PDA

View Full Version : Interracial relationships



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

2Cool
03-23-2012, 04:21 AM
What Racism? how can there be racism?
I thought you said there was no such thing as race.

Because other people believe in race?

rhiannon
03-23-2012, 04:27 AM
I hope every leftist, Communist, RACE-TRAITOR! on this Goddamned board has mixed-race offspring: GOOD RIDDANCE! (:-|

Much to your chagrin, my offspring are white:) LMAO

StonyArabia
03-23-2012, 04:32 AM
Much to your chagrin, my offspring are white:) LMAO

The most outspoken about the issue tend to have a lot of irony they either have participated in the action or simply they can't get a date so they take it on others.

2Cool
03-23-2012, 04:35 AM
The most outspoken about the issue tend to have a lot of irony they either have participated in the action or simply they can't get a date so they take it on others.

If you accept other races = you are a race traitor. It's over. Pack your bags, leave the country, and go mix with black people because you are a lost cause. There's no middle ground lol.

With that type of mentality the white race will go extinct by the time we become grandparents.

rhiannon
03-23-2012, 04:35 AM
You are talking about Nigerians. They number 200,000 in the united states and have the highest education rates of the country,but they are the elite of Nigeria. It is possible that that certain ethnoracial groups in Africa could be very smart. Africans after all do have the most genetic diveristy and in many cases many populations in africa could be called their own race.

I do believe the African gentleman I went to medical school with was indeed, Nigerian:)

zack
03-23-2012, 04:37 AM
I do believe the African gentleman I went to medical school with was indeed, Nigerian:)

Most Nigerians are kind hearted people,but i wont be fooled into thinking that they represent Nigeria as a whole.

2Cool
03-23-2012, 04:43 AM
Most Nigerians are kind hearted people,but i wont be fooled into thinking that they represent Nigeria as a whole.

I did a good deed yesterday. Some Nigerian send me an email asking for help. He needed money to access the funds of his dead father. I gave him $5000 and he promised to give me 15% of the amount that his father owned in the coming weeks.

Contra Mundum
03-23-2012, 04:44 AM
Nigeria is a shit hole because it's full of Nigerians.

CelticViking
03-23-2012, 04:46 AM
Then would you mind if there was a Maori uprising to take back their land and preserve their culture?
.

The Maori came only 1000 years ago, they were low population and didn't really live in the South Island, they signed a treaty with Europeans. The Asians and other Polynesians didn't sign the treaty.
The Maori were trashing the environment.
The food would run out and the bird would all be dead if it wasn't for the White man. The White people gave them blankets and later on they got cars etc.
They were starving themselves out until we came.
They were eating people and all the birds.
If we go they will die out.
New Zealand has lots of resources and area for milk.
We feed European children World wide.




What about Loki who lives in African country? QUOTE]



[QUOTE]The truth (as opposed to the lies of liberals and communists like Julius Malema) is that white people didn’t steal any land from the blacks. In the context of contemporary South Africa, with a black majority of about 40 million black people living all over the country (compared to just over 4 million whites) the 1913 Land Act would seem grossly unfair, but this is because of a deliberate attempt by liberals to blind the people to that which the 1913 Land Act truly was. This piece of legislation must be seen in the context of 5 million blacks virtually all still living in their homelands,11 with a small minority being guest workers in the former Boer Republics and British colonies. It is a well-known fact that there was never a major emigration of black people to white areas before the 1950s. The argument often made by liberals is that since the black population has increased tenfold today, then they must be given a larger portion of the land, but that does not hold water at all. In fact, this is essentially the same position as the German National Socialist Lebensraum policy which liberals claim to oppose as evil. This is as good as saying that if the current Dutch population of 16 million increased to overtake the German population of 80 million, they could rightfully demand a larger portion of Northern Europe, which is, of course, absolutely ridiculous
http://faithandheritage.com/2011/10/the-truth-about-apartheid-in-south-africa-part-1/

Colonialism Was Good For Africa
By Jan Lamprecht


Colonialism was the best thing that ever happened to Africa. Colonialism brought peace to the 300 warring tribes of Africa. Colonialism for Africa meant more development than it had ever known - before or after colonialism.

Colonialists brought far more into Africa than took out of it. It is for that reason that most world empires easily let go of the continent, with only white settlers opposing black rule. From London, Lisbon and Brussels, Africa is totally useless. Local white settlers understood the destruction the end of colonialism would bring into their lives, but for Europeans, colonialism was a waste of money and resources.

The standard of living in Africa under colonialism has not been matched even despite billions of dollars of annual aid to the continent from white countries.

Why is South Africa the powerhouse of Africa? Answer: More whites lived in South Africa than any place else, and white rule ended only 13 years ago.

As whites (and Asians) were kicked out, the continent's collapse accelerated. When Robert Mugabe took away farms and other property from Zimbabwean whites, he pulled the rug from under his country's economy. This year, inflation is expected to reach 4,000%.

Other excellent examples are: Mozambique and Angola.

Africais the richest continent on Earth when it comes to natural resources. Parts of Africa have staggering fertility. A friend of mine went to Rwanda. He told me the ground there is so fertile, the climate so wet and warm you can literally plant a stick anywhere and it will grow.

The question that must, therefore, be asked is: why are blacks starving in the land of milk and honey?

Why is Japan the 2nd richest nation on Earth and yet it has no natural resources, and is far from its suppliers and markets? Answer: The Japanese people.

Intelligent people achieve great things. That is why East Asia is doing so well (except for hardcore communist states such as North Korea). Clever people, even in unfavorable conditions, are capable of doing well.

Africa made two mistakes: (1) Expelling whites; and (2) adopting Socialist type models.

(1) White people are ingenious and hard-working. Their main contribution is ability to organize and that is what brought prosperity to Africa. Whites contribute out of all proportion to their small numbers.

(2) Blacks have been adopted by communists, Marxist, socialists, leftists and liberals - and most of these people believe in some form of government handouts and drive blacks towards socialism. Unfortunately communism doesn't work anywhere in the world - so why should it work in Africa?

The most successful experiment in black capitalism I've ever seen occured in the mid-1980's in South Africa under apartheid. President PW Botha changed laws and allowed a black taxi industry to exist. In my view it is the single most successful experiment in black capitalism that ever occurred on the face of this planet. That model, if expanded, upon could be the future of Africa and could provide hope for black people everywhere.

The problem is that blacks prefer the dreams of a socialist government giving them everything rather than working to improve their fate.

And whites are not the first to come here anyway. All across southern Africa is evidence of (Southeast) Indians sailing here and mining gold, hundreds of years before whites came. Indians came, mined gold and took it away. The Great Zimbabwe ruins is nothing more than an Indian temple built in Africa (as propounded in a recent theory by an academic in South Africa and shown to be consist with similar temples in India). Evidence of an Indian presence here is myriad.

Colonialism worked. Foreign aid has not.

Handouts to Africa achieved little or nothing and will continue to achieve little or nothng. Colonialism did what foreign aid cannot - run Africa efficiently.

Instead of pumping money into Africa, Europe pumped skilled people into Africa,who came and repeated in Africa what was done in Europe. By having them build and organise, as well as bring science and engineering, colonialists built Africa.

Anti-colonialism is leftist bunk that has now become agreed upon as the "politically correct" version of history



Do you really want to preserve European culture? Then move to Europe. Educate young Europeans about their culture, about what their ancestors did. And have many white babies. Lots of them. .

The birds will die out. The Maori would die out too.
My ancestors faught for this country in many wars.
My ancestors helped make this country what is today.
We don't need to move back to Europe.
We do have European preservation here, just like Australia and Falklands.



Bitching behind a computer monitor about how you are pissed that James Bond might be black or about how black people have a low IQ is not going to do shit and is not helping any cause. There is a way to coexist with different cultures and people without being a bigot you know.


You're just "Anti racist"





Blood doesn't shit btw. European preservation is a recent thing. A Greek dude has nothing in common with a Swede. A Portuguese nothing with a Russian.
.

They have different blood.


The biggest enemy to Europeans has always been European countries themselves. How many wars have been wages between European countries? Look at how Germany and other Europeans are treating Greeks and their nation. You call that solidarity?

Most of the wars now days have been created by Jews.



The fact is that European countries decided to colonize other areas, to pillage the villages of their inhabitants, rape their women and steal their resources and now they get angry when some black dude decides to live in their country? You can't have it both ways. Now they have to leave together and find a common ground. But hating on them, using this fear to have racist beliefs won't help because the more you distance them from you, the more more ghettorized (yup I just invented a word) your country will be and that's when shit hits the fact. When you have people living in a country that they don't feel welcomed, that's when they start causing problems.

Let what I wrote seep into your brain for a bit. Think about it, go for a smoke or go to bed, and give me a meaningful response. Not this James Bond bullshit.

You said there is no race, we are all the same.
So stop saying "Racist"

What you are saying is that race doesn't exist except when it's all whiteys fault.

StonyArabia
03-23-2012, 04:54 AM
If you accept other races = you are a race traitor. It's over. Pack your bags, leave the country, and go mix with black people because you are a lost cause. There's no middle ground lol.

With that type of mentality the white race will go extinct by the time we become grandparents.

LOL. Indeed and it all comes down that's it's not their business, and it's a choice between two consenting adults for goodness sake. I have been raised as humanitarian. As well I come from a mixed marriage and rather it was beautiful, and has in many ways shaped the way I look at others and most often it has been a positive element in my life. My father is proud of his origins and culture, but chose to intermarry outside his group, because the person that he met was comfortable fit for him and he did not care what people say to him, at times he even get stared at people, but my dad often gives them the cold shoulder, since they often think he is "European" who is married to an Arab girl due to the fact that he is redhead and in American terms look "White". He comes from the Adyghe region. However ironically when he was in his homeland with her nobody even cared:thumb001:

2Cool
03-23-2012, 04:54 AM
What's an anti-racist? Does that mean that I am against treating people different based on their skin colour and phenotype? Sounds good to me.

I use the term racist because we live in a world where most people believe in race. People know what the word means, they know what it means when use words like race, or racism. It's a way for me to explain what I am saying. If you treat a black person differently due to their skin colour or believe that they are inferior due to,t hen you are racist. Regardless of whether or not I believe in human races or not.


Most of the wars now days have been created by Jews.

lol...

CelticViking
03-23-2012, 05:03 AM
What's an anti-racist? Does that mean that I am against treating people different based on their skin colour and phenotype? Sounds good to me.

I use the term racist because we live in a world where most people believe in race. People know what the word means, they know what it means when use words like race, or racism. It's a way for me to explain what I am saying. If you treat a black person differently due to their skin colour or believe that they are inferior due to,t hen you are racist. Regardless of whether or not I believe in human races or not.




Synechdoche of skin colour

The assertion is sometimes made that those who believe in "racism" are merely desiring to discriminate between people on the basis of skin colour. Those making this claim realise that there is more difference than merely skin colour, but use this argument both to trivialise the differences between races and also as a proxy for claiming that differences between races are only cosmetic.

http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Communist_front_of_%22anti-racism%22




lol...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Cx5YSp-ghS8/SbKHEvMn8lI/AAAAAAAABLc/zNbO8D3RO-s/s400/Judea-Declares-War-On-Germany.jpg

Churchill was also a Zionist.

2Cool
03-23-2012, 05:12 AM
Just read the wiki page and I don't fit that description at all. I'm not Euro-phobic and against imposing hate speech laws. The page even managed to mention God.

But what's metapedia?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metapedia

Oh....

Well there goes the small amount of credibility it had.

CelticViking
03-23-2012, 05:23 AM
Just read the wiki page and I don't fit that description at all. I'm not Euro-phobic and against imposing hate speech laws. The page even managed to mention God.Well there goes the small amount of credibility it had.

Wikipedia is anti Racist and Pro Jew.

2Cool
03-23-2012, 05:35 AM
Wikipedia is anti Racist and Pro Jew.

I prefer to think of it as neutral and unbiased since anybody can edit it and they don't have some agenda to defend. That's why the owners of the site never allowed ads to be placed on wikipedia.

I took a look at metapedia, went to Hitler's page, and saw no mention of the Holocaust, Auschwitz or any concentration camps. Went to Portugal's page and all they mention is that Portugal was influence by Celtic tribes, the Romans and Germanics tribe. I wonder why there's no mention of the Moors... How can you expect anybody to take such a website seriously? It's a joke. This is why anything associated with white nationalism is taken with a grain of salt. You guys have no legitimacy.

CelticViking
03-23-2012, 05:39 AM
Why leftists and communists? lol.

Are you?



I took a look at metapedia, went to Hitler's page, and saw no mention of the Holocaust, Auschwitz or any concentration camps. How can you expect anybody to take such a website seriously? It's a joke. This is why anything associated with white nationalism is taken with a grain of salt. You guys have no legitimacy.

I'm not even a White nationalist.

Loki
03-23-2012, 05:46 AM
Wikipedia is anti Racist and Pro Jew.

I have found Wikipedia to be fairly unbiased and generally a good source of information.

zack
03-23-2012, 05:49 AM
I have found Wikipedia to be fairly unbiased and generally a good source of information.

If you ignore the wiki wars(people editing each others thing over and over and over again) and touchy subjects such as race and the differences within race then yeah.

One only has to look at the "scientific racism" article to realize that they are trying to push the 'race is a social construct" angle.

2Cool
03-23-2012, 05:49 AM
Are you?




I'm not even a White nationalist.

Liberal yes. Communist, no. But I believe in what I want to believe and don't typically like to label my beliefs with terms like that.

Well you sure act like one.

2Cool
03-23-2012, 05:52 AM
If you ignore the wiki wars(people editing each others thing over and over and over again) and touchy subjects such as race and the differences within race then yeah.

One only has to look at the "scientific racism" article to realize that they are trying to push the 'race is a social construct" angle.

Well yeah because that's the position that any reputable anthropologist organization supports.

zack
03-23-2012, 06:09 AM
Well yeah because that's the position that any reputable anthropologist organization supports.

The American anthropologist society is having a civil war.


Anthropologists have been thrown into turmoil about the nature and future of their profession after a decision by the American Anthropological Association at its recent annual meeting to strip the word “science” from a statement of its long-range plan.

The decision has reopened a long-simmering tension between researchers in science-based anthropological disciplines — including archaeologists, physical anthropologists and some cultural anthropologists — and members of the profession who study race, ethnicity and gender and see themselves as advocates for native peoples or human rights.

During the last 10 years the two factions have been through a phase of bitter tribal warfare after the more politically active group attacked work on the Yanomamo people of Venezuela and Brazil by Napoleon Chagnon, a science-oriented anthropologist, and James Neel, a medical geneticist who died in 2000. With the wounds of this conflict still fresh, many science-based anthropologists were dismayed to learn last month that the long-range plan of the association would no longer be to advance anthropology as a science but rather to focus on “public understanding.”

Until now, the association’s long-range plan was “to advance anthropology as the science that studies humankind in all its aspects.” The executive board revised this last month to say, “The purposes of the association shall be to advance public understanding of humankind in all its aspects.” This is followed by a list of anthropological subdisciplines that includes political research.

The word “science” has been excised from two other places in the revised statement.

The association’s president, Virginia Dominguez of the University of Illinois, said in an e-mail that the word had been dropped because the board sought to include anthropologists who do not locate their work within the sciences, as well as those who do. She said the new statement could be modified if the board received any good suggestions for doing so.

The new long-range plan differs from the association’s “statement of purpose,” which remains unchanged, Dr. Dominguez said. That statement still describes anthropology as a science.

Peter Peregrine, president of the Society for Anthropological Sciences, an affiliate of the American Anthropological Association, wrote in an e-mail to members that the proposed changes would undermine American anthropology, and he urged members to make their views known.

Dr. Peregrine, who is at Lawrence University in Wisconsin, said in an interview that the dropping of the references to science “just blows the top off” the tensions between the two factions. “Even if the board goes back to the old wording, the cat’s out of the bag and is running around clawing up the furniture,” he said.

He attributed what he viewed as an attack on science to two influences within anthropology. One is that of so-called critical anthropologists, who see anthropology as an arm of colonialism and therefore something that should be done away with. The other is the postmodernist critique of the authority of science. “Much of this is like creationism in that it is based on the rejection of rational argument and thought,” he said.

Dr. Dominguez denied that critical anthropologists or postmodernist thinking had influenced the new statement. She said in an e-mail that she was aware that science-oriented anthropologists had from time to time expressed worry about and disapproval of their nonscientific colleagues. “Marginalization is never a welcome experience,” she said

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/science/10anthropology.html

Put quite simply political correctness has ruined anthropology.

Social constructionists have infiltrated every aspect of science.

European Loyalist
03-23-2012, 07:21 AM
Social constructionism has some interesting points in a number of fields but it's proponents take it way too far in most cases.

As for social constructionism and race they don't argue that race is 100% socially constructed, such a notion is absurd, rather it's the idea that humans have attached values to races and framed these values as universal and this framing impacts how humans live and interact and so forth. I think no thinking person can argue that this attachment of values hasn't occurred. The degree to which it has occurred and has import is the real discussion.

Eurocentric
03-23-2012, 08:27 AM
Race-mixing is the destruction of european civilization. Is go out of the EXCELLENCE to make/become MEDIOCRE.

A hybrid place never could be tolerated in europe or in another white nation. Its easy and dishonest for a race-mixer make aberrations and take the advantages of a developed civilization.

They deserve Africa, or Brownzil, that could be a great place to race-mixers and their aberrations. Here, they could live in a mediocre-hybrid civilization and, i'm sure, would pay for their sins.

zack
03-23-2012, 08:53 AM
As for social constructionism and race they don't argue that race is 100% socially constructed, such a notion is absurd, rather it's the idea that humans have attached values to races and framed these values as universal and this framing impacts how humans live and interact and so forth. I think no thinking person can argue that this attachment of values hasn't occurred. The degree to which it has occurred and has import is the real discussion.

They argue that race is an illusion. They argue that race does not exist and is a social construct(made up)and has "no taxonomic significance".

http://library.csus.edu/services/lmc/media_libguide/popular_videos/race_power.jpg

They employ every single thing you could think of towards their point of view. They are conniving little rat shits. They employ fallacy after fallacy to twist the arguments in the direction that they want it to go. They use the Lewontin's fallacy over and over and over again,no matter that it has been proven to be a fallacy.

Padre Organtino
03-23-2012, 09:09 AM
Duh, all these people arguing bout IQs and etc. It's all very simple: I know that marrying a Black girl (who can be kind, gentle and intelligent - I am not racist) will alter bloodline that flows from my ancestors and that will be almost irreversible. My children shall not look like me and my ancestors and this knowledge alone is enough to say NO to that. Once again it has nothing to do with disliking or hating anyone and I acknowledge the right of other people to discriminate me when it comes to ancestry.

zack
03-23-2012, 09:17 AM
Duh, all these people arguing bout IQs and etc. It's all very simple: I know that marrying a Black girl (who can be kind, gentle and intelligent - I am not racist) will alter bloodline that flows from my ancestors and that will be almost irreversible. My children shall not look like me and my ancestors and this knowledge alone is enough to say NO to that. Once again it has nothing to do with disliking or hating anyone and I acknowledge the right of other people to discriminate me when it comes to ancestry.

It would not be irreversible,but it would take at least 7 generations to be bred out.

Padre Organtino
03-23-2012, 09:19 AM
It would not be irreversible,but it would take at least 7 generations to be bred out.

That's pretty much a catastrophe by Georgian standards. We are already a small enough nation to allow such stuff to happen and as I've said I want to be proud of my children and be happy to show them to my relatives and etc. How am I gonna do that with them looking very foreign?

zack
03-23-2012, 09:34 AM
That's pretty much a catastrophe by Georgian standards. We are already a small enough nation to allow such stuff to happen and as I've said I want to be proud of my children and be happy to show them to my relatives and etc. How am I gonna do that with them looking very foreign?

That is pretty much all true.

StonyArabia
03-23-2012, 03:36 PM
Duh, all these people arguing bout IQs and etc. It's all very simple: I know that marrying a Black girl (who can be kind, gentle and intelligent - I am not "racist") will alter bloodline that flows from my ancestors and the damage will be almost irreversible. My children shall not look like me and my ancestors and this knowledge alone is enough to say NO to that.

From a non-mixed person this should sound logical, but to me since I am a mixed person to be honest I could care less. This should be as well a natural outcome but since you are mixed there is nothing to preserve, but culturally you can, and this afterall tend to be the most important. However this might be from understanding of a culture that does accept mixed people as their own, unlike some, and hence the greatest difference between my thought and yours.

European Loyalist
03-23-2012, 04:54 PM
They argue that race is an illusion. They argue that race does not exist and is a social construct(made up)and has "no taxonomic significance".

http://library.csus.edu/services/lmc/media_libguide/popular_videos/race_power.jpg

They employ every single thing you could think of towards their point of view. They are conniving little rat shits. They employ fallacy after fallacy to twist the arguments in the direction that they want it to go. They use the Lewontin's fallacy over and over and over again,no matter that it has been proven to be a fallacy.

wow. I didn't know that such idiots existed. I've read social constructionist material on race which makes the case that race is partially socially constructed, not entirely.

Treffie
03-24-2012, 02:01 PM
Source? I remember reading that Black African immigrants are more successful, and have a higher education than Black Americans. Yet Black Americans have less African blood.I also read a BBC article that stated that Black female Africans had higher grades than white British males.

The article which you are referring to is here. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/3517171.stm)Girls always do better than boys - it's called hormones. White girls are doing much better than black girls. Black boys do much worse than white boys.

AussieScott
03-24-2012, 02:15 PM
The article which you are referring to is here. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/3517171.stm)Girls always do better than boys - it's called hormones. White girls are doing much better than black girls. Black boys do much worse than white boys.

Being schooling/learning is structured for girls in kindy, primary school and female advancement during high school and university/college, latter down the track affirmative action in the work place. It's no wonder girls do better then the boys.

Feral
03-24-2012, 06:11 PM
All human subraces descend from the same thing: being human. Accept the differences. Accept that you may be better in something that the other isn't; and that the other may be better in something you aren't. And of course this is possible because genetic and cultural lineage. But being superior in freaking everything? Meh.
Now. Someone who had loved someone from another race is consider, by some people, a traitor to his/her own race. But someone who had killed someone of his/her own race? Or even worse?. Or someone who had excused his/her atrocities with the idea of being superior?. Or even the ones who are always claming some superiority but hiding in the shadows of the greatness of his/her race/culture, and doing fucking nothing to contribute? What about all those?.

Just saying.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_guerpTJpD90/SCd1MGv_xyI/AAAAAAAAAJw/MKY16Ol5t-k/s400/Oveja.jpg
"There are two kind of people..."

2Cool
03-24-2012, 06:29 PM
All human subraces descend from the same thing: being human. Accept the differences. Accept that you may be better in something that the other isn't; and that the other may be better in something you aren't. And of course this is possible because genetic and cultural lineage. But being superior in freaking everything? Meh.
Now. Someone who had loved someone from another race is consider, by some people, a traitor to his/her own race. But someone who had killed someone of his/her own race? Or even worse?. Or someone who had excused his/her atrocities with the idea of being superior?. Or even the ones who are always claming some superiority, and hiding in the shadows of the greatness of his/her race/culture, but doing fucking nothing to contribute? What about all those?.

Just saying.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_guerpTJpD90/SCd1MGv_xyI/AAAAAAAAAJw/MKY16Ol5t-k/s400/Oveja.jpg
"There are two kind of people..."

You are right. But realize that the bolded applies to individuals. You cannot generalize populations that comprise millions, and sometimes billions of people. To the people who say that black people have a low IQ etc., what happens when they meet a black person smarter than them? Better looking? etc. Usually such people will try to find something wrong with these people because they are super insecure.

In the end, stereotypes don't mean shit when you break it down to individual people.

StonyArabia
03-24-2012, 06:43 PM
All human subraces descend from the same thing: being human. Accept the differences. Accept that you may be better in something that the other isn't; and that the other may be better in something you aren't. And of course this is possible because genetic and cultural lineage. But being superior in freaking everything? Meh.
Now. Someone who had loved someone from another race is consider, by some people, a traitor to his/her own race. But someone who had killed someone of his/her own race? Or even worse?. Or someone who had excused his/her atrocities with the idea of being superior?. Or even the ones who are always claming some superiority, and hiding in the shadows of the greatness of his/her race/culture, but doing fucking nothing to contribute? What about all those?.

Just saying.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_guerpTJpD90/SCd1MGv_xyI/AAAAAAAAAJw/MKY16Ol5t-k/s400/Oveja.jpg
"There are two kind of people..."

Indeed what you speak is the truth.

The fact remains it's the ultimate choice of the person. Whinning about it on the internet would not gain or lose anything. The people who hate it or have an extreme hate often burns themselves, in other words it's them that lose. If the family and the two constenting adults are fine with it, there will be nothing that people can do. However if they don't want to be in this situation they simply should do their own part by dating or marrying of their own group if that's what they desire. Many people also get annoyed or angered when somebody is telling them who should their son or daughter be with, because they see it as none of business of who ever is epousing this, and they are right in this. So in the end it comes if you have something that you really can't control just leave it be, it's that simple. If the two people love and fancy each other and it's based on mutal cooperation and friendship I honestly see it as cruel to deny them the relationship because they belong to two different set of people.


In the end, stereotypes don't mean shit when you break it down to individual people.

Indeed, and frankly this is the absolute truth.

European Loyalist
03-24-2012, 06:58 PM
Being schooling/learning is structured for girls in kindy, primary school and female advancement during high school and university/college, latter down the track affirmative action in the work place. It's no wonder girls do better then the boys.

Yes. Feminism has not made the education system gender equal, it has made it actively pro-female. It's gotten so bad here that almost 60% of the university students in Canada are female and there are medical schools that are 60-75% female. And yet there are no cries for egalitarian policies now. Instead it's "what's wrong with little boys in school? They are too active in class, let's medicate them to death!" :mad: makes me sick

Feral
03-24-2012, 07:04 PM
You are right. But realize that the bolded applies to individuals. You cannot generalize populations that comprise millions, and sometimes billions of people. To the people who say that black people have a low IQ etc., what happens when they meet a black person smarter than them? Better looking? etc. Usually such people will try to find something wrong with these people because they are super insecure.

In the end, stereotypes don't mean shit when you break it down to individual people.


They aren't saying that black people have a low IQ per se, but that they have a lower IQ compared to other races.
And one can generalize this racial and cultural differences, but some of this generalizations must stay in context, a scientific context --which in this case, there's none. However, the problem isn't scientific generalization, but the overgeneralization and prejudice that comes from a racism that has grown from fear. There's no need to be racist to preserve any race. And of course individuals can stand out --they should; That's what make large groups of individuals to evolve and/or develop their culture. But that's the problem with the common racists, they just can't see it nor aprove individualism. And, ironically, their the ones that just talk and do really nothing important for their own race nor culture.

Eurocentric
03-25-2012, 10:35 AM
I have experience to say this: Is impossible to build/maintain a civilized place with the presence of miscegenation with inferior races. In Brownzil, you observe this in loco. Race exists and is not a social construction.

Mulattoes and hybrids of all sorts can make a place like "walking-dead". The infection with shit blood make most of them ugly, irrationals and violent. In Brownzil, they are millions. They kill each other, behead each other, and, sometimes, fuck each other too:

http://i39.tinypic.com/2reirg5.jpg
http://i42.tinypic.com/23m8129.jpg
http://i42.tinypic.com/jfcfv6.jpg

For those who are "flexible" for mix of races, they should come and live here to see for themselves the result of the racial melting pot.

Feral
03-25-2012, 01:00 PM
I have experience to say this: Is impossible to build/maintain a civilized place with the presence of miscegenation with inferior races. In Brownzil, you observe this in loco. Race exists and is not a social construction.

Mulattoes and hybrids of all sorts can make a place like "walking-dead". The infection with shit blood make most of them ugly, irrationals and violent. In Brownzil, they are millions. They kill each other, behead each other, and, sometimes, fuck each other too:

http://i39.tinypic.com/2reirg5.jpg
http://i42.tinypic.com/23m8129.jpg
http://i42.tinypic.com/jfcfv6.jpg

For those who are "flexible" for mix of races, they should come and live here to see for themselves the result of the racial melting pot.


And in my country most of the time race means nothing; I've seen white people below the lower class, acting like the worst shit I've ever seen.
Brazil isn't the only place in the world with racial mixing; and definitely not the best one.
So, wrong, what you have shown it's not the result of racial mixing but politics and economy.

Supreme American
03-25-2012, 01:04 PM
Do you really want to preserve European culture? Then move to Europe.

So what are you doing here, lefty?

Supreme American
03-25-2012, 01:08 PM
And in my country most of the time race means nothing; I've seen white people below the lower class, acting like the worst shit I've ever seen.
Brazil isn't the only place in the world with racial mixting; and definitely not the best one.
So, wrong, what you have shown it's not the result of racial mixting but politics and economy.

Perhaps Argentina's lack of a large black population is the reason for your egalitarianism. Everywhere multiracial societies exist, blacks are always at the top of the crime and social disease ladder. Politics and economics do not explain this.

rhiannon
03-25-2012, 01:09 PM
So what are you doing here, lefty?

You can be a lefty and still have interest in your heritage. :)

Supreme American
03-25-2012, 01:14 PM
However, the problem isn't scientific generalization, but the overgeneralization and prejudice that comes from a racism that has grown from fear.

Rote liberalism? What is that? Has it ever occurred to you that prejudice comes from experience?



There's no need to be racist to preserve any race.

No, but then again it depends on how racism is defined. The demand for a racially/culturally sovereign homeland is regularly termed racist, as apparently these races that aren't our inferiors that keep acting as if they are can't hack it on their own to make themselves a decent civilization so feel the need to follow whites around like mother bears.


And of course individuals can stand out --they should; That's what make large groups of individuals to evolve and/or develop their culture.

And if they can't hack it after thousands of years, they pull up stakes and follow whites for milk. Bright individuals do not erase the lower IQ whole. It speaks for itself: sub-Saharan Africa is still a toilet after tens of thousands of years due to the whole being sub-par in terms of intelligence as opposed to fewer of them with higher IQs. As the old saying goes, a nation is a reflection of its people, and that fact is inescapable.


But that's the problem with the common racists, they just can't see it nor aprove individualism.

They don't because exceptions do not trump the general rule. People are a product of the groups they come from, both genetically and culturally. They can't be separated from it, it weighs very heavily on them.

Supreme American
03-25-2012, 01:14 PM
You can be a lefty and still have interest in your heritage. :)

I've seen some however when push comes to shove they take the PC conformist route and throw their people under the bus. I've seen it many times.

rhiannon
03-25-2012, 01:21 PM
I've seen some however when push comes to shove they take the PC conformist route and throw their people under the bus. I've seen it many times.

In what fashion? I need context.

Feral
03-25-2012, 01:50 PM
Rote liberalism? What is that? Has it ever occurred to you that prejudice comes from experience?




No, but then again it depends on how racism is defined. The demand for a racially/culturally sovereign homeland is regularly termed racist, as apparently these races that aren't our inferiors that keep acting as if they are can't hack it on their own to make themselves a decent civilization so feel the need to follow whites around like mother bears.



And if they can't hack it after thousands of years, they pull up stakes and follow whites for milk. Bright individuals do not erase the lower IQ whole. It speaks for itself: sub-Saharan Africa is still a toilet after tens of thousands of years due to the whole being sub-par in terms of intelligence as opposed to fewer of them with higher IQs. As the old saying goes, a nation is a reflection of its people, and that fact is inescapable.



They don't because exceptions do not trump the general rule. People are a product of the groups they come from, both genetically and culturally. They can't be separated from it, it weighs very heavily on them.


Prejudice only see appearances of the past experiences. Then, prejudice becomes more a belief than a knowledge.
Experience is subjective, and even being objetive forms part of that subjectivism. So, if someone doesn't change its way of being, then he/she will continue experiencing the same thing the same way, and for he/she will be reasonable to think that they aren't wrong about what they've know and what they now believe.
-
Being conscious about racial and cultural identity isn't the same that being racist.

Africa has become a toilet, guess why and for whom.

IMHO, IQ is overrated. I have 120 IQ (MENSA), and still I suck in a lot of stuff that I not willing to do, because I prefer to do things I love to do; and I'm good in this stuff, and most of this stuff have to do with what is called emotional intelligence. And I have been, just by curious, in some forums of 'gifted' people; They aren't that brights. So it doesn't matter what you have but what you do with it. And I can assure that is kinda hard to do stuff when there are people throwing shit at you.
-
I don't disagree with the last statement. Except, of course, I'll refered to myself to the first thing I've replied in this post.

_________________________

Perhaps Argentina's lack of a large black population is the reason for your egalitarianism. Everywhere multiracial societies exist, blacks are always at the top of the crime and social disease ladder. Politics and economics do not explain this.


I've seen families of black people living in here, and they seem to be good people. :)
I can't say the same about the newest inmigration, but then again, these last ones are selling stuff in the street or rarely in a shop. I believe that the families have a better economical and social life. And these inmigrants will have it not just harder in respect of work, but in their social life if they are going to be discriminated for being inmigrants and blacks. This kind of racism probably will not stop inmigration, but it definitely will have consequences in respect of the way of living of black people living in here.
Politics and economics may not explain this. But social behavior may do it. At the moment, I've not seen any black person acting against the law in any harmful way, but I can expect that It will happen if they are treated like shit; considering that may be they are more prone to being agressive than other races. Have you considered that maybe extreme racism can explain why they are where they are? We are social animals after all...


And there's no preservation intention in this topic, just a racist basis that is constantly used for argue with twisted information or information arbitrarily interpreted.
"It may well be. But simply wanting this to be the case is not enough. This is not science." - Dr. James D. Watson

Hevneren
03-25-2012, 04:46 PM
I've been reading through this thread, and I see how the discussion - as usual - turns rather nasty and emotional. I have my own views on this topic, but I don't want to tell others what to think or do when it comes to something as personal as choosing a life partner. Honestly, I can understand both those who are open to mixed relationships and those who want to preserve their culture, ethnicity and phenotype for the future.

I'll admit I feel torn on the subject. On one hand I feel proud of my culture, my ethnicity and identity and I want future generations to carry these aspects with them. I want native Norwegians to be around a century from now.

On the other hand, I think that genetic, cultural or phenotypical differences don't mean that you can't find common ground with another person and indeed have feelings for that person. I also think that it's too simplistic to feel animosity towards someone simply because they look different or have a different cultural background, as long as they are kind, law abiding and generally good people.

I've been brought up to be respectful and polite, and my parents never told me I shouldn't be respectful to certain groups simply because I don't think it ever occurred to them to do so. Thus, I am inclined to be respectful and polite to a person who is respectful and polite to me, just as I will cease to be respectful towards disrespectful people. Colour or cultural background doesn't factor in here.

I'm not politically correct but I'm also not racist in the sense that I automatically view someone as inferior purely based on skin colour or ethnic background. Sure, being that I'm rather non-PC I have more negative feelings about - for example - Somalian immigrants than I do about Thai immigrants, but this is more based on general attitudes and the number of crimes committed by Somalians versus the number of crimes committed by Thais in this country.

I'll freely admit that I don't particularly like the idea of Third World immigrants flooding Norway. Does this mean that all Third World people are criminal, stupid, lazy etc.? No, but I also think that it would ruin our culture and decrease diversity in the world rather than increase diversity.

I think that culture and general behaviour is more important than colour, at least when it comes to how I react to a person, and I also think it matters when it comes to immigration. If we were to only factor in colour, then Eastern European and South Slavic criminals - including Poles, Latvians, Lithuanians, Russians, Serbs, Albanians etc. - should be accepted into the country while law abiding Thais, Chinese, Iranians etc. should be kicked out.

As a side-note, I noticed Lagergeld asking when a white person will be playing a non-white person on the silver screen, such as Ghandi. Well, as a matter of fact Sir Ben Kingsley played Mahatma Gandhi in a 1982 film about his life.
http://rojakhan.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Ben-Kingsley-as-Gandhi.jpg

Supreme American
03-25-2012, 05:03 PM
I'm not politically correct but I'm also not racist in the sense that I automatically view someone as inferior purely based on skin colour or ethnic background. Sure, being that I'm rather non-PC I have more negative feelings about - for example - Somalian immigrants than I do about Thai immigrants, but this is more based on general attitudes and the number of crimes committed by Somalians versus the number of crimes committed by Thais in this country.

Coincidentally, Thai IQ is a little higher than that of Africans, and that says something.



As a side-note, I noticed Lagergeld asking when a white person will be playing a non-white person on the silver screen, such as Ghandi. Well, as a matter of fact Sir Ben Kingsley played Mahatma Gandhi in a 1982 film about his life.
http://rojakhan.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Ben-Kingsley-as-Gandhi.jpg

You should be able to tell by looking at his nose that he has something non-European in him. His birth name is Krishna Pandit Bhanji, thus it was not a white man playing that role, but a light-skinned Hindu with a likely Jewish mother (Goodman).

CelticViking
03-25-2012, 09:00 PM
As a side-note, I noticed Lagergeld asking when a white person will be playing a non-white person on the silver screen, such as Ghandi. Well, as a matter of fact Sir Ben Kingsley played Mahatma Gandhi in a 1982 film about his life.
http://rojakhan.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Ben-Kingsley-as-Gandhi.jpg




Kingsley's father, born in Kenya, is of Gujarati Indian descent; Kingsley's paternal grandfather was a spice trader who had moved from India to Zanzibar, where Kingsley's father lived until moving to England at the age of 14.[3][4][5] Kingsley's mother, born out of wedlock, was "loath to speak of her background". Kingsley's maternal grandfather was believed by the family to have been a Russian or German Jew, while his maternal grandmother was English and worked in the garment district of East London
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Kingsley

Supreme American
03-25-2012, 09:09 PM
In what fashion? I need context.

Discussions with people about pride in who you are and where you come from. They can degree to a certain extent about pride with one's European heritage but it doesn't take much for them to make the usual trained-dog comments about Nazis and then back off the idea completely. Forget the idea of even trying to talk to them about preservation. They'd rather drown in a multiracial shithole than take the un-PC steps to preserve their people. I don't know how much of that is internal brainwashing kicking in and how much it is a fear of looking bad to others.

rhiannon
03-26-2012, 04:48 AM
Discussions with people about pride in who you are and where you come from. They can degree to a certain extent about pride with one's European heritage but it doesn't take much for them to make the usual trained-dog comments about Nazis and then back off the idea completely. Forget the idea of even trying to talk to them about preservation. They'd rather drown in a multiracial shithole than take the un-PC steps to preserve their people. I don't know how much of that is internal brainwashing kicking in and how much it is a fear of looking bad to others.

You never struck me as NS, Lagergeld. Was I wrong? Unless you are NS, most normal people abhor the Nazis for good reason....and it's not because we've been brainwashed by Jewish media or anything. Many more people were killed in that war than just Jews.

Pride in one's heritage is not synonymous with NS ideologies. There are plenty of people in this forum, such as Hevneren and myself, who have sincere interest and pride in our heritage, but who have no respect for Nazis and their ideologies..

Let me ask you this, since you have not taken the obvious step in preserving your ancestral line by sending forth your DNA to the next generation, what have you actually done to preserve your people? What is it you would have other people in your shoes do?

I have preserved mine. My children will be taught the value of a healthy appreciation for one's heritage....and they will hopefully in turn, pass that on to their children.

That's how I think of Preservation.

How about you? This is a sincere question:)

rhiannon
03-26-2012, 04:49 AM
I've been reading through this thread, and I see how the discussion - as usual - turns rather nasty and emotional. I have my own views on this topic, but I don't want to tell others what to think or do when it comes to something as personal as choosing a life partner. Honestly, I can understand both those who are open to mixed relationships and those who want to preserve their culture, ethnicity and phenotype for the future.

I'll admit I feel torn on the subject. On one hand I feel proud of my culture, my ethnicity and identity and I want future generations to carry these aspects with them. I want native Norwegians to be around a century from now.

On the other hand, I think that genetic, cultural or phenotypical differences don't mean that you can't find common ground with another person and indeed have feelings for that person. I also think that it's too simplistic to feel animosity towards someone simply because they look different or have a different cultural background, as long as they are kind, law abiding and generally good people.

I've been brought up to be respectful and polite, and my parents never told me I shouldn't be respectful to certain groups simply because I don't think it ever occurred to them to do so. Thus, I am inclined to be respectful and polite to a person who is respectful and polite to me, just as I will cease to be respectful towards disrespectful people. Colour or cultural background doesn't factor in here.

I'm not politically correct but I'm also not racist in the sense that I automatically view someone as inferior purely based on skin colour or ethnic background. Sure, being that I'm rather non-PC I have more negative feelings about - for example - Somalian immigrants than I do about Thai immigrants, but this is more based on general attitudes and the number of crimes committed by Somalians versus the number of crimes committed by Thais in this country.

I'll freely admit that I don't particularly like the idea of Third World immigrants flooding Norway. Does this mean that all Third World people are criminal, stupid, lazy etc.? No, but I also think that it would ruin our culture and decrease diversity in the world rather than increase diversity.

I think that culture and general behaviour is more important than colour, at least when it comes to how I react to a person, and I also think it matters when it comes to immigration. If we were to only factor in colour, then Eastern European and South Slavic criminals - including Poles, Latvians, Lithuanians, Russians, Serbs, Albanians etc. - should be accepted into the country while law abiding Thais, Chinese, Iranians etc. should be kicked out.

As a side-note, I noticed Lagergeld asking when a white person will be playing a non-white person on the silver screen, such as Ghandi. Well, as a matter of fact Sir Ben Kingsley played Mahatma Gandhi in a 1982 film about his life.
http://rojakhan.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Ben-Kingsley-as-Gandhi.jpg

American film has a long history of whites playing nonwhites on the Silver Screen:)

JamesSteal
03-26-2012, 04:55 AM
I believe most interracial relationships are not about love, but instead about being "different" or "trendy". Most of the people I have came across in interracial relationships are either shallow or overweight/ugly.

The Kardashians are a good example of this.

CelticViking
03-26-2012, 06:52 AM
American film has a long history of whites playing nonwhites on the Silver Screen:)

Jew Hollywood Films, wanting to create race rows.
By stealing Anime and making live action with White actors.
Than casting Blacks and Asians in films about Greek or Norse gods.

StonyArabia
03-26-2012, 09:31 PM
Yes there has been Whites acting as non-Whites. Here they are

Alec Guinness played as Prince Fisal

http://s15.postimage.org/su3ecxuuz/Alec_Guiness.gif (http://postimage.org/)
image hosting (http://postimage.org/)

British actor Dominic Cooper played Uday Huessian and his doppleganger

http://s7.postimage.org/7182ivppn/dominic_cooper.jpg (http://postimage.org/)
image host (http://postimage.org/)

Australian actor Philip Quast as Saddam Hussein

http://s17.postimage.org/w00v5mjrj/philipq.jpg (http://postimage.org/)
image hosting gif (http://postimage.org/)

http://s18.postimage.org/eedpw7ue1/gallery_img_large_7.jpg (http://postimage.org/)
image host (http://postimage.org/)

just as an example

CelticViking
03-26-2012, 10:21 PM
Yes there has been Whites acting as non-Whites. Here they are
Alec Guinness played as Prince Fisal
British actor Dominic Cooper played Uday Huessian and his doppleganger
Australian actor Philip Quast as Saddam Hussein
just as an example

Lawrence of Arabia
produced by Sam Spiegel (Jew)
The film was made by Horizon Pictures (founded by the Jew Sam Spiegel) and Columbia Pictures (owned by Sony (Jews)

The Devil's Double
Directed by Lee Tamahori (Maori) with connections with Hollywood.
Lion's Gate owned by Jon Feltheimer (Jew).

2Cool
03-27-2012, 02:23 AM
I believe most interracial relationships are not about love, but instead about being "different" or "trendy". Most of the people I have came across in interracial relationships are either shallow or overweight/ugly.

The Kardashians are a good example of this.

I don't really thing you're in a position to claim something like that. I could say the same thing for most relationships.

Maybe that's why more people divorce these days...

Mary
03-29-2012, 02:32 PM
I thought we should have a thread on this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientalism_(book)

This seems to be a Western phenomenon. Can some of you explain what the allure is?

Mary
03-29-2012, 03:26 PM
Let me be more specific then: what's up with Western women being into Oriental men?

Albion
03-29-2012, 03:28 PM
I thought we should have a thread on this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientalism_(book)

This seems to be a Western phenomenon. Can some of you explain what the allure is?

I don't know, I thought you were into that sort of thing?

Mary
03-29-2012, 03:35 PM
I don't know, I thought you were into that sort of thing?

How do you mean exactly?

Benacer
03-29-2012, 03:37 PM
Let me be more specific then: what's up with Western women being into Oriental men?

It's actually also common with men. It's because they are attracted to the exotic.

Mary
03-29-2012, 03:39 PM
It's actually also common with men. It's because they are attracted to the exotic.

Yeah, that's another aspect. I noticed that most Western men tend to fetishize Muslim women.

Albion
03-29-2012, 03:40 PM
How do you mean exactly?

Orientalism - the study of eastern cultures. I thought you'd developed an interest with the Middle East, like I see you on here talking about Burqas and veils all the time.

Benacer
03-29-2012, 03:43 PM
Yeah, that's another aspect. I noticed that most Western men tend to fetishise Muslim women.

True. It is curious that western people usually see orientals as more spiritually advanced and in touch with the supernatural. I will have to agree that there is a lot of fetishism going on, and perhaps a lot of unrealistic fantasies of what things truly are there. Perhaps this only grows up with media depictions in movies and whatnot.

Mary
03-29-2012, 03:43 PM
Orientalism - the study of eastern cultures. I thought you'd developed an interest with the Middle East, like I see you on here talking about Burqas and veils all the time.

I talk about it from a Christian perspective. You may have noticed that I post about the Bible and not about the Quran.

Simply put:

* I see it as a tool for subjugating the woman.

* Muslims see it as a tool for protecting the woman's modesty.

Mary
03-29-2012, 03:46 PM
True. It is curious that western people usually see orientals as more spiritually advanced and in touch with the supernatural. I will have to agree that there is a lot of fetishism going on, and perhaps a lot of unrealistic fantasies of what things truly are there. Perhaps this only grows up with media depictions in movies and whatnot.

Here is an example:


She's about to get charmed...

Libby Fay's safe little life as a waitress at a posh New York boutique hotel implodes when Sheikh Rasyn Al Jabar, black-eyed and seductive, crashes into her world and swears that he loves her.

The powerful sheikh will do anything to prevent becoming the ruler of his North African homeland, including marrying a woman who is inappropriate to be queen. When he sees the beautiful, bubbly waitress, he knows that she is the perfect wife to help him avoid the throne—all he has to do is make her fall in love with him.

All her life, Libby has longed for the same loving, equal partnership her parents had—something she couldn't possibly have with a forceful sheikh who ignores all her objections. But Rasyn seems to be able to charm her into anything, including his bed. Soon, she finds herself on a plane to Abbas, transported into a fairy tale come true.

Unfortunately for Libby, a Cinderella is the last thing this Prince Charming wants.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004VMPQHK/ref=cm_cr_asin_lnk

This is how Western women fetishize Muslim men. I'm not hating on it, but I just don't understand it.

Some of the reader reviews:


I love a good sheikh book, although sometimes the hyper-alpha male can be a bit much. But this is a really, really good book, with a strong, sexy hero and an engaging heroine who breaks the stereotypes you too often get. Best of both worlds, here. Totally within the conventions of the genre, but with smart writing and a story that is a cut above.


Libby, the main female character, is one lucky gal! Well to be honest Sheikh Rasyn is lucky to. Both of the character's different backgrounds make this a great `opposites attract' setting. Everything in the story is charming right down to each other's fears and desires.

Once I got past drooling over the man on the cover, I couldn't stop reading. This story kept my eyes wide open. I soaked in every word thinking I would be able to guess the ending and I didn't which is a HUGE plus in my opinion. Teresa Morgan, the author, kept me guessing right down to the end.


Until recently, I'd never read a sheikh book, never had a burning desire to do so. Cinderella and the Sheikh made me an instant convert. I loved this book. It is a romantic, witty read, with a terrific heroine and hunky alpha male hero. Lots of fun, plenty of heat, and a plot with enough twists and turns to keep the reader engaged until the end.

iNird
03-29-2012, 03:48 PM
It's actually also common with men. It's because they are attracted to the exotic.

I think some westerners are attracted to Asian women because they are seem as more feminine. Asian women tend to be less aggressive, more submissive and even more feminine in shape (ie for example the women tend to be shorter though they tend to lack curves.) Basically Asian women tend to represent the roles of a traditional women. Western women tend to be more independent, more aggressive and tend to have more masculine behaviors.

While some white women that prefer say blacks and middle easterners because they tend to be more aggressive, have more masculine personalities and so forth.

Western women are acting more masculine and western men are acting more feminine.

There definitely is an exotic component to the attraction as well.

Just my opinion.

Mary
03-29-2012, 03:54 PM
I think some westerners are attracted to Asian women because they are seem as more feminine. Asian women tend to be less aggressive, more submissive and even more feminine in shape (ie for example the women tend to be shorter though they tend to lack curves.) Basically Asian women tend to represent the roles of a traditional women. Western women tend to be more independent, more aggressive and tend to have more masculine behaviors.

While some white women that prefer say blacks and middle easterners because they tend to be more aggressive, have more masculine personalities and so forth.

Western women are acting more masculine and western men are acting more feminine.

There definitely is an exotic component to the attraction as well.

Just my opinion.

I'm talking about Middle Eastern. Not East Asian.

Loddfafner
03-29-2012, 04:10 PM
I thought we should have a thread on this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientalism_(book)

This seems to be a Western phenomenon. Can some of you explain what the allure is?


Let me be more specific then: what's up with Western women being into Oriental men?

The phenomenon of Orientalism as meant above is about how a fantasy about the Middle East has shaped or distorted European and American policies over there. On the one hand it is about using seemingly neutral academic knowledge as a means to control and colonize them, on the other hand it is about a fantasy that systematically blinds our policy makers even as it has also excused colonial abuses.

It is not the same concept as that of European individuals fetishizing Asian bodies, though that fetish usually builds on the tropes of Orientalism.

Mary
03-29-2012, 04:30 PM
The phenomenon of Orientalism as meant above is about how a fantasy about the Middle East has shaped or distorted European and American policies over there. On the one hand it is about using seemingly neutral academic knowledge as a means to control and colonize them, on the other hand it is about a fantasy that systematically blinds our policy makers even as it has also excused colonial abuses.

It is not the same concept as that of European individuals fetishizing Asian bodies, though that fetish usually builds on the tropes of Orientalism.

I agree with that. It is ideologically constructing the Middle East as "The Other". But I am talking about how the Western Individual sees the Orient. It seems to be mostly about projecting their own sexual fantasies onto this "Other".

I mean Russians see Middle Easterners are "Others" too. But we don't eroticize them.

What's so exciting about some dark guy that lives in a tent in the desert?

http://susannacarr.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Girl-in-the-Bedouin-Tent-by-Annie-West.jpg


Sheikh Prince Amir has vowed to redeem his scandalous family name—so the last thing he needs on a tour of his desert kingdom is to have a sensuous blonde with more spirit than clothes presented for his harem.

Fiery Cassie might have been kidnapped by bandits and dolled up as the Sheikh's love slave, but she refuses to be any man's plaything. Yet spending a week in Amir's desert tent pretending to be his mistress would get under any girl's skin. Especially when she is under his sheets.…

http://www.amazon.com/Bedouin-Harlequin-Presents-Extra-ebook/dp/B006QADO56/ref=pd_sim_kstore_1?ie=UTF8&m=A1NBCVVM1MRWGW

Or a woman in a face veil for that matter?

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51NXkCpTguL.jpg


The novel tells of the problems of the Englishman and the Saudi woman who fall in love in a country where the strict Moslem laws make it illegal for a Christian man and Moslem woman to meet. The reaction of her brother and his own dilemma when the couple are found out add to the complex situation. Throughout the plot with its twist and turns the difference in the two cultures and the way of life and thinking between the West and East is portrayed to give an insight to the vast cultural gap which exists between a strict Moslem country and the freedom of the West.

http://www.amazon.com/Inshallah-ebook/dp/B007OIX3XM/ref=sr_1_9?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1333037577&sr=1-9

Albion
03-29-2012, 05:53 PM
Yeah, that's another aspect. I noticed that most Western men tend to fetishize Muslim women.

Hahahahahaha :D Where the hell did you hear that? We can't even see them half the time so how the hell are we supposed to have any attraction?
Besides, they never look that good to me. The exceptions are usually the most European-looking ones, but even then they're hardly outstanding.


It is curious that western people usually see orientals as more spiritually advanced and in touch with the supernatural.

I think you're talking more about East Asians here - Chinese, Thais and that lot. Some people are drawn to them by how different they are I guess.


I will have to agree that there is a lot of fetishism going on, and perhaps a lot of unrealistic fantasies of what things truly are there. Perhaps this only grows up with media depictions in movies and whatnot.

There's a lot of people with fetishes, some people are drawn to the east because they believe people there are more traditional in their sense of the word.


Let me be more specific then: what's up with Western women being into Oriental men?

The same as Western men being attracted to Eastern women - it'll lead to the ruin of our race. If you want to do that sort of thing then go and live in Asia somewhere. At least European genes may improve them slightly in the long run, but bringing other races here is a bad idea and will change everything about the continent.


This is how Western women fetishize Muslim men. I'm not hating on it, but I just don't understand it.

Ah, I see. This isn't about the race, it is women being drawn to power and "alpha males".
If the guy was instead a mighty emperor of a empire in Europe it'd be just the same.

Traditional gender stereotypes say this - women are drawn to powerful men, men are drawn to submissive women.
The accuracy of this is debatable, but there is some truth in there. However it is not something I care to debate about.

Albion
03-29-2012, 06:03 PM
I think some westerners are attracted to Asian women because they are seem as more feminine. Asian women tend to be less aggressive, more submissive and even more feminine in shape (ie for example the women tend to be shorter though they tend to lack curves.) Basically Asian women tend to represent the roles of a traditional women. Western women tend to be more independent, more aggressive and tend to have more masculine behaviors.

It's been said before but the whole women's rights thing created very assertive women in the west. In the rest of the world they aren't always as restricted as they are in the Middle East, but then again they tend not to be so much a "challenge" to men as they are in the west.

There's a problem with divorces and failing marriages in the west, I think a lot of men just get sick of women here. It's not entirely women's fault, but often I think it's stress put onto relationships when both partners work.
Of couples I've seen, usually it is the ones where only the man works that seem to more often stay together.

When people have fetishes about these other races I suppose what they're really looking for is a return to gender roles (although many would deny such).

Mary
03-29-2012, 06:38 PM
Hahahahahaha :D Where the hell did you hear that? We can't even see them half the time so how the hell are we supposed to have any attraction?
Besides, they never look that good to me. The exceptions are usually the most European-looking ones, but even then they're hardly outstanding.

It's the harem-fantasy. Here is an example: www (dot) talesoftheveils (dot) info/

Please leave the link cold so as not to encourage these weirdos.


Ah, I see. This isn't about the race, it is women being drawn to power and "alpha males".
If the guy was instead a mighty emperor of a empire in Europe it'd be just the same.

Traditional gender stereotypes say this - women are drawn to powerful men, men are drawn to submissive women.
The accuracy of this is debatable, but there is some truth in there. However it is not something I care to debate about.

The books are about sheiks and sultans. But the guys that these women bang are considered low status even in their own countries: waiters, bartenders, store clerks, cab drivers, unemployed bums, etc.

They're not exactly high status males. The more "native" the man is, the more attractive he seems to be sexually. So there must be something about Muslim men specifically that makes these women attracted. I suspect that it's the low class Middle Eastern behavior that gets them off, but I can't be sure.

Here are some Swedish classics:

9Oi6RI-if_k

0mkBUnJrcf8

whD8exnDZnY

Albion
03-29-2012, 07:24 PM
It's the harem-fantasy. Here is an example: www (dot) talesoftheveils (dot) info/

Please leave the link cold so as not to encourage these weirdos.


Harem fantasy ~Mormon fantasy. Polygamy is considered a unjust taboo by some men. This is probably to do with fathering more offspring.


The books are about sheiks and sultans. But the guys that these women bang are considered low status even in their own countries: waiters, bartenders, store clerks, cab drivers, unemployed bums, etc.

They're not exactly high status males. The more "native" the man is, the more attractive he seems to be sexually. So there must be something about Muslim men specifically that makes these women attracted. I suspect that it's the low class Middle Eastern behavior that gets them off, but I can't be sure.

Maybe it's just about seeking something different from the people back at home. It's probably some fetish about exotic partners.

rhiannon
04-02-2012, 10:37 AM
Let me be more specific then: what's up with Western women being into Oriental men?

In the 44 years I've been alive, this phenomenon has only been witnessed by myself a handful of times.....so probably less than one dozen times in my life. However, lest you think otherwise....there is a large Asian population out here, so it's not like there's lack of any opportunity.

It just doesn't happen that often.

Falkata
04-02-2012, 10:49 AM
I´ve never heard about western women being into bedouins. Must be a romanian thing :confused:

CelticViking
04-02-2012, 10:53 AM
Or a woman in a face veil for that matter?

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51NXkCpTguL.jpg




Because she looks like a Ninja



http://www.filehurricane.com/viewerthumbnails/58200851546PM_female-ninjas.jpg



This is how Western women fetishize Muslim men. I'm not hating on it, but I just don't understand it

Because they love to beat their wifes with rods

iWGA8i6scYY

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominance_and_submission

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadomasochism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BDSM

Mary
04-02-2012, 11:10 AM
Because she looks like a Ninja

They feel that Oriental women are sexual in a way that White women are not.



Because they love to beat their wifes with rods

That actually helped me get it. It all makes sense now. Thanks.

Supreme American
04-02-2012, 11:26 AM
Let me be more specific then: what's up with Western women being into Oriental men?

They aren't.

CelticViking
04-02-2012, 11:28 AM
They feel that Oriental women are sexual in a way that White women are not.
.

East Asians are Infantile and submassive.

As for the Asian Muslim woman cover their faces.
Some men would have sex with woman no matter what they look like, some men would put a bag over their head.

http://archive.the-spine.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/scarlett.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2658/4109145277_98ca230ea9.jpg

Some men have sex with girls in Halloween mask.
Some men like glory holes.


A glory hole (also spelled gloryhole and glory-hole) is a hole in a wall, or other partition, often between public lavatory stalls or adult video arcade booths for people to engage in sexual activity or observe the person in the next cubicle while one or both parties masturbate.[1] The partition maintains anonymity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glory_hole_(sexual_slang)


Anonymity is derived from the Greek word ἀνωνυμία, anonymia, meaning "without a name" or "namelessness". In colloquial use, anonymity typically refers to the state of an individual's personal identity, or personally identifiable information, being publicly unknown
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymity

Supreme American
04-02-2012, 11:30 AM
http://susannacarr.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Girl-in-the-Bedouin-Tent-by-Annie-West.jpg

Looks like a historical story about an Irish girl kidnapped by a sweaty Berber, and instead of making him look phenotypically raghead/Berber, he looks like a white dude with a tan.

Mary
04-02-2012, 11:32 AM
They aren't.

See the examples here:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=803912&postcount=10

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=804005&postcount=14

CelticViking
04-02-2012, 11:32 AM
Can't be that best selling if she doesn't even have wikipedia page.

Supreme American
04-02-2012, 11:33 AM
They feel that Oriental women are sexual in a way that White women are not.

Do female ninjas exist outside of Iran? They're cannon fodder and not to be taken seriously.

As far as who is or is not sexually different than whites, it takes someone with a pretty low state of mind to allow sexual impulses alone to guide their mating choices. Horses and heads of cabbage are also sexual in a way that white women are not.

Mary
04-02-2012, 11:33 AM
Looks like a historical story about an Irish girl kidnapped by a sweaty Berber.

That's the point, why would anyone want to read about a woman that gets kidnapped by a Berber? It seems to be some kind of oppression fantasy.

Il Principe
04-02-2012, 11:35 AM
The whole trend of Orientalism, both nowadays and then, is just another "inferior fetish" that impressionable Europeans like to indulge in. This childish obsession with the foreign and exotic is basically the more high-brow version of mudsharking. Actually, it's not uncommon for the superior races to fetishize the inferior (this is often the case with Europeans, as we're naturally curious and open-minded); however, these fetishes are now encouraged in the era of sick multiculturalism.

Mary
04-02-2012, 11:35 AM
East Asians are Infantile and submassive.

As for the Asian Muslim woman cover their faces.
Some men would have sex with woman no matter what they look like, some men would put a bag over their head.

I understand putting a bag on the face of a woman that is ugly. But why go for a woman that already has something on her face, doesn't that indicate that she's ugly?

Supreme American
04-02-2012, 11:36 AM
See the examples here:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=803912&postcount=10

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=804005&postcount=14

First of all those novels are small circulation for niche fetishists and not widely popular by any means. Child pornography is more popular than that crap.

Secondly, in the first post someone mentioned the Western affinity for non-western religions. Frankly, this didn't arise in large numbers until the cultural Marxist left began propagandizing against everyone and everything traditionally European and Western. Demoralized white youth are alienated from their roots due to such atrocity propaganda and thus gravitate toward xenocentrist activities such as wiggerism and sweat lodges.

Mary
04-02-2012, 11:37 AM
Can't be that best selling if she doesn't even have wikipedia page.

It's a sub-genre and they seem to be making money of it in any case. I quoted some of the reader reviews before which indicate that these books have a following.

Supreme American
04-02-2012, 11:41 AM
That's the point, why would anyone want to read about a woman that gets kidnapped by a Berber? It seems to be some kind of oppression fantasy.

The men in the paintings for those book covers aren't even really non-white. They look like white dudes with tans. It seems to me if they were really into the dark meat, the book publisher would have gone out of the way to make him look as racially different as possible.

The thing about modern capitalism is that since ethical laws have been brought down (such as anti-obscenity and anti-miscegenation in entertainment), there is a free-for-all market open for every kind of niche fetishist crowd. If it weren't for bestiality laws, we'd be seeing barnyard porn at 7-11.

CelticViking
04-02-2012, 11:41 AM
It's a sub-genre and they seem to be making money of it in any case. I quoted some of the reader reviews before which indicate that these books have a following.


That's the point, why would anyone want to read about a woman that gets kidnapped by a Berber? It seems to be some kind of oppression fantasy.

The woman are probably left wing and like to get whipped.
Some woman like to feel pain. Most of the people i've talked to that like BSDM were left side and anti racist.


I understand putting a bag on the face of a woman that is ugly. But why go for a woman that already has something on her face, doesn't that indicate that she's ugly?

No, they don't need a bag, they already have a burka.

Supreme American
04-02-2012, 11:43 AM
It's a sub-genre and they seem to be making money of it in any case. I quoted some of the reader reviews before which indicate that these books have a following.

Clearly such readers are lacking something upstairs, akin to those who especially serially date outside their race. Generally, I think romance novels sell best to women who aren't getting any and are probably lonely to begin with. Such people have a tendency to have lowered standards as a result, imo.

Supreme American
04-02-2012, 11:43 AM
Most of the people i've talked to that like BSDM were left side and anti racist.

Alternative lifestylers in general tend to be on the left. They revel in embracing anything outside the traditional social structural setting, even if it's vulgar or ultimately dangerous.

Argyll
04-02-2012, 12:07 PM
Yeah, that's another aspect. I noticed that most Western men tend to fetishize Muslim women.

I've never really seen any Western men fetishize Middle Eastern women, but I HAVE seen some (not a lot) of Western men get into Asian women. I don't know why, though. Asian people tend to (in looks) make me think of sick people and/or baby-ish looking.

However, I find most Asians to be respectable; they don't cause a lot of crime, they aren't rude, etc. But I still don't accept anything interracial, though.

CelticViking
04-02-2012, 12:29 PM
I've never really seen any Western men fetishize Middle Eastern women, but I HAVE seen some (not a lot) of Western men get into Asian women. I don't know why, though. Asian people tend to (in looks) make me think of sick people and/or baby-ish looking.

However, I find most Asians to be respectable; they don't cause a lot of crime, they aren't rude, etc. But I still don't accept anything interracial, though.

Mary wasn't talking about Shinto or Buddhist infantile East Asians.
Mary was talking about Central Asian & West Asians and South Asian

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Asia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Asia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan

And Arabs(Semitic )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_people

Conclusion- .People have weird fetish
. People are left wing
. People are lonely.
. Some like BDSM and whipping.
. Some like anonymity: glory holes, Halloween mask,
burka, ninja, drunk girls that don't tell you their names.

RussiaPrussia
04-06-2012, 02:18 AM
obviously back then europe was heavily isolated and all the other nations were technologically ahead or at least looked like this with their mega cities with at least 1 million people only Constantinople could keep up with the cities in arabia, perisa, china and india.

Rome was in ruins having only 50,000 people left most european lived a rural live isolated or in smaller towns and villages or monasteries.
I think many europeans viewed the oriental people still ahead and this kind of sentiment still holded until europeans saw how they could divide the world how ever they wanted.

Obviously people always say that the oriental were ahead in comparison to europe in the medieval age which is false as i mention Byzantium was still able to hold its roman heritage and the europeans simply preferred to live that rural way of live as is was the new way of live of the new europeans the germanic people. And you could obviously see it, the arabians were heavily defeated by frankish by using metal armor something the arabians didnt figured out. These rural live resulted in a kind of not a united europe but many different people and even within towns competed with each other pushing in warfare, trade and economy. While the orientals saw their towns completed and their countries united they didnt had the desire to grow resulting in stagnation. Best example is china they might were always be one country but that didnt helped them to progress as they saw no competitor maybe some wars with india would helped them in history to be in that position where they are now much earlier.

agent_orange
04-18-2012, 06:26 PM
Doutzen Kroes with her mud baby woohoo :)

http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/2947/dkb6z.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/692/dkb6z.jpg/)

Rereg
04-18-2012, 07:26 PM
Doutzen Kroes with her mud baby woohoo :)

http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/2947/dkb6z.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/692/dkb6z.jpg/)

http://files.sharenator.com/KILL_HIM_WITH_FIRE_FUNNY_FORUM_PICS_KILL_IT_KILL_I T_WITH_FIRE-s640x427-132454.jpg

Let's make a grill. :)

~Nik~
04-18-2012, 07:35 PM
See the wonderful result of race mixing :)

http://hapshack.com/images/OtvDi.jpg

agent_orange
04-18-2012, 07:49 PM
See the wonderful result of race mixing :)

http://hapshack.com/images/OtvDi.jpg

lol man that was funny, there was a girl in my school of mixed race and she actually resembled predator from the movie predator. scary

Rereg
04-18-2012, 07:54 PM
lol man that was funny, there was a girl in my school of mixed race and she actually resembled predator from the movie predator. scary

retrograde evolution. :(

Feral
04-18-2012, 08:35 PM
See the wonderful result of race mixing :)

http://hapshack.com/images/OtvDi.jpg

I'm race mixed and I bet I'm prettier than you. :rolleyes:

Arrow Cross
04-18-2012, 08:57 PM
I'm race mixed and I bet I'm prettier than you. :rolleyes:
And you registered on this forum because?

Stars Down To Earth
04-18-2012, 09:03 PM
And you registered on this forum because?
To spread the beautiful message about the wonders of race-mixing to us mortal humans, of course.

Unfortunately, we can't all be multiracial wonders of nature like Inquiring Mind and Feral. :(

Feral
04-18-2012, 11:05 PM
@Nik; @Stars Down To Earth; @Arrow Cross

I got bothered by the trollish actitude of posting BS like Nik has done; which is nothing but trollish pseudo-propaganda that encourages racialism and/or racism. People like Nik are assholes, the only thing that can come out from them is shit.


http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=770264&postcount=1

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=788329&postcount=314

There are only a few cultured users in this forum, sadly, I can count them with the fingers of one of my hands, and most of the 'apricians' are open-minded and prudent, and I believe with time they will give this forum more than a purpose and I hope I could help with that. :)

If you think that is prerequisite to be racist and "white" (a really open and undefined term), then I think the ones who should give it a thought about being in the right/proper forum is you. Since this is a European Preservationist forum established upon this norms (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=39#post39).

:coffee: Grow up.

~Nik~
04-18-2012, 11:46 PM
@Nik; @Stars Down To Earth; @Arrow Cross

I got bothered by the trollish actitude of posting BS like Nik has done; which is nothing but trollish pseudo-propaganda that encourages racialism and/or racism. People like Nik are assholes, the only thing that can come out from them is shit.

What is actually wrong with racialism ? I think more of 80% of people here are racialist. :)



There are only a few cultured users in this forum, sadly, I can count them with the fingers of one of my hands, and most of the 'apricians' are open-minded and prudent, and I believe with time they will give this forum more than a purpose and I hope I could help with that. :)


I could be open-minded but it does not mean I have to become your friend, just the fact that I talk in a civilized manner with you is a proof of my open-mindedness. :D


If you think that is prerequisite to be racist and "white" (a really open and undefined term), then I think the ones who should give it a thought about being in the right/proper forum is you. Since this if a European Preservationist forum established upon this norms (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=39#post39).


Already if you confuse races and colors it starts badly. The rules gives me the right to be whatever I want if I respect the opinion of other members and you seem to have an problem with this, because you compare us all to assholes. :)



:coffee: Grow up.

Yeah, the best argument of anti-racists or mestizos who have nothing intelligent to say. :cool:

Feral
04-19-2012, 12:03 AM
What is actually wrong with racialism ? I think more of 80% of people here are racialist. :)




I could be open-minded but it does not mean I have to become your friend, just the fact that I talk in a civilized manner with you is a proof of my open-mindedness. :D



Already if you confuse races and colors it starts badly. The rules gives me the right to be whatever I want if I respect the opinion of other members and you seem to have an problem with this, because you compare us all to assholes. :)




Yeah, the best argument of anti-racists or mestizos who have nothing intelligent to say. :cool:


You could befriend Mary, she loves unreliable statistics too.

You aren't open-minded. You're being PC in this moment, but that doesn't change who you apparently are.

I said you were the one acting like an asshole, not "all". You are new and the most of your comments on this forum are trollish BS that insults and denigrates other races. I invite you to enter my profile, and search for my posts in this forum, you might get a surprise. But all what I've read from you, as I said, is trollish BS.

I recommend you to read the rules again.

2Cool
04-19-2012, 12:17 AM
I wonder what the reaction of some of the people here would be if they found out that hteir daughter married or fuck a black dude or non-white.

You know how sometimes teenagers enter a rebellious stage? Well what bigger statement could a teenager make for your herself than to fuck a black dude knowing that her father is racist. This type of stuff is more popular than a lot of people here would like to believe. It's the same reason why there's this stereotype that the children of Ministers tend to be more slutty than the average girl.

I remember seeing a video of a group of men called the Mandingos. They are well-endowed black men that get paid to gang bang the wives of white men. The person who manages this group said that some of his biggest clients are CEOs or high ranking personnel from large companies (CIA and stuff) and even KKK / ex-KKK members. It makes you think...

~Nik~
04-19-2012, 12:22 AM
I said you were the one acting like an asshole, not "all". You are new and the most of your comments on this forum are trollish BS that insults and denigrates other races. I invite you to enter my profile, and search for my posts in this forum, you might get a surprise. But all what I've read from you, as I said, is trollish BS.


Your views are against my views, so what now ? In this thread the one thing you have found to counter my picture (who remember you what you are) is to say that you are better than me (so I can see it as an sort of personnal attack). :whistle:

Feral
04-19-2012, 12:35 AM
Your views are against my views, so what now ? In this thread the one thing you have found to counter my picture (who remember you what you are) is to say that you are better than me (so I can see it as an sort of personnal attack). :whistle:

My "views" pass through yours without even touch them.
You've posted a photo of a child with an obvious medical ill, and you said that it was because being racially mixed, and you were obviously making reference to her ugliness. So, I answered that I was probably more prettier than you. And what does that means? That means that you were wrong, racial mixing doesn't engenders ill people (ugliness, in some cases, comes from illness). I'm a living proof of that, and there are millions of proof out there. Racialism is wrong? Not, being an idiotic racist is ridiculously wrong.

~Nik~
04-19-2012, 01:00 AM
My "views" pass through yours with even touch them.
You've posted a photo of a child with an obvious medical ill, and you said that it was because being racially mixed, and you were obviously making reference to her ugliness. So, I answered that I was probably more prettier than you. And what does that means? That means that you were wrong, racial mixing doesn't engenders ill people (ugliness, in some cases, comes from illness). I'm a living proof of that, and there are millions of proof out there. Racialism is wrong? Not, being an idiotic racist is ridiculously wrong.

But I am sure that racial mixing don't ever engender healthy and more intelligent peope than the "wrong" side of their blood. I even think that it is more likely to generate weak and unhealthy people because of the excessive dispersion of genes. I don't think it makes the mestizo resistant to all, it would be too easy. On the contrary, it lose all of the biological development through the ages and innate abilities of his ancestors. That's what I think.

2Cool
04-19-2012, 01:06 AM
But I am sure that racial mixing don't ever engender healthy and more intelligent peope than the "wrong" side of their blood. I even think that it is more likely to generate weak and unhealthy people because of the excessive dispersion of genes. I don't think it makes the mestizo resistant to all, it would be too easy. On the contrary, it lose all of the biological development through the ages and innate abilities of his ancestors. That's what I think.

Dispersing genes is actually a good thing. You don't want the same genes to appear in high frequencies in a population since 1) It makes the populations susceptible to getting wipe out by a disease since diversity is low and 2) It increases the odds of diseases from showing up

~Nik~
04-19-2012, 01:10 AM
Dispersing genes is actually a good thing. You don't want the same genes to appear in high frequencies in a population since 1) It makes the populations susceptible to getting wipe out by a disease since diversity is low and 2) It increases the odds of diseases from showing up

I already know this version, and of what I have seen of the mixed countries, I definitely prefer my "consanguineous" theory. :thumb001:

PeacefulCaribbeanDutch
04-19-2012, 01:13 AM
do you support or disagree with Arnold Schwartzenegger's love child with a mestiza latina lady
http://tiskin.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/c6d8article-2003486-0C8FF21500000578-869_634x611.jpg

Feral
04-19-2012, 01:17 AM
But I am sure that racial mixing don't ever engender healthy and more intelligent peope than the "wrong" side of their blood. I even think that it is more likely to generate weak and unhealthy people because of the excessive dispersion of genes. I don't think it makes the mestizo resistant to all, it would be too easy. On the contrary, it lose all of the biological development through the ages and innate abilities of his ancestors. That's what I think.

Genetics on intelligence are very questionable, there's really no scientific ground in which we could rely. All the studies about it are pseudo-genetics, and most of them are antiquated antropological rubbish. There's already a topic about IQ and even races.
I'm healty and considerably smart.
Consider this. The division of races in a species it's given by different ambiental conditions. What makes races differents from other races are the different ambients in which they have develop and, finally, evolved --to the point in which we can call them races. The other term for races are the different cultures. But... do we live in a world where our evolution depends on nature itself, or in our nature as human beings?
Racial mixing might have some cons (and pros, too), but aren't enough to denigrate people like you've done. And, yes, you did in a trollish way, no big deal, but that line of thought lends to bigger conflicts and worse.

2Cool
04-19-2012, 01:17 AM
I already know this version, and of what I have seen of the mixed countries, I definitely prefer my "consanguineous" theory. :thumb001:

Sure you can disagree with biology, that's fine. I mean, it's not a very hard concept to understand either and I think it's pretty obvious when you think about.


This doesn't mean that you'll be a super human if you mulatto, but simply that genetic diversity is a good thing (could be within a single race) and homogeneity is bad.

If you want an extreme example of this go look at super isolated populations, such as the Tasmanians. They go all wiped out by disease and they weren't the most attractive people out either (let's be honest here). I think there are the only instance of an entire human population getting completely wipe out like that.

2Cool
04-19-2012, 01:18 AM
do you support or disagree with Arnold Schwartzenegger's love child with a mestiza latina lady
http://tiskin.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/c6d8article-2003486-0C8FF21500000578-869_634x611.jpg

He could do better if that's what you mean. There are way hotter Mestiza women out there and I don't see what he found special about her. Especially since he's rich and could get any woman he wants.

~Nik~
04-19-2012, 01:23 AM
If you want an extreme example of this go look at super isolated populations, such as the Tasmanians. They go all wiped out by disease and they weren't the most attractive people out either (let's be honest here). I think there are the only instance of an entire human population getting completely wipe out like that.



So, by you, aborigines are what they are because of a lack of mixing ?

2Cool
04-19-2012, 01:28 AM
So, by you, aborigines are what they are because of a lack of mixing ?

Australoids like the Tasmanian? Yes. Look at Tasmania on the map. That's as isolated as it gets.


People are thought to have crossed into Tasmania approximately 40,000 years ago via a land bridge between the island and the rest of mainland Australia during the last glacial period. According to genetic studies, once the sea levels rose flooding the Bassian Plain, the people were left isolated for approximately 8,000 years until European exploration during the late 18th and early 19th centuries


8000 years of isolation. They were the most isolated population on Earth.

AussieScott
04-19-2012, 01:33 AM
Sure you can disagree with biology, that's fine. I mean, it's not a very hard concept to understand either and I think it's pretty obvious when you think about.


This doesn't mean that you'll be a super human if you mulatto, but simply that genetic diversity is a good thing (could be within a single race) and homogeneity is bad.

If you want an extreme example of this go look at super isolated populations, such as the Tasmanians. They go all wiped out by disease and they weren't the most attractive people out either (let's be honest here). I think there are the only instance of an entire human population getting completely wipe out like that.

The Tasmanians were at a bottle neck, given enough time, isolation and inbreeding, odds are just as much in favour of a beneficial genetic mutation as a negative. Who knows what would of happened to them if isolated for another 10000 years. Plus the fact it was colder down there the traits needed to for a basis of agriculture were at it's begging, with fish, eel farms and stone houses.

So how do you explain the mitochondrial evidence of full blood Aborigines and the Mungo Mungo man?

Not only that how do you explain the ethnogenisis of Caucasoid Europeans with Neanderthal admixture and Mongoloid East Asians, with Homo erectus admixture. By chance do you know what some of the archaic genetics relates to in our DNA?

~Nik~
04-19-2012, 01:34 AM
And if I believe that they are naturally as they are ?

I walk against science ? :D

2Cool
04-19-2012, 01:45 AM
And if I believe that they are naturally as they are ?

I walk against science ? :D

What do you mean? You think they just appeared on the island out of nowhere?

You are aware that we all descend from black Africans right?

~Nik~
04-19-2012, 01:47 AM
What do you mean? You think they just appeared on the island out of nowhere?

You are aware that we all descend from black Africans right?

I mean that they are created by God as they actually are. :cool:

The guy in this video thinks like you :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxnEhtSxxRg

2Cool
04-19-2012, 01:50 AM
The Tasmanians were at a bottle neck, given enough time, isolation and inbreeding, odds are just as much in favour of a beneficial genetic mutation as a negative. Who knows what would of happened to them if isolated for another 10000 years. Plus the fact it was colder down there the traits needed to for a basis of agriculture were at it's begging, with fish, eel farms and stone houses.

So how do you explain the mitochondrial evidence of full blood Aborigines and the Mungo Mungo man?

Not only that how do you explain the ethnogenisis of Caucasoid Europeans with Neanderthal admixture and Mongoloid East Asians, with Homo erectus admixture. By chance do you know what some of the archaic genetics relates to in our DNA?

Yeah, the Tasmanians are an extreme example of what I was saying. But apparently Humans also experience a bottle neck affect due to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory

I'd have to verify the general consensus on that theory.

What do you mean by mungo mungo?

Now I don't know what how the admixture of Neanderthals affect's European dna. Their contribution is very small so I guess it's negligible.

2Cool
04-19-2012, 01:51 AM
I mean that they are created by God as they actually are. :cool:

Ah well you see I don' believe in God. Genetics tells another story ;)

God would have to be a sadist to place people on such an island. They were destined to fail.

AussieScott
04-19-2012, 01:51 AM
What do you mean? You think they just appeared on the island out of nowhere?

You are aware that we all descend from black Africans right?

Ahh I see you believe in the debunked out of Africa theory. No wonder you ignore Mungo Mungo man, his mitochondrial evidence and the mitochondrial evidence of full blood Aborigines.

You could investigate the law, lore and dream time, that of Aboriginal elders as well as scientific biological and archaeological evidence .

Being you take the liberal politically correct funded science no doubt your not worth my time nor would you take you own time to seek.

AussieScott
04-19-2012, 01:52 AM
Yeah, the Tasmanians are an extreme example of what I was saying. But apparently Humans also experience a bottle neck affect due to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory

I'd have to verify the general consensus on that theory.

What do you mean by mungo mungo?

Now I don't know what how the admixture of Neanderthals affect's European dna. Their contribution is very small so I guess it's negligible.

Perhaps you should read some more. :) Seek and you will find. ;)

2Cool
04-19-2012, 02:06 AM
Ahh I see you believe in the debunked out of Africa theory. No wonder you ignore Mungo Mungo man, his mitochondrial evidence and the mitochondrial evidence of full blood Aborigines.

You could investigate the law, lore and dream time, that of Aboriginal elders as well as scientific biological and archaeological evidence .

Being you take the liberal politically correct funded science no doubt your not worth my time nor would you take you own time to seek.

I'll check it out. But I tend to follow the prominent position of the scientific community when it comes to science. I don't have any prejudices so I don't really care either way.

But I can find many reasons why you'd find the mutiregional theory so appealing :).

~Nik~
04-19-2012, 02:11 AM
I'll check it out. But I tend to follow the prominent position of the scientific community when it comes to science. I don't have any prejudices so I don't really care either way.

But I can find many reasons why you'd find the mutiregional theory so appealing :).

And you prefer to believe in which is in agreement with your nature and way of thinking like us.

End of story.

AussieScott
04-19-2012, 02:15 AM
Ah well you see I don' believe in God. Genetics tells another story ;)

God would have to be a sadist to place people on such an island. They were destined to fail.

The descendants of the Tasmanian Aboriginals don't feel that way, in fact some see it as evolution. Then you would ignore their opinions as they tend to qualify race realists, and disqualify liberal propaganda.

The interesting thing about the Tasmanian Aboriginals (White Aboriginals) the mobs that accept the Liberal political view, have the backing of the Church, the Australian government(and the monies that go with it) and the false histories promulgated. Interesting that mob doesn't believe in genetics as they refuse to be tested to prove their Tasmanian Aboriginal pedigree.

On the other hand the Tasmanian Aboriginals that have the genetic tests to back up their heritage have finally been paid out by the Australian government( to keep quiet, not that they are :) ), yet still their history is still deemed illegitimate.

Funny how the Australian Government, the church believe in the Liberal propaganda view, without the backing of DNA evidence. Unless of course it's to keep someone quiet on the side.

2Cool
04-19-2012, 02:17 AM
And you prefer to believe in which is in agreement with your nature and way of thinking like us.

End of story.

Not really. I agree by default with the general consensus regardless unless I find strong conclusive evidence that would tell me otherwise.

But do you really think that I care whether or not humans originated from East Africa? I couldn't care less. We are talking about events that happened tens of thousands of years ago.

In fact I can flip what you said on you. You have many more reasons to stick with a theory based on your beliefs than me since you believe in stuff like God. Whereas me, it's all fluid. What is true one day, can be false the other. And I have no problem switching. Such is the beauty of the scientific method.

AussieScott
04-19-2012, 02:21 AM
I'll check it out. But I tend to follow the prominent position of the scientific community when it comes to science. I don't have any prejudices so I don't really care either way.

But I can find many reasons why you'd find the mutiregional theory so appealing :).

It's prejudices like yours that create policies that wipe out the remaining indigenous aboriginals and Indians. Not that you'd think that much about it any way.

Truth wins out in the end.

~Nik~
04-19-2012, 02:27 AM
Not really. I agree by default with the general consensus regardless unless I find strong conclusive evidence that would tell me otherwise.

You are democrat first of all, and you trust only to majority.


But do you really think that I care whether or not humans originated from East Africa? I couldn't care less. We are talking about events that happened tens of thousands of years ago.

And who says that out there were certainly only negroes ?


What is true one day, can be false the other.

2Cool
04-19-2012, 02:31 AM
It's prejudices like yours that create policies that wipe out the remaining indigenous aboriginals and Indians. Not that you'd think that much about it any way.

Truth wins out in the end.

Explain how.

2Cool
04-19-2012, 02:33 AM
You are democrat first of all, and you trust only to majority.



And who says that out there were certainly only negroes ?

In Africa? Well because of something called natural selection. It's the same reason why you don't see any native European with black skin (vitamin D baby!).

Riki
04-19-2012, 02:35 AM
One thing I never quiet understood.It's why most of the Mullatos incline for Negro Culture are not to White Culture.
Thought's any one?

Feral
04-19-2012, 02:37 AM
One thing I never quiet understood.It's why most of the Mullatos incline for Negro Culture are not to White Culture.
Thought's any one?

Black people are more prone to accept them as "equals". You can see in some topics of this forum (and in others forums is worse) why mullatos would tend to chose their "black side".

~Nik~
04-19-2012, 02:37 AM
In Africa? Well because of something called natural selection. It's the same reason why you don't see any native European with black skin (vitamin D baby!).


I bet you believe in dark pharaohs. :D

~Nik~
04-19-2012, 02:39 AM
One thing I never quiet understood.It's why most of the Mullatos incline for Negro Culture are not to White Culture.
Thought's any one?

More accessible, wiggers aren't really smart people.

AussieScott
04-19-2012, 02:42 AM
Explain how.

Simply, they cause cultural, ethnic and dissolution of a race(Sub-species), generally via assimilation, even thought the liberal left preach multiculturalism, the policies and outcomes do not reflect the reality. The Liberal right on the other hand preach assimilation so at least they are honest, but still no better.

Riki
04-19-2012, 02:56 AM
More accessible, wiggers aren't really smart people.

Hence the choice.

Riki
04-19-2012, 02:59 AM
Black people are more prone to accept them as "equals". You can see in some topics of this forum (and in others forums is worse) why mullatos would tend to chose their "black side".

I was watching a show on tv today.
When a couple was called on the show.
The Negro(Proper)all proud of his White(Mullata)Wife.
For me that's one of the reason's they are more prone to be accepted.

2Cool
04-19-2012, 03:00 AM
One thing I never quiet understood.It's why most of the Mullatos incline for Negro Culture are not to White Culture.
Thought's any one?

Because white people don't consider them their own. In US, due to one drop rule, they are considered black. So Mulattoes will gravitate to the side that accepts them the most. Remember, before the civil war movement, if you had one recent African ancestor, then it was over for you. You couldn't attend white schools, you couldn't marry white women etc. You were segregated as a black person regardless of your European ancestry.

2Cool
04-19-2012, 03:07 AM
I bet you believe in dark pharaohs. :D

Some were black, some were mixed. During the Hellenic period they were white. Unless you consider these Pharaoh light skinned or white?

http://i.imgur.com/RcEPg.png

http://i.imgur.com/vMsYm.jpg

Riki
04-19-2012, 03:08 AM
Because white people don't consider them their own. In US, due to one drop rule, they are considered black. So Mulattoes will gravitate to the side that accepts them the most. Remember, before the civil war movement, if you had one recent African ancestor, then it was over for you. You couldn't attend white schools, you couldn't marry white women etc. You were segregated as a black person regardless of your European ancestry.

Yes.And although I don't agree with most of those actions.
We have to recognise that in some way that help to maintain the White Culture.
Because like I said before Mullatos choose Negro Culture.

AussieScott
04-19-2012, 03:08 AM
One thing I never quiet understood.It's why most of the Mullatos incline for Negro Culture are not to White Culture.
Thought's any one?


Black people are more prone to accept them as "equals". You can see in some topics of this forum (and in others forums is worse) why mullatos would tend to chose their "black side".


Because white people don't consider them their own. In US, due to one drop rule, they are considered black. So Mulattoes will gravitate to the side that accepts them the most. Remember, before the civil war movement, if you had one recent African ancestor, then it was over for you. You couldn't attend white schools, you couldn't marry white women etc. You were segregated as a black person regardless of your European ancestry.

It has nothing to do with benefits and affirmative action though does it? :rolleyes2:

2Cool
04-19-2012, 03:09 AM
Simply, they cause cultural, ethnic and dissolution of a race(Sub-species), generally via assimilation, even thought the liberal left preach multiculturalism, the policies and outcomes do not reflect the reality. The Liberal right on the other hand preach assimilation so at least they are honest, but still no better.

Well first of all human races =/= sub-species. Look up what the terms mean.

Second of all who says I agree with those practices?

2Cool
04-19-2012, 03:17 AM
Yes.And although I don't agree with most of those actions.
We have to recognise that in some way that help to maintain the White Culture.
Because like I said before Mullatos choose Negro Culture.

They chose black culture due to those practices, not the other way around. Basically it was consequence to the one drop rule.

If you look back in history, like in Brazil, the child of a Portuguese men, and Black African slave weren't considered slaves like in US. Typically the rich would send their mixed kids to Coimbra so they could get educated properly. Some of them became quite successful figures in Brazil. They "chose" the European side if you will.

Have you even known Dominicans? Due to the stigma of being labeled "un negro", a lot of them deny any African roots and deny being black. They'll say crap like "soy moreno" or they'll consider themselves dark skinned etc.. This is extreme as it's a form of self hate but you get the point. Similar things happen in Brazil a lot of people in race related census don't chose "negro/preto" even if they would consider black anywhere else in the world.

And it makes sense. Imagine a half Moroccan, half Dutch fellow. He knows Dutch fluently, lives in Amsterdam etc. Yet people still call him a fuckin arab or call a foreigner. Which side do you think such a person will associate with more?

EuroAmericanProud
04-19-2012, 03:18 AM
I personally don't approve but the heart wants what it wants.

StonyArabia
04-19-2012, 03:21 AM
If people have genunine love for each other, I see nothing wrong with it, and it's their choice. Love is very powerful and I think that some people who want to take it away because they don't agree if the union is correct or not is tad bit cruel. I see it in some ways as natural it has been happening for a long time.

Feral
04-19-2012, 03:29 AM
It has nothing to do with benefits and affirmative action though does it? :rolleyes2:

Possibly some people do it because of it. That's doesn't mean that all people does the same. Considering history of human kind and even today, when most people are still ignorant racists (and I'm not refering to you), I dear to say that if someone is "taking sides" it's more probably because of racism than anything else.

~Nik~
04-19-2012, 03:30 AM
Some were black, some were mixed. During the Hellenic period they were white. Unless you consider these Pharaoh light skinned or white?


Are you sure they weren't Mediterraneans before the supposed arrival of Greeks ?

~Nik~
04-19-2012, 03:35 AM
Possibly some people do it because of it. That's doesn't mean that all people does the same. Considering history of human kind and even today, when most people are still ignorant racists (and I'm not refering to you), I dear to say that if someone is "taking sides" it's more probably because of racism than anything else.

It's interesting to notice that you cannot use the word "racist" without the addition of the word "ignorant". :)

Self-persuasion must be cool.

Feral
04-19-2012, 03:40 AM
It's interesting to notice that you cannot use the word "racist" without the addition of the word "ignorant". :)

Self-persuasion must be cool.

This is my last answer to you until the moment you've change at least a little. I've already recommended you to search for the rest of my replies in this forums to understand more my point of view.

2Cool
04-19-2012, 04:37 AM
It has nothing to do with benefits and affirmative action though does it? :rolleyes2:

What? Of course not. That's a ridiculous statement to make because the one drop rule is much older that those things you just mentioned.

2Cool
04-19-2012, 04:47 AM
Are you sure they weren't Mediterraneans before the supposed arrival of Greeks ?

Well it's complicated. Look at the list here :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pharaohs

It appears that before the Greeks, Egypt was under Persian rule. But the Golden Age (the New Kingdom) of Ancient Egypt didn't have white Pharaohs. Ancient Egypt was a multi-racial civilization and their Pharaohs reflect that.

Here's 3 Pharaohs from that period:

http://i.imgur.com/t9vJ2.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/FF5Rg.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/0Dpai.jpg

As you can see they are don't appear white, European, or Mediterranean looking. They appear to be of mixed ancestry, some appearing a bit more Semitic, some appearing more black. You can look at the full list in wikipedia.

AussieScott
04-19-2012, 05:19 AM
Well first of all human races =/= sub-species. Look up what the terms mean.

Second of all who says I agree with those practices?

Why would I agree with a politically correct definition of sub species like you do? Really that deserves a thread on it's own.

The political correctness and politicisation of science is ridiculous and pathetic, you seem to be a product of this education.

You may not agree with assimilation practises... You sure fooled me.

AussieScott
04-19-2012, 05:25 AM
Possibly some people do it because of it. That's doesn't mean that all people does the same. Considering history of human kind and even today, when most people are still ignorant racists (and I'm not refering to you), I dear to say that if someone is "taking sides" it's more probably because of racism than anything else.

Yes, the world is full of ignorant colour blind racists. :D

I dare say it more then just racism, favourable affirmative action, and welfare. Culture plays a part and black culture is left off the Liberal hook to run a muck, yet if a redneck steps out of line, watch it go viral on mainstream media. Thanks Liberal feminism and all the other stacked ideologies.

Things are changing with the internet though.

It's it great western governments play minorities off the majority, in order to exploit everyone?

AussieScott
04-19-2012, 05:28 AM
What? Of course not. That's a ridiculous statement to make because the one drop rule is much older that those things you just mentioned.

Of course it's not. :rolleyes:

That's why the government is spending more money policing fraudulent claims, and even the Aboriginal communities have now invoked the right to have Aboriginal certificates to expire in order to clamp down on fraud...

Liberal and gullible.

2Cool
04-19-2012, 05:46 AM
Why would I agree with a politically correct definition of sub species like you do? Really that deserves a thread on it's own.

The political correctness and politicisation of science is ridiculous and pathetic, you seem to be a product of this education.

You may not agree with assimilation practises... You sure fooled me.

Sub-species is a biological term with a definition which doesn't apply to humans since homo sapiens have no sub-species. Has nothing to do with being PC.

This has also nothing do to do with whether or not I believe in races either.

2Cool
04-19-2012, 05:48 AM
Of course it's not. :rolleyes:

That's why the government is spending more money policing fraudulent claims, and even the Aboriginal communities have now invoked the right to have Aboriginal certificates to expire in order to clamp down on fraud...

Liberal and gullible.

That has nothing to do with how mixed of black African ancestry identify as. wtf do the Aboriginals have to do with this? Stick with the topic. Mulattoes identify as black because pre-Civil rights movement any mulatto would have been lynched by the KKK for being black. It's because of the one drop rule and nothing else.

Feral
04-19-2012, 06:04 AM
Yes, the world is full of ignorant colour blind racists. :D

I dare say it more then just racism, favourable affirmative action, and welfare. Culture plays a part and black culture is left off the Liberal hook to run a muck, yet if a redneck steps out of line, watch it go viral on mainstream media. Thanks Liberal feminism and all the other stacked ideologies.

Things are changing with the internet though.

It's it great western governments play minorities off the majority, in order to exploit everyone?

http://motordigital.com/files/2011/11/facepalm.jpg

___




Sub-species is a biological term with a definition which doesn't apply to humans since homo sapiens have no sub-species. Has nothing to do with being PC.

This has also nothing do to do with whether or not I believe in races either.

The term of race is hard to apply. In respect of biology, genetics and phenotypes, we couldn't really say. But some people think that the diversity of cultures is enough to define races --even where there isn't proof to say that we, as humans, are genetically different enough.
The problem with these people is they constantly excuse themselves with being against PC indoctrination but they chose to be just against it instead of searching for truth. They're casting more shadows and it's worthless.

Stefan
04-19-2012, 06:17 AM
I find it quite ironic how you imply race to be a social construct, then in the other post you note the phenotypical characteristics of Egyptian statues. Which is it? Does race exist empirically or not?

As for the distinction of sub-species and race. What is a sub-species? Well, it is a clade-like grouping of populations more similar than at the species level. Are humans distinguishable into clades? Yes. Are there sub-species? Well, reasoning certainly points in that direction. However, there is one caveat. The clade groupings of human beings aren't fully defined scientifically. That is why we use the word "race" instead, a much less scientifically definable word, but one with an applicable meaning nevertheless. A word with a meaning that has biological significance. Something much more tangible than a "social construct."

Anyway, whether you want to call it race or sub-species it doesn't contradict the presence of types formed in clades of the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens. It doesn't make the arguments against race-mixing any less valid. Can we still distinguish between a Caucasian and Negroid? Of course.

2Cool
04-19-2012, 06:24 AM
http://motordigital.com/files/2011/11/facepalm.jpg[/IMG ]

___





The term of race is hard to apply. In respect of biology, genetics and phenotypes, we couldn't really say. But some people think that the diversity of cultures is [I]enough to define races --even where there isn't proof to say that we, as humans, are genetically different enough.
The problem with these people is they constantly excuse themselves with being against PC indoctrination but they chose to be just against it instead of searching for truth. They're casting more shadows and it's worthless.

True. I've said many times, they have prejudices against certain people and will blindly accept theories (from dubious sources) that agree with theirs. It's also funny that they keep throwing the world PC, especially to me, as I hate political correctness. None of my views have anything to do with it. But people he like to use that world a lot even when it doesn't apply.


But what I was saying didn't anything have to do with the definition of races or anything like that. Even if a person believes in differences races in terms of genetics, bone structure, phenotype, it would still be wrong to call these races, species or sub-species. Humans are way to homogenous for that. It's wrong plain and simple and anybody who knows a bit about biology would know this as well. I mean there was a thread where some dude who asked if Asians were a different species from humans. That doesn't even make sense. Homo Erectus is a different Homo species from Homo Sapiens, but Asians? lol. It's easy to see how some of these guys have such views when they lack such a basic, high school level knowledge about biology.

AussieScott
04-19-2012, 06:27 AM
Sub-species is a biological term with a definition which doesn't apply to humans since homo sapiens have no sub-species. Has nothing to do with being PC.

This has also nothing do to do with whether or not I believe in races either.


That has nothing to do with how mixed of black African ancestry identify as. wtf do the Aboriginals have to do with this? Stick with the topic. Mulattoes identify as black because pre-Civil rights movement any mulatto would have been lynched by the KKK for being black. It's because of the one drop rule and nothing else.


http://motordigital.com/files/2011/11/facepalm.jpg

___





The term of race is hard to apply. In respect of biology, genetics and phenotypes, we couldn't really say. But some people think that the diversity of cultures is enough to define races --even where there isn't proof to say that we, as humans, are genetically different enough.
The problem with these people is they constantly excuse themselves with being against PC indoctrination but they chose to be just against it instead of searching for truth. They're casting more shadows and it's worthless.

Double.

http://motordigital.com/files/2011/11/facepalm.jpg

http://motordigital.com/files/2011/11/facepalm.jpg

2Cool
04-19-2012, 06:28 AM
I find it quite ironic how you imply race to be a social construct, then in the other post you note the phenotypical characteristics of Egyptian statues. Which is it? Does race exist empirically or not?

As for the distinction of sub-species and race. What is a sub-species? Well, it is a clade-like grouping of populations more similar than at the species level. Are humans distinguishable into clades? Yes. Are there sub-species? Well, reasoning certainly points in that direction. However, there is one caveat. The clade groupings of human beings aren't fully defined scientifically. That is why we use the word "race" instead, a much less scientifically definable word, but one with an applicable meaning nevertheless. A word with a meaning that has biological significance. Something much more tangible than a "social construct."

Anyway, whether you want to call it race or sub-species it doesn't contradict the presence of types formed in clades of the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens. It doesn't make the arguments against race-mixing any less valid. Can we still distinguish between a Caucasian and Negroid? Of course.

Ugh.... Where I'm from a black person is considered as someone with dark skin tone, full lips, nappy hair etc. using those characteristics I can classify a certain person right. In another country the definition might be different. The classification doesn't have to exist biologically.

Get it?

Feral
04-19-2012, 06:29 AM
I find it quite ironic how you imply race to be a social construct, then in the other post you note the phenotypical characteristics of Egyptian statues. Which is it? Does race exist empirically or not?

As for the distinction of sub-species and race. What is a sub-species? Well, it is a clade-like grouping of populations more similar than at the species level. Are humans distinguishable into clades? Yes. Are there sub-species? Well, reasoning certainly points in that direction. However, there is one caveat. The clade groupings of human beings aren't fully defined scientifically. That is why we use the word "race" instead, a much less scientifically definable word, but one with an applicable meaning nevertheless. A word with a meaning that has biological significance. Something much more tangible than a "social construct."

Anyway, whether you want to call it race or sub-species it doesn't contradict the presence of types formed in clades of the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens. It doesn't make the arguments against race-mixing any less valid. Can we still distinguish between a Caucasian and Negroid? Of course.


"The term of race is hard to apply. In respect of biology, genetics and phenotypes, we couldn't really say. But some people think that the diversity of cultures is enough to define races --even where there isn't proof to say that we, as humans, are genetically different enough.

The term "race" in biological terms to define, in this moments, the diferent phenotypes in human specie it's not adecuate.
Genetics related sciences are very new in comparassion with anthropology; We used the term "race" because it has been long used before start questioning it.

2Cool
04-19-2012, 06:32 AM
Double.

[IMG]http://motordigital.com/files/2011/11/facepalm.jpg[/IMG ]

[IMG]http://motordigital.com/files/2011/11/facepalm.jpg[/IMG ]

Man you're thick headed. More so than I thought.


Answer this:

Would you consider Obama to be a member of the white race?

Stefan
04-19-2012, 06:39 AM
Ugh.... Where I'm from a black person is considered as someone with dark skin tone, full lips, nappy hair etc. using those characteristics I can classify a certain person right. In another country the definition might be different. The classification doesn't have to exist biologically.

Get it?

That doesn't argue anything against the existence of race, just the specifics of its classification.

That is akin to saying, well now there are generally accepted to be 6 kingdoms: Archaebacteria, Bacteria, Protista, Animalia, Fungi, and Plantae instead of 5 kingdoms; kingdoms must not exist. Yes, any taxonomy, whether biological or not, will be arbitrarily constructed. The existence of the distinctions are empirical, however.


even where there isn't proof to say that we, as humans, are genetically different enough.


All you need is for clades to form. After that, distinctions between humans will be made. The arbitrary labels we use for these clades are irrelevant. They exist, empirically and objectively. "Enough" is a matter of subjectivity, and has no role in science.


Genetics related sciences are very new in comparassion with anthropology; We used the term "race" because it has been long used before start questioning it.

We used a previously defined word in a new context. That is how language works. I don't see the point here.

AussieScott
04-19-2012, 06:45 AM
Man you're thick headed. More so than I thought.


Answer this:

Would you consider Obama to be a member of the white race?

A wolf and a dog can breed viable fertile offspring, would you consider the mongrel to be a wolf, a dog, a wolf dog or a mongrel?

I'd say one would be thick headed if they can not break the ideological chains they have been taught, in other words think out side the box.

Good little doggies have thicker skulls. :)

2Cool
04-19-2012, 06:46 AM
A wolf and a dog can breed viable fertile offspring, would you consider the mongrel to be a wolf, a dog, a wolf dog or a mongrel?

I asked for an answer not a question.


Answer.

2Cool
04-19-2012, 06:52 AM
That doesn't argue anything against the existence of race, just the specifics of its classification.

That is akin to saying, well now there are generally accepted to be 6 kingdoms: Archaebacteria, Bacteria, Protista, Animalia, Fungi, and Plantae instead of 5 kingdoms; kingdoms must not exist. Yes, any taxonomy, whether biological or not, will be arbitrarily constructed. The existence of the distinctions are empirical, however.



All you need is for clades to form. After that, distinctions between humans will be made. The arbitrary labels we use for these clades are irrelevant. They exist, empirically and objectively. "Enough" is a matter of subjectivity, and has no role in science.



We used a previously defined word in a new context. That is how language works. I don't see the point here.


It's just a classification which however differs in culture. I used the American classification.

But all of this is like the anthropological European types like pontid, gracile etc. It's just a set of characteristics. Those are not considered races. Kinda like terms like Ginger, Black Irish. So I don't see your point.

Again. It's just a way to classify people. We all know Humans love to do that.

AussieScott
04-19-2012, 06:55 AM
I asked for an answer not a question.


Answer.

If you can't riddle it out of my question then perhaps your skull is thicker then I thought.

Stefan
04-19-2012, 07:01 AM
But all of this is like the anthropological European types like pontid, gracile etc. It's just a set of characteristics. Those are not considered races. Kinda like terms like Ginger, Black Irish. So I don't see your point.


Race is just a way we qualitatively assess the distinctions. It is a matter of how specifically similar and dissimilar two populations are. It is part of a larger taxonomy of life. It has its use in approximating the distinctions through language. That is all. We use race, to denote the existence of the biological dissimilarities and similarities among humans. I think it is a matter of who is more logical. Illogical people assume that since race is arbitrary so are the differences among human beings. They assume that humans cannot be categorized based on their clades, assessed through homologous traits, analogous traits, and molecular biology. Logical people, recognize the term for what it is, a lingual denotation of a concept. Now we are seriously at the point of arguing semantics.

Back to the point. Whether or not you care for the classification systems, the taxonomies imposed, the biological distinctions among humans still exist. The problems with race-mixing, or should we call it clade mixing? Still exist. The implications of multi-clade or multi-racial cultures and societies still exist. I don't see the point of denying race's empirical existence, unless one has a fundamental misunderstanding of what race means. Then, we get to the issue of arguing semantics, and are at that point side-tracked from the critical discussion.

Feral
04-19-2012, 07:05 AM
All you need is for clades to form. After that, distinctions between humans will be made. The arbitrary labels we use for these clades are irrelevant. They exist, empirically and objectively. "Enough" is a matter of subjectivity, and has no role in science.



We used a previously defined word in a new context. That is how language works. I don't see the point here.

I'm not denying the distinctions between humans, of course there are. But those "arbitrary" labels we use are needed, and see how much trouble they've caused --even because of antiquated science.
We are the most complex animal in this world. We've stablished our selves into a sedentary civilization to become what we are now, even if there are biological differences enough to say that there are different human races, what's the point in a biological and evolutional line of thought? What had made us different isn't the same that years, and years, ago. Do you think that being aware of biological differences justify being racist? Because that's the controvertial context.

Stefan
04-19-2012, 07:15 AM
I'm not denying the distinctions between humans, of course there are. But those "arbitrary" labels we use are needed, and see how much trouble they've caused --even because of antiquated science.
We are the most complex animal in this world. We've stablished our selves into a sedentary civilization to become what we are now, even if there are biological differences enough to say that there are different human races, what's the point in a biological and evolutional line of thought?

It depends on your belief system. I am personally interested in the competition of racial groups, inherently present due to selective processes. Others, are more interested in maintaining ethnic consistency. Which is less relevant to race, but race is a contributing factor. Others, whom we call racists, believe different races are superior to others because of these biological differences. It is all matter of political and philosophical views at that point.


being aware of biological differences justify being racist?.

Racism; the belief that biological differences among human populations on average is the primary cause of achievement and implies superiority.

Why must one *justify* their belief? Of course, if they want to be taken seriously they should substantiate their belief system with reasons or credible evidence. To justify, though? To whom must it be justifiable. Themselves? Others?

Feral
04-19-2012, 07:35 AM
It depends on your belief system. I am personally interested in the competition of racial groups, inherently present due to selective processes. Others, are more interested in maintaining ethnic consistency. Which is less relevant to race, but race is a contributing factor. Others, whom we call racists, believe different races are superior to others because of these biological differences. It is all matter of political and philosophical views at that point.



Racism; the belief that biological differences among human populations on average is the primary cause of achievement and implies superiority.

Why must one *justify* their belief? Of course, if they want to be taken seriously they should substantiate their belief system with reasons or credible evidence. To justify, though? To whom must it be justifiable. Themselves? Others?

I don't disagree with anything you've said because it's reasonable --something most people "can't" achieve.

And racism it's unjustifiable, arbitrary, and ultimately nocive.

I prefer to make a better world, and a good friend is something alike a worthy enemy. :D

Quorra
04-19-2012, 08:36 AM
There's nothing wrong with intermarriage but it is disturbing that it's only happening in European countries, for obvious reasons.

CelticViking
04-19-2012, 11:56 AM
Originally Posted by AussieScott

The Tasmanians were at a bottle neck, given enough time, isolation and inbreeding, odds are just as much in favour of a beneficial genetic mutation as a negative. Who knows what would of happened to them if isolated for another 10000 years. Plus the fact it was colder down there the traits needed to for a basis of agriculture were at it's begging, with fish, eel farms and stone houses.

So how do you explain the mitochondrial evidence of full blood Aborigines and the Mungo Mungo man?

Not only that how do you explain the ethnogenisis of Caucasoid Europeans with Neanderthal admixture and Mongoloid East Asians, with Homo erectus admixture. By chance do you know what some of the archaic genetics relates to in our DNA?



Originally Posted by AussieScott

It's prejudices like yours that create policies that wipe out the remaining indigenous aboriginals and Indians. Not that you'd think that much about it any way.

Truth wins out in the end.



Simply, they cause cultural, ethnic and dissolution of a race(Sub-species), generally via assimilation, even thought the liberal left preach multiculturalism, the policies and outcomes do not reflect the reality. The Liberal right on the other hand preach assimilation so at least they are honest, but still no better.


You are right :thumb001:

And they were inbreeding, skinny and hungry.
They ate cats and dingo and what ever they could find.
They thought cars were rock monsters and when they first had a ride in them they thought the ground and trees were moving.


One of these was Contact (Martin Butler and Bentley Dean), in competition for the IDFA Feature-Length Documentary Award. In 1964, the Australian government was conducting rocket launch tests in the Great Sandy Desert (Western Australia), thought to be uninhabited. In fact, 20 Martu women and children, the last Aboriginal group to be discovered, were living a traditional, nomadic life in the area where the test debris was due to fall.
Seeing the patrol officers’ truck for the first time, she thought the group was being chased by a roaring monster with burning yellow eyes. And so scared was the group of being eaten by the white “devil men”, who looked like they had been “peeled”, that they retreated further into the desert.

The group was eventually tracked down a few months later, clothed and shipped off to a mission several hundred kilometers away, bringing an abrupt end to their traditional lifestyle

http://www.documentaryaustralia.com.au/films/details/483/contact


WHEN Yuwali first saw the truck, she thought it was a rock. A rock that moved. Turning to her young companions, the 17-year-old Aborigine, who had never seen a white man, said: "You know those big rocks that we always play on? The rock has come alive."

Terrified, Yuwali and her friends fled across the desert, too scared to sleep, lest the "monster" and the "devil men" inside it catch up and eat them.



"We were hungry," Yuwali says in the film. "But [the white men's] meat tasted like shit, so we spat it out and buried it in the sand."


She got work as a domestic helper on cattle stations, married twice and had four children. Now 62, she lives with two of her children at Parnngurr in the Pilbara. "At first we were sad to leave our country," she told the Herald. But, as she says in the film: "We've been swept up in our new lives. We were carried away by something we never knew before. We left our hearts back in our country."
http://www.smh.com.au/news/entertainment/film/first-contact-terrifying-trek-into-the-space-age/2009/05/29/1243456734729.html


Their food consisted mostly of kangaroo, lizards, feral cats and dingoes, although they kept the dogs as pets also.
There were some seeds and bush tomatoes that they also ate but from what I can gather (pun!) it was mostly meat.
The women hunted and used fire to force their prey out of a certain area.
They didn't like the taste of white man's meat when they first arrived at camp, they thought in fact it was sh*t, literally.

http://forum.zeroinginonhealth.com/archive/index.php/thread-1739-40.html

http://media.sbs.com.au/films/upload_media/site_28_rand_1651664446_contact_627.jpg


More races



The word Pakeha is derived from the “gods of the sea,” the names for which are: Atua, Tupua, Pakehakeha, Marakihau and Taewa;2 they were the gods of the deep sea, and in appearance like men, and sometimes even fish. Also, the Maoris called the sailors “the people of the sea,” and these Pakehas (Europeans) were called by the names above given.


http://www.jps.auckland.ac.nz/document/Volume_3_1894/Volume_3,_No.4,_December_1894/The_origin_of_the_words_'Pakeha'_and_'Kaipuke'_by_ Hoani_Nahe,_p_235-236/p1


As Prince Philip celebrates his 90th birthday, the celebrations at Buckingham Palace will be a little more sedate than the party being held in his honour on the other side of the world.

The people of the Yaohnanen tribe in Vanuatu revere him as a god, and every year on his birthday they host a celebration in the hope that he will visit them.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/prince-philip-god-south-pacific-islanders-012652102.html

New Guinea cargo cults
c7RA4UnEuQ0

.....................
We shouldn't want to breed with them just because they think we are Devils or Gods. To breed and have sex with them is not love that is lust. Who cares if they find us attractive, interracial relationships will destroy them even more.

2Cool
04-19-2012, 12:15 PM
If you can't riddle it out of my question then perhaps your skull is thicker then I thought.

Then given your answer, try and figure out with that head of yours why Obama would identify more with his black side.

Quorra
04-19-2012, 07:15 PM
Then given your answer, try and figure out with that head of yours why Obama would identify more with his black side.

because it's easier to be black in this time.:lightbul:

Supreme American
04-19-2012, 07:37 PM
Doutzen Kroes with her mud baby woohoo :)

http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/2947/dkb6z.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/692/dkb6z.jpg/)

90% chance that nigger is cheating on her.

Have white men had their balls clipped off or what? 80 years ago that ape would have been rightfully hanging from a street lamp.

Supreme American
04-19-2012, 07:38 PM
because it's easier to be black in this time.:lightbul:

Because mulattoes in the West have always identified with their black side, and they've been nearly universally accepted in doing so.

Only hostile, left-wing racial deconstructionists would be hostile to that.

Mortimer
04-19-2012, 07:39 PM
I'm race mixed and I bet I'm prettier than you. :rolleyes:

race mixed ppl are ppl like all other ppl, they can be pretty or ugly. i consider myself pretty but i have some faults like overweight, but from birth im pretty

Supreme American
04-19-2012, 07:40 PM
It's just a classification which however differs in culture. I used the American classification.

But all of this is like the anthropological European types like pontid, gracile etc. It's just a set of characteristics. Those are not considered races. Kinda like terms like Ginger, Black Irish. So I don't see your point.

Again. It's just a way to classify people. We all know Humans love to do that.

I hope you visit black and Latino web forums and belittle their ancestral self-identification with your endless deconstructionist propaganda...

But I know you don't. Your kind never does.

KidMulat
04-19-2012, 08:36 PM
Because mulattoes in the West have always identified with their black side, and they've been nearly universally accepted in doing so.

Only hostile, left-wing racial deconstructionists would be hostile to that.
:rolleyes2:
Only in environments in which we are forced to see ourselves as such OR in an environment where the identity "black" is one of cultural and ethnic basis not determined by racial composition.

AussieScott
04-20-2012, 12:49 AM
Then given your answer, try and figure out with that head of yours why Obama would identify more with his black side.

What's wrong with a mulatto identifying with his black side?

Virtuous
04-20-2012, 12:52 AM
See the wonderful result of race mixing :)

http://hapshack.com/images/OtvDi.jpg

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/005/742/sweetjesus.jpg

Oh, so there's where this meme came from.

CelticViking
04-20-2012, 12:54 AM
:rolleyes2:
Only in environments in which we are forced to see ourselves as such OR in an environment where the identity "black" is one of cultural and ethnic basis not determined by racial composition.

You said you were a Black Gay Jew in the other thread.
You said you also tried to join SF and now you are on Apricity, trying to be European, but you're not.

Supreme American
04-20-2012, 02:10 AM
You said you were a Black Gay Jew in the other thread.
You said you also tried to join SF and now you are on Apricity, trying to be European, but you're not.

I think he's trying to be a troll, and he is.

Supreme American
04-20-2012, 02:13 AM
:rolleyes2:
Only in environments in which we are forced to see ourselves as such OR in an environment where the identity "black" is one of cultural and ethnic basis not determined by racial composition.

That's not a response from a black person.

Vixen
04-20-2012, 02:22 AM
To each their own... but I prefer my own.

KidMulat
04-20-2012, 02:36 AM
You said you were a Black Gay Jew in the other thread.
You said you also tried to join SF and now you are on Apricity, trying to be European, but you're not.

I never said I tried to join SF, I specifically I don't go on there. I neversaid I was European, please read what I right dear.

KidMulat
04-20-2012, 02:40 AM
That's not a response from a black person.

I am, I am also creole & mixed race. One can have a multilayered identity; I am ethnically black American and Louisiana/Alabama French Creole and racially I am Mixed Race percieved as part of the Black Race aswell and therefore I am all of these

Maria Roots rights an exquisite manifesto on Identity of mixed race people

http://www.drmariaroot.com/doc/BillOfRights.pdf

CelticViking
04-20-2012, 02:51 AM
I never said I tried to join SF, I specifically I don't go on there. I neversaid I was European, please read what I right dear.

You must have talk to them still.


After moving to SF I found out that I am not even seen as an American but as an immigrant or adopted child: Ethiopian, Brazilian, Southern Egyptian, Trinidadian, Dominican, etc....



Even though you are Black, Jew and Gay.


Huh you rang?

But in all honesty I am Queer,


I am also Jewish


anglo black American identity

You've change your Ancestry or Ethnicity so that you appear more of European descent and you also know people are too lazy to search for the meaning of Yoruboid, so they will just ignore it.



Yoruboid is a group of languages composed of Igala, a language spoken in central Nigeria http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoruboid_languages

Race mixing creates Identity problems, it is a selfish thing to do.

Contra Mundum
04-20-2012, 03:17 AM
To each their own... but I prefer my own.

I hope you consider us Germanics as your own too;)

KidMulat
04-20-2012, 03:19 AM
I was trying to be funny (because I am those things except like I said I am queer not gay), I don't think people thought it was though .

No its not that. I on the shout box talked to a GuistFeist; I am what you call Marabou or Griffe in phenotype that is to say I am dark with gracile features & looser hair. If you look at a New World Mgm (multigenerational mixedrace) family you will see sibling look very different. Some are darker, some are lighter, some have wide noses some have slimmer noses.

The only time I read of a static look really was when Horace Mann Bond went to a small community in Alabama to see the last remaining fully Creole communities (not to say we dissappeared its just the rights we got from the Adams-Onis treaty were completely stripped away an we began to mixed with anglo mulattoes) but anyway those communities were very interbreed 3rd and 4th cousins intermarring holding fast to creole identity even though by then linguistically we were anglicized. Still we scored higher than whites and blacks in Alabama.

I have friends are still White Power, still white pride, but we were friends before they got into that and that is what keep us together. That and I did not fit any sterotype they had. I was raised quite well by a single father, lived adn achived more than many of them, I was an avid reader and loved to converse, I was not into contemporary black culture at the time, etc...

Like I said in another post its easier to accept an exception than the whole group. I was in their minds just as "white" as they, as the term was and is still quite fluid.

I have many identities but I also understand not everyone sees me as such; at first I was very defensive and fought it but as soon as I stopped and told myself "I know who I am and no one can take that from me" people realized I could not be shaken and they learned to accept it.

When I moved to San Francisco and as I went throughout the Bay Area I began to be have people come up to me in their languages asking me if I was one of them, to be seen as another at first was very fun but I realized that even that was not enough.

So I seek to really represent me and my ancestors, I do not wish to be white or european I only wish to be me and seek my personal truth.


Regarding Yoruboid I knew it was a linguistic group, but their is a look to it. Sadly the old ethnographers did not put much time in dechipher SSA phenotypes and as such we have words like Congoid or Bantu (which applies only to peoples south of Nigeria) terms which do not emcompass who I am.

Golaic is a term I made as my anglospeaking lines from what I get from port records and slave charts had a high Gola component to it whereas in Louisiana; Wolofs, Kpelle, and other rice cultivators where in demand for the majority of french rule.


The confusion is from others I am not confused; Maria Roots and other writers helped me realize that.

Contra Mundum
04-20-2012, 03:34 AM
I am, I am also creole & mixed race. One can have a multilayered identity; I am ethnically black American and Louisiana/Alabama French Creole and racially I am Mixed Race percieved as part of the Black Race aswell and therefore I am all of these

Maria Roots rights an exquisite manifesto on Identity of mixed race people

http://www.drmariaroot.com/doc/BillOfRights.pdf

There's an area along the Alabama/Mississippi border in the southern part of both states where whole communities of mixed race people reside. They are a mix of Creek and Choctaw Indian, African and European. They were left over from the old Spanish and French settlements. When the English moved in, they instituted segregation of the races and since these people didn't fit with blacks or whites, they kept to themselves and married within their communities. In Alabama and Mississippi they are called Cajans. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cajan Im not sure why, perhaps they were confused with Louisiana Cajuns and the name stuck. They reside in Alabama towns like McIntosh, Creole, Axis and Mt Vernon. Seems a great number of them have the surname Weaver. Inbreeding is a problem because of decades of segregation within their small communities.

CelticViking
04-20-2012, 03:37 AM
I was trying to be funny (because I am those things except like I said I am queer not gay), I don't think people thought it was though .

No its not that. I on the shout box talked to a GuistFeist; I am what you call Marabou or Griffe in phenotype that is to say I am dark with gracile features & looser hair. If you look at a New World Mgm (multigenerational mixedrace) family you will see sibling look very different. Some are darker, some are lighter, some have wide noses some have slimmer noses.

The only time I read of a static look really was when Horace Mann Bond went to a small community in Alabama to see the last remaining fully Creole communities (not to say we dissappeared its just the rights we got from the Adams-Onis treaty were completely stripped away an we began to mixed with anglo mulattoes) but anyway those communities were very interbreed 3rd and 4th cousins intermarring holding fast to creole identity even though by then linguistically we were anglicized. Still we scored higher than whites and blacks in Alabama.

I have friends are still White Power, still white pride, but we were friends before they got into that and that is what keep us together. That and I did not fit any sterotype they had. I was raised quite well by a single father, lived adn achived more than many of them, I was an avid reader and loved to converse, I was not into contemporary black culture at the time, etc...

Like I said in another post its easier to accept an exception than the whole group. I was in their minds just as "white" as they, as the term was and is still quite fluid.

I have many identities but I also understand not everyone sees me as such; at first I was very defensive and fought it but as soon as I stopped and told myself "I know who I am and no one can take that from me" people realized I could not be shaken and they learned to accept it.

When I moved to San Francisco and as I went throughout the Bay Area I began to be have people come up to me in their languages asking me if I was one of them, to be seen as another at first was very fun but I realized that even that was not enough.

So I seek to really represent me and my ancestors, I do not wish to be white or european I only wish to be me and seek my personal truth.


Regarding Yoruboid I knew it was a linguistic group, but their is a look to it. Sadly the old ethnographers did not put much time in dechipher SSA phenotypes and as such we have words like Congoid or Bantu (which applies only to peoples south of Nigeria) terms which do not emcompass who I am.

Golaic is a term I made as my anglospeaking lines from what I get from port records and slave charts had a high Gola component to it whereas in Louisiana; Wolofs, Kpelle, and other rice cultivators where in demand for the majority of french rule.


The confusion is from others I am not confused; Maria Roots and other writers helped me realize that.

There are lots of fakes in the White Nationalist movement that only care about drinking and doing salutes. Maybe they are your friends.

Mu4-RRhs9aM

Race is more than skin colour and nose shapes, it is also about blood line.

riverman
04-20-2012, 03:57 AM
You must have talk to them still.



Even though you are Black, Jew and Gay.







You've change your Ancestry or Ethnicity so that you appear more of European descent and you also know people are too lazy to search for the meaning of Yoruboid, so they will just ignore it.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoruboid_languages

Race mixing creates Identity problems, it is a selfish thing to do.

Lol if he's mixed ethnically then it doesn't matter, and is it so difficult to look those ethnicities up? Also, people list European ethnicities all the time, you don't seem to be complaining about that. :D


:coffee:

The Ripper
04-20-2012, 04:05 AM
There are lots of fakes in the White Nationalist movement that only care about drinking and doing salutes. Maybe they are your friends.

There's more to White Nationalism?

CelticViking
04-20-2012, 06:23 AM
Lol if he's mixed ethnically then it doesn't matter, and is it so difficult to look those ethnicities up? Also, people list European ethnicities all the time, you don't seem to be complaining about that. :D


:coffee:

He will always defend black people and race mixers and he had Nigerian or something like that before and now he hides it because he wants to fit in with us when he doesn't really need to as there are lots of black power forums he can go to if he wants to talk about how good the black people are but If we want to talk about black people, we will tell the truth even if it makes him cry.
White people aren't allowed their own forums or countries for themselves.


The Ripper
There's more to White Nationalism?


Watch the video.

Sarmatian
04-20-2012, 06:46 AM
90% chance that nigger is cheating on her.

Have white men had their balls clipped off or what? 80 years ago that ape would have been rightfully hanging from a street lamp.

Honey you just made my day. These days its hard to find a girl that supports radical measures to control monkey's population :thumb001:

So... *carefully pulling out coil of rope* ...who do we start with? :D

lisulisa
04-20-2012, 09:15 AM
between the mongo;oc race and the white race are connections.
between white race and negroide race is no interconnection'

a jewish race doent excist.
the jewish population is a mixture of everything with a common mythe.

Supreme American
04-20-2012, 11:53 AM
I am, I am also creole & mixed race. One can have a multilayered identity; I am ethnically black American and Louisiana/Alabama French Creole and racially I am Mixed Race percieved as part of the Black Race aswell and therefore I am all of these

Maria Roots rights an exquisite manifesto on Identity of mixed race people

http://www.drmariaroot.com/doc/BillOfRights.pdf

What a load.

Vixen
04-20-2012, 03:34 PM
I hope you consider us Germanics as your own too;)

Of course :)
I consider all white European people my own.

KidMulat
04-20-2012, 09:18 PM
He will always defend black people and race mixers and he had Nigerian or something like that before and now he hides it because he wants to fit in with us when he doesn't really need to as there are lots of black power forums he can go to if he wants to talk about how good the black people are but If we want to talk about black people, we will tell the truth even if it makes him cry.
White people aren't allowed their own forums or countries for themselves.

I put Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, France, Scotland, England, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Ghana. In that order on ancestry, sweetheart you need to remember what I write as you have selective memory. I whittled it to new world only :rolleyes:

I'm not here to defend black people, I am here to learn, to share and hold space for those willing to partake in the myriad of discussions regarding our ancestors, our cultures, and how we continue that today. To put it at a finer point I am here to discuss inter-racial/intra-racial interaction and the affects it has on shifting tradition and coustume among all peoples. With emphasis on
creole cultures derived from in part Latin based socio-lingustic groups.

But when I see some incorrect statement I put out a rebuttal with sources and references;heresay is nothing, neithier is igorance.

I don't need to fit in, in real life I do, I come on here because I like these things, why do you think I am on here only an hour or two at a time; I have a life. Also you can't get me to cry or call racist, because 1. I will not give you or anyone else power and 2. You hold no bearing in my life and are ineffect worthless in wasting emotions with.
:coffee:

Mon Cher, you should stop playing victim; its not becoming of a young lady :eyes

Supreme American
04-21-2012, 03:02 AM
Mon Cher, you should stop playing victim; its not becoming of a young lady :eyes

Rule #1 of trolling as a black: Do NOT type like a white dude. It's all you're doing.

Hevneren
04-21-2012, 03:21 AM
There's nothing wrong with intermarriage but it is disturbing that it's only happening in European countries, for obvious reasons.

How do you figure?

Quorra
04-21-2012, 03:30 AM
How do you figure?

;)

Hevneren
04-21-2012, 03:52 AM
Of course :)
I consider all white European people my own.


Sounds like a racialist version of rainbow mullticulturalism. :D

I don't have any white nationalist beliefs. Norwegians are my people, the rest are not.

~Nik~
04-21-2012, 03:54 AM
Sounds like a racialist version of rainbow mullticulturalism. :D

I don't have any white nationalist beliefs. Norwegians are my people, the rest are not.

Ethnocentrism is good too.

White Nationalism is obviously International. :p

Vixen
04-21-2012, 04:02 AM
Sounds like a racialist version of rainbow mullticulturalism. :D

I don't have any white nationalist beliefs. Norwegians are my people, the rest are not.

I meant the people who I find myself attracted to and romantically compatible with.

I don´t know If I would consider myself a white nationalist, but sometimes I find it hard to indentify with all of my fellow countrymen because I live in a multicutural and mutienthnic society... unlike Norway.

Quorra
04-21-2012, 07:34 AM
Sounds like a racialist version of rainbow mullticulturalism. :D

I don't have any white nationalist beliefs. Norwegians are my people, the rest are not.

You are a Nordic supremacist?

Texas
04-21-2012, 08:49 AM
A lot of the niggers here seem to treat that if they get a white girl, it's some sort of victory over "the evil white man".

And then they will insist that it was because of there big black peen, thats actualy probably 5 inches.

Hevneren
04-21-2012, 10:25 AM
You are a Nordic supremacist?

No, I'm a nationalist and ethnocentrist. I have no supremacist beliefs, I just love my own people.

Quorra
04-21-2012, 10:26 AM
No, I'm a nationalist and ethnocentrist. I have no supremacist beliefs, I just love my own people.

a lot of people love Norway. you are lucky to have such adulation.:)

Hevneren
04-21-2012, 10:27 AM
a lot of people love Norway. you are lucky to have such adulation.:)

Are you being sarcastic? I can't tell.

Quorra
04-21-2012, 10:58 AM
Are you being sarcastic? I can't tell.

Yeah I was. Lol Racially speaking, Scandinavia is the joke of the white world.

Vixen
04-21-2012, 08:03 PM
No, I'm a nationalist and ethnocentrist. I have no supremacist beliefs, I just love my own people.

I don´t think the African and Native elements of my country´s culture are inferior, but they are foreign to me and that´s why I identify better with European culture, especially since my heritage is a mix of different European nationalities.

Quorra
04-21-2012, 11:32 PM
I meant the people who I find myself attracted to and romantically compatible with.

I don´t know If I would consider myself a white nationalist, but sometimes I find it hard to indentify with all of my fellow countrymen because I live in a multicutural and mutienthnic society... unlike Norway.

I thought Norway is multi-ethnic now?:confused:

Kazimiera
04-21-2012, 11:54 PM
I think that Nationalists waste far too much time on this topic. Its something which is mentioned over and over and over again. Never in all my life have I heard as much about race mixing as here. It's not something the average person even thinks about.

Vixen
04-21-2012, 11:57 PM
I thought Norway is multi-ethnic now?:confused:

Not as much as Brazil...
Not even close :D

Quorra
04-22-2012, 12:04 AM
Not as much as Brazil...
Not even close :D

I can't see the comparison. Theirs no obligation for you to keep Brazil white if you know what I mean.

Hevneren
04-22-2012, 12:06 AM
Yeah I was. Lol Racially speaking, Scandinavia is the joke of the white world.

Is that why over 90% of Denmark and Norway are European? Sweden is probably over 85% European. Your post is extremely ironic, seeing as how you come from Australia. What percentage of Australia's population is Asian now, Rubberneck? :rolleyes2:

Hevneren
04-22-2012, 12:20 AM
I don´t think the African and Native elements of my country´s culture are inferior, but they are foreign to me and that´s why I identify better with European culture, especially since my heritage is a mix of different European nationalities.

Sensible enough. My position is that it's better to love your own than to hate others.

Quorra
04-22-2012, 12:26 AM
Is that why over 90% of Denmark and Norway are European? Sweden is probably over 85% European. Your post is extremely ironic, seeing as how you come from Australia. What percentage of Australia's population is Asian now, Rubberneck? :rolleyes2:

Ok I'll try one more time. Because of our admiration of Scandinavians for their reasonable, intelligent, civil nature and aesthetic superiority, the rest of the white world is concerned about it's destruction from mass immigration.

I'm not really much of an ethnic nationalist but if I lived in Europe I would be.

Take it as a complement that many of us are more aghast at what's happening there than in our own homes.

The financial wounding of mass immigration on Australia is catastrophic for us as it is for Europe, but Ethnically cleansing Norwegians from Norway is an intolerable evil.:)

Vixen
04-22-2012, 12:28 AM
I can't see the comparison. Theirs no obligation for you to keep Brazil white if you know what I mean.

Yes, I understand. All I meant was that being a nationalist in a European country is quite different than in non-European one. Norwegian is a pretty homogenous ethnic group... There is no such thing as "Brazilian ethnicity"

Hevneren
04-22-2012, 12:29 AM
I thought Norway is multi-ethnic now?:confused:

About 87% of our population is indigenous Norwegian. How much of Australia is indigenous Australian? :rolleyes:

Edelmann
04-22-2012, 12:29 AM
Sensible enough. My position is that it's better to love your own than to hate others.

Not an option when the others hate you so vigorously.

Vixen
04-22-2012, 12:30 AM
Sensible enough. My position is that it's better to love your own than to hate others.

Likewise.

Hevneren
04-22-2012, 12:44 AM
Ok I'll try one more time. Because of our admiration of Scandinavians for their reasonable, intelligent, civil nature and aesthetic superiority, the rest of the white world is concerned about it's destruction from mass immigration.

More sarcasm? :rolleyes2:


I'm not really much of an ethnic nationalist but if I lived in Europe I would be.

We can thank our lucky stars that you don't. :)


Take it as a complement that many of us are more aghast at what's happening there than in our own homes.

Why must I? I'm rather fed up with all the alarmist disinformation I read about the Nordic countries.


The financial wounding of mass immigration on Australia is catastrophic for us as it is for Europe, but Ethnically cleansing Norwegians from Norway is an intolerable evil.:)

And we're back to sarcasm. Norway's ethnically cleansed? Is that why 87% of our population is still native? Do you know anything at all about about my nation?

Hevneren
04-22-2012, 12:48 AM
Not an option when the others hate you so vigorously.

The others? I can look at my own for hatred. July 22 last years proves that.

Quorra
04-22-2012, 12:59 AM
More sarcasm? :rolleyes2:



We can thank our lucky stars that you don't. :)



Why must I? I'm rather fed up with all the alarmist disinformation I read about the Nordic countries.



And we're back to sarcasm. Norway's ethnically cleansed? Is that why 87% of our population is still native? Do you know anything at all about about my nation?


I wasn't being sarcastic.

Demographically Norway is already ethnically cleansed. It's not rocket science.

Try to get some sleep.:)

Hevneren
04-22-2012, 01:32 AM
I wasn't being sarcastic.

Demographically Norway is already ethnically cleansed. It's not rocket science.

Try to get some sleep.:)

You're a troll. 87% Norwegian = ethnically cleansed? Good night, troll. :rolleyes2:

NewYorker
04-22-2012, 02:25 AM
My views on race-mixing are as follows: If two people of different races fall in true love and are with each other only for true love, then I have no problem with it. It is rare after all, so why the fuss? However, when it is based on fetishes, stereotypes, trophy wives, greencard husbands, sticking it to the opposite sex in your race, and other twisted ulterior motives, then I am against them fullstop, no questions asked! I also think engineering it is wrong. Importing 50,000 Blacks into a White nation of 200,000 is going to destabilize it because of race-mixing. Importing 50,000 Asians into a White nation of 200,000 is going to destabilize it because of race-mixing. So thereform, I am also for RATIONAL immigration policies. Also, if people are honestly attracted to the opposite sex in another race, (As I am to Black women) then that is okay too. We cannot help who we are attracted to after all, lol. If a lot of White women think Black men are attractive, what can you do about it? If a lot of White men think East Asian women are hot, what can you do about it? Not much, lol.
This pretty much reflects my views.

Supreme American
04-22-2012, 02:27 AM
This pretty much reflects my views.

WB.

Quorra
04-22-2012, 02:30 AM
You're a troll. 87% Norwegian = ethnically cleansed? Good night, troll. :rolleyes2:

Half of that 87% will be dead in in 30 years. If the immigration and birth rates keeps going as they are...

Demographics . you can google the word.:)

Melina
04-22-2012, 12:21 PM
I am a white nationalist and I believe in preserving my race. If you are involved in an interracial relationship then you don't love your race. Most white women I see that are interbreeding are not educated,have been abused and are mostly obese. :rolleyes:

SilverKnight
04-22-2012, 11:58 PM
I am a white nationalist and I believe in preserving my race. If you are involved in an interracial relationship then you don't love your race. Most white women I see that are interbreeding are not educated,have been abused and are mostly obese. :rolleyes:

I don't promote interracial relationship, neither do I oppose it on anyone (as everyone has their rights as humans). However, really dislike how the mainstream has treated white-Americans and I think it's unfair for them to be bashed all the time, and when an African American or Hispanic does something violent against a white then it's not "racist" ironic eh.... A good example, the whole Zimmerman and Trayvon crap going on ....

Are you Puerto Rican btw?

Supreme American
04-23-2012, 12:08 AM
I am a white nationalist and I believe in preserving my race. If you are involved in an interracial relationship then you don't love your race. Most white women I see that are interbreeding are not educated,have been abused and are mostly obese. :rolleyes:

Clearly the lack of education is key here. Decades of brainwashing have taken their toll; both males and females have so little racial identity and so much liberal philosophy that they become involved with other races with no qualms whatsoever. These people unfortunately also never fail to celebrate other cultures and races and mourn the loss of extinct Indian tribes.

If they'd only apply that to their own.

Rereg
04-25-2012, 03:01 PM
I know personally this fuc***g slut. She is polish model but today she lives in NY. For 2 weeks she will get married with muslim nigger from Mali:

http://www.qmanagementinc.com/details.aspx?cityid=ny&modelID=495312&subid=6842&mainsubid=6842&sexid=&indx=

sturmwalkure
04-25-2012, 05:57 PM
I know personally this fuc***g slut. She is polish model but today she lives in NY. For 2 weeks she will get married with muslim nigger from Mali:

http://www.qmanagementinc.com/details.aspx?cityid=ny&modelID=495312&subid=6842&mainsubid=6842&sexid=&indx=

I hope she never returns to Poland if she marries this Nigger. :mad:

Melina
04-25-2012, 06:21 PM
Doutzen Kroes, Frisian model.

http://www.idontlikeyouinthatway.com/pictures/20080922/doutzen%20kroes%20bikini%20candids%20miami%20sept% 2021/t/15thumb.jpg

http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2008/stylewatch/gallery/beach_patrol/081013/doutzen_kroes.jpg

http://www.idontlikeyouinthatway.com/pictures/20080922/doutzen%20kroes%20bikini%20candids%20miami%20sept% 2021/t/11banner.jpg

What a shame.. I always thought she was going to procreate with a white man and have white children.

Melina
04-25-2012, 06:24 PM
Ghetto trash. Illiterate, poor, etc. That girl is off her rocker.

The saddest part of this is that I see this every day in college :(

GeistFaust
04-25-2012, 06:26 PM
What a shame.. I always thought she was going to procreate with a white man and have white children.


This is absolutely disgusting, and I wish people who made such decisions would be weeded out of the gene pool, because they represent a threat to all that is natural and transcendental about humanity.

Rastko
04-25-2012, 06:29 PM
On the other hand,negro is very fit and healthy looking.

White men on average need to care more about their looks on average.

Get up their ass and stop whining how ''niggas take all wiminz boohoo''.

GeistFaust
04-25-2012, 06:33 PM
On the other hand,negro is very fit and healthy looking.

White men on average need to care more about their looks on average.

Get up their ass and stop whining how ''niggas take all wiminz boohoo''.



That is true to an extent, but I would say its an act of treason, blasphemy, and treachery of the worst kind.

I think their are white men out there who care more about their look, fitness, and health, but despite all this should ought not to be doing this.

Its amazing how much the sublime, heavenly, and beautiful wants to intermarry with the lower and more beastly races, despite how good they might look.

Wildland
04-25-2012, 06:37 PM
On the other hand,negro is very fit and healthy looking.

White men on average need to care more about their looks on average.

Get up their ass and stop whining how ''niggas take all wiminz boohoo''.

That's the worst thing I heard in a long time.
And why should women stereotype looks before anything else white men provide an African never can.


http://cdn.thefreshxpress.com/freshxp/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/c-300x207.jpg

http://aryanism.net/wp-content/uploads/Aryan-Race-1.jpg