Lady calls Radio station saying miscegenation is a pollutant..

[Tooting Carmen]

Yes, that's some political and athletic aspects you describe there. Which for the political aspect... Only India has managed to be a proper democracy. Plus, no country in Africa or Asia has common/customary law. Only the Anglo-Saxon countries have common law, and I learned it in Law the previous semester.

But what about the culture itself? Do they have customs like those of the Brits? No. Do they behave like Brits? No. Do they have a British mentality? No. Even their religion, which is Christianity, is it practiced the same way as in Britain? Ofc not.

Is Orthodox Christianity practised identically in Greece to how it is in Serbia or Russia? Although India has been among the few ex-colonies to consistently remain a parliamentary democracy, many other places in Asia and Africa maintain at least the trappings of it too. It is a myth that all post-colonial rulers are necessarily like Sani Abacha, Robert Mugabe, Idi Amin, Zia ul-Huq or Ne Win.

[LittleDarkAge]

Solutrean theory is objectively retarded on many levels.

1) Obviously, no one crossed the atlantic on canoes
2) Even if they had done, the 'Europeans' of the time period were not particularly akin to today's Europeans, genetically and certainly not culturally
3) The archaeological evidence is severely lacking and primarily based on similarities of flints found literally thousands of years apart
4) In the theory, the Solutreans were absorbed by the NatAms, making the NatAms the heirs to the Solutreans, not Europeans
5) Even in the theory, the Solutreans were not indigenous to the entirety of the Americas
6) Even if they had been, which they weren't, this would not be a sufficient reason to go and conquer the land in the name of your distant cousins (supposedly) who died out 18,000 years ago

You believe almost anything as long as it's pro-White. Listen to Smeagol, and approach these idiotic counter-intuitive 'theories' (hypothesis is more accurate for this brain fart of an idea) with more caution.

I yet again commented on a thread I knew you were reading to benefit from your analytical skills. Yes, I knew Solutreans were not like modern Europeans and that those remains only showed some similarities to Europeans tools and weapons. I just wanted to know your thoughts on this one. Spot on as usual.

[Zeno]

I don't pick on people for swearing or launching insults - you do, but then do worse yourself. That's my point. Are you really this dumb?

Except I don't do that anymore.

And you still lecture people for their behaviour, I don't anymore. You still curse on one thread and act civilised on other simultaneously. Yet you patronise me.

For me, what I did belongs to the past. Time for you to quit this too.

[Longbowman]

Except I don't do that anymore.

And you still lecture people for their behaviour, I don't anymore. You still curse on one thread and act civilised on other simultaneously. Yet you patronise me.

For me, what I did belongs to the past. Time for you to quit this too.

You stopped in the past fortnight, eh? Good for you. Don't worry, this will be the last you hear of from me on this issue, until you do it again.

[Universe]

What did you post that had anything to do with genetics being a factor? Thanks for the whole presentation, but you wasted your time if you believe it convinces me that your whole "genetics" theory is true. They come from sh*thole countries, that doesn't necessarily mean they're a sh*hole race.... that's messed up if you think that.

I see from your statistical evidence that Indians & Pakistanis cause a lot of crime in Europe. As for here in Canada/USA, Indians are usually quite successful and peaceful, disproportionately so. Indians/Pakis and Asians are even more educated and peaceful than White Americans/Canadians.

Can you post evidence it's not about genetics?

Yup, you are correct. Plus Zeno's point about London is incorrect as well. I could go into details on why more crime is committed and why some statistics are inaccurate but I don't give a shit. Zeno lied to prove a point. Anything he says now will be irrelevant. He did the same thing with gender wages and I pulled out the largest and most upto date study and then he changed goalposts to say that men earn only slightly more than women. Anyways, that's irrelevant. His lies and outdated information has been exposed once again. He talks about all crime as well.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...te%20of%2099.5.

"With a crime rate of 100.9 per 1000 people the Yorkshire and Humber region, had the highest crime rate of all the regions of the United Kingdom in 2019/20." Not London.

https://observatory.leeds.gov.uk/population/
As you can see, the Yorkshire and Humber region is even more white than the average of England at 85+ percent. So much for Zeno's point.

Also Luso regarding your point about most London being largely non-white:

As per the 2011 census, 60 percent of the population is white. I know it's outdated but still

Considering Zeno's politics really is nazism(check his profile), can you really be surprised by what he says? Longbowman completely trashed him last time (that incident led to Zeno's ban).

Blacks are still overrepresented in UK's crime statistics.
"But but but the white crime" - lulz.

[Universe]

Remember this mantra:

In India you speak English. In Malaysia you speak English. In Kenya you speak English. In Nigeria you speak English. In Britain...you still speak English!

1) If a person from Malaysia/Kenya/Nigeria etc prefers their indigeneous languages to English, will he be demonized for it? Will he be cancelled for it?
In any case, if they have a problem with English language, they should have the freedom to fight against it. The thing is English language isn't a bad thing for those places, but the opposite : they arguably benefit from it as it helps building economic connections with wealthier places. On the other hand, I don't see a tangible benefit of replacing whites with non-whites.

2) Language doesn't matter. Language of a population is more easily changed than its genetics, therefore race/genetics have greater value. I'd rather have my country speak Nigerian/Hindi/English while keeping it racially hungarian than have it completely gypsyfied/negrified genetically and keeping hungarian language.

Remember this mantra:


The place where you live is an ancestral land of native americans.

and? He said "White countries" not usa specifically.

[Petalpusher]

Solutrean theory is objectively retarded on many levels.

1) Obviously, no one crossed the atlantic on canoes
2) Even if they had done, the 'Europeans' of the time period were not particularly akin to today's Europeans, genetically and certainly not culturally
3) The archaeological evidence is severely lacking and primarily based on similarities of flints found literally thousands of years apart
4) In the theory, the Solutreans were absorbed by the NatAms, making the NatAms the heirs to the Solutreans, not Europeans
5) Even in the theory, the Solutreans were not indigenous to the entirety of the Americas, but a small section of the Eastern Seaboard, land mostly now under water
6) Even if they had been, which they weren't, this would not be a sufficient reason to go and conquer the land in the name of your distant cousins (supposedly) who died out 18,000 years ago

You believe almost anything as long as it's pro-White. Listen to Smeagol, and approach these idiotic counter-intuitive 'theories' (hypothesis is more accurate for this brain fart of an idea) with more caution.

While i agree the trail of evidences are thin to say the least, it was still a real culture, it's even named after the town Solutré in Franche-Comté. I see it as a cool myth.

Also some of the great Lascaux paintings have been recently reattributed to Solutreans with better datations, rather than Magdalenians.

[Zeno]

You stopped in the past fortnight, eh? Good for you. Don't worry, this will be the last you hear of from me on this issue, until you do it again.

As I said, don't patronise me or anyone, while you're still doing the exact same thing.

Other than that, great.

[Lozano]

To me both are equally right but David Lammy clearly won this debate

[JamesBond007]

To me both are equally right but David Lammy clearly won this debate

That David Lammy won the debate against some random woman is not saying much in his favor. For instance, he would probably lose the debate to Nick Griffin, a trained lawyer, from the BNP , but Nick probably would not have framed the argument in the same way.