields of study in science.
it can though. we can determine if a person is part of this arbitrarily defined group with 100% accuracy using only a few DNA markers. this isn't really debated at all
>Why are you trying to create a "white race" then?
i am not, it already exists
>To make it easier for the Jews and Mutts (such as myself) to make you into an easy enemy for the public to hate? It's working fantastically so far.
actually, a strong racial identity makes people happier and healthier. therefore, it's objectively bad for white people to not even believe they are a distinct group. for whites to believe they are a special and unique people, and be proud of their whiteness, that is healthy.
>Israel and the United States of America.
how do mutts have more power in america than whites?
>If it's a meme then why worry about genetics at all?
because that's how it's determined, solely
>Clearly cultural heritage would be more important to maintaining a future for white children
no, culture has nothing to do with it. 2 white people make a white child. 2 non-whites never make a white child. culture is irrelevant
>But no, genetic traits such as the color of your skin, eyes and hair, as the OP posted, are clearly important to your kind.
eh, it's more like common blood, ancestry, common roots.
also traits like intellectual ability, behavior, mood, political beliefs, etc. are largely genetically based. its' a mix of genes and environment, meaning genes are important -- just like environment. both are important
>Stop pretending your community isn't full of people who unironically think Americans are non-white. No one believes it.
who unironically thinks white people in america are not white?
scientists proved that the majority of white americans have no admixture
>it is not arbitrary at all. jews can be genetically distinguished from actual whites.
Nords can be genetically distinguished from French and Germans, so why are they suddenly both "white"?
>jews are a unique population because they are minorities that lived amongst a host population. this is pretty rare, which is why the exception is made. a DNA test can distinguish a white person and jew with 100% accuracy
Sure. It seems you're right in this regard, but it doesn't change the point as a whole.
>indeed, it's just as arbitrary as "human" -- that doesn't mean it's bullshit though.
It does when you're trying to pass off identity politics as if they're objective. Genetic differences are like the symptoms of an illness. Illnesses are just the definitions given to a set of symptoms. The Irish weren't even white 100 years ago.
You should take what people from the 18th century have to say with a grain of salt. They thought all sorts of "natural" and "self evident" patterns were true. Hume is a great example of both.
Nature is a continuum that doesn't care about human categories.
>Nords can be genetically distinguished from French and Germans, so why are they suddenly both "white"?
why are they both human?
>Sure. It seems you're right in this regard, but it doesn't change the point as a whole.
your point is goofy and fallacious. jews are genetically distinct from white people. white is not the same as caucasoid. all whites are caucasoid, not all caucasoid people are white
>It does when you're trying to pass off identity politics as if they're objective. Genetic differences are like the symptoms of an illness. Illnesses are just the definitions given to a set of symptoms.
a race is a large, extended, partly inbred family. it's not a "collection of traits" it's based on a line of descent
>The Irish weren't even white 100 years ago.
this is incorrect. yes, irish were hated and seen as subhuman, inferior by the anglos. but they all universally considered them to be "white people". the first US immigration/naturalization law, signed by the founders, limited citizenship only to "free white persons" -- and irish were never excluded. they were legally regarded as "White" and socially regarded as an inferior stock of white
>You should take what people from the 18th century have to say with a grain of salt. They thought all sorts of "natural" and "self evident" patterns were true. Hume is a great example of both.
so the "he said it a long time ago so it's wrong" fallacy. hmmm
check out: humanphenotypes.net
>Nature is a continuum that doesn't care about human categories.
modern DNA tests confirm what the people "invented" over a century ago, based on careful measurement of skulls. the clusters correspond, and DNA tests find that people >99% of the time get separated into groups by a computer program that correspond exactly to the 'socially defined races'
probably better. whites are kinda lazy and don't value family
>please note: it can be determined by a DNA test with 100% accuracy.
You can also tell with 100% accuracy that the blue sky is not the same color as the green grass, but you're never going to find an objective, single point at which green stops being green, and blue starts being blue.
>should we not distinguish between humans and chimps because the distinction is 100% arbitrary?
Why should Italians and Nords be considered the same race? They have wildly different cultures, are physically adapted to survive in completely different climates, and have plenty of genetic differences, even if they're part of the same genetic category that you can differentiate from say Asian DNA.
>actually, a strong racial identity makes people happier and healthier.
"White race" is vague, all encompassing, and pretends that someone from Greenland is very similar to someone from Greece. Assuming what you said is true, wouldn't a strong, racial/ethnic identity be Greeks being their race, Italians being their race, French being their race, and so on?
>how do mutts have more power in america than whites?
That was written with the assumption you were one of those "56%er" people. Obviously you're not, so the "mutts" in my case are "white" in yours.
>because that's how it's determined, solely
You aren't doing DNA tests every time you personally identify someone you see in real life/on TV as white or not.
>who unironically thinks white people in america are not white?
Lots of Jow Forums smokers unironically believe this.
>why are they both human?
That's what we defined this particular branch of a continuing genetic lineage as.
>a race is a large, extended, partly inbred family. it's not a "collection of traits" it's based on a line of descent
It's unlikely you know anyone's genetic lineage, even your own. The most you are likely to know is your DNA can be sourced from Europe in the distant past. You're inferring people's genetics from their appearance and place of birth.
>Nords can be genetically distinguished from French and Germans, so why are they suddenly both "white"?
you call it "arbitrary" but is it arbitrary if you have a:
- nigerian
- kenyan
- german
- frenchman
and had to group them in 2 groups based on inherited similarities, that you would group the kenyan and nigerian together and the german and frenchman together?
no. it's because they're more similar genetically, due to a more recent common ancestor
>You can also tell with 100% accuracy that the blue sky is not the same color as the green grass, but you're never going to find an objective, single point at which green stops being green, and blue starts being blue.
therefore, color doesn't exist?
>Why should Italians and Nords be considered the same race?
they should and shouldn't. it depends how specific you want to get. why should they be the same species?
> They have wildly different cultures
100% irrelevant
>are physically adapted to survive in completely different climates
so why are they the same species
>and have plenty of genetic differences, even if they're part of the same genetic category that you can differentiate from say Asian DNA.
they can be grouped in the same category, or different ones. it depends how specific you want to get
>"White race" is vague, all encompassing, and pretends that someone from Greenland is very similar to someone from Greece
this is all completely wrong
>Assuming what you said is true, wouldn't a strong, racial/ethnic identity be Greeks being their race, Italians being their race, French being their race, and so on?
there's nothing wrong with that at all. we're talking about white diaspora nations. american whites 99% of the time identify more with other american whites than with the country of origin. most even are a mix of european nationalities
>That was written with the assumption you were one of those "56%er" people. Obviously you're not, so the "mutts" in my case are "white" in yours.
you got trolled, congrats
>You aren't doing DNA tests every time you personally identify someone you see in real life/on TV as white or not.
their physical features are indicative of it. do you do a DNA test on every cat and dog you see to determine which is which?
>Racial morphological distances within our species are, on the average, about equal to the distances among species within other genera of mammals. [Except for races created by human selection, e.g., breeds of dogs], I am not aware of any other mammalian species where the constituent races are as strongly marked as they are in ours.
SOURCE: Sarich, V. & Miele, F. (2004). Race: The Reality of Human Differences.
>Lots of Jow Forums smokers unironically believe this.
once again, you got trolled... seriously
nobody claims a person with two european parents which moved to america and reproduce has a non-white child.
>That's what we defined this particular branch of a continuing genetic lineage as.
"we" as in you, and who else? it's entirely arbitrary, just like race (subspecies)
Charles Darwin:
> From these remarks it will be seen that I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given, for the sake of convenience, to a set of individuals closely resembling each other, and that it does not essentially differ from the term variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms. The term variety, again, in comparison with mere individual differences, is also applied arbitrarily, and for mere convenience' sake.
>It's unlikely you know anyone's genetic lineage, even your own. The most you are likely to know is your DNA can be sourced from Europe in the distant past. You're inferring people's genetics from their appearance and place of birth.
indeed, this is 100% true. yet, when DNA tests are done, their identified group corresponds >99% of the time to these genetically based groups
see:
>In this study of 1334 individuals, who self-identified as either African American, European American or Hispanic, we demonstrated that when the true underlying genetic structure and the self-defined racial/ethnic groups were roughly in agreement with each other, the self-defined race/ethnicity information was useful in the control of population structure.
blackwell-synergy.com
also:
>Thus, analysis of the 993-locus dataset corroborates our earlier results: if enough markers are used with a sufficiently large worldwide sample, individuals can be partitioned into genetic clusters that match major geographic subdivisions of the globe, with some individuals from intermediate geographic locations having mixed membership in the clusters that correspond to neighboring regions.
genetics.plosjournals.org
it's not as "arbitrary" as you think. put the DNA of danes, brits, nigerians, and kenyans into a computer program and tell it to assign them all to 1 of 2 groups. and 100% of the time, the danes and brits will be in 1 group and nigerians and kenyans in another. this isn't rocket science.
FACT: Whenever the self-reported race of individuals is compared with their "genotypic" cluster, invariably the two agree.
>so the "he said it a long time ago so it's wrong" fallacy.
Yes. Serious philosophy back then still considered God to be a serious influencing factor, and that humans were somehow universally important. People took the ideas of "self evident truths" in nature seriously, as your own of illustrated. If you do not account for these facts when reading old philosophy you are just buying into fundamentally incorrect arguments, based on bad assumptions that were either "unchallengeable" at the time (God) or just the collective ignorance of humanity (most philosophy before Hume and Kant).
>check out: humanphenotypes.net
>modern DNA tests confirm what the people "invented" over a century ago, based on careful measurement of skulls. the clusters correspond, and DNA tests find that people >99% of the time get separated into groups by a computer program that correspond exactly to the 'socially defined races'
Genetic differences are real. I specifically said that earlier. Genetic structures are not proof of race, they're proof of common genetic lineages and traits over time. We call some of these lineages races of a specific name. Why don't you identify as a Gaul, Saxon, Anglo, etc at that point?
You can tell one group has black skin, and another has white skin. You can infer one group is likely of African descent, and another is likely of European descent. Why would you want me to say they're "black race" and "white race"?
>Yes. Serious philosophy back then still considered God to be a serious influencing factor, and that humans were somehow universally important. People took the ideas of "self evident truths" in nature seriously, as your own of illustrated. If you do not account for these facts when reading old philosophy you are just buying into fundamentally incorrect arguments, based on bad assumptions that were either "unchallengeable" at the time (God) or just the collective ignorance of humanity (most philosophy before Hume and Kant).
in other words
>some people were wrong in the 1800s, so everything people said in the 1800s was wrong
yeah, nice job not refuting anything said
>Genetic differences are real. I specifically said that earlier.
obviously
>Genetic structures are not proof of race,
this is clearly the problem: we define "race" differently. so i can say "race is real" and you can say "race is not real" and we are both correct, because we mean entirely different things when we say "race" -- i of course mean "sub species"
>they're proof of common genetic lineages and traits over time. We call some of these lineages races of a specific name. Why don't you identify as a Gaul, Saxon, Anglo, etc at that point?
i am a mix of multiple european ancestries, to identify as any of those is pointless. i am scandinavian + british + irish + german + baltic
all of these are white, caucasoid. so that's what i identify as. if i was mixed race i would identify as "human" and claim i have no race
>You can tell one group has black skin, and another has white skin.
it's more than skin color. you can ignore all skin color genes and then identify. also australian aboriginals are dark skinned but not negroid
>You can infer one group is likely of African descent, and another is likely of European descent.
you would make a mistake only looking at skin color, but taking all traits in you will be less likely to... and using DNA analysis you have
>implying whites have even done a particularly good job in the first place
Whites are good at 2 things for sure. They are good at taking credit for good shit they really didn't do and they are good at blaming everyone else when they fail at their shit
>Why would you want me to say they're "black race" and "white race"?
why would you want to classify humans and chimps as separate species? we are all hominids
it all depends. Brad Pitt, for example is an:
- Animal
- Mammal
- Primate
- Hominid
- Human
- Caucasoid
- White Person / Europoid
- Faelid / Phalian
Ok? Where do you arbitrarily draw the line? That's just, like, your decision.
Reminder of two things:
1. An amerifat makes all these threads and unironically believes that all white people have the same interests, even among european whites (because German and anglo countries are basically the same thing amirite?)
And 2, he is doing it because he is anxious about the rapid decline of America and meteoric rise of China. He doesn't realize that this virulent mutt racism is just a bizarre artifact of american culture (a culture that is quickly losing global relevance.) He is lashing out at everyone as he sinks lower and lower in the vast ocean of history. It is best just to ignore these types and move on with your life.
ah, so it is a hapa incel ladyboy who shitposts 'LOL WHITE PPL R BAD' every day. now it makes sense. i knew that shitposter was too smart to be a nigger
>therefore, color doesn't exist?
It's a human construct based on sensations we have when exposed to light in the visible spectrum, so yes.
Blue and Green have only become different colors recently. In Japan they often still call them two shades of the same color ( en.wikipedia.org
Humans like to categorize things, even when we cannot do so objectively.
>they should and shouldn't. it depends how specific you want to get. why should they be the same species?
I wouldn't know why scientists decided to set the "Homo Sapiens Sapiens" line where they did, so I can't give you a real answer.
>100% irrelevant
You would be okay with a muslim Europe if they also banned interracial relations?
>this is all completely wrong
Maybe in your case, but many people genuinely feel this way (see: Jow Forums tards)
>there's nothing wrong with that at all. we're talking about white diaspora nations. american whites 99% of the time identify more with other american whites than with the country of origin. most even are a mix of european nationalities
That's a more accurate way to word what you're talking about. All I am talking about is the "white race" label and how seemingly useless (and even harmful) it is.
>you got trolled, congrats
I remember when I used to say I was "just trolling" about my beliefs too. Plenty of 'white nationalist' believe Americans are not white. But this is just me saving face.
>their physical features are indicative of it. do you do a DNA test on every cat and dog you see to determine which is which?
I make the (safe) assumption that something that looks like a cat, acts like a cat, and sounds like a cat is a cat, yes. Just like you can safely assume a black skinned and white skinned person are from very different genetic lineages, but not which ones specifically. You're assuming.
>unironically believes that all white people have the same interests, even among european whites (because German and anglo countries are basically the same thing amirite?)
Why would they join the european union? a entity that goes against their individualistic interest more so than anything?
>It's a human construct based on sensations we have when exposed to light in the visible spectrum, so yes.
but it's still useful to have words for different colors. and yes, color certainly does exist, even if we can't "objectively" categorize them
>I wouldn't know why scientists decided to set the "Homo Sapiens Sapiens" line where they did, so I can't give you a real answer.
it's all arbitrary, but that doesn't mean it's not useful or meaningful
>You would be okay with a muslim Europe if they also banned interracial relations?
i'm not european, but nah i don't like islam at all, i think it would be the opposite of an improvement
>Maybe in your case, but many people genuinely feel this way (see: Jow Forums tards)
that's called being trolled, dude. in fact the 56% number is based on some website that seemed to calculate that only 56% of americans are white. the 'meme' is that there are so many non-white people in america, not that white americans are racially mixed with non-whites.
>That's a more accurate way to word what you're talking about. All I am talking about is the "white race" label and how seemingly useless (and even harmful) it is.
it is neither useless nor harmful. you have not provided a reason to believe this.
you say red and purple are social constructs, but you have not explained why these words are useless
>Plenty of 'white nationalist' believe Americans are not white.
how about you name one then. just one!
>I make the (safe) assumption that something that looks like a cat, acts like a cat, and sounds like a cat is a cat, yes
and i do the same with a person who looks white. DNA tests confirm this every time
>Just like you can safely assume a black skinned and white skinned person are from very different genetic lineages, but not which ones specifically. You're assuming.
i can tell if a person is caucasoid or negroid just by looking at them. DNA tests show this is done with >99% accuracy.
see: maybe you can't, but i can!
Again, I specifically said genetic differences are real. How we label those different lineages is a pigeonhole. In this case the studies are using extremely vague pigeonholes such as "European American" and "African American". It's likely that even a Jew would have been a positive for "European American" in these kinds of studies.
I'd check to see if they said anything about Jewish people, but both links are dead.
>some people were wrong in the 1800s, so everything people said in the 1800s was wrong
Stop trying to setup strawmans here. I clearly said if you're going to read philosophy from ages ago you need to take into consideration their false beliefs, unless you want to willingly believe arguments which have been proven false for some reason, such as the idea of nature having "natural truths".
>this is clearly the problem: we define "race" differently. so i can say "race is real" and you can say "race is not real" and we are both correct, because we mean entirely different things when we say "race" -- i of course mean "sub species"
We're mostly arguing semantics, so yes. You're arguing for a label I believe is harmful.
>i am a mix of multiple european ancestries, to identify as any of those is pointless. i am scandinavian + british + irish + german + baltic
>all of these are white, caucasoid. so that's what i identify as. if i was mixed race i would identify as "human" and claim i have no race
So "white" just happened to be the term that you were exposed to the most I'm guessing. I would personally say "mixed European" or even just "European".
I need to stop arguing and go to sleep. Sorry for assuming you were another Jow Forumstard, even if I don't agree with you.
>Again, I specifically said genetic differences are real. How we label those different lineages is a pigeonhole.
so what?
the point is: it's not "arbitrary" that certain different groups of people would be labelled in the same group, and others would be labelled in a different one. See the Blumenbach quote.
It's similarly not "arbitrary" that you would say cats and dogs are more similar and could be in the same group [mammals] when comparing them to sharks and bass [fish] -- what taxonomy would have cats and sharks in one group, but bass and dogs in another? it wouldn't be based on descent!
>In this case the studies are using extremely vague pigeonholes such as "European American" and "African American".
these are not 'vague' at all
>It's likely that even a Jew would have been a positive for "European American" in these kinds of studies.
indeed, and jews are more genetically similar to white people than blacks
>I'd check to see if they said anything about Jewish people, but both links are dead.
they say nothing about jews.
here are the links:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
here is a study on jews though: blogs.discovermagazine.com
jews being grouped in the same category as whites in those first 2 studies should be expected -- because whites are far more related to jews than they are to blacks. the 2nd study compares whites to jews more readily.
similarly: house cats are more similar to lions than they are to wolves. get it?
>Stop trying to setup strawmans here. I clearly said if you're going to read philosophy from ages ago you need to take into consideration their false beliefs, unless you want to willingly believe arguments which have been proven false for some reason, such as the idea of nature having "natural truths".
and i am saying: explain what he said that is incorrect, instead of pointing out that he said it a long time ago
Well you brought this to yourselves, if you would not pillage, rape and genocided the rest of the world we would left you alone, but karma is a bitch and you are suffering the consequences
>We're mostly arguing semantics, so yes. You're arguing for a label I believe is harmful.
why is it harmful?
people with strong racial/ethnic identities are happier and healthier. it is harmful to push the fraudulent and evil lie that "race means nothing" or even worse: "race doesn't exist"
that's truly harmful
>So "white" just happened to be the term that you were exposed to the most I'm guessing. I would personally say "mixed European" or even just "European".
but i have never stepped foot in europe so i wouldn't call myself "european" at all
i am racially caucasoid, white (europoid). i am a native american (A person born in america) as well
this is dumb reasoning though
white people are letting in non-whites because of jews.
you're equating the desire to immigrate with people allowing it. this is illogical
some people want to live in liechtenstein, but aren't allowed to immigrate there
see: i just hope the inevitable mass murder and bloodshed (or balkanization) happens sooner rather than later:
heartiste.wordpress.com
We are all gonna suffer the consequences. especially considering black people being brought over from africa to bear children in a country where they would become the richest blacks on earth and in history ever. america turning black and hispanic is going to hurt blacks and hispanics themselves just as hard and i say this as a black.
And then when a society becomes homogeneous enough discrimination becomes based on even more arbitrary variables such as wealth or which side of the street you live on.
>wealth
>arbitrary
lolwut?
people will always hate other people for dumb reasons
why add race/ethnicity into the mix?
heartiste.wordpress.com
Indeed, over the past 50 years, the most frequent settings for violent conflict have not been wars between sovereign states, but rather internal strife tied to cultural, tribal, religious, or other ethnic animosities. Between 1989 and 2004, there were 118 military conflicts in the world. Of those, only seven were between nation-states and the remaining 111 occurred within a single state, a large portion of which involved ethnic conflict.
According to another recent estimate, "nearly two-thirds of all [the world's] armed conflicts [at that time] included an ethnic component. [In fact], ethnic conflicts [were] four times more likely than interstate wars." Another study claimed that 80 percent of "major conflicts" in the 1990s had an ethnic element.
Any listing of the world's most brutal wars in the past few decades would include ethnically based internal warfare or massacres in Rwanda, the Congo, Ethiopia, Sudan, Lebanon, and Indonesia (East Timor). In 1998, one authoritative study estimated that some 15 million people had died worldwide as a result of ethnic violence since 1945 (including war-related starvation and disease).
The white race is finished. Too many cucks and race traitors willing to turn on their own. It only seems like WN is a big movement because we are on the home of Jow Forums and the alt right. Most normie whites arent redpilled.
I know how to cheer you up my blackpilled friend, there is hope. Last time I checked there my generation is more conservative than millennials. All we have to do is slowly redpill them. Give them a tiny dose and let them work their way up to be enlightened.
yeah that's not true, white nationalism is rising. generation Z whites are by far the most conservative, due to growing up and seeing 'diversity' first hand
the kikes are kvetching so hard and demanding "congressional investigations" of white nationalism:
breitbart.com
Will a majority take arms and expel the foreign invaders? Will they start having more white babies and put an end to race mixing? If not they wont change a thing
>majority
not really needed
>Will they start having more white babies
this isn't really necessary either. the problem is our living spaces flooded with non-whites, not a low birth rate
>put an end to race mixing
it ends when there are racially homogeneous living spaces. it's actually a good thing this is happening, it takes those traits out of the white gene pool
>If not they wont change a thing
what is balkanization?
ginger and blue eyes here. I have yet to find white woman who will love me and have my kids. Only girls i will have is Latina.
fuq that. UN can live in africa if they like it so much
i wish i could be your white bride user.
t. bi nig who likes white gingers.
This country needs a purging
it would look like a place where nobody wants to live in it.
Kill your self. I hate gay people
I can't, your hatred only makes my erection throb harder.
>I make $1000 more each year so therefore I am absolutely superior to you
And yes that would be a not so uncommon mindset should the wealth of a populace homogenize to within a few thousand dollar per year.
Oh hell, if the entire population earned exactly the same some would feel superior for finding a few more dollars worth of change on the ground than the next guy
nobody thinks $1000 more per year is that significant
median income is like 50-60 thousand... more than $1000 is taken just in taxes
>Oh hell, if the entire population earned exactly the same some would feel superior for finding a few more dollars worth of change on the ground than the next guy
yeah right, autist.
there's a thing called "self esteem"
people will feel superior for their height, their fitness level, their looks, whatever. the idea that you can have a society where everyone truly believes every other person is "equal" is laughable. the whole concept of evolution implies inequality.
Remember the 14 words lads.
ugh im gonna die not White
T. jewish inbred from america
i'd rather live next to American crackhead niggers than llive next to Muslims. knowing Muslim values makes it worse, they can never be in America, they will just be systematically lynched and need tons of fucking tax payer protection.
yes the sins of the father are totally the sins of the son
fuck off you inbred amerimutt mutant