NationStates Jolt Archive

Eh....Not as much as a Nazi Jew. Or a Communist Nazi Jew...Or a Anarchist Hippie Communist Nazi Jew Fascist.

The only correct labels here for me...are the ones NOT bolded.

Yeah, I know. :) I acknowledged this ab initio. Hopefully though genetic engineering will not be too far off, because I want to alter my hair and eyes to blonde and violet respectively.

Unfortunetly, genetic engineering can't be used on multi-cellular organisms. We can only mess with the genes of a single genome, which is then fertilized in-vitro and inplanted. So you might be able to choose your child's hair and eye-color, but I hope people have enough sense to not support this - who are you to say what your child is going to like? The method is very useful for single - mutation diseases, though.

What you're thinking of is gene therapy, which is a little different. Gene therapy works by injecting cells into your body with a certain desirable gene in it. For example, if someone has diabetes, we can inject cells with working genes to produce the needed proteins, which are then carried throughout the blood system. Can you see the problem for hair color, though? You'd need a complete scalp transplant with many different changes (hair color is determined by a number of genes). It's quite possible that the new scalp cells would be different enough to be rejected by your body, AND it would require growing an entire scalp from your stem cells in a petri dish, blood vessles, hair follicles and all.

The only correct labels here for me...are the ones NOT bolded.

Then you probably don't want to eradicate yourself that much.

Well it will most totally suck, if thats what your asking. Yes...I'm aware that there are a couple aborigine blondes...but MOST blondes are white.

If beleiving this makes me racist, then yes, I am.
Agreed.

Unfortunetly, genetic engineering can't be used on multi-cellular organisms. We can only mess with the genes of a single genome, which is then fertilized in-vitro and inplanted. So you might be able to choose your child's hair and eye-color, but I hope people have enough sense to not support this - who are you to say what your child is going to like? The method is very useful for single - mutation diseases, though.
I am wondering though, if we might surpass this barrier. Science so far has proved limitless. I hope it continues to advance that way. I agree that it is perhaps a bit extreme to let you choose how your child will look, as opposed to allowing a person to genetically alter themself.

Why is it that colored people from all over the world do whatever they can to enter into all white communities?

Why is it that only nations that are predominantly white have to deal with the problem of mass migration?

Face the truth: Whites have built the best nations and created the best cultures and once we are gone the rest of you people will have no where left to run to for a better life.

I know a lot of you think this is not true but if the other races were just as good then why would they run away from their homelands to go live in white nations??
Ummm.... Because we have a higher standard of living?
And because that standard of living was accomplished by raping all non-European nations we are better?
What a load of BS.

Yeah, I know. :) I acknowledged this ab initio. Hopefully though genetic engineering will not be too far off, because I want to alter my hair and eyes to blonde and violet respectively.

Europa, it's pure speculation. We dont know if genes can be altered like legos...Dont bet on it...

We are the Borg. Join us!

Whats the Borg?

Europa, it's pure speculation. We dont know if genes can be altered like legos...Dont bet on it...
I am running on the assumption that Science is limitless. I think we will be able to.

I don't support anything. If there's less white people *shrug* So what? there'll be more of other races, and all the races are equal, right?

Actually, there will be less of other "races" too, if they all mix together. We're not seeing the decline of western civilization, we're seeing the decline of racism. We'll probably have a more steady frequency in the diversity of alleles, even.

Actually, there will be less of other "races" too, if they all mix together. We're not seeing the decline of western civilization, we're seeing the decline of racism. We'll probably have a more steady frequency in the diversity of alleles, even.

Well, yeah, but I either wanted him to come to terms with his rascism and/or how illogical the point is.

Ummm.... Because we have a higher standard of living?
And because that standard of living was accomplished by raping all non-European nations we are better?
What a load of BS.


Would you have liked to be living in shit and starving instead?

Go ahead and donate everything you own to charities that help the 3rd world populations as a form of payback,otherwise your a hypocrite.

Would you have liked to be living in shit and starving instead?

Go ahead and donate everything you own to charities that help the 3rd world populations as a form of payback,otherwise your a hypocrite.
He never suggested this though. You are now creating strawmen.

Well, honesty is always good. So why do you believe that then?

Because White people have been responsible for alot of the Worlds acomplishments, and I think humanity as a whole would lose so much from not having the Western Civilization.

Plus its only natural to feel loyalty to your own people and not want to see them get wiped out.

I don't support anything. If there's less white people *shrug* So what? there'll be more of other races, and all the races are equal, right?

You support the status quo...You say you dont care if whites become extinct. It's very selfish actually...a bit like:

"Oh I dont care if polar bears become extinct, it's just the colour of fur, they arent any better than black or brown bears..."

Because White people have been responsible for alot of the Worlds acomplishments, and I think humanity as a whole would lose so much from not having the Western Civilization.

Plus its only natural to feel loyalty to your own people and not want to see them get wiped out.

And how exactly did the lack of melanin in their skin contribute to their supposed acomplishments?

Why is it that colored people from all over the world do whatever they can to enter into all white communities?

Why is it that only nations that are predominantly white have to deal with the problem of mass migration?

Face the truth: Whites have built the best nations and created the best cultures and once we are gone the rest of you people will have no where left to run to for a better life.

I know a lot of you think this is not true but if the other races were just as good then why would they run away from their homelands to go live in white nations??


Yeah...Why do they all come to "white countries"? For example Japan is a very wealthy country but receives no immigration.

Japan:

Birth rate:
9.37 births/1,000 population (2006 est.)
Death rate:
9.16 deaths/1,000 population (2006 est.)
Net migration rate:
0 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2006 est.)

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ja.html

You support the status quo...You say you dont care if whites become extinct. It's very selfish actually...a bit like:

"Oh I dont care if polar bears become extinct, it's just the colour of fur, they arent any better than black or brown bears..."


They are selfish.

In fact your opposition is made up entirely of reverse racists and self haters.

but that shouldnt make you doubt your beliefs, stay strong and dont change your views for these assholes.

You support the status quo...You say you dont care if whites become extinct. It's very selfish actually...a bit like:

"Oh I dont care if polar bears become extinct, it's just the colour of fur, they arent any better than black or brown bears..."

Except polar bears are a species, and important to the ecosystem of the Artic; while "white people" can't even truly go extinct. Skin color is determined by many genes, and it seems as though the meaning of "recessive" is misunderstood here. And the skin has nothing to do with...anything, really, except maybe how much Vitamin D you can produce, or how likely it is you'll get skin cancer.

Well, honesty is always good. So why do you believe that then?

Biodiversity? Perhaps he is mostly attracted to other whites? Perhaps he wants people like himself to survive?

They are selfish.

In fact your opposition is made up entirely of reverse racists and self haters.

but that shouldnt make you doubt your beliefs, stay strong and dont change your views for these assholes.

Uuugh...don't start talking to each other. Mental masturbation parties are bad enough, but racist ones?

I am running on the assumption that Science is limitless. I think we will be able to.

Ok, but I'm saying dont bet only on it...Vote for some anti-immigrant party if you are in europe...

They are selfish.

In fact your opposition is made up entirely of reverse racists and self haters.

but that shouldnt make you doubt your beliefs, stay strong and dont change your views for these assholes.
Hhahahahhahah.... priceless. I just don't care whether someone is white/black/whatever. So what if us whites disappear?

Biodiversity? Perhaps he is mostly attracted to other whites? Perhaps he wants people like himself to survive?

If he's attracted to other whites, it shouldn't matter to him when he's dead. And if he wants more people like him, he should be have as many kinds as possible. Tis the point of reproduction.

Yeah...Why do they all come to "white countries"? For example Japan is a very wealthy country but receives no immigration.

Japan:

Birth rate:
9.37 births/1,000 population (2006 est.)
Death rate:
9.16 deaths/1,000 population (2006 est.)
Net migration rate:
0 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2006 est.)

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ja.html
Japan also makes it impossible to buy land unless you're a japanese citizen and is notoriously crowded.

And how exactly did the lack of melanin in their skin contribute to their supposed acomplishments?

Who cares?...the point is it did.

Why the hell should I care how it did.

Anyway, its mostly cultural...not so much race....it just so happens that White CULTURE I beleive is the best.

Plus I just tend to to find White girls (and light hispanic ones) hotter than girls of other races.

Thats just how I am.

Uuugh...don't start talking to each other. Mental masturbation parties are bad enough, but racist ones?

Youve been having doing the same thing with your fellow idiots.

Ive noticed all of you are hypocrites at least on some degree.

Youve been having doing the same thing with your fellow idiots.

Ive noticed all of you are hypocrites at least on some degree.
If they don't care about a hypothetical extinction of whites, and don't find white skin particularly attractive, then it is their prerogative. Leave them. You cannot alter people's minds on issues so subjective.

Hhahahahhahah.... priceless. I just don't care whether someone is white/black/whatever. So what if us whites disappear?

hahahahaha
So what if we whites survive?

hahahahaha
So what if we whites survive?
Don't care either. It's not about colourskin for me.

Japan also makes it impossible to buy land unless you're a japanese citizen and is notoriously crowded.

I forgot. Non-whites cant be racist. You certainly dont believe those 2 are (the only) reasons?
Netherlands is very crowded too but muslims are practically invading there. And hardness of buying land is a stop to immigration? :rolleyes:

If they don't care about a hypothetical extinction of whites, and don't find them attractive, then it is their prerogative. Leave them. You cannot alter people's minds on issues so subjective.

Hypothetical?? by now youd have to be either a reverse racist,self hater, or a retard to not see the extinction happening if current trends continue.

And your not god, dont tell me what to do on this forum.

Youve been having doing the same thing with your fellow idiots.

Ive noticed all of you are hypocrites at least on some degree.

*sigh* I admit it, I once quoted Sir Darwin. (:rolleyes:)

In other news:

hahahahaha
So what if we whites survive?

Good point. Who cares? It makes no difference, let nature have it's way with things.

Youve been having doing the same thing with your fellow idiots.

Ive noticed all of you are hypocrites at least on some degree.

LOL. I cant believe he/she actually suggested we shouldnt talk to eachother...:rolleyes:

Hypothetical?? by now youd have to be either a reverse racist,self hater, or a retard to not see the extinction happening if current trends continue.
Do you have any evidence of this though? Read my posts in this thread by the way before expressing nonsensical opinions about what I believe or not.

And your not god, dont tell me what to do on this forum.
Then carry on your exercise in futility.

I forgot. Non-whites cant be racist. You certainly dont believe those 2 are (the only) reasons?
Netherlands is very crowded too but muslims are practically invading there. And hardness of buying land is a stop to immigration? :rolleyes:
Haha. The Netherlands corwded. If you believe the racist rhetoric those nazis over here keep spewing maybe. And a muslim invasion? Not by a longshot because of the borderline racist immigration policies we have.

Alright, so this whole post was ridiculous, laughable, horribly racist, and generally a load of shit. Glad we could agree on that. Even if it were a believable story, I don't understand the impact. You (or rather the article, since you pussied out and won't admit that you believe it, too, even though you posted it) stated that the blonde gene was on its way out. But it went into this whole thing about how white people invented all these wonderful things and "civilized" countries by slaughtering their people (please note that Columbus brought back a bunch of food - like corn - that are now staples of the European diet from the non-white savages). Let me point out a couple things:

Not all white people are blonde.

Our entire math system was created by the Arabs. All of those "white people" inventions are based on it.

You, and anyone who believes this, is a complete moron.

Sorry if it's been said already. I didn't feel the need to read through 35 pages of replies. I have one question:

Where the hell did blaiming the Jews come from?

LOL. I cant believe he/she actually suggested we shouldnt talk to eachother...:rolleyes:

Yeah, might be new to the internet debate thing, and not know what I meant by "mental masturbation". *shrug* Whatever.

Then carry on your exercise in futility.

Wow, that came out so English in my mind.

Our entire math system was created by the Arabs. All of those "white people" inventions are based on it.

Err, what about all the stuff before that?

*sigh* I admit it, I once quoted Sir Darwin. (:rolleyes:)

In other news:



Good point. Who cares? It makes no difference, let nature have it's way with things.

So if you dont care if whites survives, who do you make such a big deal when we talk about preservation of whites?

Wow, that came out so English in my mind.
Haha, well it wasn't intentional.

So if you dont care if whites survives, who do you make such a big deal when we talk about preservation of whites?

Because your talks of "preservation" are racist, you self-loving prick. The kind of person you're attracted to is one thing; that's subjective, and not likely to change. But the fact that a bunch of white people get together and convince themselves of how much better they are than everyone else disgusts me. It's not about preservation. We're all human, you dick.

And, for reference purposes, I'm white.

So if you dont care if whites survives, who do you make such a big deal when we talk about preservation of whites?
Because we don't give a fuck if whites are preserved or not?

So if you dont care if whites survives, who do you make such a big deal when we talk about preservation of whites?

Because stupidity gives me this nasty rash on my back that I just can't seem to reach...And as much as I'd prefer to let you all simmer in your aryan juices, this is NS. No one seems to understand the concept of "do not feed the trolls", I don't see why anyone would manage to not feed the ignoramuses (Ignorami? *shrug*)

Alright, so this whole post was ridiculous, laughable, horribly racist, and generally a load of shit. Glad we could agree on that. Even if it were a believable story, I don't understand the impact. You (or rather the article, since you pussied out and won't admit that you believe it, too, even though you posted it) stated that the blonde gene was on its way out. But it went into this whole thing about how white people invented all these wonderful things and "civilized" countries by slaughtering their people (please note that Columbus brought back a bunch of food - like corn - that are now staples of the European diet from the non-white savages). Let me point out a couple things:

Not all white people are blonde.

Our entire math system was created by the Arabs. All of those "white people" inventions are based on it.

You, and anyone who believes this, is a complete moron.

Sorry if it's been said already. I didn't feel the need to read through 35 pages of replies. I have one question:

Where the hell did blaiming the Jews come from?

Ok, if you are proud to be white, it's stupid because many things were invented by non-whites.
But you can be proud of being non-white (for ex: arab) even though many things were invented by whites...Do you see the contradiction here? :rolleyes:

Ok, if you are proud to be white, it's stupid because many things were invented by non-whites.
But you can be proud of being non-white (for ex: arab) even though many things were invented by whites...Do you see the contradiction here? :rolleyes:
I think we can expect many self-contradictions from this one.

Ok, if you are proud to be white, it's stupid because many things were invented by non-whites.
But you can be proud of being non-white (for ex: arab) even though many things were invented by whites...Do you see the contradiction here? :rolleyes:

How about proud of being human, cuz we did a lot of things?

If they don't care about a hypothetical extinction of whites, and don't find white skin particularly attractive, then it is their prerogative. Leave them. You cannot alter people's minds on issues so subjective.
I'm just saying it won't happen.

I tend to find white people attractive. I haven't actually dated a man who wasn't white with brown hair, actually.

Because your talks of "preservation" are racist, you self-loving prick. The kind of person you're attracted to is one thing; that's subjective, and not likely to change. But the fact that a bunch of white people get together and convince themselves of how much better they are than everyone else disgusts me. It's not about preservation. We're all human, you dick.

And, for reference purposes, I'm white.

I've never said whites are better than any other. NEVER. Preservation doesnt equal supremacy. Ex: I want to preserve persian cats (if they were in danger)...Not because they are better than tabby cats but still they are nice and should be there...EVENTHOUGH THEY ARE ALL CATS!

Ok, if you are proud to be white, it's stupid because many things were invented by non-whites.
But you can be proud of being non-white (for ex: arab) even though many things were invented by whites...Do you see the contradiction here? :rolleyes:

I can't believe you actually got that out of my argument. My point wasn't about being proud of being white or non-white. My point was that you can't say that whites created everything, or that they're superior. I think humanity in general is equal. I'm proud of my German, English and Scottish heritage. But it doesn't mean I can say that someone is a lesser being because they're not white.

I'm just saying it won't happen.
And I agree.

I tend to find white people attractive. I haven't actually dated a man who wasn't white with brown hair, actually.
I sort of guessed that from your post. :p Are you bisexual?

Ok, if you are proud to be white, it's stupid because many things were invented by non-whites.
But you can be proud of being non-white (for ex: arab) even though many things were invented by whites...Do you see the contradiction here? :rolleyes:
Who said it was a good thing to be proud of belonging to any racial group? It's a pretty stupid way to divide a species. It's like getting all iffy about what breed of cat you have and shunning all other cats.

I can't believe you actually got that out of my argument. My point wasn't about being proud of being white or non-white. My point was that you can't say that whites created everything, or that they're superior. I think humanity in general is equal. I'm proud of my German, English and Scottish heritage. But it doesn't mean I can say that someone is a lesser being because they're not white.
Yet neither him nor I argued that being non-white would make you lesser.

Oh, and about pride in your background. Give it time, and people here will attack that belief too. :p

I've never said whites are better than any other. NEVER. Preservation doesnt equal supremacy. Ex: I want to preserve persian cats (if they were in danger)...Not because they are better than tabby cats but still they are nice and should be there...EVENTHOUGH THEY ARE ALL CATS!

What I don't understand is why you're all in such a panic at the idea of whites "dying out." I'm sorry if I read you wrong, but to me, the idea of "preserving" a race means that you want it to be pure, as in you don't think the mixing of races is ok. That sounds awfully Nazi-esque to me.

Because we don't give a fuck if whites are preserved or not?

Then why do you give a **** if we give a ****?

Ok, if you are proud to be white, it's stupid because many things were invented by non-whites.
But you can be proud of being non-white (for ex: arab) even though many things were invented by whites...Do you see the contradiction here? :rolleyes:Yes, but I also notice you conjured up that contradiction out of thin air. Racism is as brilliantly intelligent as shooting yourself in the face. Doesn't matter whether it's your kind of racism or some other kind.

What is it you're proud of? Individuals shape culture, make history & invent shit. Skincolours don't.

You had nothing to do with the shit you take "pride" in. You don't even understand what pride is.

How about proud of being human, cuz we did a lot of things?

Sure. I can be proud of being norwegian, european, white, human.

Yet neither him nor I argued that being non-white would make you lesser.


I was referring to the original article, where the writer (the whole quoted bit) spoke of all of the great things whites have done as if no one else would have come up with them if whites hadn't been around to bestow their great wisdom.

I sort of guessed that from your post. :p Are you bisexual?
Guessed that I have only dated white men with brown hair from my post? I made out with a blonde guy once, he had a lovely accent thourh.

Where did the bisexual thing come in? I've never done anything with a girl, but if the right one came along and I wasn't attached, perhaps...

Guessed that I have only dated white men with brown hair from my post? I made out with a blonde guy once, he had a lovely accent thourh.

Where did the bisexual thing come in? I've never done anything with a girl, but if the right one came along and I wasn't attached, perhaps...

Are you American?

Guessed that I have only dated white men with brown hair from my post? I made out with a blonde guy once, he had a lovely accent thourh.
I guessed that it's what you mostly date, from the way you phrased it.

Where did the bisexual thing come in? I've never done anything with a girl, but if the right one came along and I wasn't attached, perhaps...
You mentioned you find women with red hair attractive, so I guessed.

Who said it was a good thing to be proud of belonging to any racial group? It's a pretty stupid way to divide a species. It's like getting all iffy about what breed of cat you have and shunning all other cats.

I dont think dividing species is a stupid thing as long as it doesnt cause any violence. We neednt eradicate all differences just to get along....

I was referring to the original article, where the writer (the whole quoted bit) spoke of all of the great things whites have done as if no one else would have come up with them if whites hadn't been around to bestow their great wisdom.
Yes, but NY did mention he doesn't agree with everything she said.

I dont think dividing species is a stupid thing as long as it doesnt cause any violence. We neednt eradicate all differences just to get along....
With people like you around we surely do need to.

What I don't understand is why you're all in such a panic at the idea of whites "dying out." I'm sorry if I read you wrong, but to me, the idea of "preserving" a race means that you want it to be pure, as in you don't think the mixing of races is ok. That sounds awfully Nazi-esque to me.

Ok, They arent "dying out". But they are getting very very small vs the rest of the world. This wouldnt be a problem if we werent going towards a direction which'll make ourselves minorities in our own countries thx to "pc people" and mass immigration...

I dont think dividing species is a stupid thing as long as it doesnt cause any violence. We neednt eradicate all differences just to get along....

Black, white, asian...we aren't different species. That's the problem with your thinking. You sound as if (and I'm leaving some room for doubt, although I feel as if I shouldn't) you think that all people should stick to their own race, keeping their bloodlines "pure." This isn't fucking cat breeding. We, unlike Hitler, are not trying to create a race with superior and identifiable traits. We're all human, and we can love who we want and have children with whoever we want. I don't understand why you have such a problem with the idea.

Yes, but NY did mention he doesn't agree with everything she said.

MY COMMENTS IN THE ORIGINAL POST WERE DIRECTED AT THE ARTICLE. Do I need to be clearer? Perhaps I accused you or him of being racist, and I apologize if you believe that you are not.

Yes, but I also notice you conjured up that contradiction out of thin air. Racism is as brilliantly intelligent as shooting yourself in the face. Doesn't matter whether it's your kind of racism or some other kind.

What is it you're proud of? Individuals shape culture, make history & invent shit. Skincolours don't.

You had nothing to do with the shit you take "pride" in. You don't even understand what pride is.

So you shouldnt be proud of your brother, sister, mother because they arent you? That suggestion is stupid.
Americans shouldnt be proud because astronauts (which they have nothing to do) walked on the moon thx to NASA people and scientist (which they have nothing to do)?

Are you American?
I have citizenship, but I've never lived there.
I consider myself Canadian.

And if you're going to ask, I'm a european mutt by descent.

MY COMMENTS IN THE ORIGINAL POST WERE DIRECTED AT THE ARTICLE. Do I need to be clearer? Perhaps I accused you or him of being racist, and I apologize if you believe that you are not.
(directed to NY)
Because your talks of "preservation" are racist, you self-loving prick.

Wonder if he'll accept your apology. :p

I dont think dividing species is a stupid thing as long as it doesnt cause any violence. We neednt eradicate all differences just to get along....
Who's talking about eradicating all differences? I'm just saying that these sorts of differences don't matter.

Black, white, asian...we aren't different species. That's the problem with your thinking. You sound as if (and I'm leaving some room for doubt, although I feel as if I shouldn't) you think that all people should stick to their own race, keeping their bloodlines "pure." This isn't fucking cat breeding. We, unlike Hitler, are not trying to create a race with superior and identifiable traits. We're all human, and we can love who we want and have children with whoever we want. I don't understand why you have such a problem with the idea.

I dont undestand why you have such a problem with the idea that some people want to stick with their races. It's their choice if someone wants to couple interracially or not. I certainly am not suggesting we should ban interracial sex/mariage, etc...

So you shouldnt be proud of your brother, sister, mother because they arent you? That suggestion is stupid.
Americans shouldnt be proud because astronauts (which they have nothing to do) walked on the moon thx to NASA people and scientist (which they have nothing to do)?

Where do you come up with this? Your talent at taking leaps of "logic" from other people's statements are astounding. Having national pride is one thing - you're appreciating the commitment and work of others. But that's celebrating their talents, and that's a fair thing. You were talking about being proud because your skin was the same color as someone else's.

So you shouldnt be proud of your brother, sister, mother because they arent you? That suggestion is stupid.
Americans shouldnt be proud because astronauts (which they have nothing to do) walked on the moon thx to NASA people and scientist (which they have nothing to do)?Could you possibly have influenced your skin colour? If the answer is no, then you've got nothing to be proud of.

Same goes for astronauts & whatnot.

(directed to NY)


Wonder if he'll accept your apology. :p

My "apology" was sarcastic. I said I was sorry if the two of you don't believe that you're racist. I, on the other hand, feel that you are.

Who's talking about eradicating all differences? I'm just saying that these sorts of differences don't matter.

They were talking about how all humans going brown/black in future and how this is kewl...

Could you possibly have influenced your skin colour? If the answer is no, then you've got nothing to be proud of.

Same goes for astronauts & whatnot.

You are being subjective and it is very stupid to suggest that your definition of pride should be 'the' reference...

Ny Nordland,

As an angry white female concerned about the 'disappearance' of the 'Nordic type', what do you plan to do about it?

Have you started having babies yet?

Who cares?...the point is it did.

Why the hell should I care how it did.

Anyway, its mostly cultural...not so much race....it just so happens that White CULTURE I beleive is the best.

Plus I just tend to to find White girls (and light hispanic ones) hotter than girls of other races.

Thats just how I am.

So in other words, you're doing exactly what you're genes want you to do - be racist. Why? Because with globalization, EVERY culture and "race" will lose it's distinctiveness, not just the "white" ones. American culture is more Indian/Japanese/French etc than ever before and Japan is more Indian/American/French as well, and this trend is going to continue. The argument that we should keep a "pure" genetic stock of our race is, by definition, racist, and was basically the same propoganda used by hitler, the KKK, and slave-owners.

So you're doing exactly what we can expect any person dependant on their DNA to naturally do - look out for you and yours. The question is, however - is this ethical? Personally, I'd rather not be so selfish.

They were talking about how all humans going brown/black in future and how this is kewl...
If they think it is, again it's their problem. If they actually celebrate, desire and endorse the fact, then I could agree with you that they are racist.

I dont undestand why you have such a problem with the idea that some people want to stick with their races. It's their choice if someone wants to couple interracially or not. I certainly am not suggesting we should ban interracial sex/mariage, etc...
I'm just curious: What on earth was the point of this thread then and why has it gone on for so long?
I mean, if that's all you've been saying this entire time then it's really no different than say, someone's gay, you wouldn't have sex with someone of the same gender, but you're fine with them doing it... i.e. it makes no difference.


Though if you really want to encourage other racial groups to stop breeding faster than white people, teach their women to read. Female literacy drops the fertility rate like nothing else, especially when combined with contraceptives.

Where do you come up with this? Your talent at taking leaps of "logic" from other people's statements are astounding. Having national pride is one thing - you're appreciating the commitment and work of others. But that's celebrating their talents, and that's a fair thing. You were talking about being proud because your skin was the same color as someone else's.

So you associate with your nation but cant associate with your race/ethnicity? Are rules about whom you can associate with or not written somewhere? Anyway it's getting very late, that's it for tonight from me...

So you're doing exactly what we can expect any person dependant on their DNA to naturally do - look out for you and yours. The question is, however - is this ethical? Personally, I'd rather not be so selfish.
Why not be that selfish though? What stops us?

They were talking about how all humans going brown/black in future and how this is kewl...
Who was?

You are being subjective and it is very stupid to suggest that your definition of pride should be 'the' reference...

And it is very stupid to suggest that you believe that someone should feel proud that they're a certain color. Being proud of your family/ancestors or nation's accomplishments is one thing. Being proud because your genes sorted the right way and you came out pink is quite the other.

I
Though if you really want to encourage other racial groups to stop breeding faster than white people, teach their women to read. Female literacy drops the fertility rate like nothing else, especially when combined with contraceptives.
That, and actually increasing their wealth levels.

And it is very stupid to suggest that you believe that someone should feel proud that they're a certain color. Being proud of your family/ancestors or nation's accomplishments is one thing. Being proud because your genes sorted the right way and you came out pink is quite the other.
How is it okay though then to be proud of your nation's achievements? You in no way control where you are born, and in no way are responsible for your nation's past grandeur. Nations are the apotheosis of an artificial construct, and far more elusive than any concept of genes.

Err, what about all the stuff before that?

Well...Arab civilizations are older than western ones. And arabs didn't invent ALL the math we use, just a lot of important stuff, like the number zero. The Romans had their numerals, though...

Ny Nordland,

As an angry white female concerned about the 'disappearance' of the 'Nordic type', what do you plan to do about it?

Have you started having babies yet?

That female isnt me, it was a quote. I'm male. What do I plan to do about it? Vote for FrP, talk these with friends/other whites. Maybe a family in future. Support anti-immigrant, pro-natal goverments...

"...but she has some points."

I apologize if this has been said, but what, exactly, can any rational mind agree with in that load?

I got sick of reading it before I reached the end of the first paragraph, so again, I apologize if she started making sense later on (although I doubt it, as racists are almost always painfully stupid).

Well...Arab civilizations are older than western ones. And arabs didn't invent ALL the math we use, just a lot of important stuff, like the number zero. The Romans had their numerals, though...
We all contributed (and I think you mean Mesopotamian...Arab is a relatively new word). The West contributed significantly to cultural advancement, yes. So did the Arabs and East Asians. To say though that this renders our achievements as negligible is untrue.

Maybe a family in future.
Maybe a family in future?

Sounds like you don't take this seriously enough to actually do something about it.

And what is a "pro-natal" government anyway?

You are being subjective and it is very stupid to suggest that your definition of pride should be 'the' reference...So don't take my word for it. Look it up, you sorry excuse for a bonehead.

Pride is the satisfaction you gain from the accomplishments of yourself & your associates. If you didn't write the US constitution, for example, being proud of it is completely misplaced, obnoxiously arrogant, and is basically taking a piss on the ones who DID help make it a reality - yes I realise you claim to be Norwegian. I just don't believe you are.

Taking pride in your skin colour is patently absurd. I can't rightly figure out if you need a rubber cell or a kick in the head.

So don't take my word for it. Look it up, you sorry excuse for a bonehead.
Why the ad-hominem attacks? They only weaken your position, and he did not insult you in any way.

Why not be that selfish though? What stops us?

A sense of ethics and morality? Science gives us the power to nuke anybody we hate into oblivian, science gives us the power to castrate the mentally ill, science gives us the power to grow clones of ourselves in to kill in case we need blood transfusions. We don't because we believe it's wrong. I believe racism is wrong. I believe nationalism is wrong. Bring up religion with me, and you'll probably get offended, because I believe blind religious ferver and hatred of other religions is also wrong.

A sense of ethics and morality? Science gives us the power to nuke anybody we hate into oblivian, science gives us the power to castrate the mentally ill, science gives us the power to grow clones of ourselves in to kill in case we need blood transfusions. We don't because we believe it's wrong. I believe racism is wrong. I believe nationalism is wrong. Bring up religion with me, and you'll probably get offended, because I believe blind religious ferver and hatred of other religions is also wrong.
Yeah I think we have moral limits, but choosing not to associate with others might not be the most progressive view, yet it is hardly something I'd consider evil or dangerous. Besides certain extremes (for instance murder or rape), the idea of ethics and morality don't find much sympathy from me.

I would agree with you on religion, and to a lesser extent on nationalism (I agree with it in some cases).

Why the ad-hominem attacks? They only weaken your position, and he did not insult you in any way.Ah, but you're wrong. Idiotic WP assholes offends me by their very existence.

But skrew this. I gan't kick the guy's ass through the screen, so there's nothing to accomplish by participating in this.

Ah, but you're wrong. Idiotic WP assholes offends me by their very existence.

You need tougher skin then.

Yeah I think we have moral limits, but choosing not to associate with others might not be the most progressive view, yet it is hardly something I'd consider evil or dangerous. Besides certain extremes (for instance murder or rape), the idea of ethics and morality don't find much sympathy from me.

I would agree with you on religion, and to a lesser extent on nationalism (I agree with it in some cases).

If you have the ability to consider something to be evil or not at all, then you have a sense of ethics and morality. Perhaps we should a different phrase - being aware of the consequences of your actions. The different outcomes will have varying degrees of desirability. I find racism morally apprehensible precisely because it is destructive. It hurts people, it raises unnecesary tensions, it gives people cause to be self-righteous, violent, and dangerous. Most importantly, it's not based on any substantial truth. The differences between "races" are arbitrary, at best.

If you have the ability to consider something to be evil or not at all, then you have a sense of ethics and morality. Perhaps we should a different phrase - being aware of the consequences of your actions. The different outcomes will have varying degrees of desirability. I find racism morally apprehensible precisely because it is destructive. It hurts people, it raises unnecesary tensions, it gives people cause to be self-righteous, violent, and dangerous. Most importantly, it's not based on any substantial truth. The differences between "races" are arbitrary, at best.
Notice, I said choosing not to associate with others, not violent forms of racism. People can choose to do whatever they want and associate with whomever they want, however they want, so long as they don't directly hurt others. I don't believe in the need to be constrained by ethical, moral or emotional considerations.

If you have the ability to consider something to be evil or not at all, then you have a sense of ethics and morality. Perhaps we should a different phrase - being aware of the consequences of your actions. The different outcomes will have varying degrees of desirability. I find racism morally apprehensible precisely because it is destructive. It hurts people, it raises unnecesary tensions, it gives people cause to be self-righteous, violent, and dangerous. Most importantly, it's not based on any substantial truth. The differences between "races" are arbitrary, at best.
I don't like racism either, but there are groups of people who look relatively the same, and other groups that look different, and people will always identify with their own group. So, there will always be races.

I don't like racism either, but there are groups of people who look relatively the same, and other groups that look different, and people will always identify with their own group. So, there will always be races.
Speaking in terms of phenotype, yes.

Speaking in terms of phenotype, yes.
And even in genotype. Scientists found that different phenotypic races have some genes more than others. But mostly phenotypicly.

Yeah, I am aware of all of this.


I wasn't aware until earlier that they can actually coexist with darker (or any non-white) skin colours.


Also aware of this. :)
Then you may disregard the entire impatient post and leave it to Ny and some others in the thread. Happy blond hunting. :)

Even if it wont go extinct, we will be VERY VERY FEW IF current trends continue. And "PC People" are really good at making sure current trends continue, by dismissing/labelling any opposition as racism...
So what? You keep saying "few" and "too few" and "very very few." How many white people do you think the world needs and why?

Then you may disregard the entire impatient post and leave it to Ny and some others in the thread. Happy blond hunting. :)
Even he recognises a lot of the points you mentioned from what I can tell. We both came from the position that we prefer white skin to the exclusion of all other colours in terms of sexual attraction, as well as blonde hair. I diverge on some of his other arguments though.

Even he recognises a lot of the points you mentioned from what I can tell. We both came from the position that we prefer white skin to the exclusion of all other colours in terms of sexual attraction, as well as blonde hair. I diverge on some of his other arguments though.
Europa, either you are trusting him too much, or you are as dishonest or self-deluding as he is. Ny Nordland is a racist. He can deny it all he likes. His posts and threads speak for themselves. I only wish he would admit it.

Europa, either you are trusting him too much, or you are as dishonest or self-deluding as he is. Ny Nordland is a racist. He can deny it all he likes. His posts and threads speak for themselves. I only wish he would admit it.
Actually, I believe the both of them admitted to being racist. No one is deluded here.

Actually, I believe the both of them admitted to being racist. No one is deluded here.

As did Atty.

Actually, I believe the both of them admitted to being racist. No one is deluded here.
Notice though that I also said I am libertarian, so I believe it is ultimately up to the individual how to lead their lives. Nor do I believe in constructions of race as defined by Muryavets. So there is no intentional dishonesty on my part, at least.

"Race differences in average IQ are largely genetic"
http://www.news-medical.net/?id=9530

Why are you presenting this as though it meant anything?

Notice though that I also said I am libertarian, so I believe it is ultimately up to the individual how to lead their lives. Nor do I believe in constructions of race as defined by Muryavets. So there is no intentional dishonesty on my part, at least.
I never accussed you of inentional dishonesty my friend, nor did I accuse your buddy Nordland. I simply stated that you previously said that you prefer white skin and blond hair. Obviously, that means you have a bias towards caucasians, and you said it yourself. Although I don't agree with you (blond hair is SO ANNOYING!! How could anyone stand it?) I respect you because you're honest and I wasn't trying to degrade you. That's all.

I never accussed you of inentional dishonesty my friend, nor did I accuse your buddy Nordland. I simply stated that you previously said that you prefer white skin and blond hair. Obviously, that means you have a bias towards caucasians, and you said it yourself. Although I don't agree with you (blond hair is SO ANNOYING!! How could anyone stand it?) I respect you because you're honest and I wasn't trying to degrade you. That's all.
Very well, just so we are clear.

Personally, I find the colour absolutely gorgeous and majestic. :)

It is the result of Westernisation (ie wealth accumulation). Not that this is bad by any stretch of imagination, but it has its drawbacks.

It might have MORE to do with the old principle of fitting a lot of people into a small habitable space...

Very well, just so we are clear.

Personally, I find the colour absolutely gorgeous and majestic. :)
My mom and two brothers have it. I hate it.

My mom and two brothers have it. I hate it.
My entire family on my mother's side has it. :) Wish I was so lucky as to have inherited it. My brother did partially.

It might have MORE to do with the old principle of fitting a lot of people into a small habitable space...
Evidently. Though my point was richer nations tend to have higher life expectancies and lower birth rates.

As did Atty.

Oh come on. I wouldnt call myself a racist, just old fashioned. :p

My mom and two brothers have it. I hate it.

My Dad and his side of the family have it.

I was lucky enough to get it, my two other siblings were not.:D

Neither did any scientist, until we did some clever experiments with babies (who are uneffected by social influences). There's no such thing as a "pi gene" or "golden ration gene", but your genes DO set up your brain in such a way that it recognizes certain things to be more attractive that others, as I've shown above.

I believe the current idea is that symmetry is the most 'healthy' genetic product... thus, the closer a body (and, especially a face) is to symmetry, the more likely it is to be found attractive - because our genetic code seeks optimally healthy genetic code to combine with.

My Dad and his side of the family have it.

I was lucky enough to get it, my two other siblings were not.:D
I wouldn't consider you lucky:rolleyes:

I believe the current idea is that symmetry is the most 'healthy' genetic product... thus, the closer a body (and, especially a face) is to symmetry, the more likely it is to be found attractive - because our genetic code seeks optimally healthy genetic code to combine with.
Some theorise that the attraction to blonde hair might be because we perceive it as healthy and youthful.

I wouldn't consider you lucky:rolleyes:
Well I would. :p

I wouldn't consider you lucky:rolleyes:

Thats fine.

But as I would, I think its natural that I would like this gene to be around for my children and their children to enjoy it.

Thats all I'm really trying to say.

Thats fine.

But as I would, I think its natural that I would like this gene to be around for my children and their children to enjoy it.

Thats all I'm really trying to say.
Basically you are more or less arguing from the same point of view as me.

I didn't say the majority. The other ones would also be dominant.

And I find nothing disgusting about it, nor creepy. We have the power to manipulate nature and ourselves, why not use it? But if you still find me scary, what can I say. Your choice.

People find it disgusting, because it is something that has been tried before, and it never ends up pretty.

I for one, would not sit back while you eugenically engineer yourself a 'master-race'.

I believe the current idea is that symmetry is the most 'healthy' genetic product... thus, the closer a body (and, especially a face) is to symmetry, the more likely it is to be found attractive - because our genetic code seeks optimally healthy genetic code to combine with.

That's the point I was making, almost using the same words, but it's buried somewhere in all these posts. =) Might be worth finding it - I also talk about sound, taste, and sexual selection!

Even if it wont go extinct, we will be VERY VERY FEW IF current trends continue. And "PC People" are really good at making sure current trends continue, by dismissing/labelling any opposition as racism...

It's nothing to do with being 'politically correct'.

If you perpetuate racist stereotypes, and 'practise' a racist philosophy, there is no inaccuracy in labelling it 'racist'.

Indeed - if we were being OVERLY 'PC', we'd (instead) be excusing your racial intolerance as 'diversity challenged' or some such.

Wait, wait, wait.

My sisters have blonde hair and blue eyes. I have brown hair and brown eyes. OH NO! My sisters are genetically superior to me!

*panics* OH DEAR LORD, MY ENTIRE LIFE HAS BEEN A FARCE! Here I thought I was doing all right... turns out I just got the shallow end of the gene pool and I should be ashamed of myself for my very existence... I'm destroying the Aryan race. Wow, good thing I read this article and it has shown me the light.

To complicate things further... My father has red hair and green eyes, and my mother has black hair and brown eyes. I guess if we're going to perpetuate these things, my mother is "exotic" and my father is a "hot-blooded drunkard."

*tongue firmly in cheek*

My father's not a drunkard. ;-)

Thats fine.

But as I would, I think its natural that I would like this gene to be around for my children and their children to enjoy it.

Thats all I'm really trying to say.

And it's not going anywhere. As I said a few hours ago, the difference between now and the future is:

Now: blonde babies come from blond parents. Brunettes generally have brunettes.

After globalization: blond babies might come from people of any hair color, as well as babies with red, sandy, brown, black, or naturally "sun-streaked" hair.

People find it disgusting, because it is something that has been tried before, and it never ends up pretty.
Yes, Nazism didn't exactly help. I am hoping the future will be different though.

I for one, would not sit back while you eugenically engineer yourself a 'master-race'.
I suppose you could try. :p In any case, this wouldn't be about a master-race. This would be about genetics replacing cosmetic surgery, colour contacts and hair dyes when it gains the ability to do so risk-free. I doubt I will be alive then though.

Actually, I believe the both of them admitted to being racist. No one is deluded here.
Actually, they have been saying that they are not racists, that they just have a personal, sexual preference for people of a certain complexion, hair color, and eye color. That's as far as Europa has gone. I think he's kidding either us or himself, but that's just my opinion. I accuse him of nothing.

Ny Nordland, on the other hand, has said the above, and posted that racist tripe in the OP, and has repeatedly try to disavow the article (as he often does when called out as a racist in threads), and has several times in this thread made mention of political policies that would support a program of racial segregation in his country. He is on record as claiming that non-whites are deliberately trying to "out-breed" whites in order to take control of politics (by force of numbers, I guess), and has condemned foreign cultures, always conflating them with race. Yet he persistently denies that he is a racist. If he is not deliberately (and weakly) lying, then he is very sadly mistaken.

I don't really care if Ny Nordland gets the heebie-jeebies every time he sees someone with too deep a tan. What annoys me is people who try to hide their true agendas.

Very well, just so we are clear.

Personally, I find the colour absolutely gorgeous and majestic. :)
Ye gods. You never got over the Swedish Bikini Team, did you?

Ye gods. You never got over the Swedish Bikini Team, did you?
No, but only if you are referring to the male one.

I can appreciate beauty in blonde women too though.

Oh come on. I wouldnt call myself a racist, just old fashioned. :p
You would be mistaken.

Notice, I said choosing not to associate with others, not violent forms of racism. People can choose to do whatever they want and associate with whomever they want, however they want, so long as they don't directly hurt others. I don't believe in the need to be constrained by ethical, moral or emotional considerations.

And notice that I say it "gives them cause" to be violent, not "causes" them to be violent, meaning that many people find it to be a legitimate reason to hurt people. And you ARE, in fact, constrained by ethical, moral AND emotional considerations, right down to the littlest of things. Is there a good reason for people not to steal your stuff that doesn't involve morals, ethics, or emotion? What about the use of nuclear weapons? Or slavery? Or animal abuse? Or plagerism? Or throwing tomatoes at random people on the street? Or tricking a retarded person into giving you their money? Or parking in the handicap spot? Or naming your child Poopface McGee? Or offering to have consensual sex with a 5-year old? Whatever you want to call it, you have a value system that constrains every single thing you do, and you hope that everyone else follows the same set of constraints, because if they didn't, the world would be a terrible place.

Some theorise that the attraction to blonde hair might be because we perceive it as healthy and youthful.
You're a fetishist, EM. Shiny, soft, thick hair looks healthy, no matter what color it is.

Some theorise that the attraction to blonde hair might be because we perceive it as healthy and youthful.

It's a possibility, or it might just have to do with it's genetic 'rarity' (and, I don't mean there aren't many blonde people... I mean it's recessive).

Breeding across genetic divides actually strengthens the genepool - which might explain why it is common to find 'exotic' partners attractive.

That's the point I was making, almost using the same words, but it's buried somewhere in all these posts. =) Might be worth finding it - I also talk about sound, taste, and sexual selection!

Yes - I saw it. I was just condensing, and re-iterating for the importance of the point.

*snip*
What I mean is I am against the concept of moral order, especially morals and ethics (as in a collective morality and ethicality) dictating how we act and think. Basically I am of the opinion that you may do whatever you want, so long as it does not impinge on other's freedoms.

As for animals, I would include them in my definition of other's, but let's be honest; how many people care as much about a pig fed to be slaughtered as they do for that bunny rabbit that wanders the meadows? There is a lot of hypocrisy here.

You're a fetishist, EM. Shiny, soft, thick hair looks healthy, no matter what color it is.
No, this time I'm not voicing my personal opinion. This is the argument often advanced by scientists who try to figure out why there is a general preference for blonde hair.

In any case, this wouldn't be about a master-race. This would be about genetics replacing cosmetic surgery, colour contacts and hair dyes when it gains the ability to do so risk-free. I doubt I will be alive then though.

For all your protestations, what you are describing IS genetic-engineering of a specific class of partners you would find attractive. WHich, ultimately, is not that far removed from the 'master-race' concept.

No, but only if you are referring to the male one.

I can appreciate beauty in blonde women too though.
Oh, a Dolph Lundgren obsession then? Be honest -- how many times have you watched "Red Scorpion"? Is your copy damaged from you replaying your favorite parts over and over?

How about the holiday classic "I Come In Peace"? Dolph Lundgren AND obscure action ... uh... person, Matthias Hues. Blonds, blonds, blonds! Great big beefy blonds! You'd love it.

No, this time I'm not voicing my personal opinion. This is the argument often advanced by scientists who try to figure out why there is a general preference for blonde hair.
Uh, no. I'm not buying this notion unless you can post a study by some reliable research group or university. Not one of those "We Lust for Blonds" sites.

For all your protestations, what you are describing IS genetic-engineering of a specific class of partners you would find attractive. WHich, ultimately, is not that far removed from the 'master-race' concept.
I am referring more to allowing a person the ability to customise their appearance.

Changing the recessive/ dominant gene characteristic isn't inherently contributing to the creation of a certain master race; it would make certain features more prevalent though, across man-kind.

It is genetic-engineering, within the strict definition of the words. Not the kind that I oppose though.

Uh, no. I'm not buying this notion unless you can post a study by some reliable research group or university. Not one of those "We Lust for Blonds" sites.
I'll see if I can find any studies on this online. I read it in a health journal a few years ago.

What I mean is I am against the concept of moral order, especially morals and ethics dictating how we act and think. Basically I am of the opinion that you may do whatever you want, so long as it does not impinge on other's freedoms.

That's a little like saying you're against blinking. Whether you like it or not, it happens every time you don't think about it, and then still eventually happens every time you do. What I think you're really against is the concept of compulsory moral constructs. I think you're right - political correctness shouldn't be mandatory. BUT! Making any judgement on whether something is right or wrong involves ethics and morality. That's just the name we give it. Personally, I like an ethical framework that moves beyond the "freedom" argument (and that's what it is, a moral framework, which also happens to be compulsory in most countries), because it has some issues. For example, if I copy someone's idea and claim that it was my own, you can explain it with sound ethical principals, but not in and objection that it limit's that person's freedom. At least, not in any way that doesn't involve a pretty loose definition of "free".

That's a little like saying you're against blinking. Whether you like it or not, it happens every time you don't think about it, and then still eventually happens every time you do.
I changed my post to reflect exactly what I meant.

What I think you're really against is the concept of compulsory moral constructs. I think you're right - political correctness shouldn't be mandatory.
Precisely, the concept of collective morality and ethicality.

BUT! Making any judgement on whether something is right or wrong involves ethics and morality. That's just the name we give it. Personally, I like an ethical framework that moves beyond the "freedom" argument (and that's what it is, a moral framework, which also happens to be compulsory in most countries), because it has some issues. For example, if I copy someone's idea and claim that it was my own, you can explain it with sound ethical principals, but not in and objection that it limit's that person's freedom. At least, not in any way that doesn't involve a pretty loose definition of "free".
I agree that on a personal level there are ethics and morality. In any case, I will drop this debate for another time, since I'm tired and my brain is beginning to slow down.

I could care less about the end of the white race. What does bother me is a diminishing influence of European values, especially modern ones. While the West isn't genetically superior, it is certainly culturally superior to the predominantly sexist, close-minded, and homophobic cultures that are superfluous around the globe

No, this time I'm not voicing my personal opinion. This is the argument often advanced by scientists who try to figure out why there is a general preference for blonde hair.
I'm not sure how general the prefrence is for blonde hair really. I know a lot of guys who don't really have a thing for blondes.

Oh, a Dolph Lundgren obsession then? Be honest -- how many times have you watched "Red Scorpion"? Is your copy damaged from you replaying your favorite parts over and over?

How about the holiday classic "I Come In Peace"? Dolph Lundgren AND obscure action ... uh... person, Matthias Hues. Blonds, blonds, blonds! Great big beefy blonds! You'd love it.
Yeah, I find the man hot...although I don't exactly drool over him, like you might think. ;) Karl Lindman is more my type of Swede. :)

I'm not sure how general the prefrence is for blonde hair really. I know a lot of guys who don't really have a thing for blondes.
Same here. I'm sure though if you want to find out, there is research that will tell you exactly how many guys/girls do have a thing for blondes.

I could care less about the end of the white race. What does bother me is a diminishing influence of European values, especially modern ones. While the West isn't genetically superior, it is certainly culturally superior to the predominantly sexist, close-minded, and homophobic cultures that are superfluous around the globe

Man, I can't believe I'm taking the bait for this...

Look, western culture is no "better" than any other culture. In the past 200 years, the USA has probably been directly responsible for more death than any other nation on earth. "Sexist, close-minded, and homophobic" is a pretty good way to sum up much of western religion, and if the opposite of this is the ideal culture, then you would find it in almost every Native American community. Before we instituted our "european values" on them in the form of slavery, death, torture, biological warfare, guns, and centuries of oppression and degredation of civil liberties, that is.

Man, I can't believe I'm taking the bait for this...

Look, western culture is no "better" than any other culture. In the past 200 years, the USA has probably been directly responsible for more death than any other nation on earth. "Sexist, close-minded, and homophobic" is a pretty good way to sum up much of western religion, and if the opposite of this is the ideal culture, then you would find it in almost every Native American community. Before we instituted our "european values" on them in the form of slavery, death, torture, biological warfare, guns, and centuries of oppression and degredation of civil liberties, that is.
Somehow, I think the USSR still holds the record for that. :) Perhaps China. Not sure which of the two.

Yeah, I find the man hot...although I don't exactly drool over him, like you might think. ;) Karl Lindman is more my type of Swede. :)
Aha! Soooo, you go for the Swedish meatballs, eh? You like 'em big and pale and adenoidal? Heh heh heh. Now I can plague you with imdb pics. Here, play with this for a while:

http://imdb.com/gallery/hh/0000185/iid_951395.jpg

But since this isn't one of those "Who would you so totally date?" threads, this is all you get. Now quit muddying the issue with your fantasies.

Somehow, I think the USSR still holds the record for that. :) Perhaps China. Not sure which of the two.Depends on how you count it. If you, for example, count the deaths caused by US economic hegemony, then they're undoubtedly lightyears ahead of anyone else.

Originally Posted by Europa Maxima
What I mean is I am against the concept of moral order, especially morals and ethics dictating how we act and think. Basically I am of the opinion that you may do whatever you want, so long as it does not impinge on other's freedoms
That's a little like saying you're against blinking. <snip>
It's also a little like saying that he/she does in fact follow morals and ethics that dictate how he/she thinks and acts. :)

Man, I can't believe I'm taking the bait for this...

Look, western culture is no "better" than any other culture. In the past 200 years, the USA has probably been directly responsible for more death than any other nation on earth. "Sexist, close-minded, and homophobic" is a pretty good way to sum up much of western religion, and if the opposite of this is the ideal culture, then you would find it in almost every Native American community. Before we instituted our "european values" on them in the form of slavery, death, torture, biological warfare, guns, and centuries of oppression and degredation of civil liberties, that is.
Claiming that one culture is better than others and/or not guilty of crimes they attribute to others is a staple tactic of all racists and xenophobes. But you probably already knew that. :)

It's annoying, really, because it is so easily disproven, yet they will persist.

You are stupid yourself if you think only you can decide what is rational and not.

You just bashed yourself moron.

You are so damn racist, Ny, it sickens me. :upyours:

Really, seriously, you have to be the most imbecilic person I have ever encountered...and I'm just reading messages. I will risk sounding a hypocrite and say that I would truly embrace the genocide of all racial purists.

Anyway, I think you're just pissed because you can't get any multiracial lovin'. Come on, you know you want it!

Oh, and I sincerely wish that your children all dye their hair black and marry african men. Not that people like you should be allowed to reproduce...:headbang:

Blond hair? Blond hair?!?! You want to condemn thousands of immigrants to poverty or death because you want OTHER PEOPLE to have blond hair!??!?!

Blond hair? Blond hair?!?! You want to condemn thousands of immigrants to poverty or death because you want OTHER PEOPLE to have blond hair!??!?!
Maybe it's part of their fetish.

Why is my initial gut reaction to that bigoted, racist, bordering-on-nazism opening post is "boo fucking hoo, stop whining and get breeding if you're so concerned about it, you twit!" ?

Ny Nordland, you are a foolish racist who is so closed-minded he cannot realize his own faults.

Angry White Female is a bitch whose ass I'd happily kick.

We're all human. White, black, brown, red, yellow, rainbow aquaramine, or whatever, we're all human. It doesn't matter, at all.

...

The only thing I lament about the eventual blending and result of the human race is the loss of red hair. Red hair is sexy. :(

Strawman argument, and you know it.

Another 50 years might see NO people, white or otherwise, left alive. A thousand years might see no humans left on THIS planet. A million years, and we might not even be able to recognise what 'humans' could have become.

In the meantime, you have yet to show ANY reason to support the spurious claim that white skin is somehow 'inevitable'.

Strawman my ass. Evolution happened to us. It has probably happened before, and elsewhere. It will happen again.

There are only 3 things in life that are certain: death, taxes and evolution.

Sure. I can be proud of being norwegian, european, white, human.
Oh hello.;) Still claiming to be norwegian, are you? Stop doing that, you're incredibly bad PR.

I am referring more to allowing a person the ability to customise their appearance.

Changing the recessive/ dominant gene characteristic isn't inherently contributing to the creation of a certain master race; it would make certain features more prevalent though, across man-kind.

It is genetic-engineering, within the strict definition of the words. Not the kind that I oppose though.

Well, obviously, it wouldn't be the kind you oppose, now, would it?

Regarding: "it would make certain features more prevalent though, across man-kind"... two problems: one - not necessarily and two: you say that like mixing with our genetic profile is a casual activity. You ignore the fact there could be ramifications.

The big problem with eugenics (whether it is for your 'fetish' ideal, or for some vision of a master-race), is that diversity is good. At the moment, if a genetic disorder or disease manifests itself that specifically targets the gene combinations for blonde hair, the human race has a fair chance of survival. You just don't put all your eggs in one basket.

"Sure as I know anything, I know this - they will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground swept clean. A year from now, ten? They'll swing back to the belief that they can make people... better. And I do not hold to that. So no more runnin'. I aim to misbehave".

Man, I can't believe I'm taking the bait for this...

Look, western culture is no "better" than any other culture. In the past 200 years, the USA has probably been directly responsible for more death than any other nation on earth. "Sexist, close-minded, and homophobic" is a pretty good way to sum up much of western religion, and if the opposite of this is the ideal culture, then you would find it in almost every Native American community. Before we instituted our "european values" on them in the form of slavery, death, torture, biological warfare, guns, and centuries of oppression and degredation of civil liberties, that is.

Thank you - you saved me from having to make this post.

...the predominantly sexist, close-minded, and homophobic cultures that are superfluous around the globe

I think, maybe, you mean "ubiquitous"...

Of course, if you MEAN 'superfluous', I entirely agree, but it doesn't look like it fits your context.

Strawman my ass. Evolution happened to us. It has probably happened before, and elsewhere. It will happen again.

There are only 3 things in life that are certain: death, taxes and evolution.

All of which is irrelevent.

Evolution doesn't favour LESS successful organisms - and you continuously fail to show ANY reason why the aberrant 'white, blonde' mutation should become ascendent.

Anyhow with the way Genetic Engineering is going does it matter, i can see a future where if you want your child to have blond, black or sky blue hair it will be an option.

Oh hello.;) Still claiming to be norwegian, are you? Stop doing that, you're incredibly bad PR.

I dont need to claim. But do you still claim you are a "real icelander"? It's interesting that you care about islam enough to put links in your signiture...
And explain to me, why do we need a good PR? Clearly, we want to be left alone...

Norstat's results for April:

Progress Party 33.4 (+3.7)

Labour Party 31.2 (-1.0)

Conservatives 11.8 (-2.4)

Socialist Left 6.7 (-0.3)

Christian People 5.3 (-0.8)

Agrarians 5.1 (-0.8)

Liberal Left 4.4 (+1.5)

http://norwaypost.imaker.no/cgi-bin/norwaypost/imaker?id=23693

Anyhow with the way Genetic Engineering is going does it matter, i can see a future where if you want your child to have blond, black or sky blue hair it will be an option.

That's pure speculation. Genes are not legos, we dont know if that level of manipulation is possible..

All of which is irrelevent.

Evolution doesn't favour LESS successful organisms - and you continuously fail to show ANY reason why the aberrant 'white, blonde' mutation should become ascendent.

Thanks for letting me expose you as the racist you are. You clearly think whites are inferior.

Besides that, whites are not inferior. They just develop in certain conditions, i.e. freezing Europe. If a bunch of Africans spend long enough there, their descendants will be white.

All of which is irrelevent.

Evolution doesn't favour LESS successful organisms - and you continuously fail to show ANY reason why the aberrant 'white, blonde' mutation should become ascendent.
Hold your horses. Anti-racism is good, but sometimes people fall in the opposite extreme (which is obviously bad).

More on topic, it is possible that long term the black coloured skin will dissappear. High concentrations of melanin in the skin are usefull for protection against the tropical sun, reducing the risk of skin cancer. If a cure for cancer will be discovered, the evolutionary advantage confered by having a dark skin will dissappear, so the trait will also dissappear in time. Something simmilar must have happened with the body hair. After the early humans discovered how to protect themselves against cold, it also dissappeared.

I dont need to claim. But do you still claim you are a "real icelander"? It's interesting that you care about islam enough to put links in your signiture...
Well, I'll translate this for you, if you wish... You won't, because you can't, which is okay...

What do you find interesting about the links in my signature?


And explain to me, why do we need a good PR? Clearly, we want to be left alone...
We who?
Norstat's results for April:

Progress Party 33.4 (+3.7)

Labour Party 31.2 (-1.0)

Conservatives 11.8 (-2.4)

Socialist Left 6.7 (-0.3)

Christian People 5.3 (-0.8)

Agrarians 5.1 (-0.8)

Liberal Left 4.4 (+1.5)

http://norwaypost.imaker.no/cgi-bin/norwaypost/imaker?id=23693 Your point?

If I remember my science news right, white skin started off as a genetic mutation that wasn't selected against because of the environment.

But anyway, the idea that blonde hair will be extinct is a myth.
Link (http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/blondes.asp)

If i can have a kid who turns out like Jarome Iginla, I'm all for it.

If i can have a kid who turns out like Jarome Iginla, I'm all for it.

*looks up Jarome Iginla*

That guy's father couldn't possibly be black. At least, not fully black. If he was, Iginla's mother must have some strong-ass genes.

If I remember my science news right, white skin started off as a genetic mutation that wasn't selected against because of the environment.
Exactly. And since no environement will any longer select against it (provided a cure for skin cancer is found), this means that 20 000 years into the future all our descendents will be Arian looking. Oh, imagine the joy for Ny Nordland's Norwegian descendents! :p

Exactly. And since no environement will any longer select against it (provided a cure for skin cancer is found), this means that 20 000 years into the future all our descendents will be Arian looking. Oh, imagine the joy for Ny Nordland's Norwegian descendents! :p

I don't mind Aryans. They're just Indo-Iranians.

Thanks for letting me expose you as the racist you are. You clearly think whites are inferior.

Besides that, whites are not inferior. They just develop in certain conditions, i.e. freezing Europe. If a bunch of Africans spend long enough there, their descendants will be white.

Oh, Kievan-Prussia, he's not the only one...

Here's your chance...


I was trying to show which groups in society are the most succesful, and if that means that I have to attach superficial labels to them, then I'll do it. What I say about IQ and everything else is true, it's on wikipedia.

Not all minorities can integrate. Asians have integrated extremely well in america, but they were subjected to severe racism until the 1970s. Blacks, on the other hand, are still predominantly poor and stupid, and they've been here almost as long as white people, and they've also been discriminated against, but they never managed to overcome that. Whether it's genes or culture, I don't know, but blacks are clearly inferior to asians, while asians are superior to caucasians.



I'm surprised noone called Dude111 racist or anything. I guess it's only bad and racism when whites do it.


So, it's a bunch of racist codswallop based on a lie? Like most racist things, but still.

Oh, and screw the "Nordic" "race." It is clearly inferior if it goes extinct. You'd think someone racist would understand that, but I guess following even their own lack of logic is asking too much out of these Einsteins.


Here we see an example how someone radically anti-racist can make racist statements himself. I'm sure everyone would call me racist, nazi, etc..if I said something like:

"Blacks are inferior if..."

I guess this a bit like radically anti-homosexual people. They are probably homosexual themselves or at least got some homosexual tendencies...

Well, I'll translate this for you, if you wish... You won't, because you can't, which is okay...

What do you find interesting about the links in my signature?



We who?
Your point?

I was guessing for someone "who lives in Iceland", you'd know what FrP is...

I was guessing for someone "who lives in Iceland", you'd know what FrP is...
Don't have it in Iceland.

Don't have it in Iceland.

Oh really? :rolleyes:
We havent got Dansk Folkeparti in Norway but I still know what it is. Maybe you were too busy with learning the divisions of islam?

Oh really? :rolleyes:
We havent got Dansk Folkeparti in Norway but I still know what it is. Maybe you were too busy with learning the divisions of islam?
Be careful where you point that thing, you might shoot yourself in the foot...

Oh really? :rolleyes:
We havent got Dansk Folkeparti in Norway but I still know what it is. Maybe you were too busy with learning the divisions of islam?
It would do you well to follow that example. Maybe then there wouldn't be so much blanket statements about Islam.

A request to Ny Nordland and Quagmus: please translate this post into Norwegian and Icelandic. It shouldn't be too difficult, don't you think? ;)

A request to Ny Nordland and Quagmus: please translate this post into Norwegian and Icelandic. It shouldn't be too difficult, don't you think? ;)
tilmæli til ny nordland og quagmus: gjöriði svo vel að þýða þennan póst á norsku og íslensku. Það ætti ekki að vera of erfitt, haldiði?;)

tilmæli til ny nordland og quagmus: gjöriði svo vel að þýða þennan póst á norsku og íslensku. Það ætti ekki að vera of erfitt, haldiði?;)
I have absolutely no idea what you're saying, but you passed my test. :D Now it's Ny Nordland's turn.

I wouldn't be surprised is Ny is just of Norwegian descent. But no matter.

I have absolutely no idea what you're saying, but you passed my test. :D Now it's Ny Nordland's turn.
mr. nordland has unfortunately just left the building and is currently unable to comply with your request.

mr. nordland has unfortunately just left the building and is currently unable to comply with your request.
What an unfortunate coincidence. :p

mr. nordland has unfortunately just left the building and is currently unable to comply with your request.

Fine, I'll play your stupid game...

Jeg ber Ny Nordland og Quagmus oversette dette på norsk og islander. Det skulle ikke vært vanskelig, eller hva synes du?

That's more like it.

Fine, I'll play your stupid game...

Jeg ber Ny Nordland og Quagmus oversette dette på norsk og islander. Det skulle ikke vært vanskelig, eller hva synes du?
Good, now we can reasonably assume (this is the internet, after all) that both of you is what he says. See how easy it was? I'm great at solving disputes (pats himself on the back)! :p

Fine, I'll play your stupid game...

Jeg ber Ny Nordland og Quagmus oversette dette på norsk og islander. Det skulle ikke vært vanskelig, eller hva synes du?
That wasn't hard, now was it? Took a while, though. Are you sure this is not danish?

That wasn't hard, now was it? Took a while, though. Are you sure this is not danish?

It's norwegian. Islander, islansk...I make the same mistake in english, like icelander & icelandic....

More on topic, it is possible that long term the black coloured skin will dissappear. High concentrations of melanin in the skin are usefull for protection against the tropical sun, reducing the risk of skin cancer. If a cure for cancer will be discovered, the evolutionary advantage confered by having a dark skin will dissappear, so the trait will also dissappear in time.
But the only advantage to light skin is the increased vitamin D absorption and since we have vitamins and supplements, there is no advantage to having light skin in northern latitudes anymore.

Something simmilar must have happened with the body hair. After the early humans discovered how to protect themselves against cold, it also dissappeared.
Body hair didn't disappear because we managed to keep outselves warm. Body hair disappeared (well, mostly disappeared) because we needed to cool ourselves down. When we evolved these brains of ours that produce so much heat, we needed to be able to cool down more efficiently, hence the loss of body hair and hence the evolution of dark skin to protect against the sun's rays (if you'll notice, a lot of other primates have light skin under their hair) so body hair didn't disappear because we could clothe ourselves, we had to clothe ourselves because our body hair had disappeared.

A friend of mine had sent me this article a couple days ago.
*snip*

Utter nonsense. :rolleyes:

But the only advantage to light skin is the increased vitamin D absorption and since we have vitamins and supplements, there is no advantage to having light skin in northern latitudes anymore.
I'm no expert, but isn't white skin caused by the absence of melanin? The vitamin D absorbtion was a factor which must have accelerated the rate of "whitening", but if the factor favoring a black skin dissappers, the black skin will certainly dissapear, too. If you don't use it, you lose it.

Body hair didn't disappear because we managed to keep outselves warm. Body hair disappeared (well, mostly disappeared) because we needed to cool ourselves down. When we evolved these brains of ours that produce so much heat, we needed to be able to cool down more efficiently, hence the loss of body hair and hence the evolution of dark skin to protect against the sun's rays (if you'll notice, a lot of other primates have light skin under their hair) so body hair didn't disappear because we could clothe ourselves, we had to clothe ourselves because our body hair had disappeared.
I haven't heard of this theory. Anyway, if the heat produced by our brains is so great, how come I have to dress if it's even slightly cool outside? Also, it's pretty clear that most men have hair on their chests, but not on their backs. I always thought this was because if you throw an animal skin over you, your back is pretty well protected, but your chest remains somehow vulnerable to the cold. We also have hair on our arms and legs, which are harder to protect from cold by a simple animal skin. The pattern of body hair seems to indicate that hair began to dissapear when we started to protect ourselves from cold.

I'm no expert, but isn't white skin caused by the absence of melanin? The vitamin D absorbtion was a factor which must have accelerated the rate of "whitening", but if the factor favoring a black skin dissappers, the black skin will certainly dissapear, too. If you don't use it, you lose it.
If you don't use it you don't lose it unless it's an evolutionary disadvantage. Look at the appendix it's completely useless and we still have it. Black skin won't disappear until it's an advantage to be white. Given that the only advantage to being white in higher latitudes is the vitamin D absorption and we get much of our vitamin D from supplements now, there's no real advantage to being white, in the same way, your hypothetical cure for skin cancer would give no advantage to being black in lower latitudes.

I haven't heard of this theory. Anyway, if the heat produced by our brains is so great, how come I have to dress if it's even slightly cool outside?
We evolved on the plains of Africa as a species. It doesn't get too cool that close to the equator. We're not built to run naked through Eueope, we're built to run naked through Africa.

Also, it's pretty clear that most men have hair on their chests, but not on their backs. I always thought this was because if you throw an animal skin over you, your back is pretty well protected, but your chest remains somehow vulnerable to the cold. We also have hair on our arms and legs, which are harder to protect from cold by a simple animal skin. The pattern of body hair seems to indicate that hair began to dissapear when we started to protect ourselves from cold.
I sincerely doubt that the amount of chest hair found in most men is enough to keep them warm in the winter if they're throwing a fur on their backs and nothing else. Furthermore, just throwing a fur on one's back would not be very warm or very good for moving about and hunting, sewing skills were developped pretty early on that allowed people to make clothing that covered front and back, not just their backs (I mean, can you imagine how hard it would be to pass on genes when all the men had frozen their bits and pieces off?) And to further illustrate this point, look at Africa. Many people in Africa lack very much body hair at all, some have body hair in the same places you describe, yet they have no need to cover themselves with thick animal furs as it doesn't get cold there. Our body hair patterns as a species don't have anything to do with what clothing we adopted, hell, people probably haven't been wearing clothing long enough to have our body hair match these patterns for hair growth.
Your explanation also fails to explain why women are much more hairless than men. By your explanation, women should be hairy in the same places and amounts as men... I know that I certainly don't have a hairy chest, but my bf has a bit going for him.

I did a little more research, I haven't found more about the body hair thing but I have discovered more about skin tones.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin_color

It seems that more important than protecting against skin cancer, dark skin also prevents the destruction of vitamin B, which is essential for fetal growth as well, and there is an example of darker skin tones surviving in higher latitudes, the inuit. Their diet is sufficiently high in vitamin D, so there was no pressure to have lighter skin. As a result their skin stayed dark.

edit: It seems that we lost body hair long before we started wearing clothing or living in northern latitudes (or were truly homo sapiens anyways) http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A1023968 look at the entry for Homo Ergaster, who was around 1.5 -1.8 Million years ago.

Oh, Kievan-Prussia, he's not the only one...

You miss the point of the Fass post. He doesn't believe whites are going extinct. He is just saying that if they do, then why should we care. Same for blacks, or Asians or any other 'race'. So long as it's not active genocide but simply free will causing a shift in phenotypes, why should we care at all?

You support the status quo...You say you dont care if whites become extinct. It's very selfish actually...a bit like:

"Oh I dont care if polar bears become extinct, it's just the colour of fur, they arent any better than black or brown bears..."

Polar bears are a species. It's not just a color of fur. It's a comparison that belies your lack of understanding of the subject.

Yeah...Why do they all come to "white countries"? For example Japan is a very wealthy country but receives no immigration.

Japan:

Birth rate:
9.37 births/1,000 population (2006 est.)
Death rate:
9.16 deaths/1,000 population (2006 est.)
Net migration rate:
0 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2006 est.)

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ja.html
You keep saying that. Net immigration does not mean zero immigrants. No matter how many times we tell you keep making that false claim. NET. Look up the meaning of that word. It means they don't have more immigration than emmigration.

Why is it that colored people from all over the world do whatever they can to enter into all white communities?

Why is it that only nations that are predominantly white have to deal with the problem of mass migration?

Face the truth: Whites have built the best nations and created the best cultures and once we are gone the rest of you people will have no where left to run to for a better life.

I know a lot of you think this is not true but if the other races were just as good then why would they run away from their homelands to go live in white nations??

How is being white a requirement for those cultures and civilizations to live on? If I as a white man marry a black woman will that mean that I won't pass my culture on to my children? Will my children not grow up in a western nation, a western culture?

Also, based on your argument, actually black people, aborigines and Native Americans must have had outstanding cultures because we flocked to those cultures in droves for several hundred years.

Perhaps, it's the VERY FACT that we believe so much in treating all people like equals that make people flock to our cultures now. If you stop doing that, it's you that's killing our culture. Diversity and equality is exactly why we are so appealing.

If you don't use it you don't lose it unless it's an evolutionary disadvantage.
Yes we do. Our teeth and jaws have gotten significantly smaller since we started evolving. I'm not aware of an evolutionary advantage to having small teeth, just that it's not an advantage to have larger teeth than now. The length of our intestines has also reduced, not because it's more advantageus this way, but because we no longer needed a big gut after the introduction of meat into our diet. So traits which remain useless will dissappear in time.

Think about it. In a world where a certain trait is usefull, those born without it are more likely to die. If the trait is no longer usefull, those born without it have an equal chance to survive and pass their genes to future generation. So every generation we have people being born without that gene for two reasons: their parents didn't have it; or they did, but the children simply didn't inherit it because of a random accident or a mutation (this happens every generation with all the traits you can think of). The consequence is that in time the gene will be more and more diluted and the trait given by it will be less and less pregnant.

Look at the appendix it's completely useless and we still have it.
People also thought for a long time the amygdala is useless (which is why they used to remove it). Now they know better.

Black skin won't disappear until it's an advantage to be white. Given that the only advantage to being white in higher latitudes is the vitamin D absorption and we get much of our vitamin D from supplements now, there's no real advantage to being white, in the same way, your hypothetical cure for skin cancer would give no advantage to being black in lower latitudes.
Read above. A trait will dissappear if it's unnecessary. It's simply a good managing of our energy. Why devote some calories to maintaining something useless when you can devote them to something usefull? So you see, not having an unnecessary trait is actually an advantage, because it allows our body to devote its resources to more important organs. The advantage may be minor, but over many generations it adds up.

We evolved on the plains of Africa as a species. It doesn't get too cool that close to the equator. We're not built to run naked through Eueope, we're built to run naked through Africa.
This is true.

I sincerely doubt that the amount of chest hair found in most men is enough to keep them warm in the winter if they're throwing a fur on their backs and nothing else. Furthermore, just throwing a fur on one's back would not be very warm or very good for moving about and hunting, sewing skills were developped pretty early on that allowed people to make clothing that covered front and back, not just their backs (I mean, can you imagine how hard it would be to pass on genes when all the men had frozen their bits and pieces off?) And to further illustrate this point, look at Africa. Many people in Africa lack very much body hair at all, some have body hair in the same places you describe, yet they have no need to cover themselves with thick animal furs as it doesn't get cold there. Our body hair patterns as a species don't have anything to do with what clothing we adopted, hell, people probably haven't been wearing clothing long enough to have our body hair match these patterns for hair growth.
My point was we're hairless on our backs because that's where the process of losing the hair started, so it had more time to act on that part of our body. Sewing was only developped a few tens of thousands ago, I think, so it wasn't a factor for most of our evolution as a species.

Your explanation also fails to explain why women are much more hairless than men. By your explanation, women should be hairy in the same places and amounts as men... I know that I certainly don't have a hairy chest, but my bf has a bit going for him.
Actually, my environemental version does explain why women are less hairy. They were not involved in hunting, they probably stayed in the camp/cave/whatever close to the fire, taking care of the children, while their men were out in the cold hunting. This means less need for body hair as a protection against cold. In fact, it's your version that fails to explain the male/female differences in body hair. If we lost the hair because of our brains, then the rate of loss should have been simmilar for both sexes (presuming of course that men and women are equal in intelligence - which is the logical thing to do; and it's also proven by the IQ tests).

A few additions:

1) Eskimos are not black.

2) How can they know how hairy Homo Ergaster was? Unless we have some kind of imprinting of a specimen (and I believe the only remains from the early hominids are bones), there's no way to be sure. It's like the feathered dinosaurs thing. We had to find dinosaur feathers imprinted in rock to be sure they existed.

My theory about why humans lost their body hair may or may not be right. The bottom line in evolution, however, is that a useless trait will dissappear. Black skin is caused by melanin accumulation, while white skin by a reduced concentraton of melanin. In my oppinion, this means that our bodies use some resources for having a black skin, but don't do anything for a white one. In the absence of outside factors influencing the concentration of melanin, the natural tendence would be towards a decrease (it's more economical for the body), so everybody's skin would "whiten". In the same way as we evolved to have shorter intestines or smaller teeth. I repeat: it's simply not economical (and so an evolutionary disadvantage) to maintain something unnecessary, when you can use the resources required for maintaining it for something that's actually usefull to you.

The length of our intestines has also reduced, not because it's more advantageus this way, but because we no longer needed a big gut after the introduction of meat into our diet. So traits which remain useless will dissappear in time.
Actually, eating meat requires a shorter intestinal tract.

People also thought for a long time the amygdala is useless (which is why they used to remove it). Now they know better.
Doesn't make the appendix any more useful.

Read above. A trait will dissappear if it's unnecessary.
No it won't.

It's simply a good managing of our energy. Why devote some calories to maintaining something useless when you can devote them to something usefull? So you see, not having an unnecessary trait is actually an advantage, because it allows our body to devote its resources to more important organs. The advantage may be minor, but over many generations it adds up.
Who said that black skin took more calories to maintain than light skin?

My point was we're hairless on our backs because that's where the process of losing the hair started, so it had more time to act on that part of our body. Sewing was only developped a few tens of thousands ago, I think, so it wasn't a factor for most of our evolution as a species.
And my point is that humans evolved to be hairless long before we were wearing clothing or actively hunting for that matter.

Actually, my environemental version does explain why women are less hairy. They were not involved in hunting, they probably stayed in the camp/cave/whatever close to the fire, taking care of the children, while their men were out in the cold hunting. This means less need for body hair as a protection against cold.
Our ancestors lacked siginificant body hair before they were even significantly exposed to the cold.

In fact, it's your version that fails to explain the male/female differences in body hair. If we lost the hair because of our brains, then the rate of loss should have been simmilar for both sexes (presuming of course that men and women are equal in intelligence - which is the logical thing to do; and it's also proven by the IQ tests).
Hormones. Body hair isn't linked to intelligence, if it was, there are som really hairy people out there who should be no smarter than apes. You're using a false analogy.

1) Eskimos are not black.
But they are dark.

My theory about why humans lost their body hair may or may not be right. The bottom line in evolution, however, is that a useless trait will dissappear. Black skin is caused by melanin accumulation, while white skin by a reduced concentraton of melanin. In my oppinion, this means that our bodies use some resources for having a black skin, but don't do anything for a white one. In the absence of outside factors influencing the concentration of melanin, the natural tendence would be towards a decrease (it's more economical for the body), so everybody's skin would "whiten". In the same way as we evolved to have shorter intestines or smaller teeth. I repeat: it's simply not economical (and so an evolutionary disadvantage) to maintain something unnecessary, when you can use the resources required for maintaining it for something that's actually usefull to you.
Again, the primary advantage of black skin isn't to prevent skin cancer, but to prevent folate deficiency which causes issues for pregnant women and their developing fetuses. This will not change in latitudes close to the equator and as a result darker skin will still be favoured there without vitamin supplements. In the same way, light skin is only an advantage in higher latitudes because it prevents a vitamin D deficiency, which is still an advantage without nutrtitional supplements.

Thus, black skin won't disappear so long as people are living near the equator and white skin won't disappear so long as people are living near the poles.

You just bashed yourself moron.

You are so damn racist, Ny, it sickens me. :upyours:

Really, seriously, you have to be the most imbecilic person I have ever encountered...and I'm just reading messages. I will risk sounding a hypocrite and say that I would truly embrace the genocide of all racial purists.

Anyway, I think you're just pissed because you can't get any multiracial lovin'. Come on, you know you want it!

Oh, and I sincerely wish that your children all dye their hair black and marry african men. Not that people like you should be allowed to reproduce...:headbang:
Way to go. A series of ad-hominem attacks and emotional responses. Try better than that in future.

It's also a little like saying that he/she does in fact follow morals and ethics that dictate how he/she thinks and acts. :)
He. And yes, of course I have my own moral and ethical code. It is a lot looser than that of most, but I don't disregard its existence. What I mean is, I don't consider myself morally obliged to be charitable simply because someone else thinks they are. It's up to me, not them.

That's pure speculation. Genes are not legos, we dont know if that level of manipulation is possible..
Then pray that it is.

Well, obviously, it wouldn't be the kind you oppose, now, would it?
:)

Regarding: "it would make certain features more prevalent though, across man-kind"... two problems: one - not necessarily and two: you say that like mixing with our genetic profile is a casual activity. You ignore the fact there could be ramifications.
There could be ramifications initially. Science is nothing without the risk. Eventually it will evolve to anticipate and deal with the ramifications that may arise. Avoiding something is nowhere near as effective as offering solutions.

The big problem with eugenics (whether it is for your 'fetish' ideal, or for some vision of a master-race), is that diversity is good. At the moment, if a genetic disorder or disease manifests itself that specifically targets the gene combinations for blonde hair, the human race has a fair chance of survival. You just don't put all your eggs in one basket.
It is good, of course. Yet if we were able to achieve that high a level of genetic manipulation, most diseases would be a non-issue anyway. All the better if you ask me.

It is good, of course. Yet if we were able to achieve that high a level of genetic manipulation, most diseases would be a non-issue anyway. All the better if you ask me.
So you're going to manipulate the genes of bacteria and virii too and somehow make sure they don't mutate?

So you're going to manipulate the genes of bacteria and virii too and somehow make sure they don't mutate?
According to medical experts, genetics will be so advanced in the future that it will be able to specifically target maladies afflicting a person. Using their DNA code it will be possible to make medicines customised for them, or even better, eradicate the disease via genetic engineering (for now, silencing malfunctioning genes is envisioned). So this is essentially human genetic manipulation. I am confident genetics has few possible limitations, and I think it is the most powerful tool humanity has, or rather will have, at its disposal.

Actually, eating meat requires a shorter intestinal tract.
If you say so... I knew that it simply doesn't require a long one.

Doesn't make the appendix any more useful.
It shows the apendix may have a function. Actually, I remember reading some time ago a study proposing that the apendix serves certain functions. I don't remember more about it, thou. Sorry.

No it won't.
Yes it will. Two can play this game, see?

Now really, it's a basic notion of genetics that unnecessary traits atrophy and then dissappear.

Who said that black skin took more calories to maintain than light skin?
Black skin requires the existence of melanin, for which our bodies must alocate some resources. White skin requires the absence of melanin, meaning those resources can be used somewhere else => more efficiency.

And my point is that humans evolved to be hairless long before we were wearing clothing or actively hunting for that matter.
Maybe, or maybe not. Until we discover a hominid's skin imprinted in a rock somewhere, we won't know for sure.

Our ancestors lacked siginificant body hair before they were even significantly exposed to the cold.
Even in Africa it can get pretty cold sometimes. Especially in the dry regions (and I think Africa was drier at the time), it gets very cold during the nights.

Hormones. Body hair isn't linked to intelligence, if it was, there are som really hairy people out there who should be no smarter than apes. You're using a false analogy.
Having smaller jaws than chimpanzees isn't specifically linked to intelligence either. Their reduction in size, however, was caused by an increase in the general intelligence of our species (the ability to prepare the food so that it's easier to eat). So the analogy is perfect. I haven't said hairlessness is linked to intelligence, just that it was caused by it. There's a difference.

But they are dark.
Yes, but was their evolution complete? The esquimos did lose some of their melanin (compared with the blacks), just slower than the whites because there was no positive reward for doing so. Just the absence of a reward for keeping the melanin.

Again, the primary advantage of black skin isn't to prevent skin cancer, but to prevent folate deficiency which causes issues for pregnant women and their developing fetuses. This will not change in latitudes close to the equator and as a result darker skin will still be favoured there without vitamin supplements. In the same way, light skin is only an advantage in higher latitudes because it prevents a vitamin D deficiency, which is still an advantage without nutrtitional supplements.
In a civilised world, vitamin deficiencies would be easily remedied, so any need for a specific concentration of melanin would also dissappear, leading to the phenomenon I've already talked about (a general decrease in the concentration of melanin in the skin, for reasons of "economy" and better allocation of resources).

Thus, black skin won't disappear so long as people are living near the equator and white skin won't disappear so long as people are living near the poles.
Read above. Normal environemental pressures would disappear in an advanced and civilised society.

P.S. I'm not very passionate about the reasons which lead to the massive loss of pilosity in the early humans, it was just an example to support the main point being discussed here, that of the skin colour. My point is that, if a trait (the existence of melanin in the skin, in this case) becomes unnecessary, it will disappear. It's a basic truth of evolution and genetics. So please, people, if you know something about these subjects, come here and support me! :D

It's getting late, so this is probably my last post for today. Bye! :)

Thanks for letting me expose you as the racist you are. You clearly think whites are inferior.

Besides that, whites are not inferior. They just develop in certain conditions, i.e. freezing Europe.

An interesting idea. I'm not saying it is IMPOSSIBLE for a white to think that whites are inferior, but I really DO think you are barking up the wrong tree.

I didn't say anything ABOUT inferiority... and, once again, you resort to a strawman fallacy when you can find no other angle of attack.

What I said was - 'white' genes are aberrant. They are a mutation. That doesn't make them inferior - it makes them different to the original model, which COULD make them superior, could it not?

The point is - they are not 'dominant' genes. They require isolation to thrive, and - in a cosmopolitan world, they are not going to 'out-perform' a more homogenous genetic profile.

If a bunch of Africans spend long enough there, their descendants will be white.

You keep saying this - and then you keep failing to show any reason WHY this should be so.

Is it 'possible'? Maybe - if the SAME mutations occur, and the same isolation is allowed.

Is it LIKELY? No - because mutation is a variable thing, and because our world is 'integrated', whether YOU like it or not.

Then pray that it is.
Pray? What good is that?

Hold your horses. Anti-racism is good, but sometimes people fall in the opposite extreme (which is obviously bad).

More on topic, it is possible that long term the black coloured skin will dissappear. High concentrations of melanin in the skin are usefull for protection against the tropical sun, reducing the risk of skin cancer. If a cure for cancer will be discovered, the evolutionary advantage confered by having a dark skin will dissappear, so the trait will also dissappear in time. Something simmilar must have happened with the body hair. After the early humans discovered how to protect themselves against cold, it also dissappeared.

I say... huh?

Oh, Kievan-Prussia, he's not the only one...

Don't jump on the same strawman.... you are arguing a point I didn't make.

I guess, with the current form of your argument, however, that is PROBABLY the safest avenue...

Read above. A trait will dissappear if it's unnecessary. It's simply a good managing of our energy.

A disadvantage will be selected against.

An 'unnecessary' trait might or might not be lost... because it just doesn't contribute.

AN example might be the appendix - which no longer serves a purpose, and CAN be a hazard. It is a disadvantage, so it has been slowly weeded out - with the lesser developed appendix in each generation being the strongest survivor.

According to medical experts, genetics will be so advanced in the future that it will be able to specifically target maladies afflicting a person. Using their DNA code it will be possible to make medicines customised for them, or even better, eradicate the disease via genetic engineering (for now, silencing malfunctioning genes is envisioned). So this is essentially human genetic manipulation. I am confident genetics has few possible limitations, and I think it is the most powerful tool humanity has, or rather will have, at its disposal.

You are jumping all over that Box, and Pandora has a reputation for not liking it.

You are talking manipulating genetic codes, for, effectively, nothing more than a fetish. You think this will be okay - because we will be able to target pathogens, also... but you are not opening your eyes to what you are talking about.

Pathogens already mutate. We have ONLY had ANY historical success with fighting pathogens because of two things: One - we tend to be able to isolate them in strains, and (metaphorically) carpet-bomb areas of the population before the disease gets a CHANCE to change... and Two: because, over millenia of evolution, we have a STABLE platform on which to fight those pathogens.

If you start screwing around with our matrix, you risk opening up an entire NEW avenue, creating an entirely NEW vector... one that we have no previous experience with.

No matter HOW advanced our science gets - and this is the bit 'experts' don't like to discuss in layman's circles - we are going to have to discover the millions of possible ramifications for even the tiniest genetic change, and we are going to have to do it through trial and error.

ANd here you are, saying we should take a pair of hedge-shears to the genetic matrix, because you need a certain KIND of stimulus to get your rocks off...

He.
Oh, good. Then I can still say I don't know any women who think Dolph Lundgren is hot. :p

And yes, of course I have my own moral and ethical code. It is a lot looser than that of most, but I don't disregard its existence. What I mean is, I don't consider myself morally obliged to be charitable simply because someone else thinks they are. It's up to me, not them.
Well, that's not the same as saying you don't believe in moral codes, though, is it? You do believe in a moral code -- yours. Right?

Polar bears are a species. It's not just a color of fur. It's a comparison that belies your lack of understanding of the subject.
No, Jocabia, what it belies is his racist assumption that people who look different from him are somehow not as human as him or the same kind of creature as him.

You support the status quo...You say you dont care if whites become extinct. It's very selfish actually...a bit like:

"Oh I dont care if polar bears become extinct, it's just the colour of fur, they arent any better than black or brown bears..."

Polar bears are a species. It's not just a color of fur. It's a comparison that belies your lack of understanding of the subject.

Ny Nordland, are you arguing that blondes are a different species of human? Homo blondicus, perhaps?

After all, polar bears are Ursus maritimus, while grizzlies are Ursus horribilis, and the humble black bear is Ursus americanus.

You keep saying that. Net immigration does not mean zero immigrants. No matter how many times we tell you keep making that false claim. NET. Look up the meaning of that word. It means they don't have more immigration than emmigration.

I answered to this. Not only you make the same wrong claim AGAIN but you actuall call mine false!!! :eek:
First of all Japan doesnt give mass emigration...So their net migration rate is actually very close to the immigration rate into Japan. This is further proven by their ethnical statistics:


Japan: Ethnic groups:
Japanese 99%, others 1% (Korean 511,262, Chinese 244,241, Brazilian 182,232, Filipino 89,851, other 237,914)
note: up to 230,000 Brazilians of Japanese origin migrated to Japan in the 1990s to work in industries; some have returned to Brazil (2004)


http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ja.html

This is what a country which receives immigration looks like...


The Netherlands : Ethnic groups:
Dutch 83%, other 17% (of which 9% are non-Western origin mainly Turks, Moroccans, Antilleans, Surinamese, and Indonesians) (1999 est.)

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/nl.html


Now do you get it? Or are you one of those people who simply cannot/will not see/acknowledge any of their mistakes?
Result: Japan is a very wealthy country but receives no significant amounts of immigrants. Hence they are a VERY homogenous society. And nobody calls them racist. Period.

Secondly, I note that you havent answered my post

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10897574&postcount=470

Does that mean you finally admit (at least silently) that you were wrong and that white population is declining/in a declining trend??

Ny Nordland, are you arguing that blondes are a different species of human? Homo blondicus, perhaps?

After all, polar bears are Ursus maritimus, while grizzlies are Ursus horribilis, and the humble black bear is Ursus americanus.

LOL, no. I just assumed polar bears are same species with other bears...

You miss the point of the Fass post. He doesn't believe whites are going extinct. He is just saying that if they do, then why should we care. Same for blacks, or Asians or any other 'race'. So long as it's not active genocide but simply free will causing a shift in phenotypes, why should we care at all?

Look, it's a personal and subjective opinion to care or not care if whites are going to be extinct or be a very very small minority. However, all I'm saying is that, to defend preserving "white race" isnt racist. To say that "hey, do you know white population is shrinking while the world population grows fast" isnt racist.

Don't jump on the same strawman.... you are arguing a point I didn't make.

I guess, with the current form of your argument, however, that is PROBABLY the safest avenue...

I'd like to know your opinion about the person who suggested that all "racists" must be genocided.

And notice that I say it "gives them cause" to be violent, not "causes" them to be violent, meaning that many people find it to be a legitimate reason to hurt people. And you ARE, in fact, constrained by ethical, moral AND emotional considerations, right down to the littlest of things. Is there a good reason for people not to steal your stuff that doesn't involve morals, ethics, or emotion? What about the use of nuclear weapons? Or slavery? Or animal abuse? Or plagerism? Or throwing tomatoes at random people on the street? Or tricking a retarded person into giving you their money? Or parking in the handicap spot? Or naming your child Poopface McGee? Or offering to have consensual sex with a 5-year old? Whatever you want to call it, you have a value system that constrains every single thing you do, and you hope that everyone else follows the same set of constraints, because if they didn't, the world would be a terrible place.

Sir Darwin,

1) Is it unethical to consider/care what future might be like?

2) Defending "preserving white race" means you dont care about others? How did you come to this conclusion? Actually, on the contrary, it means you gotta support helping developing countries much more. Immigrants dont come to destroy anything, they come for money and human rights, etc...So if developing countries become developed economically and democratically, it means there wont be any mass immigration. So defending "preserving white race" properly is actually ethical and pragmatic.

Yes we do. Our teeth and jaws have gotten significantly smaller since we started evolving. I'm not aware of an evolutionary advantage to having small teeth, just that it's not an advantage to have larger teeth than now. The length of our intestines has also reduced, not because it's more advantageus this way, but because we no longer needed a big gut after the introduction of meat into our diet. So traits which remain useless will dissappear in time.
Our skulls, including jaws and teeth, are shaped to (A) balance and support the size of our brains, and (B) keep us balanced standing upright on our feet, allowing for maximum head movement radius for scanning the environment. And as Dakini (I think) pointed out, our intestines are sized for meat eating.

I wish people who want to make arguments about human biology would learn something about human biology.

<snip>

People also thought for a long time the amygdala is useless (which is why they used to remove it). Now they know better.
So what is the use of the appendix?

<snip>

Actually, my environemental version does explain why women are less hairy. They were not involved in hunting, they probably stayed in the camp/cave/whatever close to the fire, taking care of the children, while their men were out in the cold hunting. This means less need for body hair as a protection against cold. In fact, it's your version that fails to explain the male/female differences in body hair. If we lost the hair because of our brains, then the rate of loss should have been simmilar for both sexes (presuming of course that men and women are equal in intelligence - which is the logical thing to do; and it's also proven by the IQ tests).
This is so incorrect, it's actually a little cute. Think about it. You are aware that the general agreement among paleontogists and athropologists is that the earliest human social groups were hunter-gatherer cultures, right? So while the men were hunting, who was doing the gathering? The supermarket deliverymen, while Wilma Flintstone used a mammoth to vacuum the stone hut? No, it was the women and children out gathering plant foods, fish, and small prey. We know this from modern hunter-gatherer cultures, and it is probably the safest bet in history that ancient hunter-gatherers were the same. Meat is hard to get and never guaranteed. Only a few members of the social group will be equipped to go after big game. Plant foods are almost always there, can be gathered by anyone, and are much easier to preserve. But you need more plant food to equal the nutrition of meat, so more hours are spent overall gathering than hunting. Women, therefore, would have spent at least as much, or more, time outdoors as the men.

So, why do women have less hair than men? Have you heard of a thing called hormones? Testoterone causes hair growth and loss in certain patterns. Men have more testoterone than women. Estrogen causes hair growth and loss in different patterns. Women have more estrogen than men. Changes in hormone levels affect body hair patterns in all individuals of both sexes.

A few additions:

1) Eskimos are not black.
The word for those people is Inuit. And they don't look like Norwegians, either.

2) How can they know how hairy Homo Ergaster was? Unless we have some kind of imprinting of a specimen (and I believe the only remains from the early hominids are bones), there's no way to be sure. It's like the feathered dinosaurs thing. We had to find dinosaur feathers imprinted in rock to be sure they existed.
There are other reasons why you are wrong about the significance of hairlessness. As has been pointed out, it allows for free sweating which is an efficient rapid body cooling system, which was necessary to maintain a healthy temperature in our brains in the hot climate in which we evolved.

I also thought it was cute the way, in an earlier post, you wondered why, if your body generates so much heat, you still feel cold in winter. That's so sweet -- incorrect but sweet -- and irrelevant. The human body has to cool itself rapidly and constantly because the brain is extremely temperature sensitive. It runs at a relatively high heat and, therefore, it cannot stand much increase in the body's internal temperature. That's why, if you get a fever over 105 degrees F, you must be cooled as quickly as possible. Depending on your age and overall condition, staying that hot for as long as 2 - 5 days could cause permanent brain damage.

My theory about why humans lost their body hair may or may not be right. The bottom line in evolution, however, is that a useless trait will dissappear. Black skin is caused by melanin accumulation, while white skin by a reduced concentraton of melanin. In my oppinion, this means that our bodies use some resources for having a black skin, but don't do anything for a white one. In the absence of outside factors influencing the concentration of melanin, the natural tendence would be towards a decrease (it's more economical for the body), so everybody's skin would "whiten". In the same way as we evolved to have shorter intestines or smaller teeth. I repeat: it's simply not economical (and so an evolutionary disadvantage) to maintain something unnecessary, when you can use the resources required for maintaining it for something that's actually usefull to you.
Nope, you're wrong. The genes that control various body functions (such as functions of different skin types) exist and can exist in all human beings. They are either dominant or recessive. But they do not disappear. Human beings to this day contain genes that do not function in our bodies. Such genes are found in some early hominids and other species of animals. They do not function in our bodies now, but there is nothing wrong with them, and there seems to be nothing particular stopping them from becoming functional. Future mutations could easily see these genes reactivating in individuals of our species. Depending on the reproductive choices of generations of human beings, either white skin or dark skin might become more or less rare, but the genes for them likely will not disappear.

It doesn't take all that much energy to maintain DNA.

Look, it's a personal and subjective opinion to care or not care if whites are going to be extinct or be a very very small minority. However, all I'm saying is that, to defend preserving "white race" isnt racist. To say that "hey, do you know white population is shrinking while the world population grows fast" isnt racist.

And people who know more than you about genetics, races, and species are telling you that blonde white people are not particularly different than brunette brown people. If white people choose to have children at a slower rate than people of other ethnicities and the white people are not being prevented from having children if they so desire then it their choice to have less babies. It's no one's fault but their own. And since you have indicated that you might have a family rather than will have at least x number of bouncing white babies, you seem to think it's just fine for people to make their own reproductive decisions.

In other words, you're not determined to personally combat the low caucasian birth rate, but you're not claiming that millions of non-caucasians must be sterilized to force them into adopting a western birth rate.

Which leads me to believe that you are just complaining for the sake of complaining, or you want other people (or maybe even the government) to solve a problem that no one else seems to think is a problem.

Tell me this, Ny Nordland, when me and my girlfriend came to what we are today, do you think we had "racial impurity" in mind? We are both white, but she has blond hair and blue eyes, and I have brown hair and brown eyes.

And people who know more than you about genetics, races, and species are telling you that blonde white people are not particularly different than brunette brown people. If white people choose to have children at a slower rate than people of other ethnicities and the white people are not being prevented from having children if they so desire then it their choice to have less babies. It's no one's fault but their own. And since you have indicated that you might have a family rather than will have at least x number of bouncing white babies, you seem to think it's just fine for people to make their own reproductive decisions.

In other words, you're not determined to personally combat the low caucasian birth rate, but you're not claiming that millions of non-caucasians must be sterilized to force them into adopting a western birth rate.

Which leads me to believe that you are just complaining for the sake of complaining, or you want other people (or maybe even the government) to solve a problem that no one else seems to think is a problem.

Yeah, but when I say our birth rate is low, non-white people start whining it's racism. If it's our problem, then butt out.
Goverment policies might help, as we see in France and Nordics countries case.
I said "maybe a family" because there's no guarentee that for example I'll reach age 30 or something. I might die in an accident or "genocided" by radically anti-racist people...

Tell me this, Ny Nordland, when me and my girlfriend came to what we are today, do you think we had "racial impurity" in mind? We are both white, but she has blond hair and blue eyes, and I have brown hair and brown eyes.

*sigh* I'm not saying people should consider "racial impurity" when dating/coupling. I'm just saying we should limit immigration and put up more pro-natal policies...

*sigh* I'm not saying people should consider "racial impurity" when dating/coupling. I'm just saying we should limit immigration and put up more pro-natal policies...

Or...You could go out and have a bunch of white babies with as many gals as possible, eh? Sacrifice yourself for the cause.

<snip>
Result: Japan is a very wealthy country but receives no significant amounts of immigrants. Hence they are a VERY homogenous society. And nobody calls them racist. Period.
Actually, the Japanese are often called racist, often by non-Japanese living there. And by Koreans.

<snip>Does that mean you finally admit (at least silently) that you were wrong and that white population is declining/in a declining trend??
I'm not answering for Jocabia, but I just want to say this again: No, the white population is not declining. Other populations are growing. It's not the same thing.

And I notice you never answered my post, when I asked you what you mean by "few," "too few," "very very few"? How many white people is "too few"? "Too few" for what? How many do you think we need?

Actually, the Japanese are often called racist, often by non-Japanese living there. And by Koreans.


I'm not answering for Jocabia, but I just want to say this again: No, the white population is not declining. Other populations are growing. It's not the same thing.

And I notice you never answered my post, when I asked you what you mean by "few," "too few," "very very few"? How many white people is "too few"? "Too few" for what? How many do you think we need?

Read the 1st post(edited) and tell me how the white population isnt declining...
Too few means less then 5% of the world population when "white countries" are already invaded and whites are a minority even in their countries...

Read the 1st post(edited) and tell me how the white population isnt declining...
I think you should read your own posts then. It says white population just isn't rising as fast as non-white populations.

Yeah, but when I say our birth rate is low, non-white people start whining it's racism. If it's our problem, then butt out.
Goverment policies might help, as we see in France and Nordics countries case.
I said "maybe a family" because there's no guarentee that for example I'll reach age 30 or something. I might die in an accident or "genocided" by radically anti-racist people...

No one claims that the statement: "the caucasian population of Finland (or Canada or wherever) is below replacement levels" is racist. That is merely a statement of fact.

What IS considered racist is a statement that says: "the caucasian population of Finland is not reproducing as fast as non-Caucasians in Finland, and soon there will be more non-Caucasians than Caucasians here. We must stop all immigration of non-white people and put a stop to this! White people in Finland must not be outnumbered by non-whites!"

Do you understand the difference between these two statements?

I think you should read your own posts then. It says white population just isn't rising as fast as non-white populations.

It shows birth rates are below 2.1 per women which means population is declining/will decline. I dont understand why it's so hard to comprehend such a simple thing...

Yeah, but when I say our birth rate is low, non-white people start whining it's racism. If it's our problem, then butt out.
Goverment policies might help, as we see in France and Nordics countries case.
I said "maybe a family" because there's no guarentee that for example I'll reach age 30 or something. I might die in an accident or "genocided" by radically anti-racist people...
Does this mean you are finally admitting that you are a racist?

You keep trying to claim that you are not a racist and that nothing you say is racist, but I draw your attention to the following post of yours:
originally posted by Ny Nordland
*sigh* I'm not saying people should consider "racial impurity" when dating/coupling. I'm just saying we should limit immigration and put up more pro-natal policies...
This is a repeat of an idea you've asserted many times. It shows support for racial segregation. Racial segregation is a racist belief. This is why people call you a racist -- because you espouse segregation.

No one claims that the statement: "the caucasian population of Finland (or Canada or wherever) is below replacement levels" is racist. That is merely a statement of fact.

What IS considered racist is a statement that says: "the caucasian population of Finland is not reproducing as fast as non-Caucasians in Finland, and soon there will be more non-Caucasians than Caucasians here. We must stop all immigration of non-white people and put a stop to this! White people in Finland must not be outnumbered by non-whites!"

Do you understand the difference between these two statements?

Yes. So, in order not to be racist, you should accept becoming a minority in your own country and eventual destruction of your culture?

Read the 1st post(edited) and tell me how the white population isnt declining...
Too few means less then 5% of the world population when "white countries" are already invaded and whites are a minority even in their countries...
:rolleyes: The first post is a lie and has been debunked many times in this very thread. Now read me "Cinderella" as proof that pumpkins turn into carriages.

5% of the world population is still a lot of people. Why do you need more, and who is stopping white people from making more?

Does this mean you are finally admitting that you are a racist?

You keep trying to claim that you are not a racist and that nothing you say is racist, but I draw your attention to the following post of yours:

This is a repeat of an idea you've asserted many times. It shows support for racial segregation. Racial segregation is a racist belief. This is why people call you a racist -- because you espouse segregation.

So you claim limiting immigration and racial segregation is the same thing?

So you claim limiting immigration and racial segregation is the same thing?

For the specific purposes of "defending" a race? Yes.

:rolleyes: The first post is a lie and has been debunked many times in this very thread. Now read me "Cinderella" as proof that pumpkins turn into carriages.

The quote is a based on a bogus story. The above statistics are true :rolleyes: You cant read or dont want to?

For the specific purposes of "defending" a race? Yes.

Then racism has become such a whore word. Used so often...

Then racism has become such a whore word. Used so often...

*shrug* Too many racists devaluing the word. Rather similar to what's happened to the word "strawman" here on NS.

So you claim limiting immigration and racial segregation is the same thing?
Do you deny that you have often and openly advocated the deportation of foreigners from your country? You are a segregationist, Ny. You espouse limiting immigration precisely for the purpose of keeping other races out of your country.