I had no idea I was thinking all of that stuff.
Of course you didn't. Most people don't know the full extent of their Weltanschauung until it is pointed out to them. Especially true on the right side of the spectrum, if i may be so bold.
A few points if I may though.
Of course you may.
Circa 16% of world population is white
As said in my post, there is no such thing as white people, it is nothing more than a construct and as such, it changes depending on time and space i.e. your definition of what might constitute being a white person is relative, not objective.
Now as for your answer, what seems to escape you is that the population of white people you are referring to is also a construct. As a matter of fact, ""white" refers to a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East or North Africa", as defined by the US Census Bureau
http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-02.pdf. Not only this, but it also includes whoever considers himself as white. If you think that you are white, then you are white.
Now, do you really think that when white supremacists, the alt-right movement and other nationalist groups mention the importance of white identity, they have
this definition in mind? Including Jews, Arabs, Persians (Iran), Hispanics, Greeks, Italians, Gypsies and Turks? Of course not. The number they have in mind is much closer to the 5% i mention than to your 16% which includes everything they see typically as non-white.
Thus, the number of white people can by anything between 0 (white is a construct) and say 30% of the population depending on whether one means "Anglo-Saxon", "Caucasians", or if one includes Castizos, Mulattos, Eurasians and Indo-europeans with Caucasian features, plus everyone who considers himself white.
Which is aging because we have the lowest infant mortality rate so we breed less and our knowledge of biology and medicine has extended our lifespan.
Absolutely, but those are not the only factors. The Western world carries values with it wherever it goes and wherever it expands to and among those values are individualism, materialism, self-realization, personal freedom, right to choose, right to determine one's own purpose and meaning etc. All those components also have a crucial impact over the various fertility rates of the "civilized world". My point is, the very values Western civilization carries with it determines their fertility rates too, not only objective standards of living.
Why do you say it like it's a bad thing.
It is only a bad thing for whoever thinks that race, ethnicity and racial identity are not only real categories, but also important to preserve; it's obviously not my case. I was saying it is a bad thing for you and the people behind you, may you be aware of them or not. But if you consider that the disappearance of white skin and white features on the long run isn't important, that there's no such thing as "white identity", then i agree with you.
But the truth is, you are now trying to make it look like you are a moderate, yet the very rhetoric, wording and structure of your OP seem to indicate otherwise. You show all the symptoms of a person suffering from this alt-right ideology which precisely considers what i say to be a bad thing. Me? I welcome it wholeheartedly because i know that races are constructs, so the sooner we get rid of our major phenotypical differences, the better.
Really not freaking our here, this post was never about race but about ideology.
So a thread titled "anti-whiteness" is not about race? Interesting. Good thing you didn't mention the BLM movement on top of that, because
that would have been confusing.
As long as you don't perpetuate the current racist movements against a certain skin colour
Not sure we would agree on what that "certain skin color" is. However, i'm against all forms of racism, which is why i advocate for open-mindedness and race mixing, which is the only way we can ever hope getting out of those false dichotomies.
I don't have an issue with you
I don't have an issue with you either, only with the concepts and ideologies you and so many others attempt to spread on those forums lately. I don't fight people, I fight ideas.
The only negative aspect of ""interbreeding"" is that it will eventually lead to a less genetically diverse species which would leave us more vulnerable to climatic, biological, pathogenic and possibly unforeseen non terrestrial threats.
You keep saying your post is not about race, but how come then you keep repeating the core tenants of white supremacy thinking? Surely, this is something you've read on the Daily Stormer. Because as far as science and I are concerned, this is completely fallacious.
Mixed-race babies are not only healthier, taller, smarter and with higher cognitive skills, but they are also seen as more attractive by others as those numerous links can testify for:
-
http://www.medicaldaily.com/interracial-couples-may-make-taller-smarter-children-due-greater-genetic-diversity-341348-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3146070/Mixed-race-relationships-making-taller-smarter-Children-born-genetically-diverse-parents-intelligent-ancestors.html-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/6475543/Its-a-wonderful-mixed-up-world.html-
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/p6626And this is true for any biological systems, from viruses, to plants, to animals and obviously also man. The greater the genetic diversity, the more adapted and adaptable (fitness) is the offspring:
-
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160413135710.htm-
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014489416300807They even have a name for that, "Hybrid vigor"/"Heterosis" or "Exogamy" for humans. The Exogamy article on wiki says:
[Exogamy] benefits the offspring as it reduces the risk of the offspring inheriting two copies of a defective gene. Increasing the genetic diversity of the offspring is thought to improve their chances of surviving to reproduce themselves. [...] Scientists surmise that the drive in humans, as in many animals, to engage in exogamy (outbreeding) is evolutionarily adaptive, as it reduces the risk of children having genetic defects caused by inbreeding, as a result of inheriting two copies of a recessive gene. The genetic principles involved apply to all species, not just humans.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exogamy#Exogamy_in_humans
So really, i don't know what you're talking about. If you went to school as i suppose you did, you know that many royal and noble families across Europe suffered of great illnesses, such as birth defects and strong intellectual disabilities because of their habit of inbreeding.
We also know for a fact that if it was the Native Americans who were almost completely whipped out by diseases and not the Europeans who first went there is
precisely because all Native Americans are thought to be descendant of one single strain of humans who have left Europe through the Berring strait thousands of years ago, whereas European arriving there were the product of millenia of interbreeding with countless other "races", which reinforced their immune system against a larger amount of possible threats, which made them more resilient to unknown diseases.
Moreover, should i mention that while only 3% of the UK population are mixed-race people, they represent 30% of the soccer players in the English Premier league? Who has won the most World Cups? Brazil, a very mixed country.
Inbreeding on the other hand has been know for a long time to weaken all individuals and the species itself, so again, what are you talking about? Interbreeding
is and
has always been the solution.
in case you didn't do the maths...
I did do the math, it's just that the concept of race is so deeply occidental and white European at its roots, that it is not surprising that it is them who make such an issue of it. The concept of race was invented by white people around the 17th c. in Europe and America after all:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_people#Modern_racial_hierarchies You think you're watering down the white race?
Didn't I explain already in my first post that i didn't believe in race? I was simply explaining a state of fact, white people are a dying breed (
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/sep/03/race.world/ https://newrepublic.com/article/120370/five-graphics-show-why-post-white-america-already-here) and it explains why they have become more and more vocal in recent years e.g Alt-right, Trump's election etc. I made an interpretation as to the ideological state of the Western world.
Also, i explain here that there's no such thing as watering down. The offspring of 2 genetically diverse individuals will more often than not create a "superior", more fit and more attractive individual, so the term should rather be "watering up".
At last, I have to admit that both our position have weaknesses, the problem with conservatives is that what they propose is a vulgarization, an over-simplification of a deeply complex, multi-layered reality, whereas my position is an (doomed) attempt at taking into account every variable of a virtually infinite equation.
Your position and analysis will always be too simplistic, while mine will never be complex enough. People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs
reply
share
Bliskin
8 years ago
Most people don't know the full extent of their Weltanschauung until it is pointed out to them. Especially true on the right side of the spectrum, if i may be so bold
Congratulations, I had to used Google, you win the award for the most self indulgent use of a large word. Also your boldness is accepted but erroneous, it's not just the racists and fascists on the left nowadays, I'm here too.
As said in my post, there is no such thing as white people
urm...imma let you respond to this one...
By 1970, white people accounted for 25% of the world population; now 40 years later, they represent only 5-10% of the population.
... and then you move on to actually defining what a white person is...
As a matter of fact, ""white" refers to a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East or North Africa", as defined by the US Census Bureau
Next.
Now, do you really think that when white supremacists, the alt-right movement and other nationalist groups mention the importance of white identity, they have this definition in mind?
I don't actually give a flying *beep* what they think and I don't understand why you invoked them, but I'll join in - do you think that flying squirrels consider them white?
he number they have in mind is much closer to the 5% i mention than to your 16% which includes everything they see typically as non-white
Once again I do not care, we're talking about national and world census data, why are you obsessed with them? If the flying squirrels let their thoughts be known on the percentages, I'll forward them to you.
Thus, the number of white people can by anything between 0 (white is a construct) and say 30% of the population
No, it's circa 16%, just admit you got it wrong and we can move on. That square peg won't fit in the round hole no matter how hard you try.
Absolutely, but those are not the only factors.
...
We seem to have some form of agreement here, just glad I didn't raise the fact that our low mortality rates mean we have developed the ability to love our children more. Man you would have jumped on that as me being a racist in an instant.
But the truth is, you are now trying to make it look like you are a moderate, yet the very rhetoric, wording and structure of your OP seem to indicate otherwise
..........
Me? I welcome it wholeheartedly because i know that races are constructs, so the sooner we get rid of our major phenotypical differences, the better.
I am the moderate in this instant, I stand up against anyone who would round on a community solely because of genetic traits. I stand against BLM, I stand against racists and fascists. You finished the paragraph but hurrying along the extinction of races, this is not for you or for BLM to do, this is a natural progression of things that should be handled solely by evolution. And your continual references to race being a 'construct' is ridiculous, we have genetic differences that manifest in physical appearance, it's biological and not social in nature.
So a thread titled "anti-whiteness" is not about race?
No, politics. How it is currently acceptable to be racist under the banner of the leftists.
Not sure we would agree on what that "certain skin color" is.
White, you know the ones that people are chanting for the murder of in the streets at the moment, in those 'peaceful protests' that the MSM are protecting a perpetuating. The ones that are currently being actively exterminated in South Africa with no western media reporting on it. Which are you thinking of? I can't see any legitimised support for exterminating other races ATM.
how come then you keep repeating the core tenants of white supremacy thinking?
I'm sure they, you and I would all agree the Sun is hot. The Venn Diagrams will always overlap at some point. If you are for ObamaCare then you would overlap with Communism, are you a Communist?
The greater the genetic diversity, the more adapted and adaptable (fitness) is the offspring:
I think we are on different scales here, yours is a short term scale and mine is over Millennia. If interbreeding takes place to completion then we will all have a more focal gene-pool and less diversity a thousand years from now. Why do you think we all diverged from the African Gene set? Climatic, dietary and terrain based needs lead to Natural Selection. This has provided a wide base for our species to fall back onto in times of need. Some races are more susceptible to certain virus', some genes lend themselves to hot dry climates others to cold climates, etc, etc.
So really, i don't know what you're talking about. If you went to school as i suppose you did, you know that many royal and noble families across Europe suffered of great illnesses, such as birth defects and strong intellectual disabilities because of their habit of inbreeding
.
@ 16% we are talking a population of 1.2 Billion for whites. Your point is null and void.
We also know for a fact that if it was the Native Americans who were almost completely whipped out by diseases and not the Europeans who first went there is precisely because all Native Americans are thought to be descendant of one single strain of humans who have left Europe through the Berring strait thousands of years ago, whereas European arriving there were the product of millenia of interbreeding with countless other "races", which reinforced their immune system against a larger amount of possible threats, which made them more resilient to unknown diseases.
Your well off here. The point is isolation not lack of genetic diversity. See 'War of the Worlds' for this explanation.
Moreover, should i mention that while only 3% of the UK population are mixed-race people, they represent 30% of the soccer players in the English Premier league? Who has won the most World Cups? Brazil, a very mixed country
.
At this point you have firmly got into the mindset that I give a rats arse about interbreeding. You've written a narrative about me in your head and are following it through without thought for what has actually been presented to you. I care about the politics of racist behaviour in the MSM and how it is deemed acceptable by people like yourself. This movie crammed some down my throat and I even applauded them for cramming it in where you wouldn't think it could be found.
The rest you made up in your head.
Didn't I explain already in my first post that i didn't believe in race? I was simply explaining a state of fact, white people are a dying breed
Do you seriously not see the stupidity of you argument. You state you do not believe in race and then
IMMEDIATELY make a statement about how a race is a dying breed.
In the absolute same *beep* sentence!!!!!!At last, I have to admit that both our position have weaknesses
I disagree, mine was consistent with my themes of race equality and standing up to bullies like the MSM and large movie stars. Yours was all over the shop and referencing counter points to arguments I never put forward and do not believe in. I fear you abandoned rational discourse to jump on a false argument of my white supremacy. You also showed a lot of naivety about the process of nature and natural selection - instead desiring to replace it with some form of social based rapid ethnic cleansing ethos.
Your position and analysis will always be too simplistic, while mine will never be complex enough.
Right back atcha!
reply
share
I_Created_U
8 years ago
Gee, what a disaster. You really don't know much about conceptual thinking, do you? Was I wrong to assume you went to school? I guess that will teach me to have so much faith in humanity. Anyway.
So I'm not gonna try and pick up all the ridiculous or out right nonsensical stuff you have said in this "answer" of yours, nor will i mention the fact that I'm the only one which provides sources and facts for every single assertion; no, I will instead, for the sake of clarity, focus on a few key points, 3 to be precise.
1. Races are constructs. And as such there is no real category called "white people", "black people" etc. I explicitly said in my first post "whiteness just like race are mere fluctuating constructions", but i guess you and your selective reading missed it. Do you know what a social construct is? Do you know that one can talk about social constructs as being abstract entities with no reality in the real world and still use them as existing, functioning concepts? Do you know the difference between the idea of God and God himself? Can you entertain the possibility that the idea of God is very real while God himself isn't?
Well it is the same for race or any other human concept and idea. "Races" are constructs BUT there are indeed various definitions for them which are all relative and only as authoritative as the entity which produces it i.e there is no definitive definition of what a white/black person is. Plain and simple.
Since it seems you have a hard time reading and comprehending at the same time, I will quote and put emphasis on the important stuff so you won't have to read through the whole article, how's that? Here we go:
Race is not biological. It is a social construct. There is no gene or cluster of genes common to all blacks or all whites. Were race “real” in the genetic sense, racial classifications for individuals would remain constant across boundaries. Yet, a person who could be categorized as black in the United States might be considered white in Brazil or colored in South Africa.http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/06/16/how-fluid-is-racial-identity/race-and-racial-identity-are-social-constructs
Do you understand the simple words the author uses?
Today, the mainstream belief among scientists is that race is a social construct without biological meaning. And yet, you might still open a study on genetics in a major scientific journal and find categories like "white" and "black" being used as biological variables.https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-construct-scientists-argue/
Do you understand the relevance of the sentence in bold?
And here is the blatant mistake you make and yet are shamelessly unaware of:
White and Caucasian are terms that have been widely termed as the same. But it is only a misconception. A White is never called as Caucasian whereas a Caucasian can be called as white. When comparing the two races, Caucasian is a larger race when compared to the other. The Caucasian race consists of North Africans, Arabs, Whites, Somalians, some people in India and Ethiopians. On the other hand, white are mostly people who belong to Europe.http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-white-and-caucasian/
Is that not clear enough? What else is required for you to understand simple things? You want to stick with your imaginary 16% which includes everyone and no one at the same time? Fine by me. Really, it's akin arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin - don't worry, I don't expect you to understand this reference.
Those 3 quotes alone prove how clueless you actually are, but since i'm a nice guy, I'm gonna finish the lesson.
2.
Interbreeding/Exogamy. I have already demonstrated in my previous post that hybrids and mixed-race people are genetically more fit and adapted to their environments (hybrid vigor), which clearly shows the benefits of interbreeding/race mixing. Now let me introduce you to the concept of Gene Flow -due to migration and interbreeding- and how beneficial it has been for our species on the long run - millenia as you suggest.
The basic definition of gene flow is an exchange of genes between populations. Another term that is sometimes used is migration, but this term also means “movement of people,” whilst gene flow is the exchange of genes. [...] Gene flow can be seen in all types of animals, even plants. [...] This is an important force of evolution, “the flow of alleles in and out of a population due to the migration of individuals or gametes. [...] This is an important factor for the diversity in populations. [...] For humans gene flow is one of the things we have to thank for the survival of our species. What I mean by this is with gene flow our bodies have furthered its adaptability. [...] It is because of this wonderful force that when new genes are brought into a population, we can gain diversity. http://anthropologicalconcepts.weebly.com/blog/gene-flow
If gene versions are carried to a population where those gene versions previously did not exist, gene flow can be a very important source of genetic variation.http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_21
Genetic variation comes from mutations within DNA; the movement of genes from one population to another, or gene flow; and new genetic combinations resulting from sex. When a population contains genetics of individuals who vary significantly, some of the individuals in the group can possess traits that make them resistant to disease or cold, increasing the group's chance for survival when these individuals breed with the others. [...] Genetic variation also helps organisms survive in different climates and environments. If the environment is unpredictable over time and includes a variety of diseases and predators, some differences among individuals increase the chances of some individuals surviving to reproduce, while others do not. In disease resistance, genetic diversity is important because a disease can decimate a homogeneous population in which all the individuals are equally susceptible to the disease.https://www.reference.com/science/genetic-variation-important-670d90b1826491ee
Not only this, but the gene flow that occurs between all the different races and genetic makeups there are is the only reason why we haven't evolved in several sub-species:
It is for this reason that gene flow strongly acts against speciation, by recombining the gene pools of the groups, and thus, repairing the developing differences in genetic variation that would have led to full speciation and creation of daughter species.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_flow
So no, I'm not talking of a different scale. The same way evolution remains true whether we talk of micro-evolution or macro-evolution, interbreeding and gene flow will always be a drive for genetic diversity, may it be on small scales or large ones. The problem is not scale, it's your blatant ignorance on the subject, as my various links and articles can testify for... again.
Which logically leads to my next point.
3.
Native Americans and lack of genetic diversity. I like the cop-out answer on this one, it's not lack of diversity, but isolation... right. Do you know why Africans have a more healthy and more diverse DNA than Europeans, Asians, or anybody on earth for that matter?
The DNA of European-Americans appears to carry proportionately more harmful genetic changes than that of African-Americans, because they emerged from a smaller and less diverse population.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/3326376/African-DNA-has-more-genetic-diversity.html
Africans are more genetically diverse than the inhabitants of the rest of the world combined, according to a sweeping study that carried researchers into remote regions to sample the bloodlines of more than 100 distinct populations.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/30/AR2009043002485.html
Africa is where human originated, and peoples outside of Africa came from small subgroups who left the continent, which explains their lower genetic diversity and the higher amount of potentially harmful mutation within their DNA - evolution had less time to weed out most harmful mutations, the way it did with African DNA.
Thus, isolation would have never been a problem if the strain in question had had a more diverse genetic makeup. Isolation only becomes a problem when there is a low degree of diversity to begin with, such as in the small group of people who first settled the Americas:
It has also been speculated that lack of genetic diversity may also have contributed to certain diseases wiping out such a huge percentage of Native American populations. All Native Americans are thought to have descended from just a few very small groups of people. Thus, with this theory, a disease that one Native American is extremely susceptible to would have equally deadly effects on most all Native Americans unlike the more genetically diverse Europeans. http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/03/native-americans-didnt-wipe-europeans-diseases/
Now let me introduce you to the last concept for today, the Founder Effect. What is the founder effect you ask? Well:
The founder effect is the loss of genetic variation that occurs when a new population is established by a very small number of individuals from a larger population. [...] The founder effect occurs when a small group of migrants that is not genetically representative of the population from which they came establish in a new area. In addition to founder effects, the new population is often a very small population, so shows increased sensitivity to genetic drift, an increase in inbreeding, and relatively low genetic variation.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founder_effect
Ok, now that you understand this simple concept - I hope - use it to understand this short abstract:
Anthropologists have assumed that reduced genetic diversity in extant Native Americans is due to a founder effect that occurred during the initial peopling of the Americas.[...] [O]ur findings are most consistent with the hypothesis of a founder effect during the initial settlement of this continent.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18618657
Now, what can I say except
check mate? Not much I suppose.
I'm gonna do you a favor and not even mention certain gems of ingenuity of yours, such as:
Do you seriously not see the stupidity of you argument. You state you do not believe in race and then IMMEDIATELY make a statement about how a race is a dying breed. In the absolute same *beep* sentence!!!!!!
Or
I'm sure they, you and I would all agree the Sun is hot.
Or my favorite part,
when you tell me to get biology lessons from a blockbuster with Tom Cruise! Had to crack up there for a second. But it obviously perfectly explains the ineptitude and silliness contained in your posts, so I'm not even mad - it's amazing!
So no, I'm not gonna mention all that because firstly, I'm a gentleman and secondly, I'm sure even you can see now how ridiculous your attempts at intellectualism are.
What I've said at the end of my previous post is more true than ever:
Your position and analysis will always be too simplistic, while mine will never be complex enough.
After all, you are the only poster I know who would ever blame on another the fact that he doesn't know a word and he has to Google it. You call it self-indulgence, I call it education.
People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs
reply
share
Bliskin
8 years ago
Imma be real honest with you here! You're last posts were so inconsistent and poorly thought out that I've only skimmed over this last one to try to find some rebuttals to my points. You seem to be trying to convince yourself of things which are unrelated to this conversation and by the sounds of it - you still manage to get it wrong.
So I'm not gonna try and pick up all the ridiculous or out right nonsensical stuff you have said in this "answer" of yours
So you ran screaming from the conversation because I highlighted your inadequacies of thought so precisely and I guess you double down on you nonsensical drivel instead. Why post a rebuttal if not to further the conversation?
that I'm the only one which provides sources and facts for every single assertion
Like the 'fact' of race being a social construct which you then immediately invoke, thus undoing your own point.
I'm gonna do you a favor and not even mention certain gems of ingenuity of yours, such as
...And then you DO go on to list them, you have immediately undone your point AGAIN!
Or my favorite part, when you tell me to get biology lessons from a blockbuster with Tom Cruise! Had to crack up there for a second
I think this shows your true intellect better than anything you've ever said. 'War of the Worlds' immediately pulls Tom Cruise to your mind! Personally my mind always goes to the 1950's version and not the modern shiny one that yours does, but I was actually referencing the novel. You know, a book... that you read... are you still with me? But I guess this is a movie site so I'm bound to run into TC popcorn eating fanboys on here.
After all, you are the only poster I know who would ever blame on another the fact that he doesn't know a word and he has to Google it. You call it self-indulgence, I call it education.
Let's play a game... it's called I got your number buddy. You can feel free to lie in your response but you and I will both know the truth.
You've tried your hand at writing a book, you spent weeks, months or maybe a year or two on it, getting it just right. You published it (e-Published I'm sure) and no one gave a flying *beep*. All those big words that you thought made you look so intelligent and that you thought all would swoon over, they actually made everyone who tried to read it say 'this guys a pompous arse' and lay it down. All the best writers will tell you the same thing, the point is to speak to the reader in the simplest way possible, words are only the means, the message is the important part.
You choose to self aggrandise for your own masturbatory needs, but you fail to win opinion or hearts or minds. Yes, there was a word I Googled, I'm sure I know plenty you don't too. No one knows them all. But you go ahead and take your single battle victory for I have clearly won the war.
reply
share