So, by “commenting” on it, you mean just repeating your previous statement, offering no support for it, and just ignoring objections? You made a claim (easily proven to be false) and simply ignore facts that contradict it.
It’s fair game to keep bringing the same point back up until you actually address it, rather than just ignoring the salient portion of it.
No, the people who show the most recessive genes (phenotypically) are those produced by inbreeding. The people who have the most recessive genes (genotypically) are probably those with a fully-forked family tree – no chance for the recessives to pair up and get bred out of the population. In the Arab world marriage between first cousins is unremarkable and in many cases compulsory (to keep family properties within the family), and that has been going on for so long that by now, and after a lot of needless suffering along the way, they probably have remarkably clean genomes.
Of course, not all recessive genes are dysgenic or pathogenic. Are they?
I wrote in my previous post:
Before 1965, the US also embraced Israels version of immigration. That is, to only allow immigrants of the same ethnicity. But this came to be consider in the US as a “racist” policy. But not in Israel. Why this double standards?
Do you want me to link to Wikipedia about this or what kind of “support” do you want? The only “objection” i received was that their was no single US-ethnicity as in the case of Israel. My answer to this objection is: True, but instead they had quotas based on the 1890-consensus, in order to keep an ethnic status quo.
(BrainGlutton seems to have understood my point:))
It is not a double standard, each country has its own standard. But Israel’s immigration policy, like Americas 1924-1965 immigration policy, is racist by any objective standard. What are you fishing for here, somebody who will insist the Law of Return isn’t racist?!
BrainGlutton why bother???
Well having Raleigh pointing to an arguably racist immigration policy as something wrong is actually good. This is a step back into the arms of the cultural marxist overlords.
Don’t be silly. Mars ain’t the kind of place to raise your kids. In fact, it’s cold as hell. And there’s no one there to raise them if you did. Because they DON’T ALLOW FILTHY IMMIGRANTS, not even as au pairs.
The only countries in Europe with a lower population density than Sweden are other Nordic countries. Well, that is ignoring Russia as most of that country isn’t actually in Europe.
Sweden has a lower population density than the US.
Thus, I think it is clear that Sweden has a lot of space to put immigrants. Far more than other developed countries.
Or just because the idea of the blonde haired blue eyes Swedes is a myth permeated by, mainly, the media. One of the striking things when you arrive here (I have lived here since late 1999) is that how few people are blonde and that those that are have usually got it out of a bottle.
No doubt this is the fault of immigrants. Immigrants like me.
OK, I’ll bite: what does a French person look like ?
You know - beret, stripy shirt, string of onions around the neck, supercilious attitude, riding a bicycle and smoking Gauloises. It’s all genetic.
Whatever it is, it’s probably something swarthier than the Swiss. Which makes me wonder why RaleighRally keeps insisting that France is somehow Northern European (but excluding all the other Romance countries. It’s like we’re the Aryan element of the Romance race. I like the sound of it, I’m gonna add that to my business card).
You forgot the baguette sticking out of their shopping bag. They don’t come without.
Shopping bag? It’s jammed into the crook of the left arm.
What is noteworthy is that you made a rather ignorant comment, (again) and that you are now backpedaling like crazy.
In the eighteenth century, an embassy “staff” would very likely have been French, but anyone actually negotiating a treaty would still have been Swedish. And your original comment was not that Franklin had never been to Sweden, but that he did not know any Swedes–which he clearly did.
:smack:
Of course you’re right.
And it is indeed a curious genetic heritage that causes Frenchwomen to grow those lacy-black maid’s uniforms.
That is a good point. I have been to England many times and in London it looks like a UN-conference, but in the countryside the inhabitants are almost as blond as the Swedes, but they have a lot more freckles. According to genetic studies, people in southern Sweden are more related to English people than to the Swedes living in northern Sweden. This is probably due to the many Finns and Sami who live up north.
I think you are a little naive if you believe that the muslim immigrants are going to settle and explore the Swedish northern “frontier”.
The whole reason why they choose to come to Sweden is because the state is giving them lots of money for doing nothing. Those who cannot provide for themselves and their families have a right to social welfare, which according to Swedish law must cover the cost for food, clothes, shoes, leisure activities, health and hygiene, health care and medicines, a daily newspaper, a phone, living expenses, electricity, commuting to work, home insurance, membership in a workers’ union and unemployment insurance. And their kids will also get free dental care, free school, and free college and university education, with the right to student benefits and loans.
Cite?
