Do you find it odd that no country bans race-mixing [today]? And diversity as a whole is still legal?

submitted by radicalcentristNational Centrism from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the 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.