Well, if history’s any guide, soon after “the white race” (however it is defined) manages to purge itself of nonwhite influences (however they are defined), it’ll rapidly (if not gleefully) turn on itself. It’ll be the decades of the long knives.
If the white race has a problem with existence, it’s because we aren’t making enough babies. Most European countries are reproducing at below the replacement rate. You can’t blame that on the brown and black people.
If we go extinct, it will be our own fault. But more likely, there will be some cataclysmic change before that will happen, as it would take thousands and thousands of years (10s of thousands, really) for the “white race” to under-breed itself out of existence at current rates.
How tragic! No more… paleness, I guess. I dunno.
Not even that. On the time scale we are talking about even without genetic engineering and other artificial alterations, all sorts of things could happen in that amount of time. A few thousand years from now the most common human type might be pale skinned with kinky black hair, and yellow eyes thanks to a mutation left over from the nuclear wars.
What we need is more Bristol Palin type abstinence classes. LOL! So far, this is a really funny thread.
Huh? I wasn’t talking to you, I was correcting a reference made by another poster about Berbers.
Regarding your statements, I have the same opinion as many other posters : I don’t believe there’s a “white race” not that there’s a “genocide”.
I’m sure you’re thinking I’m disingeneous, but I’m not. I do believe races are a social construct, and that we have to be seriously brainwashed from childhood to buy into the concept of races that quite obviously makes no sense when you look at it objectively. Some examples :
-Just travel from Sweden to Sicilia, then cross to Libya, go to Egypt, follow the Nile river to its springs. Presumably at some point during this travel, “white” people turns into “black” people. But where? What makes somebody you see at some point during this trip “white” rather than “black”?
-Turkey, already mentioned several times, is indeed a great example. They have a strong feeling of national identity, but what are their “racial” ethnicity? There was originally the empire of Hatti there (and I wouldn’t know who those were, either), the the “people of the sea”, the Greeks, the Persians, the Romans, the Arabs, the Turks, and that’s not counting all the people who individually moved in over the centuries into the Hatti, Persian, Byzantine, Ottoman empires coming from who know where. Turkish people strictly speaking are of Asian origin. Their language is Asian. But the average Turk person probably has very few Asian “blood”. What can you make of them, when speaking of races.
-Outward appearance isn’t an indicator either. Plenty of populations have curly hair and black skin and have no relationship with Africa. “Black” americans probably have for the most part more European ancestors than African ancestors.
The US president isn’t Black, either. And that’s common knowledge, since his parents’ origin is well known. He’s called “Black” for cultural reasons, and an alien visitor not knowing anything about American culture would wonder why he’s “Black” rather than “white”.
-From a biological point of view, if you try to sort out populations by genetic proximity, you end end with several sub-saharian populations, and another group of “everybody else” including Irish people as well as Chinese people and Australian aborigenes.
I could go on (Jews, Latnos, etc..) but everybody else already stated the same thing. And before you use your usual canard, I personnally don’t use sentences like “Whites have been oppressing Blacks for centuries”, I’m opposed to positive discrimination, etc…
Had you kept the usual bullshit about immigrants being about to destroy the European culture with their muslim ways or something like that, or even “If we keep on mixing up, there won’t be any blue-eyed redhead left in a couple centuries”, I wouldn’t have bothered to answer, but at least it would have made sense. There’s such a thing as an European culture and such a thing as a redhead, at least. But there’s no such thing as a “white race”.
I can’t tell if your honest in your belief that there’s a “white genocide” going on. I suspect you’re at least in part kwowingly disingeneous, but maybe you really believe all of it. In which case, you’re seriously deluded and/or paranoid.
Similarly for the Finns. “Asian” language.
No, the average admixture for African Americans (or blacks, if you will) is about 20% European. There are, however, plenty of people who are called black, and self identify as black, who have more European ancestry than Africa, but they would be < 10% of the black population.
Yeah, just remember that when you’re in New York, avoid The Post, and when in Washington DC, avoid The Times.
I wonder if this post will be answered. When you assert that there is no white race, the proper response to this would not be “of course there is, and you know it” but rather a post defining what the white race is.
Well, clairobscur is simply wrong on that point. The “white race” as a social construct is alive and well, even if the biological concept is bunk. But social constructs are every bit as real as biological classifications are.
The biggest problem with the social construct is that there isn’t a governing body to determine which particular social construct is the consensus, which is why many of us are interested in learning which particular social construct the WNs posting here are using.
Also, the social construct makes a lot more sense in an immigrant country like the US, where we don’t have an even number of people from all the different areas around the world. Although that is changing, the US has traditionally been light on immigrants from many parts of the Middle East and Asia and heavy on immigration from Norther and Central Europe and “forced immigration” from parts of Western, Sub-Sahara Africa.
People with living descendants, children and grandchildren who are products of their consensual relationships, are not victims of genocide just because of which boxes are being checked on a census form. Whiteness still lives on in half-whiteness, all the rationals for believing otherwise have been left behind by science long ago.
It is really kind of a racist idea if you think about it. That Europeans are somehow so fragile, that their bloodlines are easily dominated and destroyed.
I stand corrected.
Actually, I stated in my post that I believed races to be social constructs.
Obviously an inferior genotype. Recessive, at least.
Perhaps I was relying too much on Ludovic’s interpretation of your post. Did you see it?
It makes sense if you think of “whiteness” as purity (which these people do).
Notice how whiteness is destroyed by mixing, or even proximity to other “lesser” races. That’s because white is actually a kind of code for purity. From their perspective the white race is the only true Human race, everyone else is a bunch of animals, essentially. So the purity of white is being diluted and destroyed by interbreeding. All of this garbage makes sense if you look at from this perspective. It’s also why they won’t quite come out and define white; these days the hardcore racists try to downplay their hatred of the other racists and frame it more as a concern for white people and culture (as we see). But the whole argument only makes sense when you recognize it as a continuation of the stupidity they’ve always peddled.
If you had a glass of clean water and put a single drop of feces into it, it would no longer be clean. By the same rationale, a white mother’s half black baby isn’t half white; the whiteness is destroyed by the impurities of the black race.
Not only that, but even when talking about culture, there is an underlying assumption that the culture is somehow tied to genetics. A perfectly assimilated populace of non-Europeans is somehow incapable of advancing or even sustaining European culture. It has be be actual Europeans with genetics tied to Europe going back as far as anyone can tell. Pure bunk.
If you start with the assumption that anyone non-white is a savage animal, it makes sense. Of course, the starting point is complete bullshit. Which is why all the conclusions drawn from it are so dumb.
Are all the anti-anti-racists banned now? I’m sort of curious how they’d respond to my “purity” explanation…
With a dodge, along the lines of “why is OK for non-white and ONLY non-white countries to not be subject to MASSIVE immigration from …”
I like a nice beret, too. Must be my Belgian blood.