NationStates Jolt Archive

Good luck trying to convince this crowd about the failure of South Africa under the ANC.....I've created a few threads comparing White-rule over ZA and Black rule of ZA, and showed/argued that White rule was more advantageous for ZA, yet it get's drowned out in "You're a NAZI!" every time, unfortunatly...:rolleyes:

Because you insist on ascribing the success or failure to race. You also persist in pointing out how poorly South Africa is doing now as if its current situation in any way changes how bad its prior situation was. Life under Russian royalty sucked. Life under Stalin sucked worse. That doesn't make the old system good, it makes it less disastrous in certain ways.

I know :( Apparently if you say a white person did something better than a person of a different race your a filthy racist pig zomg.

Well I've hung around this forum for years, not posting till recently. I know that the people here are so determined to believe that whitey is evil and hasn't done anything right and anyone who says otherwise is a Neo Nazi white supremacist but I wanted to give it a try anyway, but I'm literally being drowned by posts (not surprising)

My objection is not to your argument that "whitey" did anything better than anyone else, my objection is that you use race as a basis of comparison at all, and claim that there are genetic differences between races.

I am real in the sense that I accept that white people are becoming extinct.

This is why it's impossible to take any of your arguments seriously.

My objection is not to your argument that "whitey" did anything better than anyone else, my objection is that you use race as a basis of comparison at all, and claim that there are genetic differences between races.

I didn't argue that whitey did anything better, I was just arguing that "whitey" did better at some things by comparison.

And there are differences between races ... to think otherwise is just ... :eek:

If there wasn't differences, why are humans split into difference races then? If there are no racial differences then how come Black people have much more developed lower body than white people, while white people have a more developed upper body? Or why do black people have tougher skin and more sweat glands?
(No I don't have links for those claims atm but I'm sure they'll be easy enough to find)

This is why it's impossible to take any of your arguments seriously.

So Its impossible to take my arguments seriously because I stated that the white race is becoming extinct? When the percentage of white people in the world hugely dropped since the 1930's and the white race is massively outnumbered and its numbers decreasing?

I am real in the sense that I accept that white people are becoming extinct.

This is why it's impossible to take any of your arguments seriously.

They're all becoming extinct. Race is a construct of geographic isolation. Geographic isolation no longer exists. Maybe once space travel extends the frontier and creates a new form of geographic isolation and varied environments we'll see new types of race emerge. But it's obvious that the existing races are obsolete.

They're all becoming extinct. Race is a construct of geographic isolation. Geographic isolation no longer exists. Maybe once space travel extends the frontier and creates a new form of geographic isolation and varied environments we'll see new types of race emerge. But it's obvious that the existing races are obsolete.

True, races are intermingling, most likely at this rate most of the population of the world will become mixed race.
Its just the white race is becoming extinct faster than others, and I wish to preserve the white race.

and claim that there are genetic differences between races.
There are. It comes from evolving and adapting each Races respective location differently. Anyone who has studied genetics or genetic mutations knows this. For example, Sickle Cell anemia in Blacks as a defense against Malaria, Northern Europeans genetically losing their co-receptor in a genetically evolutionary defense against smallpox or the plague (further debate on that one is needed, but I like the reasons for small pox better). Black hair is indeed thicker to help protect the scalp against the sun and White skin became more white for nutriants from the sun.

We are not different species, as we can all breed with one another, BUT, we are different races, created over thousands and thousands of years of genetic evolution in response to our locations. To deny that is to deny human history.

There are. It comes from evolving and adapting each Races respective location differently. Anyone who has studied genetics or genetic mutations knows this. For example, Sickle Cell anemia in Blacks as a defense against Malaria, Northern Europeans genetically losing their co-receptor in a genetically evolutionary defense against smallpox or the plague (further debate on that one is needed, but I like the reasons for small pox better). Black hair is indeed thicker to help protect the scalp against the sun and White skin became more white for nutriants from the sun.

We are not different species, as we can all breed with one another, BUT, we are different races, created over thousands and thousands of years of genetic evolution in response to our locations. To deny that is to deny human history.

People who lived in different climates developed different, since black people developed mainly in central and South Africa they evolved to that climate, the same with white people in Europe or Asians in Asia.
To say there are no differences in races is the same as saying you don't believe in evolution, not matter how small.

Charles Darwin said, If humans where classed as we class animals then each race would be a different species altogether. (not his exact words, but that's pretty much what he said)

True, races are intermingling, most likely at this rate most of the population of the world will become mixed race.
Its just the white race is becoming extinct faster than others, and I wish to preserve the white race.

Well, more races and cultures have disappeared than currently exist. I'm sure there were those that wanted to preserve the Olmecs as well but they didn't get their way either.

There are. It comes from evolving and adapting each Races respective location differently. Anyone who has studied genetics or genetic mutations knows this. For example, Sickle Cell anemia in Blacks as a defense against Malaria, Northern Europeans genetically losing their co-receptor in a genetically evolutionary defense against smallpox or the plague (further debate on that one is needed, but I like the reasons for small pox better). Black hair is indeed thicker to help protect the scalp against the sun and White skin became more white for nutriants from the sun.

We are not different species, as we can all breed with one another, BUT, we are different races, created over thousands and thousands of years of genetic evolution in response to our locations. To deny that is to deny human history.

It's also important to note that genetic variation within race is an order of magnitude wider than between them. Isolation-induced genetic variation is minor compared to individual genetic variation.

Well, more races and cultures have disappeared than currently exist. I'm sure there were those that wanted to preserve the Olmecs as well but they didn't get their way either.

True but... I wish for the white race to be preserved because of the good the white race could do for humanity.

It's also important to note that genetic variation within race is an order of magnitude wider than between them. Isolation-induced genetic variation is minor compared to individual genetic variation.

When LG gets all intelligent and scientific ... A puppy dies? :eek:

They're all becoming extinct. Race is a construct of geographic isolation. Geographic isolation no longer exists. Maybe once space travel extends the frontier and creates a new form of geographic isolation and varied environments we'll see new types of race emerge. But it's obvious that the existing races are obsolete.

LOL Blue martinians and purple Kleptron IV colonist. :p

LOL Blue martinians and purple Kleptron IV colonist. :p

Right ....


.....:confused:

It's also important to note that genetic variation within race is an order of magnitude wider than between them. Isolation-induced genetic variation is minor compared to individual genetic variation.

Who are you and what have you done with Lunatic Goofballs?

Who are you and what have you done with Lunatic Goofballs?

:eek2: Zomg Lunatic Goofballs has been replaced!

When LG gets all intelligent and scientific ... A puppy dies? :eek:

That's why I try my best to avoid it. :(

That's why I try my best to avoid it. :(

Go back to teh mud pile!

True but... I wish for the white race to be preserved because of the good the white race could do for humanity.

Reminds me of a Robin Williams line:

"And they land here and go, 'Hello! We bring you guilt, syphilis and alcohol!' and the indians go, 'Ah, and we have a gift for you! For us, it is a sacred and medicinal herb but for you it will be a deadly carcinogen! Enjoy!' "

:D

Good luck trying to convince this crowd about the failure of South Africa under the ANC.....I've created a few threads comparing White-rule over ZA and Black rule of ZA, and showed/argued that White rule was more advantageous for ZA, yet it get's drowned out in "You're a NAZI!" every time, unfortunatly...:rolleyes:

Maybe because you keep explicitly pointing out the skin colour as the reason rather than the educational differences between the two groups, which had nothing to do with skin colour.

Seriously, TAI, I'm getting sick of this constant "I'm not a bigot" bullshit from you. You constantly make one bigoted post after another and yet every single time you crow about your innocence. Own up to what you believe already.

Who are you and what have you done with Lunatic Goofballs?

I'm the sane voice in his head. Sometimes I manage to work the gag loose for a few seconds before the others pounce and ahhh!!---- mmmmppph! mmmppphhh!!

Human races are genetically different. Otherwise humans wouldn't be separated into categories.

Look up "sinister" and "dexter" please. It's an excellent demonstration as to why what you just said is mind-blowingly stupid.

They're all becoming extinct. Race is a construct of geographic isolation. Geographic isolation no longer exists. Maybe once space travel extends the frontier and creates a new form of geographic isolation and varied environments we'll see new types of race emerge. But it's obvious that the existing races are obsolete.

This.

True, races are intermingling, most likely at this rate most of the population of the world will become mixed race.
Its just the white race is becoming extinct faster than others, and I wish to preserve the white race.

Tell that to the thousands of Native tribes that have disappeared.

It's also important to note that genetic variation within race is an order of magnitude wider than between them. Isolation-induced genetic variation is minor compared to individual genetic variation.

I already tried that, but apparently when someone with a penis says it it's suddenly more credible.

I already tried that, but apparently when someone with a penis says it it's suddenly more credible.

Now you have something to ask Santa for. :)

True but... I wish for the white race to be preserved because of the good the white race could do for humanity.

I wish for quick miscigenation because that way I won't have to hear or read crap from white supremacist morons when I get old.

I'm the sane voice in his head. Sometimes I manage to work the gag loose for a few seconds before the others pounce and ahhh!!---- mmmmppph! mmmppphhh!!So it seems that indeed reason and order do exist even in the mightest good of chaos...

*Grabs electrodes and begins to shock a pie in front of LG.*

Isn't "the white race" already a minority?

True but... I wish for the white race to be preserved because of the good the white race could do for humanity.To note, it is perhaps good to preserve genetic variation amongst the human species as it helps to maintain more genetic differences amongst humanity and as such evolution might benefit in the long run.

Yet, also I want selective breeding, using the most brainy and most fasty persons of all races, to ensue so that the best genetic traits from all groups goes into creating an army of super soldiers that I will use to take over ze GALAXY.

*Evil Chuckle*

So it seems that indeed reason and order do exist even in the mightest good of chaos...

*Grabs electrodes and begins to shock a pie in front of LG.*

*uses the Force to toss the pie into your face*

Oh please. The americans have shitter beer than Bud. Ever tried "Natural Light"? Or the various types of malt liquor... Hell, "Bud Ice" is worse than "Bud light", and theres worse than that.

And Tecate isn't as bad as the ones I listed above. Its... drinkable.

I know there is shittier out there, but it's universally recognized as shitty. I actually know people who think Bud is a decent beer. *shudder*

I guess I've been spoiled living so close to Canada. I haven't had a beer that wasn't made in Michigan or Canada (except when I lived in France for six months in '07) since 2004.

but I don't really know anyone who claims to like the appearance of black people

I saw this amazing black chick in the dining facility today, I wanted to have her babies. Of course, I don't see the insane appeal redheads apparently have to everyone else, so to each his own I guess.

Oh, and, Hachihyaku? If you wanted it to mean "800", you got your name wrong, it'd be "Happyaku".

You just disproved your point, you just told me how white people where naturally created through course of nature that means they are not artificial, by saying that they are artificial you are saying that ever other race is artificial.
White people has ruled for many thousands of years, and have been the most successful race in terms of culture, civilisation and inventions..

Yet the Chinese have endured for thousands of years, invented a great many things, and have had a more continous society than Western Europe in many ways.

And "white people" 'has' not ruled for many thousands of years, if you'd care to address the history of this planet, as oppossed to your own.


You don't seem to notice or care that, Arab's did far more damage to Africa then White people did. ...

Very debatable. There was far more integration between Arab and African than there ever was between European and African.


White people (As in governments) left Africa in far better state than when they came in. Africa literally thrived under their rule in comparison...

A better state if you consider statelets constructed around racial prejudice, use of force to maintain authority, and the exploitation of resources for a tiny minority there and a foriegn state abroad a good thing. Most of us beg to differ.


If you want a world without racial injustice then the easiest way to solve that is racial segregation and an end to multiculturalism, through this white people are the victim of genocide on a humongous scale.

Yeah, you can see the white smoke from the camps all over Europe....

Any proof of that claim, by the way?


My problem is that Hachihyanu needs to be real, he needs to be honest and a lot of these Petty-Bourgeois White liberals.

Is that Andaras? Back under your Bridge Sir.


Good luck trying to convince this crowd about the failure of South Africa under the ANC.....I've created a few threads comparing White-rule over ZA and Black rule of ZA, and showed/argued that White rule was more advantageous for ZA, yet it get's drowned out in "You're a NAZI!" every time, unfortunatly.

Now thats completely untrue.

Its "You're a RACIST", with relevant quotes and references.

my thought is, "and precisely when, has this mythical so called 'white' 'race' ever NOT been a minority of earths total human population?"

a POLITICAL 'majority' in a very few parts of it, which have risen in the past couple of millinium to exceedingly disproportionate dominance perhaps, but a numerical majority of the planet as a whole? not ever that i know of.

Is that Andaras? Back under your Bridge Sir.

If its Andaras, hes come back as not just a Stalinist, but one whos a member of the Nation of Islam. I hate to agree with TAI, but between Hachihyaku and Karuchea, Karuchea is the one whos claims are crazier. He posted that white people were an artificial creation by a crazed eugenicist named Yakub 5000 years ago!

Course, those claims are so ridiculous that maybe they don't need to be expressly shot down, but still...

If its Andaras, hes come back as not just a Stalinist, but one whos a member of the Nation of Islam. I hate to agree with TAI, but between Hachihyaku and Karuchea, Karuchea is the one whos claims are crazier. He posted that white people were an artificial creation by a crazed eugenicist named Yakub 5000 years ago!

Course, those claims are so ridiculous that maybe they don't need to be expressly shot down, but still...

well i don't know anybody personally by name from that long ago, except maybe ally oop who used to be in the funny papers, and while premeditated eugenics that far back sounds a bit far fetched, i don't think you'll find any tendency toward light skin tone further back then the northern european adoptation, when ever that was, couldn't have been much more then 15,000.

certainly you go back 20 or 25k i really don't think you're going to find anyone pale skinned at all. even der veekings weren't all that pale skinned like some of us, myself fur instance, are today. nor the proto kelts nor the tribes that inhiereted the fallen rome.

now fine boned features, that you'll find in some parts of asia, like india and thereabouts and later in europe.

but anyway the whole question is kind of meaningless. everyone's ancestors, you go far enough back, was deeper richer skin toned then light skinned people are today.

genetic diversity is very important. Many farmers have only one type of crop. A single disease can kill them all. The human race shouldnt all have the same genes or something close to the same genes.

We should let the genes that carry diseases die out and the genes that change appearance, increase immunity or help in any other way continue.

One modern day failure of genes is food allergies. They have kept on increaing. We can figure out exactly what someone cant eat and change everything to fit around them. In the past you didnt know you couldnt eat something like peanuts so you had some and died.

Bad genes were less likely to be passed on to the next generation that way. Altho there is a very human part of us that dosnt like to see anyone (especially a young person) die.

The genes of the world are going backwards due to the modern day health system.

well i don't know anybody personally by name from that long ago, except maybe ally oop who used to be in the funny papers, and while premeditated eugenics that far back sounds a bit far fetched, i don't think you'll find any tendency toward light skin tone further back then the northern european adoptation, when ever that was, couldn't have been much more then 15,000.

certainly you go back 20 or 25k i really don't think you're going to find anyone pale skinned at all. even der veekings weren't all that pale skinned like some of us, myself fur instance, are today. nor the proto kelts nor the tribes that inhiereted the fallen rome.

now fine boned features, that you'll find in some parts of asia, like india and thereabouts and later in europe.

but anyway the whole question is kind of meaningless. everyone's ancestors, you go far enough back, was deeper richer skin toned then light skinned people are today.
The argument goes that the original humans weren't White, Black, or Asian, but rather greyish or maybe very very light brown. Why? Well, shave a chimpanzee, see what color it is underneath. Most likely, as our ancestors lost their hair and started hunting in the savannas, darker skin started predominating because there was less shade. Then when various groups of humans began migrating, they adapted to their local environments. White skin was probably advantageous (and selected for) up north because of a need to produce more vitamin D. Less sun meant that people didn't need the protection of dark skin and needed the absorption of light skin. Theres pretty substantial evidence that the mutations for lighter skin happened at the very least twice independently (Once for Europeans, once for Asians). The earliest evidence of humanity in Europe is roughly 10,000 years back. Selection for white skin was probably around even then, but evolutionary timescales are different than our own. Then, it might not have taken more than a dozen generations, given how we've seen the allele frequency in animals change under changing conditions. (That moth during the industrial revolution comes to mind).

To sum it up, humans most likely went hairy->greyish->brownish->"yellow/white". This doesn't mean that Caucasians are more evolved than Africans (just like an insect is just as evolved as a human... they've had the same processes acting on them for the same amount of time, just change wasn't necessary). Africans just weren't in a different environment than their ancestors.

genetic diversity is very important. Many farmers have only one type of crop. A single disease can kill them all. The human race shouldnt all have the same genes or something close to the same genes.

We should let the genes that carry diseases die out and the genes that change appearance, increase immunity or help in any other way continue.

One modern day failure of genes is food allergies. They have kept on increaing. We can figure out exactly what someone cant eat and change everything to fit around them. In the past you didnt know you couldnt eat something like peanuts so you had some and died.

Bad genes were less likely to be passed on to the next generation that way. Altho there is a very human part of us that dosnt like to see anyone (especially a young person) die.

The genes of the world are going backwards due to the modern day health system.

Of course, the fact that mixed individuals are far more likely to have stronger immune systems than otherwise completely escapes you. As an analogy, a mutt usually has fewer health problems than a pure-bred dog. Why? Well, take it to an extreme. If you only married within your family, there would be no new genes mixing into your familys pool. Therefore, your immune systems would all be more similar. Now, if you were mixing within your entire ethnicity or race, you would still have a limited number of combinations. In fact, a lot of your same ethnic group would be very similar.

What happens if you mix a pool of 6.6 billion people? You would have a hell of a lot more variance than just within your ethnicity. Would make it that much harder for an epidemic to take hold.

Sorry if my post isn't so clear, but its late at night and I can't sleep.

. He posted that white people were an artificial creation by a crazed eugenicist named Yakub 5000 years ago!
...

I always get a laugh out of that one.

I always get a laugh out of that one.

well the howler there, isn't that the emergence of 'white' 'racial' charicteristecs couldn't have been, or are even unlikely to have been that recent, but rather that one person, at that time, i mean HUMAN eugenics is a proccess that takes hundreds, even thousands of years, so i don't see how one person, even if they did have the idea in their heads, could possible be credited with the whole thing.

not if you consider that no single hierarchy that far back that i know of, controlled that large a population, to create a stable unique genome group.

so even if he'd been the highest high king on the planet at the time or something, which if he was i think more of us would likely have heard of him, yah, its a bit of a howler that any one person that far back could be credited with something like that.

but the idea of the modern 'white' 'racial' charicteristics emerging that recently, i don't find unreasonable as a possibility at all.

i agree with what vydro pointed out in his most recent post, at least as i'm reading it. THAT is what makes sense.

So Its impossible to take my arguments seriously because I stated that the white race is becoming extinct? When the percentage of white people in the world hugely dropped since the 1930's and the white race is massively outnumbered and its numbers decreasing?

The Jewish population dropped hugely in the 1930s and 1940s. The Jews are massively outnumbered. Would you say the Jews are 'going extinct' too?

A change of demographics through ordinary reproduction and immigration is NOT genocide. You are insulting everyone who ever died through actual genocide when you claim that it is.

But you're a plain and simple racist, so you will lie, distort, squirm and avoid. And you're a troll so you're probably "getting what you want" by my even addressing you or acknowledging your existence.

And actually the times I've been on Stormfront its not a lot of racist red necks bitching but rather intelligent discussion, and not just about race but pretty much anything. And on Stormfront using racist slang/epitaphs stuff like that is actually banned, and post supporting over all white supremacy are disproved and people calling for racial genocide and just plain racism are generally classed as trolls and told to go away.
Though Stromfront simply has a bad reputation because it has a lot of conversations about race which aren't PC and they do have some racist members being openly racist in a un constructive way (though most aren't)

Yeah maybe if Stormfront is so awesome, you should go back to posting there instead of here.

The Jewish population dropped hugely in the 1930s and 1940s. The Jews are massively outnumbered. Would you say the Jews are 'going extinct' too?


Not really a great example since Judaism as a religion can convert people (even it sometimes they seem to not want to.)

Not really a great example since Judaism as a religion can convert people (even it sometimes they seem to not want to.)

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

Not really a great example since Judaism as a religion can convert people (even it sometimes they seem to not want to.)
There are various Jewish ethnicities, though the line has blurred in recent generations. The Ashkenazim, Sephardim, various continuously middle eastern populations (Mizrahi), etc.

The Jewish population dropped hugely in the 1930s and 1940s.

Through genocide. Not the first attempt, either.

Not really a great example since Judaism as a religion can convert people (even it sometimes they seem to not want to.)

Judaism as an ethnicity cannot convert people. It's a fine example since it fits the bill for H.'s qualifications for "genocide" and "going extinct."

If its Andaras, hes come back as not just a Stalinist, but one whos a member of the Nation of Islam. I hate to agree with TAI, but between Hachihyaku and Karuchea, Karuchea is the one whos claims are crazier. He posted that white people were an artificial creation by a crazed eugenicist named Yakub 5000 years ago!

Course, those claims are so ridiculous that maybe they don't need to be expressly shot down, but still...

You do realize that that's like claiming a guy who thinks he's Napoleon is less crazy than a guy who thinks he's Snow White?

When white people are outnumbered, we can put them on reservations, and let them open gambling casinos.

When white people are outnumbered, we can put them on reservations, and let them open gambling casinos.

Shut up.

You do realize that that's like claiming a guy who thinks he's Napoleon is less crazy than a guy who thinks he's Snow White?
Sure. At least the prior guy realizes hes male, while the latter one is in complete denial.

Its just funny that the pseudo-white supremacist (crazy as he is, don't get me wrong, I'm not agreeing with him) gets arguments up the wazzoo, but the Nation of Islam "original race" supremacist gets ignored by everyone. Personally, I'd rather they were both ignored than people trying to argue with both of them, since, even if they aren't trolls, will probably never be convinced of anything reasonable.

Edit: Quick question about your sig. You do realize that a "knave" is a Jack right? No such thing as the Ace of Jacks.

Sure. At least the prior guy realizes hes male, while the latter one is in complete denial.

Its just funny that the pseudo-white supremacist (crazy as he is, don't get me wrong, I'm not agreeing with him) gets arguments up the wazzoo, but the Nation of Islam "original race" supremacist gets ignored by everyone. Personally, I'd rather they were both ignored than people trying to argue with both of them, since, even if they aren't trolls, will probably never be convinced of anything reasonable.

Nobody believes the Nation of Islam crap. Lots of "people" believe the White Supremacy crap.

Sure. At least the prior guy realizes hes male, while the latter one is in complete denial.

Its just funny that the pseudo-white supremacist (crazy as he is, don't get me wrong, I'm not agreeing with him) gets arguments up the wazzoo, but the Nation of Islam "original race" supremacist gets ignored by everyone. Personally, I'd rather they were both ignored than people trying to argue with both of them, since, even if they aren't trolls, will probably never be convinced of anything reasonable.

I think a certain level of crazy just inhibits response, as people just don't know how to deal with that level of batshit stupidity

Nobody believes the Nation of Islam crap. Lots of "people" believe the White Supremacy crap.
Guess I edited my other post too late. Just a quick question about your sig Heikoku... You do know that a Knave is a Jack right? No such thing as an Ace of Jacks.

(And I do disagree, there are some people that believe the NOI crap. Not as many as there are neo-nazis, but still. One should be argued against as much as the other. Even if that craziness does inhibit response :P)

Guess I edited my other post too late. Just a quick question about your sig Heikoku... You do know that a Knave is a Jack right? No such thing as an Ace of Jacks.

I do. Clarifying.

Ace of Knaves is also a nickname name of the Joker, from Batman - and "knave" also means "cheat", or "scoundrel". Admittedly it doesn't make THAT much sense, but the Rule of Cool stands. ;)

I do. Clarifying.

Ace of Knaves is also a nickname name of the Joker, from Batman - and "knave" also means "cheat", or "scoundrel". Admittedly it doesn't make THAT much sense, but the Rule of Cool stands. ;)
Knew knave meant cheat, didn't know about the Joker reference. Or if I did, I had forgotten. It wasn't in the last couple movies, and I haven't read comics in forever and a day.

Knew knave meant cheat, didn't know about the Joker reference. Or if I did, I had forgotten. It wasn't in the last couple movies, and I haven't read comics in forever and a day.

Also:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleOfCool

:D

Minority majority, actually. The article should clarify that. Caucasians will still be the majority population in the country (45% versus 15%, 15%, etc.), but will no longer be an absolute majority over the whole population.

I don't know what impact, if any, it will have when white people are not > 50% of the population, but I bet you'll get at least one white supremacist in here.

if they are not >50%, then they are not a "majority"---plain and simple.

they may still be the largest single racial population. but they will not still be a "majority". period.

the article doesn't need to clarify shit.

if they are not >50%, then they are not a "majority"---plain and simple.

they may still be the largest single racial population. but they will not still be a "majority". period.

the article doesn't need to clarify shit.

Depends. While plurality is technically the correct word, majority is generally used in practice to mean the largest subgroup. Hence the phrases "overall majority" and "absolute majority".

Also:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleOfCool

:D

Regarding the link, Crowning Moment of Awesome.

The land, to be fair, was native territories, that is, land belonging the Original People rightfully. This included the Moors and possibly even Chinese who arrived here before the Whites came. When the Whites did come, they came with conquest and bloodshed. It is estimated that 121 million people lived in the Americas in 1492 and yet in 1592 this number is estimated at 1 million. The White people, who in the main have never worked this land rightfully, but have always had to bring others as slaves or wage-slaves to keep them alive do not have a right to this land. The Native people as well as all Original people, Black, Brown, Red and Yellow do have a right to this land.
There is no stone-cold proof that Moors or Chinese discovered The Americas before Europeans, just rumors. There is, however, strong evidence that the Vikings discovered The Americas long ago.

Speeding past your anti-White lies and your communist trash talk about wage slaves, let's settle on this.

The Native people as well as all Original people, Black, Brown, Red and Yellow do have a right to this land
How do other races who were not "native" to The Americas have more of a claim to this land than the Europeans who founded these nations, industralized them and civilized them? Indeed, how do these races who were not "native" have ANY claim at all to them? If you were really so rightous, you'd claim that this long belong to the Indians, the Natives who the Europeans conquered the land from. But you're not claiming this. You're claiming that anyone who is non-European has a right to this land. Thus your anti-White agenda shows through.

This land is being re-taken, just as Europe is being re-taken, and it isn't being re-taken by bloodshed or chaos, it is being reclaimed because of the White Petty-Bourgeois attitudes and society, which frowns upon Women being Women and having and raising children. It prefers women to be wage-slaves as well and it is too uncivilized for a woman to simply raise children. This is why indeed, due to the Black/Latino/Arab immigration to the US and Europe and the fact that Whites don't have children, that the world is being retaken by the Original man and woman.
Women are working in Western society because the social taboo on women working has been lifted, and now they are allowed to work if they so choose. There is nothing wrong with this, and indeed, it is the correct way of life. The freedom to choose your lifestyle, whether that be a house wife or a working woman.

How exactly does Europe belong more to Blacks, Latinos and Arabs than Europeans? Please, explain that?

How does the US belong to Blacks Latinos and Arabs? They were not the natives of this land nor the founders of these countries? Why would they have such a claim to it?

The earliest realistic record of White people is 5000 years ago Hachihyaku, you promote the same "Aryans set up all civilization" that has been promoted for the last 600 years as an excuse to colonize, destroy and wipe out other civilizations. Egypt was a Black civilization and the Black man of Africa-Arabia was the original man on Earth, he settled Amexem (Africa), Asia and migrated to the Americas. All original civilization thus descended from this. The first real record of Aryans is their invasion and slaughter of the Indian civilization. This first record was but one of many later conquests and slaughters.
Egypt was not a black civilization, in fact ancient Egyptians were not black at all, if you look at how they portrayed themselves. The "black man of Africa Arabia" does not exist and never has, because the people located in Africa were indeed two different races, between the Congoid peoples and the Capoid or Khoisanid people, neither of which are the people who inhabited Arabia. It must also be noted that none of these people migrated to the Americas.
I do not support the elimination of all Whites, but I support the return of all land to the Black, Brown, Red and Yellow man and woman. White scientists have always tried to invent White people, during the Nazi era, it was common doctrine that all major civilizations had to have been White, so Nubia, Egypt, Great Zimbabwe, the Tahuantansiyu etc. were all made "White" according to official "science". This trend continues today. It is a fundemental goal of White scientists to wipe out and eradicate the history of the Original man, to discourage him from finding pride in himself and thus to keep him enslaved with white pseudo-culture and white pseudo-science.
Complete and utter bullshit. Prove any of that.

As for physical appearance, I find the Black, Brown, Red and Yellow beautiful, it is natural and not artificial.
What is artificial about White people? They are the result of genetic mutation, the same as "Blacks, Browns, Reds and Yellows". Even the most basic human beings on this planet, the Capoid or Khoisanid race in Southern Africa, has evolved and mutated somewhat from the first humans.....

I take Zimbabwe as a good example, despite the Western aggression to destroy her economy, which she has indeed done, the Whites have been kicked off of the land they stole. If Whites in Africa are made to return the land they took through force and oppression, so what? Chickens coming home to roost never made me sad, it only made me glad.
It is exactly BECAUSE Whites have been kicked off the land that Zimbabwe has gone from Africa's breadbasket to the country in Africa with the worst hyperinflated economy. If you are glad because your Black "brothers" in Zimbabwe are starving to death because of their racial crusade against Whites, than that doesn't really say much for you.
Depends on which "scientists", some try to say race doesn't exist, which is a White Nationalist way of eliminating race entirely to justify the status quo, while some say it does exist and the Original man never had any civilization, which also justifies the status quo. Regardless, reality says that the White time is at its end-game. Within 50 years the White man won't have Europe or North America and he certainly won't have South America or Asia or Africa. The world will be back to its original state.
If all this is true, then how does Europe not belong to White people? Indeed how does it belong to the other Races of the world? If you really want each people to have their respective homeland, then how does Europe not belong to Europeans?
Zimbabwe was never "prosperous" to its people, only to the colonizers. The people never had anything, their slavemasters did. The economy is only doing badly because of European and US economic sanctions and embargoes.
Zimbabwe's breadbasket was prosperous to all of Africa. You are wrong.
Zimbabwe is doing, at all costs, what must be done in all of Africa.
Then all of Africa will fall to it's knees in despair and starvation.

There can be no freedom, nor independance while the colonizers and slave-masters still own your land and your industry. I hope that Comrade Jacob Zuma will follow in Brother Mugabe's footsteps.
It is in South Africa's economic best interest that he doesn't. Are you South African?
Yes, I am saying very much they are artificial, as in, they are a created race, created by man. They are the products of a Eugenics movement around 10,000 years ago. The White traits are all recessive, naturally they disappear. It is estimated by 2100 blonde hair and blue eyes won't exist anymore. The way they came into being was simple, an exiled community around a man named Yakub, who had discovered by genetics the traits he sought after began a eugenics process whereby they bred the lighter skinned individuals and killed any babies who had undesirable traits, hence creating over the course of several thousand years a race with blonde hair and blue eyes. Yakub obviously never saw his dream come to light. However, that race does exist currently and as all people do, were given their allotted time to rule. Their rule has lasted about 600 years and has seen the elimination and enslavement of the Native peoples of the America's and Oceania, the enslavement of the African people's, the colonization of Arabia and Asia. It has seen countless lives lost, numbering in the billions for "civilization" to be built.
Total bullshit. I'd like a source that is not from The Nation of Islam, please.

We need a world without the loss of billions of lives, without racial injustice, where the land is restored to the people who rightfully own it. Within 100 years this will only be a memory, in Europe, in Corduba people will laugh at how the Moors lost in 1492 and won 600 years later. In Germany, men and women will joke about how the Osmanli Khalifate lost in 1683 and won through migration. Europe will be an African-Arabian land.
The US will be a land belonging to the Black/Native/Latino man and woman and Africa, Asia and all other territories will be restored. This will not come with bloodshed, as Brother Qadhafi pointed out, Islam does not spread by the sword and is not spreading by the sword today, it spreads naturally. The post-Christian Europe will be an Islamic Europe, not because of a war or conquest, but because of simple demographics. I do not doubt the US will be the same.
The bolded part totally contradicts your calls against Europe and the US....
note: I have no problem if you call White people Aryan, that is what they are frequently referred to as and are. I classify the Celtic peoples and the Basques as Non-Aryans, because they are from Africa and Anatolia and thereby Original. However, for most of Europe, Aryan does suffice.
Actually, that is wrong. The Basques are the remains of the people who lived in Europe before Indo-European people came to Europe. The Celts, you are, if possible, even more incorrect about. They are infact, Indo-Europeans.

Albanian
Anatolian
Armenian
Baltic
Celtic
Germanic
Greek
Indo-Iranian
Italic
Slavic
Tocharian

Those are the Indo-European branches, at it's most simple form.

The Whites set up no civilization and are the cause of the economic and political injustices in Africa today.

Africa, before Europeans colonized it, was the most backwards continent in the sense that most of it remained unevolved from early man. It was, and still is the richest continent. Although Europeans helped it along it's evolutionary path a bit, it is still behind the rest of the world. Why? Why was Africa so backwards even before Europeans colonized it or enslaved Africans?

I want to go past the European contact with Africa so you can't blame Europeans. Why was Africa so backwards?

[QUOTE]Nature is something that happens naturally, there does not have to be murder or systematic planning to do so. The Black, Brown, Red and Yellow men and women are not a product of experiments, the White race is.
They are all the products of evolutionary genetic mutations. Prove otherwise.

It is with the help of Arab brothers and sisters that the Fatimid achievements, the Moorish achievements and others were achieved. Arabs did great services as opposed to seeking to divide up and conquer the entire continent systematically playing tribe and man against man. Whites can do a service in Africa by leaving and restoring all land and industry to the people.
Do you not know about Arabs enslaving Africans? I assume you don't unless you've just simply shut your eyes to this detail of history.

What I find very interesting is that in Tahuantansiyu as well as most African, Arab and Asian cultures there was and to a large degree still is a natural way of life, I call it natural Socialism.
Right. So..for example, like the wealthy Arabs who rule their kingdoms in oil money while the common people are poor, over-religious, uneducated and backwards?
And Hachihyaku, you should just call yourself a White Nationalist. I would respect that, just be honest and I have no problem. I have no problem with most White Nationalists, they want to seperate from us and we want to seperate from them, so we have mutual goals and mutual responsibilities to our peoples. I am a Black Nationalist, an Arab Nationalist, a Latino Nationalist, an Asian Nationalist. I am an Original Nationalist. I am not ashamed to admit that, you should not be ashamed to admit you are a White Nationalist.
You should be ashamed to admit it. It makes you look honestly crazy.

Whites brought no-one into the industrious age. It was through the enslavement and immigration of other peoples that they brought themselves into that age and certainly, nobody else.
So....when England industrialized it did this through immigration and enslavement? Right. What kind of history books are you reading?

Science is, like all things only as valuable as its manipulator, in this case, it is as worthless as the Aryan-supremicists who say it.
So science is worthless. Are you a highly religous member of the Nation of Islam, by any chance?

Whether Whites still exist in 200 years or not is not up to me to decide. It will in the end fall to Allah alone (each and every Black, Brown, Red and Yellow man and woman). We will see how history turns out.
Ok Mr. Nation of Islam. Let's throw you a curve ball? What about Albanians and Kosovo-Albanians who are White Europeans but have been Muslims forever.... What is to become of them?....or has oh holy and all knowing Allah not let you in on this secret?


I believe the "White Nations" are quite few. The US certainly is not White, because the rightful owners are not White. Some of Europe is, but certainly not all of it. Whether some White territories remain White or not will be decided by time and people themselves.
Which people will decide? Also, which areas of Europe do you deem not-White?

In an Original Nation, Whites who accept Original culture, values and traditions would be accepted. I know few who have a problem with Bosnia or Albania; they are White, but they have adopted Original culture and values, so they are us and we are them.
How is Islam original? Also, are these values you speak of....by chance...the fact that in Albanian culture, women have almost no freedom, no independence, girls must remain virgins until marriage or risk death and arranged marriages are common?
They entered the industrial age by the exploitation and enslavement of other peoples, though either direct slavery or wage slavery. The exception to this, is Russia because it primarily industrialized in the 1930s.
What about, hmmm...Germany. It hardly had any colonies, hardly had any non-White immigration, yet under the German Empire, industrialized to a point that threatend England, the empire that ruled the world at that time... In fact, what about Finland, or Estonia, or Sweden or Norway or Switzerland or Austria or or or .....:rolleyes:

Why are you expecting NSG to do what you're not doing? Why am I beholden to argue what you think I should be arguing? Frankly, I'm not interested in arguing with what's his face because of how extreme he is. There's no function in that. The Russia-Georgia conflict thread has gone 50 something pages of bashing-head-into-wall fun because Soviet KLM is so thoroughly undebatable. It's tiring.

But you're a fairly intelligent person, I presume. If you take offense to what what's his face is saying, and you feel the rest of us aren't doing an adequate job of taking his arguments apart, then what is preventing you? Step into the discussion and debate what's his face, instead of crying foul about "typical, left-leaning NSG". Or is crying about an injustice easier than doing something to rectify it?

I did it because I couldn't stand it going by without a comment. However, the fact that nobody (but me, later on) commented on it is EXACTLY my point to show the hypocrisy of the way NSG deals with "racist posts".

I did it because I couldn't stand it going by without a comment. However, the fact that nobody (but me, later on) commented on it is EXACTLY my point to show the hypocrisy of the way NSG deals with "racist posts".

What?

The reason we ignored his racist and idiotic diatribes was because it was obvious that he was a troll or idiot. Only someone equally racist and idiotic would bother arguing his or her points instead of discussing the more intelligent points made in the thread.

It's friggin' Andaras. Who pays attention to Andaras?

I did it because I couldn't stand it going by without a comment. However, the fact that nobody (but me, later on) commented on it is EXACTLY my point to show the hypocrisy of the way NSG deals with "racist posts".

The fact that no one besides you wasted their time responding to him shows the hypocrisy of the way NSG deals with racism? Seems to me that you, the person who took greatest offense to what's his face's rants, responded to his post just fine. Are you not part of NSG? Are you separate and apart from the rest of us?

You cried because no one came in to defend your viewpoint for you. That's it. You finally stopped crying to me about it and actually argued your side. Congratulations. It only took you a couple days.

Enough.

Neither the white race nor any other is superior or inferior to any other race. These are facts in and of themselves, any racism is a mental disease. These are simple truths that are undeniable to any sane or reasonable mind.

Magister dixit.

no we wont. the white race will simply add what ever new races comes here and threatens their majority to the white race. already done with both the Irish and the Germans.

Enough.

Neither the white race nor any other is superior or inferior to any other race.
False. The Atlanteans were indeed superior. Everyone knows this, you fool.

These are facts in and of themselves, any racism is a mental disease. These are simple truths that are undeniable to any sane or reasonable mind.
I'm suspicious of this statement. What qualifies as "racism" to a person with totally backwards politically views such as yourself is not always "racism" to someone with more healthy political opinions.
What?

The reason we ignored his racist and idiotic diatribes was because it was obvious that he was a troll or idiot. Only someone equally racist and idiotic would bother arguing his or her points instead of discussing the more intelligent points made in the thread.
Well that's pretty intelligent..... :rolleyes:

If someone post something insane, terrible and totally crazy we don't debate it or address it....we just ignore it. That's a great policy to have...even more so when people on NSG are complaining about repition and how everything is boring and dull.....:rolleyes:


The fact that no one besides you wasted their time responding to him shows the hypocrisy of the way NSG deals with racism? Seems to me that you, the person who took greatest offense to what's his face's rants, responded to his post just fine. Are you not part of NSG? Are you separate and apart from the rest of us?

You cried because no one came in to defend your viewpoint for you. That's it. You finally stopped crying to me about it and actually argued your side. Congratulations. It only took you a couple days.
You're not hearing me. At all. It's not about whether or not I responded to it, as I was going to anyone as soon as I read it. (and I did). My entire point was that nobody else on NSG responded to it or even batted an eye. This is the same NSG that claims to always be fighting against Racism and any post that even hints at "racism" from a White point of view is attacked and attacked again.

I wasn't "waiting for somebody to do my work for me" at all. In fact, I don't think you could have missed the point better if I gave you a second try. I wanted to see if anyone from NSG, notably people who have attacked many posts as "racist" in the past, would come out and attack his posts. Nobody did. That was my experiment. Then I attacked his posts as I planned to from the beginning.

I didn't need help.....I wanted to see if anyone else would respond, that's all.

The argument goes that the original humans weren't White, Black, or Asian, but rather greyish or maybe very very light brown. Why? Well, shave a chimpanzee, see what color it is underneath. Most likely, as our ancestors lost their hair and started hunting in the savannas, darker skin started predominating because there was less shade. Then when various groups of humans began migrating, they adapted to their local environments. White skin was probably advantageous (and selected for) up north because of a need to produce more vitamin D. Less sun meant that people didn't need the protection of dark skin and needed the absorption of light skin. Theres pretty substantial evidence that the mutations for lighter skin happened at the very least twice independently (Once for Europeans, once for Asians). The earliest evidence of humanity in Europe is roughly 10,000 years back. ).

To sum it up, humans most likely went hairy->greyish->brownish->"yellow/white".

Sorry if my post isn't so clear, but its late at night and I can't sleep.

Actually, our acnestor Homo Erectus developed Black skin 1.2 million years ago, suggesting we lost our hair a while before that, and humans have been in Europe for MUCH more than 10,000 years. Homo Sapiens Sapiens (that's us) have been there for at least 50,000 years, and various offshoots and ancestors have been there for around 1.5 million.

:eek: You mean where the country has collapsed and white people are hunted down? (Take South Africa and Zimbabwe as prime examples of what happens when white people loose control)

That and well, mixed race people look quiet horrible in my opinion... (Then again so do black people, but I don't really know anyone who claims to like the appearance of black people, I know black people who hate the appearance of black people)

Yes, I remember being hunted down when I visited Ghana, just like my dad got hunted down in Morocco. Yeah, that's what happens when whites lose control. And that 12 foot tall mummies thing? The tallest were 9 foot and even that's not verified. The appearance of Black people is a stupid thing to say, because there are so many varieties of Blacks. Black isn't a race, it's a skin colour. There are so many varieties of Black people. Are the black people that hate their appearance your imaginary friends? I agree with you about mixed race people, I generally don't find them attractive but look at this black woman and tell me she's not attractive: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=wcKZoFRpZCI.

I'm suspicious of this statement. What qualifies as "racism" to a person with totally backwards politically views such as yourself is not always "racism" to someone with more healthy political opinions.

Oh, yeah, I'm not "advanced" enough to think that colonialism, raping cultures and killing people because they're of other races is a good idea.

You're living proof of the undeniable truth of my statement, TAI: Racism is a mental disease.

Race, along with nationality and religion, is a lighting conductor with which those in power deflect all blame away from themselves and onto scapegoats. Divide and rule.

Race, along with nationality and religion, is a lighting conductor with which those in power deflect all blame away from themselves and onto scapegoats. Divide and rule.

And a hearty QFT.

Well that's pretty intelligent..... :rolleyes:

If someone post something insane, terrible and totally crazy we don't debate it or address it....we just ignore it. That's a great policy to have...even more so when people on NSG are complaining about repition and how everything is boring and dull.....:rolleyes:

No, we just leave it to be addressed by someone equally 'insane, terrible and totally crazy' (and somewhat tautological).

My entire point was that nobody else on NSG responded to it or even batted an eye. .

Really? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13933789&postcount=283)


I didn't need help.....I wanted to see if anyone else would respond, that's all.

Behold, the "false dilemma".