MovieChat Forums > David1616 > Replies
David1616's Replies
Meanwhile this was the conclusion from a conference on race in Russia in 1998:
1.) According to the old anthropological tradition big human morphological variations which are the result of polymorphism united by common origin in certain geographical areas had been given the name "races"
2.) Reality of the racial subdivisions of homo sapiens are supported by the totality of the scientific data investigated on the different levels of human organism. Morphological, physiological and genetical. Race classification created with regard for morphological criteria clearly enough reflect the phylogeny of the separate populations and groups of populations
3.) Negativism to the race concept which became apparent during the last decades, in many respects might be explained by the psychological shock which all progressive humanity had felt in the epoch of Hitlerism
"The same ones, are, among the many you claimed, just earlier, were 'not affluent'"
One thing is affluent by world standards another is affluent by African standards. A dodge.
"If only correlation was cause"
It seems to me you are confusing "correlation is not NECESSAIRLY proof of the cause" with "Correlation is unlikely to be the cause"
I already debunked colonialism as the cause. There is no evidence for it. And why would slavery cause poverty? Slave traders in those countries got rich trading slaves. I never praised economics of brown countries. I only compared them to those never colonized to make a point.
No, there is no consensus. How can there be a consensus if the largest country in the world universally accepts race and about a third in the West do as well? The remaining can be explained by politics and popular social trends. Blacks have up to 20% Homo Ergaster DNA that Whites don't, but there is no such thing as race LOL.
What specific research and facts were discovered that made people deny race? Please list them to me.
"Him again?"
Completely ignored the point he was making and resorting to ad hominem fallacy.
geneticist David Reich :
"substantial biological differences among human populations"
Evolutionary biologist Erns Mayr of Harvard and one of most prominent taxonomist and philosophers of biology:
"Those who prescribe that there are no human races are obviously ignorant of human biology"
Richard Dawkins evolutionary biologist: "It's nonsense to say race is a social construct. Race is a real biological phenomenon" - 2022
"why don't you ask them"
Yes the people indoctrinated and blinded by ideology are going to tell me, they are political and their science is BS. Their statement has as much value as the statement on race by the Democratic party.
Or more likely it's because the higher education is telling (lying to) them that they're oppressed.
"And I have shown they are"
No you haven't shown they are victims collectively. To do that you have to show they are discriminated more than relatively how they behave. As long as people can't read other people's minds, you can't expect no discrimination against a visible ethnic group who behaves much worse than the rest.
Again cherry picking a single year (2016), which I already called you out for. Overall they are a burden. And I also already made a point that non EEA includes countries like India and China who are not the immigrants I'm talking about (Muslims and Blacks).
The differences between races are bigger than the differences between ethnic groups, both genetically as well as with any important human properties. According to liberals differentiating between Swedes and Norwegians is OK, but differentiating between Whites and Blacks is not. I've given you evidence from mainstream sources and respected liberal geneticists about racial differences, yet you still deny it. You haven't even disputed the recent discovery that Blacks have up to 20% Homo Ergaster DNA while Europeans have about 4% Neanderthal DNA. If those species of homo were not the same, then how can human races be the same? The Guardian are far left liars. Here is a video of how they deliberately mislead readers about likelihood of racial IQ differences. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVAzPniTzmg
OK so you can't show any example of any evidence that suggests there are no important race differences so you doge with semantics. OK.
I still see no examples of Whites moving into a rich non White country to live off wealth created by someone else. Third world countries that were conquered were not wealthy, that's why they got conquered. Stop with your Marxist exploitation narratives.
There was no US before Whites came, there was no country. If resources were the main reason for wealth, why weren't' the natives wealthy?
"Not of themselves though"
Don't hate the player, hate the game. They themselves believed in conquest and were conquered by someone stronger. They aren't morally superior and aren't victims.
Colonialism was Whites conqeuring peoples who were more backward than them during conquest ethic, not Whites leeching off wealth created by someone else.
I posted 13 examples. Search for them above.
<blockquote>A highly unusual event for the UK.</blockquote>
Maybe, but it set a precedent. Also referendums are democracy. You still haven't answered why no referendums on immigration. Its an existential issue for the country's long term future.
"And what should the referendum question be exactly? There's also been no outcry for a referendum of that nature. There was for Brexit."
Many options for questions; Should the immigration into UK be limited to X number per year? Should the UK limit immigration from Muslim countries to only people with high skills? Should some countries be favored over others? According to polls, Uk citizens think Immigration is the most important issue for the country. Brexit saw an increase in Muslim and African immigration, it was not what people wanted. It was a PC mainstream politics derailment of true dissatisfaction on behalf of the public which had enough of immigrating and Muslims.
<blockquote>An Arabic asylum seeker did not kill those children. That was the lie.</blockquote>
Another dodge. He was Black and a descendant of recent immigrants.
No demand? Immigration is the most important issue for the country according to polls. There could be many questions, it could be chosen later. CON-servatives don't care about British people. They only care about economic growth, lower taxes, serving their Israeli Jewish donors and not being called racist. In my country, the government HAS to issue a referendum if the call gets 50.000 signatures unless the constitional court declares it unconstitutional. This should be the case in every country that calls itself democratic. The public should have more power than the political establishment. Also the media should be neutral and not just reflect the agenda of it's owners.
<blockquote>the concept of constructing policy that treats people differently based on their heritage is</blockquote>
Nope that's a straw man of the nationalist position. We only demand equal treatment of Whites as non Whites. If they get to have identity/nativism/safe spaces/intergroup preference so should we. Most WN do not believe a bad White person should be treated better than a good Black. WN have no double standards when it comes to race with their ideological principles. The left has many.
More ad hominem. We are talking about political principles. That's not why they are outraged. The left would be outraged over Mark Collet even if he didn't made un PC jokes. They are outraged because he dares to be explicitly pro White, while explicitly pro Black is not only allowed but encouraged. Also they are outraged over Anne Marie Waters and Tommy Robinson and they are far from Neo Nazis. Also leftist Wokey-pedia is not an objective source.
<blockquote>I don't believe she's actually expressed any specific racist positions.</blockquote>
Yet the left is still outraged over her and calls her racist and fascist.
<blockquote>There's no right to have it "raised effectively".</blockquote>
If the main indigenous ethnic group are not allowed to raise their grievances, then the UK is not a democratic society. Or a fair one too. Blacks and minorities ARE allowed to raise their alleged grievances which is a direct example of double standards and unfairness to Whites. As for "effectively", this is like saying a team is allowed to play football as long as they don't play effectively and don't come near a goal.
Ane and Mark were less vocal and thus less effective in getting the message out. Your argument is like saying to an attack player who has come near a goal and received a red card simply for being near a goal by a biased referee: "You should have done what defense players have done, they haven't received a red card".
Why are you changing the topic to Hamas or directly inciting violence? We are talking weather or not Ash Sakar would be charged if the posted "Bangladeshi pride" or "We will soon become the majority" posters. She wouldn't. But Sam Melia was. A double standard against Whites.
I have very good arguments Western societies are unfair to Whites. I don't' demand automatic acceptance of my views, but I demand free speech and end to cancel culture to people who are explicitly pro White just as there is no censorship and cancel culture to people who are explicitly pro Black and pro minority. The current woke moral paradigm is a result of deliberate conditioning at the hand of institutions like the media and education as well as censorship/cancel culture which is an obvious example of ideological cheating. It isn't natural. It's a result of people being afraid to express themselves. It's an emperor's new clothes situation.
<blockquote>People can be outraged and dislike whatever they like. You don't get to dictate that they shouldn't be.</blockquote>
Read 4 previous sentences above.
<blockquote>And Korea is, much to its potential demographic collapse, a relatively xenophobic culture.</blockquote>
Totally ignoring the point again. I could easily have listed Sri Lanka instead of Korea.
And why are Blacks poorer? The IQ/genetics hypothesis can explain it very well, while yours requires mental gymnastics and excuses. Also we have data from US that poverty is not the cause of crime. Rich Black kids commit more crime than poor White kids. https://archive.ph/CQWo1
"people fear a chav, or someone who appears to be one, just as much as they might an urban black youth."
Data about this please. Black violent crime is through the roof. Blacks in the UK are 18% of murderers at only 4% of the population. This is 4.5 times their share, which is basically the same as in the US where they are about 58% of murders at 13% of the population. In London Blacks are 58% of murders at 12% of population exactly the same as in US. Yet Blacks in the UK were never slaves and never went through segregation as well as have higher IQs than that of US Blacks due to being somewhat immigration selected.
But still commit essentially the same crime which suggests genetic cause.
I want to replace the term "racist" not because I don't like it, but because the term is inherently deceptive. It implies irrationality and unfairness without ever having to show it by just appealing to the manipulated Overton window. If you want to allege someone's views on race are irrational or unfair, label then as such (not the vague word "racist") and argue it. By labelling it "racist" you automatically win by appealing to stigma and taboos.
Yes she probably would also have reservations with a White man. But even if she wouldn't the racial discrimination is perfectly warranted since Blacks commit much more crime.
They show averages which suggests that majority think that or at least a strong minority. If only a small minority of liberals held anti White views, it wouldn't drag down the total average of entire categories.
Hollywood promotes leftist policies on social issues (refugees, White guilt, Whites are bad and incompetent, Blacks are smart, moral and competent. Feminism is good). All those things are in Jewish ethnic interest. Jews feel safer the more "diverse" America is because they will "sick out" less
So you don't have an arguments why my explanation is unlikely to be true or what kind of evidence would there be if it was true. OK. So you should admit, my explanation isn't unlikely to be true then.
<blockquote>And what would this stigma look like in practice? The media is independent. You can't make them promote things. There are already lots of government incentives for having kids in most countries.</blockquote>
The same kind of stigma that the left created towards "racism" and "transphobia" over the last few years. The people who control the institutions and guide the culture could create sigma if they wanted to. Present the crisis to the public, explain how immigration is not the solution (stop hiding the cost of non Western immigrants for the purpose of PC) and the public will accept that higher births are the only way to go. Stigma will naturally follow. Right now the media and the ruling class do the opposite. They write articles how child free life is wonderful and having White children perpetuates racism and harms the environment.
Those policies didn't go far enough. They only included child leave and kindergarten costs and so on. The government could literally give people money for having more kids (instead of spending that money on foreign aid and so called "refugees"). This is an existential crisis for our counties and the entire Western civilization. Under this realization, the public would support more money being spent. Right now this isn't being done because the media lies to the public that brown immigrants will turn out just fine (which the data contradicts but the media doesn't report on it in order to not "perpetuate negative stereotypes").
I didn't say incentives would solve the problem on it's own. But in combination with ideological culture shift, it could increase births to at least much closer to 2 children per woman which isn't that high.
Housing prices has gone up, but that is partially the result of regulation to building
It doesn't have to be falsifiable because of the context of our debate which is immigration. Here the burden is on those who want to import these people.
No I meant that you admitted you don't know for sure why that murder happened.
Yes it takes time, but on long term it might pay off in stopping our counties to eventually become filled with Islamic fundamentalists and not increase crime. Government incentives aren't a draconian policy. So it's the media encouraging large families.
<blockquote>Europeans and Chinese people don't want to come to the UK at the same rate. </blockquote>
They have been coming so far. And they would probably come even in larger numbers if the quota/jobs wasn't already filled with Africans and Muslims.
<blockquote>Korea's future on this looks utterly grim dude. And Japan's.</blockquote>
But they haven't collapsed. It's a slow process. We could increase births during that time.
<blockquote>Per capita it's probably similar.</blockquote>
IDK if it's similar since Whites probably have better income.
<blockquote>Labour lost, or nearly lost a bunch of seats across the country due to outrage over their policy on Gaza.</blockquote>
Completely irrelevant to my point about minorities voting their ethnic interest. Their votes didn't go to reform or nationalist parties. According to the left when minorities vote their interest the left thinks it's legit, but when Whites vote theirs (Reform) it's racism
Data about Chinese and Syrian immigration patterns please. Also the claim is also for Chinese and Syrians as a whole, not just those in the UK. How come China has an IQ of above 100 while Arab countries are so low if the education is not the cause since Chinese education is not much better than Arab? Not to mention oil rich Arab countries are much richer than China
<blockquote>How do you know its not culture or religion too?</blockquote>
How does "culture" depress your IQ? I get that it might make you score worse on a math or physics test if you don't learn as much math of physics, but how does it depress your ability to recognize patterns in geometric shapes?
Again letting you get away with a dodge because I'm really tired debating. Hopefully the readers will see it.
"Ethnic groups are not 'races'. And the differences are, one again, not that significant"
Race is actually MORE than ethnicity and the racial differences between two races are way bigger than ethnic differences between two groups within the same race. How do you know that "the differences are not that significant"? Show the data of Black success which suggests race differences are not that significant.
Nigeria has a large economy only DUE TO IT'S LARGE POPULATION. Their GDP per capita is only 1,100 dollars in 2024 according to the IMF. This is almost 6 TIMES less than KOSOVO the poorest country in Europe which is at 6400 dollars.
Mass White immigration into a rich non White country please.
Colonialism was during different times where almost everyone believed in conquest. Nobody says Serbs today have right to demand something from Turks because of the Ottoman empire. Guilt goes only in one direction. Whites never leeched off wealth of non Whites. India was never wealthy and benefited a lot from British rule.
Ok here. More educated black are more likely to believe society holds them back. https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2024/06/15/most-black-americans-believe-u-s-institutions-were-designed-to-hold-black-people-back/
US higher education (especially humanities) are overwhelmingly on the left as shown by research from Jonathan Haidt.
It's precisely those more educated Blacks that are closer to more educated Whites who are less likely to be "racist". Yet they are more likely to believe they are held back.
<blockquote> what is done when one blames the treatment accorded of a victim of discrimination is "controlled by their behaviour"</blockquote>
You don't understand the argument or you are deliberately dishonest. The discussion is weather Blacks are victims collectively, not about any specific individual. Weather or not a given ethnic group is a victim of society has to be controlled for that ethnic group's aggregate behavior. It's extremely difficult (or almost impossible) to have a society where one visible ethnic group behaves much worse and then expect absolutely no discrimination in any situation.
Directly from you:
<blockquote>estimated the net fiscal contribution of EEA migrants in the financial year (FY) 2016/17 at L4.7bn, compared to a <b>net cost</b> of L9bn for non- EEA migrants</blockquote>:
<blockquote>Please see several earlier posts</blockquote>
So you can't answer?
There is no consensus about experts about non existence of race. About a third in the West accept race and virtually all in China accept race. And the remaining in the West who deny it can be explained partially by ideological conditioning as well as cancel cutlure or stigma in accepting race.
<blockquote>Not everyone</blockquote>
But the intellectual elite generally changed their ideological moral stances on race which explains the organizations you mentioned denying race.
Race denial is not a scientific conclusion. It is an ideological moral principle. You can deconstruct any concept provided there is motivation to. Like Jared Taylor says, the idea that race does not exist is so stupid that only very smart people can convince themselves that it is true.
So you don't deny that American Anthropological Association stance on race could be a result of ideology rather than science and objectivity?
<blockquote>bla bla bla were among the effects of colonialism</blockquote>
You did not answer how come today the most colonized countries in Africa are the wealthiest (South Africa) and Liberia and Ethiopia which weren't colonized are both among the poorest. I don't know if I already posted this but here is an academic paper from respected economists showing the most colonized parts of Africa are the wealthiest. http://www.nber.org/papers/w18162.pdf
This is economic growth of Black Africa since 1960 (post colonialism) compared to other regions of the world. As you can see, it has by far the least growth. It almost perfectly correlates with IQ and latitude.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD?end=2023&locations=ZG-ZJ-1A-Z4-8S-US-EU&start=1960
This paper concludes that IQ is the best predictor of economic growth of a country :
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341736066_Rushton_Jensen_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations_Biogeography_and_Public_Policy_as_Determinants_of_Economic_Growth
<blockquote>Why do you think whites colonised other countries then?</blockquote>
Ethnic pride was the reason. Colonies were an economic burden. You totally ignored my argument that Whites didn't migrate to already rich countries and live off benefits like brown people do today which was the point of our disagreement. Conquest was virtually universally seen as moral back then.
"Victim blaming"
They aren't victims if they behave a certain way.
Nope, slavery has been debunked as a cause of Black poverty by several studies:
https://youtu.be/FJwPpNzTWoQ
(and don't accuse me of linking YT, because this video sources STUDIES)
"Substantiations please."
I have all the links, but because of the character limitations for this post, I will simply refer to you the video above which sources most of the studies.
<blockquote>also, aren't you a poster who has argued that whites are 'discriminated' against all the time by 'whining liberals' et al?</blockquote>
Yes, Whites are discriminated because society is taught to dislike Whites by our institutions. Minorities are (to the extent that they are) because of how they behave. No influential institution today teaches people to discriminate against minorities.
We are talking about current situation, why are you changing the topic to the 1960s? In the US Indians are by far the richest group and they generally don't complain about discrimination nearly as much as Blacks. In the UK Indians are successful too, yet they have dark skin which really suggest skin color isn't the cause of how ethnic groups are treated.
<blockquote>it was addressed to me, I don't recall seeing it.</blockquote>
This is precisely what we are discussing.
"immigrants than 'diversity' per se."
This is the same issue.
So if the UK imported Chinese and they caused less problems, it would be proof of how the English are bigoted? In other words, minorities have no agency, their behavior should never be taken into account?
"And see"
Like I already said Covid was a special situation. If it originated in Germany, then Germans would most probably be likely victims of Covid era discrimination. Also if Chinese are discriminated and they still cause less crime, that suggests Black crime is not a result of discrimination.
<blockquote>don't you usually assert that Asians are not a real problem?</blockquote>
Asians are not the problem and I never said Asian higher SES should be seen as one. It's just that lower Black SES should not be seen as one either and that the left is hypocritical for complaining about one, but not the other.
You still don't understand my argument. I can tell the difference between grievance and hate under MY definition of hate. The left has a different definition of hate (more broad one) that is why allege that
perfectly legit grievances from Whites fall under their definition of hate. Their definition of hate does not make sense since according to their definition, Whites aren't able to raise their grievances without being accused of hate (either legally or if not legally then in society). If Whites aren't able to raise their grievances without being if not persecuted at least censored, then the UK is not a democratic society. That is why I'm asking how would they differentiate the two.
<blockquote>"The Arabs are just as culpable yes</blockquote>
Yet Arab societies are far from being riddled with guilt, reparations and apologies to the point of erasing their history. Yet you are still concentrated on blaming Whites, but not Arabs and others. A double standard.
<blockquote>Are you seriously suggesting that only whites blame whites for their slaveries of the past?</blockquote>
No I said, Whites are the only ones who blame themsleves.
<blockquote>Even in the past there were fierce opponents to slavery,</blockquote>
Those were the exceptions. Opposition from who? Other Whites. Yet you still blame Whites collectively instead of giving them credit for being among the first (if not the first) to have opposition against slavery back then while very few other civilizations were. Remember the context is collective White guilt not those precise individuals who engaged in it. I don't care about removing a specific statue of a slaver as long as Whites collectively aren't blamed.
<blockquote>What about those who claim white superiority and yet do not hold them to such higher standards?</blockquote>
IQ superiority is not necessarily moral superiority.
<blockquote>Thank you for your opinion.</blockquote>
In other words, you don't have any arguments why my explanations cannot be or isn't likely to be correct one.
You are holding them to higher standards than others and you are holding them to unrealistic standards since slavery was naturally seen as moral back then given the environment.
"As I said, this just special pleading for among the worst of human behaviors, which was condemned by some back then too."
Slavery was not seen as immoral back then so no it was not the worst of human behaviors. That prize would have to probably go to mass human ritual sacrifice from civilizations in C. America. That kind of behavior was not prevalent throughout the world unlike slavery. Yet liberals don't hold those accountable, but they do hold Whites. Yet again a double standard.
Some, lol. Those were the exceptions not the rule. There are people who today say eating meat is immoral. Does that mean every non vegan is necessarily immoral?