all 39 comments

[–]Bagarmoossen 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (25 children)

Race-mixing is not occurring on a significant scale in any non-western country. Even in the West itself, the numbers are still quite low if we consider the amount of propaganda. It is a repulsive, unnatural thing that historically has only impacted the genetic makeup of conquered/genocided/enslaved peoples.

There is no need to even pay attention to race-mixing if it is such a marginal phenomenon that it is barely visible. If, however, as in the case of the West, race-mixing is being used by hostile groups as a weapon of mass destruction against a nation/civilization, then opposing it becomes a matter of survival.

What I am opposed to is the satanic and objectively evil agenda of industrial-scale, organized populational replacement. Racial mixing is a consequence of this unnatural process that is being directed from above by managerial elites that see the masses of people as replaceable consumers and wage-slaves, to be shaped according to the needs of the economic system. It is a demographic engineering project that aims to deliberately change the population for political and economic reasons. It would never be happening spontaneously.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Race-mixing is not occurring on a significant scale in any non-western country.

In Japan, it only took one mixed race person to change the impact of sports entirely. Like I said in the OP, instead of introducing a 1% risk factor, why not just make it 0% instead and simply ban it? Especially as it doesn't cost anything.

Edit: Article in question.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/aug/25/naomi-osaka-reflects-on-challenges-of-being-black-and-japanese

Which was later followed up with her throwing support towards Blacklivesmatter and trying to "Make People Start Talking".

https://time.com/5888583/naomi-osaka-masks-black-lives-matter-us-open/

There is no need to even pay attention to race-mixing if it is such a marginal phenomenon that it is barely visible. If, however, as in the case of the West, race-mixing is being used by hostile groups as a weapon of mass destruction against a nation/civilization, then opposing it becomes a matter of survival.

This contradicts the fact we've seen actual anti-race mixing laws back when it WAS a marginal phenomenon. The USA had it in the 1600s when the country/colonies were majority white. Germany passed race laws in 1930s, even when the only known Black people were the French soldiers stationed near the borders, or the very few race mixed couples who had returned home from the African colonies.

Now that freedom of movement and much more advanced technology like airplanes has been able to move different cultured populations across the globe in recent years, the agenda wouldn't target just Europeans, but literally any nation who continues to have lax borders.

[–]SoylentCapitalist 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (23 children)

It would never be happening spontaneously.

Seemed to have happened a lot in Brazil. Race mixing has always been a thing, like how whites mixed with Neanderthals which are more genetically distant from whites than even blacks are.

[–]Bagarmoossen 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Seemed to have happened a lot in Brazil

Except it didn't. The mixing in Latin America occurred very early on, firstly because of the initial absence of European women which forced the Iberians to take brides from conquered/genocided Indian tribes and later to the literal rape of negro slaves by masters, producing enslaved mulattoes. Genetic studies actually confirm that the male lineage of Latin Americans is overwhelmingly European, while on the female side the African and Indian genes predominate.

So, it wasn't a process that happened organically, it required the use of force by the conquering power against the enslaved and conquered populations. It would never have happened without coercion.

We can't be sure about the neanderthals, but I doubt that the coexistence would have been peaceful. Cavemen also aren't really a model to be followed by our civilization.

[–]SoylentCapitalist 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

Cavemen also aren't really a model to be followed by our civilization.

It isn't inherently repulsive and destructive on a small scale. The race as a whole can assimilate a population if it's small enough without much issue.

[–][deleted]  (6 children)

[deleted]

    [–]SoylentCapitalist 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

    Not all of those non-white relationships will be inferior or dysgenic. You’re also in no position to force interracial relationships to separate, it’s not a hill worth dying on if the population to be assimilated is small.

    [–][deleted]  (4 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]SoylentCapitalist 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

      absolute racial purity

      This never really existed as Neanderthals kindly fucked our ancestors. The whole race shouldn't mix but it's not going to destroy white Americans if ~2% non-white DNA is added to the gene pool.

      [–]Airbus320 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

      🤢

      [–][deleted]  (1 child)

      [deleted]

        [–]SoylentCapitalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        Still, it is not difficult to determine someone's racial background by phenotype alone. And adding 10% African or Asian genes to a gene pool of a European population, let us say the French, will change their average appearance for ever.

        That's way too much. I'm only an advocate for people that have majority white DNA living with other whites. Far less than 10% of the population in most Western societies is even mixed. If mixed individuals with one white parent were living with whites it'd be ~4% non-white contribution at most.

        Africans have around 19% dna of an unknown hominid.

        It's more like ~7% archaic human DNA in Africans:

        According to a study published in 2020, there are indications that 2% to 19% (or about ≃6.6 and ≃7.0%) of the DNA of four West African populations may have come from an unknown archaic hominin which split from the ancestor of humans and Neanderthals between 360 kya to 1.02 mya.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_population#Population_genetics

        So I would still say that any mixing is detrimental, as it affects our unique phenotype, causes psychological harm to the individual person of mixed heritage, and infuses our gene pool with inferior genes

        As I said earlier I'm advocating for already mixed individuals, so what you consider loss of some phenotypes would've already been done. As for psychological harm, it can be damaging for some mixed individuals but that's not a rule.

        Source on the amount of mixed-race individuals with any mental illness:

        Zane and his co-investigator, UC Davis psychology graduate student Lauren Berger, found that 34 percent of biracial individuals in a national survey had been diagnosed with a psychological disorder, such as anxiety, depression or substance abuse, versus 17 percent of monoracial individuals.

        https://nationalvanguard.org/2018/12/mixed-race-people-have-more-psychological-disorders/

        The majority of these people will not have any mental illness and the vast majority likely have none or benign mental illness that is easily treated.

        [–][deleted]  (13 children)

        [deleted]

          [–]SoylentCapitalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

          This has been the case with Spaniards in South America and with neanderthals and homo sapiens.

          I don't believe the entirety of giving the average white 1-4% Neanderthal DNA was through conquest and rape.

          [–][deleted]  (11 children)

          [deleted]

            [–]SoylentCapitalist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

            If it were consensual relationships you would expect to find more or less equal proportion of female and male neanderthal genes.

            Not necessarily. Female homo sapiens would've been attracted to the more masculine features of male Neanderthals while male homo sapiens wouldn't have been attracted to the more masculine Neanderthal females. This source is somewhat comedic but he makes genuinely good points.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX0Dg9MxsOg

            [–][deleted]  (9 children)

            [deleted]

              [–]SoylentCapitalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

              All the points he makes about bones and muscle mass could be easily applied to gorillas. Why don't female sapiens went for gorillas then?

              Gorillas aren't even in the same genus. This rebuttal is retarded, it's like saying why don't female sapiens like gorillas since they like stronger men with more muscle mass who can protect them from other men.

              African male skull is more robust relative to Asian and European skulls. Yet virtually no women are attracted to blacks.

              I don't know how females are suppose to know the robustness of someone's skull, but blacks don't tend to be stronger. They're just faster than Europeans.

              Moreover, data from dating sites indicate that women have strong same-race preference.

              The lack of a larger human population could've made interracial relationships like this more common than they are today. I'm also only arguing that some of it was consensual.

              [–][deleted]  (7 children)

              [deleted]

                [–]SoylentCapitalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

                Homo sapiens and neanderthals were different species. Why would there even be such a thing as cross-species attraction?

                You claimed you already watched the video. Also Neanderthals are sometimes cited as a subspecies since they were capable of producing fertile offspring with H. sapiens.

                I guess the same way they were supposed to know the robustness of neanderthal skull. Which was in the same video you said made good points.

                There was a lot more than robustness, try watching the video again.

                [–]FoxySDTWhite Nationalist 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

                Like go to Japan or China and see a non-Asian person walking around as one of their husbands/wives and you'll get mean looks. Yet how come even in these socially racist places, they just don't outlaw such behavior to begin with?

                Because non-asian people in those countries are extremely rare and interracial relationships even more so. So this doesn't become an issue. Similarly like some northern US states didn't outlaw miscegenation because they had no black population. There was no need for it.

                [–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

                Homosexuality, especially transgenderism, appears in less than 1% of the population, and yet we still have a plethora of countries that put a ban on it. Race mixing is universal with even more noticeable results (i.e gay people will never create more kids, whereas race mixing does), but no nation anywhere has stepped in and actually ban it?

                Similarly like some northern US states didn't outlaw miscegenation because they had no black population. There was no need for it.

                When a phenomenon exists and people have strong feelings towards race mixing one way or another, there will always be a need to pass legislation that as I mentioned in the OP, should be very effortless.

                In fact, think of all the other laws that currently exist yet only affects a small percentage of a population. Chewing bubble gum or climbing a tree are considered more important criminal offenses, yet how many people do you know that care about these?

                https://www.farandwide.com/s/weird-laws-world-4961c1ede8d749bf

                [–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

                How many countries ban coprophagia? I would imagine a country would ban it if a sizable minority practiced this or there was a political movement that advocating the morality of coprophagia. Transgenderism is banned mainly because it is a subversive political movement that harms the family and tradition.

                [–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

                Well I would argue there is a movement that advocates diversity. Such as NGO's who even operate their own ships and carry refugees back home with them.

                As more people are also displaced from wars and climate change, I also expect to see different cultural groups get pushed across continents. Stuff like the Syria conflict is just the beginning of this type of mass cultural exchange.

                [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

                My point is just because an action is not explicitly prohibited by law doesn't mean it is an admission that the action is condoned or glorified in wider society. Sometimes the common moral consensus can be lost in translation because of generational differences, language and cultural differences but it often is the mark of a bad faith political actor to assume abnormal behaviors in most human societies are considered normative in others.

                An example is in a computer program, it is important to test and branch when invalid values are passed into the program. It is also known that computers are not perfect because of bugs in the hardware, quality of hardware fabrication, physical degradation of hardware, radiation and electrical interference. The programmer writing a general program doesn't really think much about these rare occurrences because it is not of immediate concern on the off chance their program crashes. If this programmer is writing software on life critical systems like pace makers, airplane and car computers it starts to matter. these edge cases won't just cause a computer crash but the possible death of human lives. The correctness mattered from the very beginning but the demands for correctness changes depending on the usage case and the environment. Space is an example where they use custom hardware to deal with the problems space causes to computers such has heat dissipation, space radiation on computer hardware, etc.

                The lesson is that the importance of a value still exists even if the demand for rigidly following the value declines. Miscegenation isn't much of a issue in a mono racial society that allows a few foreigners to intermarry with the natives. It becomes a existential threat when they are a minority surrounded by foreign groups where any mixing causes irreversible damage to the original ethnic group and culture. The other reason why miscegenation might be banned in White countries first is because the difference between Blacks and Whites is vast genetically and culturally.

                [–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

                My point is just because an action is not explicitly prohibited by law doesn't mean it is admission that the action is condoned or glorified in wider society. Sometimes the common moral consensus can be lost in translation because of generational differences, language and cultural differences but it often is the mark of a bad faith political actor to assume abnormal behaviors in most human societies are considered normative in others.

                I mentioned to another user that everything that started off as "abnormal" had to have taken place first in a mono-racial society first. And these same societies who even recognize race is a real thing but have done nothing to actually legislate it, are sending signals that they are ok with it as far as human freedom goes.

                In your example of people eating crap, this is behavior that only affects the individual. Regardless of how gross it is, when we have existing movements that allow people to do drugs or smoke cigarettes, then clearly there isn't much pressure or a general feeling that crap eating represents some kind of threat or moral panic.

                But if your society does allow even one individual to mix with another race, then you are giving the invitation to let half-breeds participate in society, since they're not legally barred from voting, or owning property, or running a business etc. You say huge genetic differences are the reason for Whites to ban miscegenation first, but why not Native Indians? Or Tibetens? Or even Jews? All of which have far smaller numbers than Whites who exist globally. Or perhaps look at smaller countries where race mixing could still have a huge impact. The island of Jamaica for example, only has 3 million people. You only need to bring in a certain amount of Asian/European/Latino immigrants a year to transform that island from being mostly Black, to becoming another mixed society like the Dominican Republic is.

                But even in these smaller and thus more fragile populations, they still haven't enacted all out Nuremberg or Jim Crow laws meant to preserve such cultural cohesion.

                [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

                In your example of people eating crap, this is behavior that only affects the individual. Regardless of how gross it is, when we have existing movements that allow people to do drugs or smoke cigarettes, then clearly there isn't much pressure or a general feeling that crap eating represents some kind of threat or moral panic.

                A individual's actions affects the community. Eating poop disgusts most people, if someone saw a person eating poop it would viscerally disgust them and reduce social trust in that community. Also if the person ingesting poop catches e. coli, salmonella or hepatitis A that may warrant a clinic or a hospital visit. People will be waiting in line longer for treatment for ailments that are not caused by poor life decisions. If you have universal health care that is a wasteful tax burden that puts a cost on the entire tax paying community.

                But if your society does allow even one individual to mix with another race, then you are giving the invitation to let half-breeds participate in society, since they're not legally barred from voting, or owning property, or running a business etc. You say huge genetic differences are the reason for Whites to ban miscegenation first, but why not Native Indians?

                There is already big social costs that deter miscegenation in most cultures. It is not uncommon to hear stories of interracial couples talking about being disowned from one or both sides of the family or feel their relationship has been estranged after announcing to their family their foreign spouse. Since there is big social costs for proclaiming opposition to miscegenation in Western countries, people will act passive aggressively to sabotage relationships whether they are aware of it or not. This might be hyper criticism of the foreign spouse, write them out of the family will or stop inviting them to social gatherings. Women also defer opinions from their group of friends, if all her friends disapprove of the relationship it is less likely that relationship will succeed in the long term. There probably are more variables that I have missed but they all deter miscegenation to the point of making a law is often seen as redundant. Also as some others have stated, to participate in the world economy, countries have to put on a face of political correctness.

                [–]YORAMRWWhite nationalist, eugenicist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

                In your example of people eating crap, this is behavior that only affects the individual.

                That's exactly the kind of thing a crap eater would say.

                [–]FoxySDTWhite Nationalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

                Homosexuality, especially transgenderism, appears in less than 1% of the population,

                LGBT-ness overall has prevalence about 4-5% in population. And most countries on earth don't even have 1% prevalence of intermarriage. Most countries are vastly homogeneous and if there are different ethnic groups they tend to be very genetically similar to each other. That's another thing, nobody would bother to pass intermarriage laws between Croats and Slovenes in Yugoslavia because it doesn't elicit such a disgust as mixing between blacks and whites.

                [–]Girondin 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

                The vast majority countries are mono-racial and are not being activily replaced, literally no point, homosexuality (and probably transgenderism?) is something that has existed forever (condemnations exist in the Abrahamic religions) which you mention that their is legislation against that among states. Due to recency and lack of practical need for it their is no point in legislation, is their ayahuasca legislation in Africa? That is as rare is race mixing and is in 99.9% of places.

                If you do propose legistation and it is accepted you are facing the collective powers of the NATO and globo-homo alliance. you are wrong that their is no country, Israel has a de-facto ban, marriages have to be done by the Rabbinate, their is no civil marriage (despite israel being quite irreligious), who also don't allow mixxed and inter-racial marriages, Ethiopian jews are largely banned from marrying

                See this documentary Israelis want to marry but can't

                Also most states have laws that make racial replacement impractical, places I thought were de facto white colonies when I was a libtard (Thailand, Phillipines) have laws against foreigners owning land or apartments, you can't just be birthed their and be a citizen, it is based on blood, you can be a citizen if marry your a native, the probability of your child marrying another native is high so their is no real racial replacement.

                [–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

                I'm confused by that Israel article. It's not just Ethiopians who raised complaints, but it says anyone who was actually converting to Judaism. The article also mentions they can circumvent that ban by simply opening up their own office (which make sense. It's like a black couple going to a White church and being denied marriage. Why not go to one that does accept them?).

                The vast majority countries are mono-racial and are not being activily replaced, literally no point, homosexuality (and probably transgenderism?) is something that has existed forever (condemnations exist in the Abrahamic religions) which you mention that their is legislation against that among states. Due to recency and lack of practical need for it their is no point in legislation, is their ayahuasca legislation in Africa? That is as rare is race mixing and is in 99.9% of places.

                Using this argument, human beings have been invaded by other tribes for the same amount of time they also saw homosexuality as a threat. And they were just as hostile to outside groups. Native Americans would enslave or ritually sacrifice other tribes for example. So you would think we would see cultures trying to protect themselves and thus forbid cultural mingling.

                If you do propose legistation and it is accepted you are facing the collective powers of the NATO and globo-homo alliance.

                How is it anymore different than countries who are already under sanctions and boycotts? For example, I really doubt Russia passing a law that says only Whites can marry will help them gain more sympathy. Putin already passed a law against homosexual marriages and the status quo remains for example.

                [–]Girondin 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

                It is not like their getting banned from a "white church" imagine if the state church of denmark in the country banned all blacks from marrying, and their is no other way since their is no civil marriages. That is de-facto ban.

                different tribes are not different races, this is a recent phenomonen, their wasn't hundreds of thousands of Chinese people entering Italy or millions of blacks coming to North America.

                As I said these laws should be very rare, sanctioned countries, do not attract much immigrants so their is no race replacement immigration, and their nearly all mono-racial. Russia is multi-racial but Putin is not based, that is why it wouldn't happened, it's also very rare. I meant many Russians who say they first meet a non-white when they were in their 20s (foreign exchange students).

                [–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

                It is not like their getting banned from a "white church" imagine if the state church of denmark in the country banned all blacks from marrying, and their is no other way since their is no civil marriages. That is de-facto ban.

                So wait, just because the Rabbis refuse to marry them, what exactly changes when they can just go to another country and Israel will recognize it?

                "The religious authority for Jewish marriages performed in Israel is the Chief Rabbinate of Israel and the Rabbinical courts. The Israeli Interior Ministry registers marriages on presentation of proper documentation. Israel's religious authorities — the only entities authorized to perform weddings in Israel — are prohibited from marrying couples unless both partners share the same religion. Therefore, interfaith couples can be legally married in Israel only if one of the partners converts to the religion of the other. However, civil, interfaith, and same-sex marriages entered into abroad are recognized by the state.[4]"

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_Israel

                I would naturally assume this applies for race as well.

                different tribes are not different races, this is a recent phenomonen, their wasn't hundreds of thousands of Chinese people entering Italy or millions of blacks coming to North America.

                The Mongols still invaded Europe. So did Arabs prior to the 21st century.

                As I said these laws should be very rare, sanctioned countries, do not attract much immigrants so their is no race replacement immigration, and their nearly all mono-racial. Russia is multi-racial but Putin is not based, that is why it wouldn't happened, it's also very rare. I meant many Russians who say they first meet a non-white when they were in their 20s (foreign exchange students).

                Every country started off as mono-racial, so if there was a race replacement immigration (or at least one meant to target just Europeans), what exactly would make aa non-white country like China different from Iceland? Relatively speaking, China is much more likely to bring in more race-mixed couples, especially if you look at all their missions they are doing in places like Africa or even South America.

                [–]Girondin 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

                that is a legal loophole (and also expensive), with COVID travel restrictions this has become impossible.

                Arab and mongol invasions wasn't similar, at most you had to some border of Europe that was arabic and mongol (they are the closest similar groups to europeans and already neighbors) and were expelled, population genetics show little medieval mongolic and arabic admixture in modern Europeans.

                what would make a non-white country like China different from Iceland? Im confused on what you mean, I follow a lot of china vloggers and china journalists, China expelled and deported much of their black population in Guangdong in 2020, their immigrating han chinese into Uygher areas (race replacement) and race mixing makes you socially ostracized, nearly all expats who marry chinese women in china marry divorcees who are already a lower social rung, a lot of chinese youtubers like Naomi Wu hide the fact they have a non-chinese non-asian husband since it brings social ostracization her account)

                [–]ifuckredditsnitches_Resident Pajeet 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

                Literally every country has to accept the doctrines of racial equality and equal rights in order to get access to international diplomatic and financial channels. Pre WW2 it was not unheard of for different nations and countries across the globe to ban miscegenation.

                [–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

                Literally every country has to accept the doctrines of racial equality and equal rights in order to get access to international diplomatic and financial channels.

                Cuba is under an embargo, because they switched from Capitalism to Socialism. Same with Venezuela. Yet neither country has actually come close to bending the knee on social-political beliefs they believe is true.

                If there was even one country that thought racial purity is an irreplaceable element of their society, I would expect the same kind of national devotion and dogma to resist changing their culture. The fact you brought up pre-WW2 nations who also shared such feelings makes me question, why wouldn't these nations just form their own bloc or political union in retaliation?

                Similar to how the Soviet Union developed its own alliance when NATO was created to suppress them. And even though they collapsed, it was still 46 years of them doing whatever they want, even against the much more formidable powers like the U.S.

                [–]ifuckredditsnitches_Resident Pajeet 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

                The fact you brought up pre-WW2 nations who also shared such feelings makes me question, why wouldn't these nations just form their own bloc or political union in retaliation?

                After the fall of the NS Germany there weren't any powerful nations left that weren't under the fingers of NATO, the USSR, or the UN. If any state broke from the norm there would be bombings, foreign backed insurgencies, financial embargoes, all of which prevent a functioning society from existing. Look at how the whole world ganged up against Rhodesia and South Africa.

                [–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

                If any state broke from the norm there would be bombings, foreign backed insurgencies, financial embargoes, all of which prevent a functioning society from existing.

                That was true for every side back then. Capitalism, Communism, even Islam. Iran was a pariah after they overthrew the Shah, and later found themselves at war with Iraq for 8 years, but they eventually survived.

                Meanwhile, there where crypto-fascist countries who never got bombed or overthrown. Franco Spain & Nationalist Portugal lasted a long time after the Second World War. They only surrendering when the leader died from old age, or when the military budget grew too expensive and cutbacks were made.

                Rhodesia however, was always screwed. They were completely landlocked and had to depend on Portugal to even get any supplies from overseas. South Africa however, at least tried to form a working alliance with other countries. Like Israel, ironically enough.

                [–]ifuckredditsnitches_Resident Pajeet 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

                Like Israel, ironically enough.

                Ironic considering who sabotaged it from the inside

                [–]aukofthecovenantWhite man with eyes 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

                Advocating to criminalize miscegenation would mean publicly voicing a politically-incorrect preference. Most people simply will not do this regardless of their actual position on the matter. Relevant studies show:

                Interracial marriage has grown in the United States over the past few decades, and polls show that most Americans are accepting of mixed-race relationships.

                But new research from the University of Washington suggests that reported acceptance of interracial marriage masks deeper feelings of discomfort — even disgust — that some feel about mixed-race couples.

                [–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

                But see, there's something that still doesn't add up. We've had past examples of people supporting one side, only to drastically elect another person after they felt lied to or unsatisfied with their performance. George Bush 2 got Americans to support his Iraq Invasion, but it also meant Obama was elected when most Americans were getting war weariness. Even though for 8 years, the entire media was pro-invasion and being against was seen as the "incorrect preference".

                If there are Americans who feel disgusted by mixed race relationships and even feel that Biden is doing things to make the situation worse, why wouldn't these same people boycott the system in 2024, or even organize anti-diversity protests, similar to how the anti-iraq war gained traction that a politician like Obama filled the vacuum to finally represent them?

                [–]aukofthecovenantWhite man with eyes 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

                being against was seen as the incorrect preference

                But not the politically incorrect preference. Opposing the Iraq war was never un-PC. How many people in, say, 2005, thought that they might get fired from their jobs if they came out against the Iraq invasion?

                If there are Americans who feel disgusted by mixed race relationships and even feel that Biden is doing things to make the situation worse, why wouldn't these same people [do things that could jeopardize their livelihoods and/or social status]?

                Based on what I think you have in mind, I reworded your question so that it answers itself. Seriously though, these people probably do exactly those things but on a small scale out of the public eye. Marrying within one's race is a form of anti-diversity protest. Cancelling an NFL subscription over Kaepernick's antics is a step toward "boycotting the system".

                how the anti-iraq war gained traction that a politician like Obama filled the vacuum to finally represent them

                It is a mistake to think that Obama won because of his stance on the Iraq war. There was a financial crisis, as you might recall, which is almost invariably bad for incumbent parties. He is black yet not dysfunctionally so, which causes white liberals to swoon in the voting booth. John McCain was lackluster and uninspiring. Being anti-Iraq war was the cherry on top, if that.

                [–]Questionablethe Dumpster Arsonist · 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

                If you truly believe some races are superior, than you know that they have much to offer up other races, and their blood lines. And most importantly, forced diversity is actually interested in creating division, and fostering racial divide. If anyone wanted to prevent actual race mixing, it would be the far left, that intents to eclipse and replace Americans, with illegal immigrants and communism. As apposed to a natural mixing of the blood lines.

                As for myself, I personalty don't dictate to anyone who they can or can not fuck. As I would prefer they stayed out of my bedroom as well.