How well does Only_Humean know history?
Even if you convince one white person of having offspring with a person not of their own race, you are already participating in white genocide in the sense that you are taking away people who might have reproduced with their own race, and having them reproduce with another. Which, by the way, also results in the genocide of the other race too.
You may not like it, but the end result (extinction of one or multiple races) is the same, regardless of the means by which you achieve it, whether those means are more obviously violent such as simply killing all people of a race, or less obviously violent, such as putting in place the kind of system which results in higher birthrates of one race over another race and includes indoctrinating people from a young age to be delusional about racial matters as well as propaganda promoting race mixing, and violence - threatening with violence all white people who oppose this kind of system which would exterminate them in the long-term.
ALL systems must necessarily use violence to enforce their order, so to say that the reason you oppose some system X is that it is violent is just hypocritical and a completely invalid argument because whatever your system is, it also necessarily must enforce itself via violence, so evidently it is not violence which is what you have a problem with, here, but something else, some end, some goal which is being accomplished with violence.
EDIT: Relevant: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=192306&p=2651520#p2651520
Think of Modern Liberals who push miscegenation and Social-Justice-Warriors as a type of modern ‘Sacrifice’. Thus the Modern Liberal father will sacrifice his daughter(s) to the Liberal Agenda. The ultimate motivation underlying this, however, is “white guilt”. Thus, to protect what remains of “white privilege”, some sacrifices are due to appease the enemies of white people around the world. Thus, when it is time, the white liberals will appeal to their invaders with, “You see, I gave my daughters to the righteous cause! We gave our daughters to your (foreign) men, isn’t it enough?!” However, to an emboldened enemy, what is the expected reaction? Appeasement is a temporary fix. And so, the racial tragedy ensues, but it is no conclusion. Something else must be done.
Broken white families caring for foreigners and foreign blood, as-if it were its own, will have a blowback. If not now then in 50 years. And if not in 50 years then in 100. Because the underlying motivation, not based on any real, strong, true ‘love’ but rather a catharsis (for guilt), and in order to maintain class privilege???
Oh no, there will be a huge blow-back for certain.
When humans (mammals) are left to their own devices, the bonds they form with their own kind, is stronger than any motivation that comes from indoctrination and from an exterior source (a foreign entity attempting to invade your land).
I myself am half-black, so banning my views on race, is in of itself a very racist thing to do.
You can tell the difference between a black and a white child at a very early age. A black child will be spontanously baboonish and like a violent ape to his fellow children. Where as the white child requires a context to the violence, he must organize the violence as a “game”, or “declare” the violence, before he partakes. The white bully must bully with words as well as fists, where as even the black child who is not a bully, uses fist bullying and wrestling as just his go to, standard business.
White civilization more or less brainwashes the blacks to be more pacifist than is in their true nature. Deep down, you know I’m right, but you will hate me because the truth hurts. But you aren’t doing anyone any favors, you don’t really care about black kids in Africa shooting each other with ak47s, just want to hold on to your politically correct delusions because you are a hedonist who only cares about feeling good.
Every open dialogue proves that everyone is equal and calls for the banning of hate speech, racism, etcetera. You don’t want an open dialogue, you and others just want to be ‘free’ to act without consequence, to hate without reason, and have nothing come of it.
You are full of shit.
Both are stupid, but the end result is not nearly the same. A group of people who go on to raise a generation of mixed skin color children is significantly different than the slaughter of those people.
As a scientific term, “extinction” happens at the level of the species and means that all organisms of that species have come to an end. Within a species, the changing expression of physical traits, e.g. a particular skin color, does not represent the same kind of extinction.
Really? Scientists don’t talk about subspecies going extinct, and conservationsts don’t concern themselves with it? Not a trick question, I am unaware.
Sure, subspecies too. Is there a relevant subspecies in question whose members are not surviving to reproduce?
A system that holds liberty as a fundamental right need only use/threaten violence against those who impinge on other’s liberties within the system. If you want a system in which people are free to do as they choose, the system has to ensure that those choices apply evenly. This isn’t an amazing paradox or deep hypocrisy to anyone old enough to shave, any more than pointing out “ahh, but you’re intolerant of intolerance!”
You aren’t even black, I am half-black, I know how blacks are.
You are living proof that not everyone is equal, even in open debate.
Violence is throwing someone in jail. Jail is torture. As world leader I would send murderers to Africa so they can save kids like that Preacher guy in turd’s signature.
It is impossible to value liberty (non-restriction) in and of itself, because in order for any society to exist at all you MUST restrict using violence. What is usually meant by liberty is liberty of certain people to do certain things while restricting certain other things. Thus every society permits liberty, from hippies to fascists, just in varying degrees and with regards to different things. Furthermore, because liberty can also include “liberty to be degenerate”, liberty alone isn’t a good thing and restricting liberty can be a good thing. Why do you neglect to mention this part?
This is why the simple fact of mathematics is that anarchy is a pointless endevevour. With small tribes and disorganized parties they will all be up for grabs by a violent and hostile superorganism.
This is why aristocracy, aristocracy with me in power is the only solution. As leader of Earth the only rule I would have would be that there are no ridiculous rules. This would ensure freedom, true freedom, in society.
Ah, another “race is about skin color guy”. How unusual. Race is not only about skin color, it is about both physical traits (skin color and OTHERS) AND mental traits.
There is wide variation in these other traits among people with white skin color. So when you talk about whites as a race, it’s not clear you’re talking about anything more than skin color.
But I’ll take your lack of response on the original point to mean we’ve established that race-mixing and genocide do not simply have the same end result.
Well, human races are clearly subspecies. I’m not clear as to whether or not re-intergrating populations such that the distinction between subspecies disappears counts as ‘extinction of a subspecies’ or not though. If a coral reef collapses so two subspecies of fish can interbreed, and thus the distinctions between their populations vanishes, do people view that as an ecological crisis and an extinction event?
Being ‘intolerant of intolerance’ is only hypocritical insofar as leftists define every position they disagree with as ‘intolerance’, thus rendering ‘being intolerant of intolerance’ as effectively the same as “Only being tolerant of people who share my ideology”, which is what all those intolerant people do. If anybody disagrees with the left about immigration, taxation, education, religion, abortion, gender issues, sexual ethics, health, or economics, we are told that disagreement is rooted in some intolerance or another. How tolerant of the left, that they welcome with open arms anybody and everybody who 100% agrees with them about all these things!
We see the same thing in the current debate as to whether or not it’s acceptable to violently attack a Nazi. The debate takes on a rather different cast when you remember how many people on the left who have been calling all Republicans, Tories, conservatives, and religious people (other than Muslims) “Nazis” for decades.
Human races are not considered subspecies of homo sapiens sapiens. Moreover, extinction is a dying off, not speciation, not continued evolution.