I made a comment recently somewhere that stated no one could confirm for me what it meant to be white and got a lot of down votes. Not fussed, but only one person actually gave a direct answer and it was not a detailed or elaborate answer though.
I have asked this question multiple times from different people on this site but have never received the same answer. Often I am accused of being a jew or a nigger or something, you know the usual response, but that's just deflecting. I want to collate all the serious answers I get to help understand the differences in peoples opinions.
If you say it's a europium person, which European border and why? How far back in time do you consider it the right border? How much of a mix can you be before you are not considered European? How do you explain the the sudden off switch that occurs to people who are on the direct opposite side of this border. How do you consider the immigration and variation over thousands of years. How far back in your ancestry do you stop looking?
If European is not your specific point of reference, then what is it? Skin colour? How do you define the skin colour? many asians have light skin, how do you specifically remove them? If it is genetics, which genetics and how do you account for everything above? Do you apply your position on people based solely on looks and why? Why do you not wait fora genetic report from a lab to confirm their genetics? Which specific genes are you looking for? If you believe these genes need to be isolated to create a pure white race, how do you treat the lack of genetic diversity that always leads to degradation?
Do you consider the previous positions such as Italians not being white. Some people do not consider slavs white, is this a cultural, genetic or European border thing. How do you account for the changes in culture of thousands of years, conquered cultures, border/land expansions that come with the culture change and other things that change genetics and borders and the ways people live over thousands of years.
I will ignore anyone that doesn't give me an actual answer.
Do you consider the previous positions such as Italians not being white.
You didn't understand it the first hundred times we made the claim, or are you purposefully misrepresenting what was said?
Northern Italians are white, Southern Italians are not. They are provably mixed with Niggers, Arabs and Jews. The orient is not the occident, Semites are not white. If you swap out 20%, 30%, 50% of your genes with non-white ones you are no longer white.
You know full well this has always been the stance.
How far north of italy do you have to go before you are white? What line magically makes them white? What about people who have parents south, but are born in the north? What about people who have parents in the north and are born in the south?
Is the world PROBABLY an academic answer? Are you saying you are guessing? So, which group of jews are you referring to? There are a many different genetic castes of jews around the world.
What genes are you talking about when referring to those percentages? Which specific genes? How do you determine if someone has the right genes? Are you implying that pigs can be white people? As they share over 80% of their genes of humans.
You don’t seem to know or care about the difference between genes and physical locations. Why don’t you just explain in excruciating detail exactly what your bar for evidence is? Note I did NOT say to keep repeating your obtuse question, but just define proof.
You want me to answer my own question? I'm asking for your specific definitions so I can determine the general consensus. I don't care about physical race personally, but every one else seems to, so I need to know what they are referring to. So far I have opinion that it's European, which level of European from what time frame, unknown. A scientific study of white nationalism that concluded that white identity is full of contradictions and they don't know either. And someone rambling about 4 groups of people that are not defined.
I am not putting in any of my perspective, because I do not want to taint peoples opinion in this space. But that hasn't stopped people from attacking me directly without answering my question.
Because that is not within my scope of the question. I am trying to collate peoples definitions of what a white person is. You do understand that right?
You do understand that as soon as you judge someone as having not answered you, you’re expressing a standard for evidence right? So stop lying and moving your goal post around pretending you’re only trying to collate people’s answers when you’re consistently claiming they havnt answered you. You understand that means you have a standard for evidence right? Define your standard for evidence or stop pretending you care wether there’s an answer to the question or not.
Im not after evidence, I just want people to tell me if they can specify what a white person is. So far, some people were able to do it. You can't. Nothing further required.
So where you were born does not matter? So if you were born in say, Germany. It has no impact on wether or not you are German. Even if your parents were born there, your great grand parents, great great grand parents, etc, it has no impact? Because just being born in the country, doesnt mean anything.
Do you? Someone gave me some percentages of how many genes a person must have in order to be considered white. A research article noted that the offical stance on some communities was 1/16 of genes are allowed to be outside of a certain group. However a pig shares more than 80% of its DNA with humans.
You seem to ask this question in a few places. Im not sure what you mean.
I see that some have given answers to your questions and you try to poke holes in those answers. I think its valid but you are going to piss off people.
I think that when people think about who they think is white, their responses are largely based on instinct and not easily quantifiable and thats okay because i think we evolved those instincts to discern who our friends and foes are and they probably work reasonably well. We can detect consanguinity or lack thereof by sight, and by stereotyped behaviors as well that seem agree with or counter to our own “good sense”.
Ive thought about these racial phenomenons and how they can arise by genetics but thats because Im moderately obsessed with evolution. I wanted to know why these differences arose at the population level and also why you can find many good or “white acting” blacks and also many whites who act like savages.
I can’t say I understand how it all works precisely but I do feel I understand way more than I did after reading material about human genetic diversity and anthopology— specifically how we have diverged over the last 200,000 years (or arguably 1 million if you include our archaic relations like neanderthal)
Further, which genes? And how many of these genes must you have or not have before you can be considered white?
Again, I don’t think this is discrete data like male and female. There’s a clear demarcation between males and females, genetically.
Race can be basically defined as a continuous variable of relatedness (its not really continuous at the molecular level but we can treat it as such because there are so many genes.) For instance single nucleotide polymorphisms in common is a totally mathematical measure of relatedness. It is subjective whether you choose to define 3 racial buckets with this measure or 30. But doing so — utilizing race— to categorize people is really useful and it can indeed predict behavior.
There are trade offs for including in your society a large number of people distantly related to you vs including in your society a small number of people closely related to you. Good and bad aspects of both.
I would strongly argue that we have included FAR too much diversity to promote a high level of economic collaboration and trust. Additionally we have recently added groups who tend toward opportunistic behaviors that are counter to our strategy and take advantage of us. Blacks for example exploit our charitable behavior and conservation of resources.
How old are you? What's the extent of your education, is it basic primary/secondary with a trade or S.T.E.M. discipline or is it tainted with progressive dogmas meant to influence delusional ambition and wishful illusions? Have you traveled? Have you actually lived in the 3rd world for any length of time? SERIOUS QUESTIONS...spend time in the 3rd world and your answer will be directly proportionate to your intellectual capacity, technological advancement, aptitude and wisdom. The White Caucasian lineages are genetically bound in the exclusive purity of the S.A.N.E. RACE (SLAVIC ANGLO NORDIC EURO). To simplify the racial/cultural differential question you need only to compare the architectural variances between Vienna Austria and Mogadishu, or Mumbai or Liberia Costa Rica. JUST A POINT OF INTEREST....whenever giving instructions to the Blacks that were, let's say, under my authority in Jamaica or Barbados, mostly military and/or constabulary, I would cram into their heads that everything they do has to be done the way the White man does it, ie "DRIVE LIKE A WHITE MAN"....AND FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL COMMITTED. This is where your answer lays.....FAGGOT.
When you say slavic, anglo, nordic, euro, what does this actually mean? Do you refer to specific countries? What time periods do you consider? Do you count the times when the borders of these countries differ? You say genetics, but what specific genetics? What genetics does a person need to fit within these groups? If we go back 2000 years do these groups still exist as they do today and if not, why do we not consider it the same as today? What about countries that exist at the edge of these groups? At what point is a person suddenly not considered one of these labels?
You don't want an answer, it's obvious in your questions that you've been "oriented" in the means of applying critical deviance, confusion and an ignorant, uninformed approach to life's simplest of questions. It's as simple as the difference between "black and White" but for some reason you need directions to Pangea.
Black and white is obvious, if people were literally black or white. If you don't want to or can't give an answer, then go away. But I'll let you know something though. Paul Neri is the ONLY one to give a proper answer. This says a lot about the people on this site. The only scientific answer I have received states that all white nationalists conflict with each other.
Not answering however leaves this as a persistent problem, no one can tell me what it means to be white. Except paul neri's opinion.
A naked painting of a woman from 300 years ago is not pornography, but can be used as such. If you do not see the point in specifying the intricate details of something many people here support as their life goals, then just means every time they talk about saving white people, they have no idea who.
That's full on bullshit. You're trying to coerce us into quantifying something that can't be quantified. As I said before, you are trying to parse shades of gray. White people know who we are. There are outliers, but they are just that, outliers. It may be unfortunate that they will not be included as Whites when by another measure they could be. That's unfortunate. That said, overall, Whites will be preserved, even if it's at the expense of some that should have been considered. That's the goal. We're not talking justice, we're talking survival.
I think you know what you're doing, but you're not smart enough to make it work here.
I wanted to get a list of what every one considered a white person is. So far, every one seems to be offended at the notion. It's slowly turning into an argument for how people blindly follow ideologies without actually knowing what they are talking about.
If you can not quantify it, how are you measuring it? It is very important, specially since many people on this site want death to non whites or they only care about whites. If a person is going to abandon a group of people suffering, because they are not white, I want to know where they draw the line. How they judge these characteristics and how far removed from their definition until they think less of a person.
And again, you say they will be preserved, but are unable to say who meets the criteria for preservation.
And yet again, that is unmitigated bullshit. What you're wanting to do is cast division amongst Whites through some pseudoscientific method based on some arbitrarily established metrics. Your base premise is flawed because you're trying to act as if something that is not inherently discreet can be measured in discreet increments or by systemically defined criteria; but I suspect you know that you are being intellectually dishonest. I figure you're either evil or stupid, and I'm leaning toward evil.
There are going to be abandoned groups. That's too bad. The goal is not to save all White people. It's to save the White race. We know who we are. I believe if I saw you in real life, I'd know who you are too. I'd put folded money on "not white."
If you cant tell me what a white person is, specifically, no one can cast any divisions. If there is no metric, it can not be measured. Some people have told me its based entirely on looks, some have said genetics and giving my the specific range, most are like yourself. Offended by the question.
You are calling me evil or stupid, but honestly, I see it the other way around here. You want to label people and exclude them based on these labels, but can not tell me what it means to be those labels.
And as it typical of people like this, you attack me knowing nothing about me. I am european, I am central to south east. I have more german blood than most people on this site. My wife is from the opposite side, UK to france to netherlands. My children are for all intents and purposes, the european poster children. But you don't care about that. You only care about the fact I am asking you to explain yourself and you can't or do not want to. Think about how this looks from an outsiders perspective.
You are calling me evil or stupid, but honestly, I see it the other way around here. You want to label people and exclude them based on these labels, but can not tell me what it means to be those labels.
I don't need to tell you. I know what White people look like. You do too. I know those on the margin and I know what White people aren't.
I think your question is a pointless divisive question. I don't think you have any real interest in the answer, you're trying to make a point that "White" people don't exist as a legitimate ethnic group. So now I know you're not stupid. It's people like you who have made the West the shithole that it has become.
The exclusion you speak of is an artifact of the fact that I want to protect my people from invasion. Some will be left out, but again, I'm not interested in justice, I'm interested in the continuance of my people. You can't seem to grasp that. If you're a jew, you're not white. I don't care how much German you have in you.
You've asked me how I would define what a white person is. It is someone who is not immediately identifiable as being of non-European heritage e.g. a non-black; non-indian;non-mexican; non-asian.
edit: a white person is someone who looks European.
Some think Italians are non-white but in darkest Africa they would be considered white before being considered Italian I would suggest.
In summary, if you look like traditional Europeans (including Russians) you are white.
So what is considered immediately identifiable. How far back in history do you go to determine the European border for this purpose? Why do you choose that time period? Why are you discarding all other time periods?
A traditional European is someone who does not have black or brown skin, has thin lips and is not asian. I think historically the "white" moniker was simply to distinguish non-blacks from blacks and brown skinned people. Some Italians and some other Europeans are not anglo-celtic white-looking in skin colour i.e.swarthy, but they aren't black or brown and so they are white imo.
Honestly, the closest thing to an actual answer I have received so far. Disappointing that you of all people are the only one able to get an answer.
So where do you draw the line then? When does a "white" person stop being white? Why does a person suddenly go from being white to not being white? Is there is a cut off switch? If you are judging based on skin colour, how do you consider tanned people?
[ - ] paul_neri 1 point 2.1 yearsMar 19, 2022 04:37:19 ago (+1/-0)
Being "white" is not just non-black/non-brown skin colour albeit it mostly is. It is looking European. Some asian women have very white skin.
"When does a "white" person stop being white?"
Never. A person who looks white (European) will always be considered white at a superficial level, at least, and strangers operate at a superficial level. At a deeper level, if a white person has been raised in a non-white (e.g. Indian) society and in a traditional way some people might not regard them as white.
"Why does a person suddenly go from being white to not being white?"
I'm not sure it could (1) happen or (2) happen suddenly.
"tanned people" are simply that...tanned and tan-brown tends to be different from brown-skinned brown and even if it isn't there are often other characteristics that disclose a person's ethnicity. Put simply, a dark dago will not look like a dark indian/african imo. They'll look European and imo Europeans are white, based not on blood lines touted by TLoL white supremacists but on something as simple and convenient as historical nomenclature used by our forefathers to distinguish themselves from the primitives viz "we look white you look black".
You are talking about SOME PEOPLE, I want your opinion. And yeah, some asian women on average have way whiter skin that europeans. I find the colour distinction a retarded americanism.
When I talk about when they STOP being white, I refer to the tipping point in how european they must look before they can not be considered white. Or how much non european looks must be included. Say, a child who is only 3/4 european compared to one that is half.
[ - ] paul_neri 1 point 2.1 yearsMar 19, 2022 06:17:50 ago (+1/-0)*
"...how european they must look before they can not be considered white. Or how much non european looks must be included. Say, a child who is only 3/4 european compared to one that is half.".
There is no scientific-type formula in such cases. The degree of "whiteness" in a person in these circumstances is a perception held by other people. If the general perception in a society/community is that a person is white, based on what they look like, whether that person is 3/4 or 1/2 European, then for all practical purposes they are white. Hence there is no tipping point. Whiteness/acceptance is a societal issue in the cases in question not a biological one.
So which is it? There are multiple positions in this article.
or are you highlighting the:
"Our study also shows how white nationalists combine multiple, contradictory repertoires of meaning in the collective construction of their biosociality."
Weren't you asking this same answered question on old voat? Didn't you say you're a pajeet living in the UK or AU or something?
No one thinks chinks or albino niggers are white. Neither are beaners even if they're half Spaniard. One drop is too much. You're still a faggot though.
If anyone is interested in the beginning of this conversation, I spent a little time elaborating on the practical considerations for defining who is white— which we should come to a consensus on, because it is what we must do to rebuild a prosperous stable white society. https://www.talk.lol/viewpost?postid=623461fed38cc&commentid=6235c433a7944
In answer to your other comment
The lines "used to" "difficult to measure" "evolve rapidly" are what I want to flesh out.
You want to know how far back one needs to go in their ancestry to know they are European. People have always been moving around and mixing with new groups. However the post Colombian colonization period is when a very large number of people began moving to different continents. So I think 1492 is a good rule of thumb and is what anthropologists tend to use when analyzing genetic subpopulations. They look at members of groups native to an area prior to that date. They don’t analyze native american genetics using Mestizos.
Again this is a rule of thumb. Jew and gypsies are about half European after one or two thousand years of admixture. But they would not fit the definition of white for reasons I stated elsewhere. They have evolved an economic strategy which predates upon whites. They have genetics for parasitic behavior which is not consistent with white societal rules or economic systems.
What I mean by “difficult to measure” is that the genes which govern distinctive white behavior (conservative agrarian economic strategies) and which would distinguish us from our close relatives, the middle-easterners, or jews, are not known (or its not known to me that they are known!). That is not to say they can’t be known. If I had a billion dollars and a team of psychologists and geneticists and neurobiologists, I could discover what these genes are and develop a PCR test for them. We are talking about genetic traits that promote behaviors that build high trust, high productivity societies in white countries.
However, it seems you are saying that genetics are a requirement to have a good society
Define “good” society. Mother nature defines it as a population surviving. The most bloodthirsty violent regime is good if it survives. Priorities like “women don’t get raped” or “no fucking kids” or “no rando killing people because he/she is a wizard/witch” are your subjective definition of good society and they are RARE.
almost any set of genes have had time periods where they have lived peacefully.
Absolutely wrong. A group of anthropologists call psychohistorians did a lot of good research on this subject though I disagree with some of their conclusions. Most primitive societies were horrifically barbaric. Many tropical indigenous groups who still exist or who existed until recently evolved to be very violent. They had a lot of babies and killed alot of babies and killed each other frequently as adults and oftern ate each other. These are not isolated cases. This behavior would have been ubitquitous among basically all people at some point. Some groups have evolved higher levels of compassion, cooperation, honesty within their tribes. Higher levels of parental care within their tribes. Particularly among males whose paternal contributions toward offspring are HIGHLY VARIABLE between racial groups. Some groups have evolved these traits in high frequency. Not others.
Briefly, northern eurasians evolved to become monogamous because a lack of plant food in winter made women highly dependent on men economically for meat. Males who demanded sexual fidelity in exchange for meat succeeded (patrilocal marriage). Soy simps went extinct. Polygynous males also went extinct because really how many mastadons can you kill?
Monogamy is the basic requirement for a “peaceful society” . PERIOD. It doesn’t matter if you talk about humans or gorillas or sheep or lizards or birds. Whenever males of a species can succeed reproductively through mating with multiple females they develop aggressive strategies and try to kill off competitors because the reproductive payoffs are so huge. Polygamy is a high violence, low parental investment strategy for males. It creates a constant scarcity of available uteruses as the most powerful males are always hoarding more than there fair share. This is not a strategy that maximizes paternal caring for children. That is not a strategy that promotes low violence and economic cooperativity between males.
Primitive tropical matrilineal societies have “loose” sexual rules and are generally charactarized as fun-loving, warm, laid back societies. They are also poor and violent and have low or no concepts of paternal responsibility. Men in these societies don’t work to support their mates— they fight and fuck. They have genes that promote that behavior.
In polygynous (islamic) societies males are economically responsilble for females and demand sexual fideltity in exchange. Typically the only way males can afford multiple wives and multiple sets of children is through theft and violence (i.e. warlording) or other types of economic exploitation (slavery, political corruption, fraud).
Genes for these traits are favored in all non monogamous societies. So is high libido which increases things like rape. Blacks have been highly matrilineally polygamous continuously for 200 ky. Europeans and Middle Easterners have been following 2 different paths for at least 2000 years: monogamy and polygyny.
Monogamy selects males for hi IQ and hi economic productivity and cooperativity. It also promotes the status of women since monogamist males compete for the highest value female not the highes quantity of females. This is why the west treats its women better. White males are basically bred to please women. Middle eastern muslims aren’t.
There’s no real value in simply having white skin or being from europe. These are traits that correlate highly with a set of desireable traits that make me, a white european, want to cooperate in a society full of people that have them.
The two major factors which make me want to participate in an economically cooperative group in which I share the risks and burdens of other members are:
1.) genes promoting a conservative life strategy: high compassion, high egalitarianism, high productivity, high honesty, high stability, high intelligence, long life, low violence and theft (only acheived in “strict”, “stoic”, “uptight” countries.)
2.) genes in common with mine. This has to do with the concept of the selfish gene, and kin selection. Why do people love an trust their family members (generally) more than unrelated people? Because we have evolved to help people with the most genes in common with us. This works at the societal level as well. This is evolution 101. If you don’t understand why this is, if you don’t understand that tribes and societies evolved to promote a specific set of genes than you don’t understand evolution. Evolution is not something that ended 10,000 years ago. It is what controls politics and economics and psychology.
You think you can break the rules of traditional societies because you don’t understand the forces of evolution and how they work upon our lives. The more genetic variation you introduce in to an economic cooperative (a society), the less reason people will have to trust each other in that group. The group will evolve over several generations to be lest trusting and more selfish. This is guaranteed!
Few liberals are willing to accept the implications that evolution has on our societies. Most people have fairy tale false notions of what societies actually are and what the purpose of morals and taboos of culture are and that they are genetically driven.
I would also like to make the point that, although dimensions like consanguinity, geography, and behavioral strategies are essentially continuous variables rather than discrete ones ( ie there is no clear demarcation of european people culturally, genetically, etc) that does not imply that you shouldn’t base your decisions on them. They are real differences although they vary on a continuum. To conclude that if Im not sure if a southern Italian is white I might as well fuck a nigger is preposterous, but somehow I think that is what you are trying to imply.
Anyway sorry for the wall of text. Feel free to challenge me, Im happy to elaborate.
No, thank you for the wall of text. Its a relief in the face of most of the responses. You gave me a specific date range for the genetic scope. No one else have even tried.
Im not really after countering. In the other thread I mentioned the choice of perfect genes in white people and highlighted that white people are killing themselves by choice, but I dont really want to focus on that. I'm going to treat this post as your answer, as it gives me what I was after. I have some other things I want to talk about though, about your position.
I want to defend the notion about the the tribals living peacefully, as I excluded this from my original comment. Most tribal life styles are not peaceful. If you go back far enough in history I doubt you could also say that the original ancestors of Europeans were not any different. (Im about to give one specific example, I am not laying this claim based on just this one thing) But I take the example of tribal fiji being being converted to christianty (within the last 150 years, so it is recent in their history). I went out and spoke to locals away from the city and asked them what they thought about the new way of life compared to the old and they absolutely said the new way was 100% better. Literally the guy told me that he wouldn't have been sitting there talking to me if they didn't change their ways. Do note, I didnt go to fiji for this purpose, I just happened to be there.
Multiple times you have said that genetics are the cause of ones actions. You have implied heavily that you can not do anything or prevent anything that goes against your genes. So does this mean that people can not be held accountable for their actions, as everything is in their genes? And again I want to visit the self destruction of the west at the hands of its own people. Is this also genetic?
I don’t think its a choice. I believe we have been infiltrated by social parasites and we are undergoing colony collapse. I realize this is a somewhat controversial statement in most places that are not voat, but I think all highly social animals are prone to social parasitism and emery’s rule predicts that social parasites will tend to be of the same species or a closely related species. Jews have evolved a specialized strategy to live off of other human groups through cultural manipulation. Gypsies and Irish Travellers have comparable strategies but are less successful. Perhaps many elite castes could be added to this category.
People run on two kinds of information: genetic and cultural. We could add environmental, like when you’re infected by a virus or something, but Id like to keep it simple. Genetics defines the hardware of our information system (our brain architecture) and culture defines the software. You could think of religion or comparable belief system (eg being a democrat or an American) as an operating system. Culture and genetics evolve together in a group of closely related people. The culture and the genetics evolve to help the group cooperate economically, as hunter gatherers or farmers. Theres a gene meme feedback loop.
But essentially we have no free will and our behavior is determined by our genetics and culture.
So does this mean that people can not be held accountable for their actions
Theoretically yes. But of course we cannot be held accountable for holding people accountable for what they are not accountable for. Lol. If we think of the justice system as an evolutionary mechanism to control inefficient behavior instead of an instrument for implementing some universal “fairness” for all people then we will have an easier time grappling with it. We simply can’t let people run around murdering people even if they were driven to it by their genes.
Blacks are a poor fit for our culture because they evolved to behave totally differently. Their “social problems” are all normal behaviors for them. They have always had absentee dads and brave single moms and they have never been highly economically productive.
Jews have reprogrammed white cultural information with the false belief that genetic relatedness shouldn’t form the basis of a society (false, as they have demonstrated with Israel and their race based religion) and that blacks, jews, etc should be the beneficiaries of white wealth and white intrasocietal altruism (to be redistributed thorough the jewish run bureacracies) and that any differences in behaviors of these outside groups are the imagination of whites or are caused by white racism. Cultural disinformation. Promulgated basically as a religion.
Anyway perhaps Im going off on a tangent. Suffice it to say I believe that jews are social parasites that have “reprogrammed” white culture to exploit whites and thats also what happened 2000 years ago.
In the other thread I mentioned the choice of perfect genes in white people and highlighted that white people are killing themselves by choice,
Theres no such thing as perfect genes or a perfect strategy for a society . Whites have evolved to work cooperatively in an environment of high trust and that has left us wide open. Nobody tries to sponge off of Libyan society or Congan society becuase they have low prosperity and low trust.
Afghanistan is arguably such a backward and inefficient group of people that great nations who try to colonize them just end up walking away. (Note that afghans are reasonably related to whites, but their recent history of polygyny has promoted high violence and corruption and low trust)
I believe that eugenics is the only way to go if you want to end what are typically refered to as social problems. Throwing gibs at minority groups like blacks, native americans, or even whites is like feeding racoons. It doesn’t solve the problem. It selects for opportunistic behaviors. It sounds heartless but it is just as bad as feeding wild animals. You don’t help people long term in this way.
I think I must disagree about the tribal societies living peacefully. I think that at one time europeans’ ancestors were more violent than they are now and that they were probably more violent within the last few thousand years, but they have been less violent for a long time relative to blacks and melanesians like fijians. Black americans (25% white) kill 6 times more often an have 6 times the number of abortions. Theft and violent crime are an order of magnitude higher in blacks than whites and I believe melanesians/austroloids are in the same ballpark. Europeans may have given up some violent behaviors around the time of christianization (human sacrifice for example) and Fijians may also have given up some violent practices (cannibalism, head hunting) recently. They may see the benefits of that change. But they are still highly violent. Port Moresby is like the murder capital of the world. I think the level of violence among whites and many other eurasians has been far lower than the violence in SS Africans and Australoids, and I believe that has been true for tens of thousands of years. Cold weather promotes monogamy and monogamy promotes peace. Relatively speaking.
I could go on about why I think white elites are generally collaborating with jews against their own people. But I don’t want to test your patience any more than I already have. I think that elite or upper classes tend to accumulate some genes for opportunistic behavior as well— so I do not believe that white elites are necessary the best of whites or the most honest or hardworking lol. They could be thought of as another kind of criminal. We have spent too much time going after street criminals in our nations and not enough time cleaning out the bad machiavellian genes in our leadership. Eugenics is more than trying to make people smarter.
I don’t think its a choice. I believe we have been infiltrated by social parasites and we are undergoing colony collapse.
So would you not say that the people infiltrating society have better genes? They are successful after all. Or would it be the genes of the society in question are just so poor that they can't see what they are doing, despite people telling them over and over otherwise. South Australia just had a state election here and after 2 years of government destruction and human rights violation, they elect the exact same set of governments back into power. Even a bee hive will oust their queen if she is not doing a good job and bring a new queen in. In this case I am playing devils advocate, I actually do not care about this, I just want to know how people go around saying white genes are superior, but at every corner they clearly are not. I see all people as failures by default.
Sorry. I was prepared to be fully engaged with you until the end until you said this; in regards to people not being accountable as their genes are the reason they do things:
Theoretically yes. But of course we cannot be held accountable for holding people accountable for what they are not accountable for.
[ - ] beece 1 point 2.1 yearsMar 19, 2022 09:53:03 ago (+1/-0)*
Some asshole tracked my fathers side of the family back to the 13th century. All English (Britan). That said, I'm "white" by everyone's measure of it. Yet how people act or behave is much more important to me than the color of their skin. No matter if jewish, black, mexican, irish, etc.
Much much more.
For whatever reason, that seems to be at odds with the dominant paradigm here on voat, but it could be most people do like me and just shrug our shoulders when people like big fat dangus and their ilk keep going off on how important whiteness is to them or calling all black people niggers.
So I'm not answering the question you asked simply because I don't give a shit about that whole "whiteness" and "white power" sort of bullshit that goes on here. But that's me. Carry on.
I do not care about what I am. I only care about the difference in opinion and contradiction I see all the time. But look at my downvotes, clearly no one wants to give an answer.,
If you go by DNA and family ancestry, how do you determine which DNA to use? How far back in history do you consider the family tree? As people around the world have moved around it for thousands of years, what is the tipping point in a families history where you go, well, that is not white enough. And why do you use this point.
It’s very simple. People who originated in Europe.
There are variances depending on your geographic location. Slavs (Eastern Europe) tend to have an asian admixture, Southern Italians have Arab admixture and the British have inbred to some extent. Northern Europeans have the fairest skin complexion.
How far back in history do you go in order to determine what these demographics mean? For example, you have mentions outside genetic invasion. Does this mean these people are not white?
Disappointed at how many people, when given the chance to explain the basis of their fervor, treat the question like an attack. It is unfortunately a very poor optic.
I appreciate that you have stated it is your own opinion. Many people are taking their answers as absolute natural truths that they not only do not have specifics for, but see it as an insult that they have to explain themselves.
I probably wont get an answer, as I can appreciate a person who keeps their word, but I am curious as to why you would use a modern time period to determine a genes that have significantly changed since they first came into existence, many thousands of years ago. Is this just personal choice or is there a reasoning for this?
Clearly unable to read and/or follow instruction in my post. But I will go along. If it's so stupid, give me an answer. Tell me, specifically by what definitions and specifics do you use.
[ + ] UncleDoug
[ - ] UncleDoug 9 points 2.1 yearsMar 19, 2022 02:08:19 ago (+9/-0)
You didn't understand it the first hundred times we made the claim, or are you purposefully misrepresenting what was said?
Northern Italians are white, Southern Italians are not. They are provably mixed with Niggers, Arabs and Jews. The orient is not the occident, Semites are not white.
If you swap out 20%, 30%, 50% of your genes with non-white ones you are no longer white.
You know full well this has always been the stance.
[ + ] AnmanIndustries
[ - ] AnmanIndustries [op] -2 points 2.1 yearsMar 19, 2022 02:17:29 ago (+1/-3)
Is the world PROBABLY an academic answer? Are you saying you are guessing? So, which group of jews are you referring to? There are a many different genetic castes of jews around the world.
What genes are you talking about when referring to those percentages? Which specific genes? How do you determine if someone has the right genes? Are you implying that pigs can be white people? As they share over 80% of their genes of humans.
[ + ] ruck_feddit
[ - ] ruck_feddit 10 points 2.1 yearsMar 19, 2022 02:25:41 ago (+11/-1)
[ + ] 3Whuurs
[ - ] 3Whuurs 7 points 2.1 yearsMar 19, 2022 02:48:48 ago (+7/-0)
Why don’t you just explain in excruciating detail exactly what your bar for evidence is?
Note I did NOT say to keep repeating your obtuse question, but just define proof.
[ + ] AnmanIndustries
[ - ] AnmanIndustries [op] 0 points 2.1 yearsMar 19, 2022 02:55:06 ago (+1/-1)
I am not putting in any of my perspective, because I do not want to taint peoples opinion in this space. But that hasn't stopped people from attacking me directly without answering my question.
[ + ] 3Whuurs
[ - ] 3Whuurs 2 points 2.1 yearsMar 19, 2022 09:01:11 ago (+2/-0)
Why don’t you prove that you’re not a nigger, and why.
[ + ] AnmanIndustries
[ - ] AnmanIndustries [op] 0 points 2.1 yearsMar 19, 2022 19:20:51 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] 3Whuurs
[ - ] 3Whuurs 0 points 2.1 yearsMar 20, 2022 03:04:15 ago (+0/-0)
So stop lying and moving your goal post around pretending you’re only trying to collate people’s answers when you’re consistently claiming they havnt answered you.
You understand that means you have a standard for evidence right?
Define your standard for evidence or stop pretending you care wether there’s an answer to the question or not.
[ + ] AnmanIndustries
[ - ] AnmanIndustries [op] 0 points 2.1 yearsMar 20, 2022 04:45:28 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] yesiknow
[ - ] yesiknow 4 points 2.1 yearsMar 19, 2022 02:59:45 ago (+4/-0)
If your black mom and chinese dad move to Argentina and birth you there, you're half black and half chinese and belong in israel.
[ + ] AnmanIndustries
[ - ] AnmanIndustries [op] -1 points 2.1 yearsMar 19, 2022 03:06:40 ago (+0/-1)
So then what does matter?
[ + ] yesiknow
[ - ] yesiknow 2 points 2.1 yearsMar 19, 2022 07:16:08 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] AnmanIndustries
[ - ] AnmanIndustries [op] -1 points 2.1 yearsMar 19, 2022 08:10:29 ago (+0/-1)
"Where did your genes come from? Europe. So you were born in Europe?"
Further, which genes? And how many of these genes must you have or not have before you can be considered white?
[ + ] yesiknow
[ - ] yesiknow 0 points 2.1 yearsMar 19, 2022 11:39:35 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] AnmanIndustries
[ - ] AnmanIndustries [op] -1 points 2.1 yearsMar 19, 2022 19:16:56 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] yesiknow
[ - ] yesiknow 0 points 2.1 yearsMar 20, 2022 02:32:57 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] AnmanIndustries
[ - ] AnmanIndustries [op] 0 points 2.1 yearsMar 20, 2022 04:46:30 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 2.1 yearsMar 19, 2022 22:35:28 ago (+0/-0)
You seem to ask this question in a few places. Im not sure what you mean.
I see that some have given answers to your questions and you try to poke holes in those answers. I think its valid but you are going to piss off people.
I think that when people think about who they think is white, their responses are largely based on instinct and not easily quantifiable and thats okay because i think we evolved those instincts to discern who our friends and foes are and they probably work reasonably well. We can detect consanguinity or lack thereof by sight, and by stereotyped behaviors as well that seem agree with or counter to our own “good sense”.
Ive thought about these racial phenomenons and how they can arise by genetics but thats because Im moderately obsessed with evolution. I wanted to know why these differences arose at the population level and also why you can find many good or “white acting” blacks and also many whites who act like savages.
I can’t say I understand how it all works precisely but I do feel I understand way more than I did after reading material about human genetic diversity and anthopology— specifically how we have diverged over the last 200,000 years (or arguably 1 million if you include our archaic relations like neanderthal)
Again, I don’t think this is discrete data like male and female. There’s a clear demarcation between males and females, genetically.
Race can be basically defined as a continuous variable of relatedness (its not really continuous at the molecular level but we can treat it as such because there are so many genes.) For instance single nucleotide polymorphisms in common is a totally mathematical measure of relatedness. It is subjective whether you choose to define 3 racial buckets with this measure or 30. But doing so — utilizing race— to categorize people is really useful and it can indeed predict behavior.
There are trade offs for including in your society a large number of people distantly related to you vs including in your society a small number of people closely related to you. Good and bad aspects of both.
I would strongly argue that we have included FAR too much diversity to promote a high level of economic collaboration and trust. Additionally we have recently added groups who tend toward opportunistic behaviors that are counter to our strategy and take advantage of us. Blacks for example exploit our charitable behavior and conservation of resources.
[ + ] Zyklonbeekeeper
[ - ] Zyklonbeekeeper 5 points 2.1 yearsMar 19, 2022 02:35:58 ago (+5/-0)
Have you traveled? Have you actually lived in the 3rd world for any length of time? SERIOUS QUESTIONS...spend time in the 3rd world and your answer will be directly proportionate to your intellectual capacity, technological advancement, aptitude and wisdom.
The White Caucasian lineages are genetically bound in the exclusive purity of the S.A.N.E. RACE (SLAVIC ANGLO NORDIC EURO). To simplify the racial/cultural differential question you need only to compare the architectural variances between Vienna Austria and Mogadishu, or Mumbai or Liberia Costa Rica.
JUST A POINT OF INTEREST....whenever giving instructions to the Blacks that were, let's say, under my authority in Jamaica or Barbados, mostly military and/or constabulary, I would cram into their heads that everything they do has to be done the way the White man does it, ie "DRIVE LIKE A WHITE MAN"....AND FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL COMMITTED.
This is where your answer lays.....FAGGOT.
[ + ] AnmanIndustries
[ - ] AnmanIndustries [op] -3 points 2.1 yearsMar 19, 2022 02:40:21 ago (+0/-3)
[ + ] Zyklonbeekeeper
[ - ] Zyklonbeekeeper 7 points 2.1 yearsMar 19, 2022 03:17:48 ago (+7/-0)
[ + ] AnmanIndustries
[ - ] AnmanIndustries [op] -3 points 2.1 yearsMar 19, 2022 03:26:13 ago (+1/-4)
Not answering however leaves this as a persistent problem, no one can tell me what it means to be white. Except paul neri's opinion.
[ + ] Reawakened
[ - ] Reawakened 4 points 2.1 yearsMar 19, 2022 04:03:53 ago (+5/-1)
[ + ] AnmanIndustries
[ - ] AnmanIndustries [op] 0 points 2.1 yearsMar 19, 2022 05:33:21 ago (+1/-1)
[ + ] Reawakened
[ - ] Reawakened 3 points 2.1 yearsMar 19, 2022 06:38:58 ago (+3/-0)
I think you know what you're doing, but you're not smart enough to make it work here.
[ + ] AnmanIndustries
[ - ] AnmanIndustries [op] 0 points 2.1 yearsMar 19, 2022 08:20:03 ago (+1/-1)
If you can not quantify it, how are you measuring it? It is very important, specially since many people on this site want death to non whites or they only care about whites. If a person is going to abandon a group of people suffering, because they are not white, I want to know where they draw the line. How they judge these characteristics and how far removed from their definition until they think less of a person.
And again, you say they will be preserved, but are unable to say who meets the criteria for preservation.
[ + ] Reawakened
[ - ] Reawakened 0 points 2.1 yearsMar 19, 2022 11:55:22 ago (+1/-1)
There are going to be abandoned groups. That's too bad. The goal is not to save all White people. It's to save the White race. We know who we are. I believe if I saw you in real life, I'd know who you are too. I'd put folded money on "not white."
[ + ] AnmanIndustries
[ - ] AnmanIndustries [op] 0 points 2.1 yearsMar 19, 2022 19:15:30 ago (+0/-0)
You are calling me evil or stupid, but honestly, I see it the other way around here. You want to label people and exclude them based on these labels, but can not tell me what it means to be those labels.
And as it typical of people like this, you attack me knowing nothing about me. I am european, I am central to south east. I have more german blood than most people on this site. My wife is from the opposite side, UK to france to netherlands. My children are for all intents and purposes, the european poster children. But you don't care about that. You only care about the fact I am asking you to explain yourself and you can't or do not want to. Think about how this looks from an outsiders perspective.
[ + ] Reawakened
[ - ] Reawakened 0 points 2.1 yearsMar 19, 2022 23:33:42 ago (+0/-0)
I don't need to tell you. I know what White people look like. You do too. I know those on the margin and I know what White people aren't.
I think your question is a pointless divisive question. I don't think you have any real interest in the answer, you're trying to make a point that "White" people don't exist as a legitimate ethnic group. So now I know you're not stupid. It's people like you who have made the West the shithole that it has become.
The exclusion you speak of is an artifact of the fact that I want to protect my people from invasion. Some will be left out, but again, I'm not interested in justice, I'm interested in the continuance of my people. You can't seem to grasp that. If you're a jew, you're not white. I don't care how much German you have in you.
[ + ] paul_neri
[ - ] paul_neri 3 points 2.1 yearsMar 19, 2022 02:06:19 ago (+3/-0)*
edit: a white person is someone who looks European.
Some think Italians are non-white but in darkest Africa they would be considered white before being considered Italian I would suggest.
In summary, if you look like traditional Europeans (including Russians) you are white.
Disclaimer: I try not to be racist.
[ + ] AnmanIndustries
[ - ] AnmanIndustries [op] -3 points 2.1 yearsMar 19, 2022 02:19:23 ago (+0/-3)
So what is considered immediately identifiable. How far back in history do you go to determine the European border for this purpose? Why do you choose that time period? Why are you discarding all other time periods?
[ + ] paul_neri
[ - ] paul_neri 0 points 2.1 yearsMar 19, 2022 02:31:23 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] AnmanIndustries
[ - ] AnmanIndustries [op] -2 points 2.1 yearsMar 19, 2022 02:33:31 ago (+0/-2)
[ + ] paul_neri
[ - ] paul_neri 3 points 2.1 yearsMar 19, 2022 03:05:36 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] AnmanIndustries
[ - ] AnmanIndustries [op] -1 points 2.1 yearsMar 19, 2022 03:09:04 ago (+1/-2)
So where do you draw the line then? When does a "white" person stop being white? Why does a person suddenly go from being white to not being white? Is there is a cut off switch? If you are judging based on skin colour, how do you consider tanned people?
[ + ] paul_neri
[ - ] paul_neri 1 point 2.1 yearsMar 19, 2022 04:37:19 ago (+1/-0)
"When does a "white" person stop being white?"
Never. A person who looks white (European) will always be considered white at a superficial level, at least, and strangers operate at a superficial level. At a deeper level, if a white person has been raised in a non-white (e.g. Indian) society and in a traditional way some people might not regard them as white.
"Why does a person suddenly go from being white to not being white?"
I'm not sure it could (1) happen or (2) happen suddenly.
"tanned people" are simply that...tanned and tan-brown tends to be different from brown-skinned brown and even if it isn't there are often other characteristics that disclose a person's ethnicity. Put simply, a dark dago will not look like a dark indian/african imo. They'll look European and imo Europeans are white, based not on blood lines touted by TLoL white supremacists but on something as simple and convenient as historical nomenclature used by our forefathers to distinguish themselves from the primitives viz "we look white you look black".
[ + ] AnmanIndustries
[ - ] AnmanIndustries [op] 0 points 2.1 yearsMar 19, 2022 05:41:14 ago (+0/-0)
When I talk about when they STOP being white, I refer to the tipping point in how european they must look before they can not be considered white. Or how much non european looks must be included. Say, a child who is only 3/4 european compared to one that is half.
[ + ] paul_neri
[ - ] paul_neri 1 point 2.1 yearsMar 19, 2022 06:17:50 ago (+1/-0)*
There is no scientific-type formula in such cases. The degree of "whiteness" in a person in these circumstances is a perception held by other people. If the general perception in a society/community is that a person is white, based on what they look like, whether that person is 3/4 or 1/2 European, then for all practical purposes they are white. Hence there is no tipping point. Whiteness/acceptance is a societal issue in the cases in question not a biological one.
[ + ] AnmanIndustries
[ - ] AnmanIndustries [op] 0 points 2.1 yearsMar 19, 2022 06:23:32 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] v0atmage
[ - ] v0atmage 3 points 2.1 yearsMar 19, 2022 01:43:25 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] AnmanIndustries
[ - ] AnmanIndustries [op] -1 points 2.1 yearsMar 19, 2022 01:47:45 ago (+1/-2)
or are you highlighting the:
"Our study also shows how white nationalists combine multiple, contradictory repertoires of meaning in the collective construction of their biosociality."
[ + ] ruck_feddit
[ - ] ruck_feddit 2 points 2.1 yearsMar 19, 2022 02:18:42 ago (+3/-1)
No one thinks chinks or albino niggers are white. Neither are beaners even if they're half Spaniard. One drop is too much. You're still a faggot though.
[ + ] yesiknow
[ - ] yesiknow 3 points 2.1 yearsMar 19, 2022 03:02:06 ago (+4/-1)
[ + ] Reawakened
[ - ] Reawakened 4 points 2.1 yearsMar 19, 2022 04:08:58 ago (+5/-1)
[ + ] Garrett
[ - ] Garrett 1 point 2.1 yearsMar 19, 2022 12:53:42 ago (+1/-0)
https://www.voat.xyz/viewpost?postid=6228b2e4dbb0f
[ + ] AnmanIndustries
[ - ] AnmanIndustries [op] 0 points 2.1 yearsMar 19, 2022 18:44:35 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Garrett
[ - ] Garrett 0 points 2.1 yearsMar 22, 2022 20:50:39 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 1 point 2.1 yearsMar 19, 2022 10:44:17 ago (+1/-0)*
In answer to your other comment
You want to know how far back one needs to go in their ancestry to know they are European. People have always been moving around and mixing with new groups. However the post Colombian colonization period is when a very large number of people began moving to different continents. So I think 1492 is a good rule of thumb and is what anthropologists tend to use when analyzing genetic subpopulations. They look at members of groups native to an area prior to that date. They don’t analyze native american genetics using Mestizos.
Again this is a rule of thumb. Jew and gypsies are about half European after one or two thousand years of admixture. But they would not fit the definition of white for reasons I stated elsewhere. They have evolved an economic strategy which predates upon whites. They have genetics for parasitic behavior which is not consistent with white societal rules or economic systems.
What I mean by “difficult to measure” is that the genes which govern distinctive white behavior (conservative agrarian economic strategies) and which would distinguish us from our close relatives, the middle-easterners, or jews, are not known (or its not known to me that they are known!). That is not to say they can’t be known. If I had a billion dollars and a team of psychologists and geneticists and neurobiologists, I could discover what these genes are and develop a PCR test for them. We are talking about genetic traits that promote behaviors that build high trust, high productivity societies in white countries.
Define “good” society. Mother nature defines it as a population surviving. The most bloodthirsty violent regime is good if it survives. Priorities like “women don’t get raped” or “no fucking kids” or “no rando killing people because he/she is a wizard/witch” are your subjective definition of good society and they are RARE.
Absolutely wrong. A group of anthropologists call psychohistorians did a lot of good research on this subject though I disagree with some of their conclusions. Most primitive societies were horrifically barbaric. Many tropical indigenous groups who still exist or who existed until recently evolved to be very violent. They had a lot of babies and killed alot of babies and killed each other frequently as adults and oftern ate each other. These are not isolated cases. This behavior would have been ubitquitous among basically all people at some point. Some groups have evolved higher levels of compassion, cooperation, honesty within their tribes. Higher levels of parental care within their tribes. Particularly among males whose paternal contributions toward offspring are HIGHLY VARIABLE between racial groups. Some groups have evolved these traits in high frequency. Not others.
Briefly, northern eurasians evolved to become monogamous because a lack of plant food in winter made women highly dependent on men economically for meat. Males who demanded sexual fidelity in exchange for meat succeeded (patrilocal marriage). Soy simps went extinct. Polygynous males also went extinct because really how many mastadons can you kill?
Monogamy is the basic requirement for a “peaceful society” . PERIOD. It doesn’t matter if you talk about humans or gorillas or sheep or lizards or birds. Whenever males of a species can succeed reproductively through mating with multiple females they develop aggressive strategies and try to kill off competitors because the reproductive payoffs are so huge. Polygamy is a high violence, low parental investment strategy for males. It creates a constant scarcity of available uteruses as the most powerful males are always hoarding more than there fair share. This is not a strategy that maximizes paternal caring for children. That is not a strategy that promotes low violence and economic cooperativity between males.
Primitive tropical matrilineal societies have “loose” sexual rules and are generally charactarized as fun-loving, warm, laid back societies. They are also poor and violent and have low or no concepts of paternal responsibility. Men in these societies don’t work to support their mates— they fight and fuck. They have genes that promote that behavior.
In polygynous (islamic) societies males are economically responsilble for females and demand sexual fideltity in exchange. Typically the only way males can afford multiple wives and multiple sets of children is through theft and violence (i.e. warlording) or other types of economic exploitation (slavery, political corruption, fraud).
Genes for these traits are favored in all non monogamous societies. So is high libido which increases things like rape. Blacks have been highly matrilineally polygamous continuously for 200 ky. Europeans and Middle Easterners have been following 2 different paths for at least 2000 years: monogamy and polygyny.
Monogamy selects males for hi IQ and hi economic productivity and cooperativity. It also promotes the status of women since monogamist males compete for the highest value female not the highes quantity of females. This is why the west treats its women better. White males are basically bred to please women. Middle eastern muslims aren’t.
There’s no real value in simply having white skin or being from europe. These are traits that correlate highly with a set of desireable traits that make me, a white european, want to cooperate in a society full of people that have them.
The two major factors which make me want to participate in an economically cooperative group in which I share the risks and burdens of other members are:
1.) genes promoting a conservative life strategy: high compassion, high egalitarianism, high productivity, high honesty, high stability, high intelligence, long life, low violence and theft (only acheived in “strict”, “stoic”, “uptight” countries.)
2.) genes in common with mine. This has to do with the concept of the selfish gene, and kin selection. Why do people love an trust their family members (generally) more than unrelated people? Because we have evolved to help people with the most genes in common with us. This works at the societal level as well. This is evolution 101. If you don’t understand why this is, if you don’t understand that tribes and societies evolved to promote a specific set of genes than you don’t understand evolution. Evolution is not something that ended 10,000 years ago. It is what controls politics and economics and psychology.
You think you can break the rules of traditional societies because you don’t understand the forces of evolution and how they work upon our lives. The more genetic variation you introduce in to an economic cooperative (a society), the less reason people will have to trust each other in that group. The group will evolve over several generations to be lest trusting and more selfish. This is guaranteed!
Few liberals are willing to accept the implications that evolution has on our societies. Most people have fairy tale false notions of what societies actually are and what the purpose of morals and taboos of culture are and that they are genetically driven.
I would also like to make the point that, although dimensions like consanguinity, geography, and behavioral strategies are essentially continuous variables rather than discrete ones ( ie there is no clear demarcation of european people culturally, genetically, etc) that does not imply that you shouldn’t base your decisions on them. They are real differences although they vary on a continuum. To conclude that if Im not sure if a southern Italian is white I might as well fuck a nigger is preposterous, but somehow I think that is what you are trying to imply.
Anyway sorry for the wall of text. Feel free to challenge me, Im happy to elaborate.
[ + ] AnmanIndustries
[ - ] AnmanIndustries [op] 0 points 2.1 yearsMar 19, 2022 19:08:17 ago (+0/-0)
Im not really after countering. In the other thread I mentioned the choice of perfect genes in white people and highlighted that white people are killing themselves by choice, but I dont really want to focus on that. I'm going to treat this post as your answer, as it gives me what I was after. I have some other things I want to talk about though, about your position.
I want to defend the notion about the the tribals living peacefully, as I excluded this from my original comment. Most tribal life styles are not peaceful. If you go back far enough in history I doubt you could also say that the original ancestors of Europeans were not any different. (Im about to give one specific example, I am not laying this claim based on just this one thing) But I take the example of tribal fiji being being converted to christianty (within the last 150 years, so it is recent in their history). I went out and spoke to locals away from the city and asked them what they thought about the new way of life compared to the old and they absolutely said the new way was 100% better. Literally the guy told me that he wouldn't have been sitting there talking to me if they didn't change their ways. Do note, I didnt go to fiji for this purpose, I just happened to be there.
Multiple times you have said that genetics are the cause of ones actions. You have implied heavily that you can not
do anything or prevent anything that goes against your genes. So does this mean that people can not be held accountable for their actions, as everything is in their genes? And again I want to visit the self destruction of the west at the hands of its own people. Is this also genetic?
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 2.1 yearsMar 20, 2022 00:10:02 ago (+0/-0)*
I don’t think its a choice. I believe we have been infiltrated by social parasites and we are undergoing colony collapse. I realize this is a somewhat controversial statement in most places that are not voat, but I think all highly social animals are prone to social parasitism and emery’s rule predicts that social parasites will tend to be of the same species or a closely related species. Jews have evolved a specialized strategy to live off of other human groups through cultural manipulation. Gypsies and Irish Travellers have comparable strategies but are less successful. Perhaps many elite castes could be added to this category.
People run on two kinds of information: genetic and cultural. We could add environmental, like when you’re infected by a virus or something, but Id like to keep it simple. Genetics defines the hardware of our information system (our brain architecture) and culture defines the software. You could think of religion or comparable belief system (eg being a democrat or an American) as an operating system. Culture and genetics evolve together in a group of closely related people. The culture and the genetics evolve to help the group cooperate economically, as hunter gatherers or farmers. Theres a gene meme feedback loop.
But essentially we have no free will and our behavior is determined by our genetics and culture.
Theoretically yes. But of course we cannot be held accountable for holding people accountable for what they are not accountable for. Lol. If we think of the justice system as an evolutionary mechanism to control inefficient behavior instead of an instrument for implementing some universal “fairness” for all people then we will have an easier time grappling with it. We simply can’t let people run around murdering people even if they were driven to it by their genes.
Blacks are a poor fit for our culture because they evolved to behave totally differently. Their “social problems” are all normal behaviors for them. They have always had absentee dads and brave single moms and they have never been highly economically productive.
Jews have reprogrammed white cultural information with the false belief that genetic relatedness shouldn’t form the basis of a society (false, as they have demonstrated with Israel and their race based religion) and that blacks, jews, etc should be the beneficiaries of white wealth and white intrasocietal altruism (to be redistributed thorough the jewish run bureacracies) and that any differences in behaviors of these outside groups are the imagination of whites or are caused by white racism. Cultural disinformation. Promulgated basically as a religion.
Anyway perhaps Im going off on a tangent. Suffice it to say I believe that jews are social parasites that have “reprogrammed” white culture to exploit whites and thats also what happened 2000 years ago.
Theres no such thing as perfect genes or a perfect strategy for a society . Whites have evolved to work cooperatively in an environment of high trust and that has left us wide open. Nobody tries to sponge off of Libyan society or Congan society becuase they have low prosperity and low trust.
Afghanistan is arguably such a backward and inefficient group of people that great nations who try to colonize them just end up walking away. (Note that afghans are reasonably related to whites, but their recent history of polygyny has promoted high violence and corruption and low trust)
I believe that eugenics is the only way to go if you want to end what are typically refered to as social problems. Throwing gibs at minority groups like blacks, native americans, or even whites is like feeding racoons. It doesn’t solve the problem. It selects for opportunistic behaviors. It sounds heartless but it is just as bad as feeding wild animals. You don’t help people long term in this way.
I think I must disagree about the tribal societies living peacefully. I think that at one time europeans’ ancestors were more violent than they are now and that they were probably more violent within the last few thousand years, but they have been less violent for a long time relative to blacks and melanesians like fijians. Black americans (25% white) kill 6 times more often an have 6 times the number of abortions. Theft and violent crime are an order of magnitude higher in blacks than whites and I believe melanesians/austroloids are in the same ballpark. Europeans may have given up some violent behaviors around the time of christianization (human sacrifice for example) and Fijians may also have given up some violent practices (cannibalism, head hunting) recently. They may see the benefits of that change. But they are still highly violent. Port Moresby is like the murder capital of the world. I think the level of violence among whites and many other eurasians has been far lower than the violence in SS Africans and Australoids, and I believe that has been true for tens of thousands of years. Cold weather promotes monogamy and monogamy promotes peace. Relatively speaking.
I could go on about why I think white elites are generally collaborating with jews against their own people. But I don’t want to test your patience any more than I already have. I think that elite or upper classes tend to accumulate some genes for opportunistic behavior as well— so I do not believe that white elites are necessary the best of whites or the most honest or hardworking lol. They could be thought of as another kind of criminal. We have spent too much time going after street criminals in our nations and not enough time cleaning out the bad machiavellian genes in our leadership. Eugenics is more than trying to make people smarter.
[ + ] AnmanIndustries
[ - ] AnmanIndustries [op] 0 points 2.1 yearsMar 20, 2022 04:55:45 ago (+0/-0)
So would you not say that the people infiltrating society have better genes? They are successful after all. Or would it be the genes of the society in question are just so poor that they can't see what they are doing, despite people telling them over and over otherwise. South Australia just had a state election here and after 2 years of government destruction and human rights violation, they elect the exact same set of governments back into power. Even a bee hive will oust their queen if she is not doing a good job and bring a new queen in. In this case I am playing devils advocate, I actually do not care about this, I just want to know how people go around saying white genes are superior, but at every corner they clearly are not. I see all people as failures by default.
Sorry. I was prepared to be fully engaged with you until the end until you said this; in regards to people not being accountable as their genes are the reason they do things:
[ + ] beece
[ - ] beece 1 point 2.1 yearsMar 19, 2022 09:53:03 ago (+1/-0)*
Much much more.
For whatever reason, that seems to be at odds with the dominant paradigm here on voat, but it could be most people do like me and just shrug our shoulders when people like big fat dangus and their ilk keep going off on how important whiteness is to them or calling all black people niggers.
So I'm not answering the question you asked simply because I don't give a shit about that whole "whiteness" and "white power" sort of bullshit that goes on here. But that's me. Carry on.
[ + ] AnmanIndustries
[ - ] AnmanIndustries [op] 0 points 2.1 yearsMar 19, 2022 18:55:33 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] NastyNancy
[ - ] NastyNancy 1 point 2.1 yearsMar 19, 2022 05:31:36 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] AnmanIndustries
[ - ] AnmanIndustries [op] 0 points 2.1 yearsMar 19, 2022 05:35:22 ago (+1/-1)
If you go by DNA and family ancestry, how do you determine which DNA to use? How far back in history do you consider the family tree? As people around the world have moved around it for thousands of years, what is the tipping point in a families history where you go, well, that is not white enough. And why do you use this point.
[ + ] NationalSocialism
[ - ] NationalSocialism 1 point 2.1 yearsMar 19, 2022 04:38:10 ago (+2/-1)
There are variances depending on your geographic location. Slavs (Eastern Europe) tend to have an asian admixture, Southern Italians have Arab admixture and the British have inbred to some extent. Northern Europeans have the fairest skin complexion.
[ + ] AnmanIndustries
[ - ] AnmanIndustries [op] 0 points 2.1 yearsMar 19, 2022 05:30:55 ago (+1/-1)
[ + ] NationalSocialism
[ - ] NationalSocialism 4 points 2.1 yearsMar 19, 2022 06:50:30 ago (+4/-0)
Several hundred to 1,000+ years ago.
They are still White IMO, but I can see the arguments from others claiming they aren’t “true White” lol.
I consider the German/Dutch to be the pinnacle of human beings. If you want to go further back the people with Frank (Salian/Ripuarian) ancestry.
This is my last response entertaining your pilpul.
[ + ] AnmanIndustries
[ - ] AnmanIndustries [op] 0 points 2.1 yearsMar 19, 2022 08:15:10 ago (+1/-1)
I appreciate that you have stated it is your own opinion. Many people are taking their answers as absolute natural truths that they not only do not have specifics for, but see it as an insult that they have to explain themselves.
I probably wont get an answer, as I can appreciate a person who keeps their word, but I am curious as to why you would use a modern time period to determine a genes that have significantly changed since they first came into existence, many thousands of years ago. Is this just personal choice or is there a reasoning for this?
[ + ] Nosferatjew
[ - ] Nosferatjew 1 point 2.1 yearsMar 19, 2022 04:27:46 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] AnmanIndustries
[ - ] AnmanIndustries [op] -1 points 2.1 yearsMar 19, 2022 05:31:51 ago (+1/-2)
[ + ] Lazybutler
[ - ] Lazybutler 0 points 2.1 yearsMar 19, 2022 21:08:38 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] headfire
[ - ] headfire -1 points 2.1 yearsMar 19, 2022 13:42:16 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] BlowjaySimpson
[ - ] BlowjaySimpson -1 points 2.1 yearsMar 19, 2022 07:48:59 ago (+1/-2)
And other talmudic, mongoloid tier ramblings of an abject fucking retard.