all 45 comments

[–]cisheteroscumWhite Nationalist 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Many white Americans have small percentages of black or Amerindian DNA

This is largely false. Researchers find that European-Americans have genomes that are on average 98.6 percent European, 0.19 percent African, and 0.18 Native American.

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 10 insightful - 3 fun10 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

OP is a cuck. We don't care if it is bad optics. Just ban racemixing, because this is what we want. The women that do it anyway will get deported, jailed, killed or otherwise excommunicated from the white ethnostates.
Those women might not give a flying fuck what we think, but we also dont give a flying fuck what those racemixing traitors think.

You are also being extremely subversive. "Im not promoting race-mixing", yes you are. That is exactly what you are doing by calling opposition to racemixing "bad optics" and those doing it "Nordicist spergs".

There is a reason we call native americans "Amerimuds" (read: white americans), because they are not entirely white, as your own fucking post says. They are mixed.

Yes, mixed race are problematic, because they work as a gateway for horrible black genes into the white population. The more mixed, the more blurry the line between black and white becomes, which allow hurtful R-selected genes to be transmuted into the white genepool.

The only beta energy in this thread is the cuck post you created.

Also Danish national TV is starting to put out commercials that danes shouldn't breed with other danes. They must breed with someone more "exotic" to - drum rolls, get this ----- save the danish people. Yes thats right. If you want to make the danish people survive, you must race mix. Logic for 5yos

When your state media starts pumping such rhetoric, you know it is a big deal. They wouldn't do it if it wasn't a big deal.

To be fair, I don't give a flying fuck about whites. The only reason that I care is because whites have a common enemy that do care. The same holds true for racemixing. In principle, I don't give a fuck about it, but because our enemy does care, then I care.

[–][deleted]  (2 children)

[deleted]

    [–]DragonerneJesus is white 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    they broke the law and the punshment could be death.

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

    What about white men who miscegenate?

    [–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    When they breed with whites in the next generation, the offspring is 75%

    That won't happen with all the imported non whites breeding at large rates.

    It's really a quadruple threat

    1. Non whites are imported

    2. Non whites breed more than whites (and given white money and media praise to help them breed)

    3. Whites are told they shouldn't have children to save the planet from their genetics which are prone to racism, colonizing, genocide, and even worse pollution! (keep in mind the people telling you this will also say that non whites aren't genetically prone to anything; implying so would be evil and enough evidence to take your business or career. Non whites according to the system are 'blank slates' and if they do have temperaments it's towards being geniuses and gifted athletes). White women are told to delay child birth until they have a career. White couples are constantly told in jew run magazines and websites they need millions of dollars to raise children and it would just be better to live double income no kids. It's more fun goys!

    4. Whites are told that if they do have sex it should be hedonic sex with someone of the same gender or with someone of a different race.

    All 4 of these are a problem. Although #4 would not be as much of a problem if the other three weren't being pushed.

    It's bad optics when white men in the DR bitch about white women sleeping with blacks

    If you look hard enough you'll notice that people that are doing this are not really alt right or dissidents. Most genuine alt right folk are very aware of optics. I'm not a fan of Richard Spencer but if you were around when he came on the scene doing interviews he was not like the 80's and 90's white nationalists. He was more put together and expressed our views in a more optical way.* I did not hear Spencer rant on and on about black and white race mixing. In fact the only time you really hear that stuff is in leftist propaganda portrayals of the white nationalist movement.

    I appreciate your post and you seem genuine. I think you are on the right track. Dissidents should not come off as clunky, cruel, etc. The hate bus idea that GLR used in the 60's will not work with today's indoctrinated white normies.

    *I still think that Spencer was chosen by the press as a way to show how 'evil rednecks and nazis have just put on suit'. Spencer has not been a good spokesmen or leader for the alt right IMO. He seems to have bad instincts for leadership.

    edit. I'm going to tack on one more thing to my own comment. Even a small group of non whites living in a white country can be a problem if Jews (or another anti white group) run all your institutions.

    For that reason, mixed-race people are not a genetic threat in white-majority and white supermajority countries. Mulattoes, Hapas, etc have 50% European DNA

    Minorities can be used as a weapon against the white majority. Can we have a 10-15% non white population in a white ethnostate? Sure but the reigns of power and all institutions would need to be firmly controlled by good faith whites so that the minority is not used as a weapon against the majority.

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

    There are definitely a lot of authentic dudes in the DR/AR/WN who have a pathological hatred of coal burners. I've been in these circles for years. Hang out long enough on WN twitter, Stormfront, Gab, or hell even just here and you'll see it. I doubt the people behind Coal Fax are being ironic either.

    It reeks of insecurity and sexual jealousy. That is the vibe it gives to 'normies' and it drives away women from the movement to accuse them all of being coal-burning sluts. IMO it's completely unnecessary. Not just because of what i said in the OP but because the vast majority of white women don't go for blacks or other non-white men. Most of the women I see with mixed offspring are not exactly Aryan beauty queens. They're women that, if we're honest, get passed on by quality white men.... most white men don't want to date women who are fat, single mothers, etc. Whereas there are black and other non-white men who see any white woman as a prize, at least to fuck for a while. It's actually a major source of bitterness among non-white women that many of their men would rather get with a 250 lb white woman than a black woman. Hang out on some feminist subreddits for a while

    I agree with the rest of what you said.

    Yeah... public figures don't talk about it or have a more nuanced view. Mark Collett said he would accept people with degenerate histories into the movement as long as they learned the error of their ways, including white chicks who once dated blacks. Many would not, though.

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

    There are definitely a lot of authentic dudes in the DR/AR/WN who have a pathological hatred of coal burners.

    With all due respect I don't see it. You have to realize that our movement is highly infiltrated by Israeli and US intelligence disinformation. Many posts that rant about coal burners are not genuine. Most people in the alt right that hate coal burners hate them because they are degenerate and hedonic and not because they race mix. White women are the least likely racial group to race mix. Burning coal is a forced meme. This endless lionization of blacks by jew media is having an impact on some women but again it's marginal.

    I've always said that the first redpill is gender not race. You can't be a committed white nationalists while still being blue pilled on women. Getting hung up because some cute white teen girl posts a picture of herself in a swimming pool with 5 blacks guys is blue pilled. It's weak. It's a misunderstanding of female nature. She's not in the pool because she likes black men. She's in the pool because social media gives her points for being there. There's no reason to hate women for who they are.

    All women, including white women, are going to be promiscuous if they aren't controlled by powerful moral institutions. Women are getting more loose because Jews break apart the fabric of any healthy community that gives them shelter. That's what white nationalists hate. They hate the betrayal. They hate the subversion. They hate people without honor. The occasional race mixing is a symptom of a Jewish disease. Even some of the most verbose anti coal burners like Azmador express more nuanced views about the topic on closer inspection.

    It reeks of insecurity and sexual jealousy.

    That's why Jews push such perceptions. They know whites are high trust and honor bound so they do their best to shape dissidents into 'incels' and women haters and many whites lap it up.

    That is the vibe it gives to 'normies' and it drives away women from the movement to accuse them all of being coal-burning sluts.

    This is a serious misunderstanding. The dissident right doesn't want women in the movement. That would be suicide. We want fit, intelligent, goal oriented men that would die before being dishonored. We want men that are willing to sacrifice themselves for something bigger. When a revolution gains enough able bodied men willing to resist tyranny then women become a trivial matter.

    because the vast majority of white women don't go for blacks or other non-white men

    I think we are in agreement on this.

    Most of the women I see with mixed offspring are not exactly Aryan beauty queens

    Again, nobody is disagreeing with you here.

    Many would not, though.

    I think you are falling for a lot of outside manufactured perceptions of white nationalists. Obviously we oppose race mixing but we don't walk around in a constant state of bitter jealous rage about it.

    [–]LetssavethefirsworldReturn to Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    The double income no kids saying is a huge gayop. The income is not double. It's just living together as roommates

    There's no "doubling" or magical investment that unlocks when you chose not to have kids. It's literally just being roommates

    [–]Nombre27 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (35 children)

    It does seem plausible that it could be disruptive to your genetic inheritance. There's ample studies showing elevated risks of various conditions in mixed people. Regardless of your race, it's rational that your genetic mechanisms for development evolved in a unique and compatible way. I'm not sure that can be said about mixing and I suspect that's why we see an increased prevalence of various conditions.

    Just speculation, but I wonder about the long-term consequences and if mixing might revert evolutionary gains back to version 1 (African) when one of the parties is African. I think this should be of great scientific interest, whether it's matrilineal or patrilineal or both. Kind of like incompatibility issues with different computer software.

    I think you're likely right about the issue of low prevalence, at least I hope you are.

    [–]SoylentCapitalist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (34 children)

    Just speculation, but I wonder about the long-term consequences and if mixing

    I just debated this recently. The long-term consequences are actually good, think about how early whites mixed with Neanderthals. From them, over time, we selected for the genes that were good, such as for the immune system and discarded ones that weren't. Of course, whites only have 2% Neanderthal DNA on average so the population needs to remain vast majority white to see a net positive benefit in the future.

    when one of the parties is African

    African's do have some particular genes that could be selected for. A minor example is bone strength:

    Osteoporosis has been defined as a systemic skeletal disorder characterized by compromised bone strength predisposing to an increased risk of fracture. The clinical consequences of fracture include short- and long-term morbidity as well as increased mortality. Several authors have examined data from the Health Care Financing Administration and noted that fracture risk, particularly risk of hip fracture, is higher in whites than blacks in both sexes

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1863580/

    [–]WatchOutThere 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

    "Oy vey Goyim, race mixing is actually good for you." You're the same guy that supports fags and multiculturalism. You are the last person the DR should be taking optics advice from.

    http://imgur.com/a/ndqRU39

    [–]SoylentCapitalist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (18 children)

    Funny way of saying "I can't refute a single thing you said."

    I know you're responding in bad faith but I'm gonna address these anyway:

    supports fags

    I've never supported them. You're confusing me with someone else.

    and multiculturalism

    Only to the extent in the US where we've already become multicultural. Even then, I still advocate the white population increase and criminals as well as low IQ minorities be sent elsewhere. I've stated many times Europe should remain white only.

    [–]EuropeanAwakening14 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

    You don't get to choose the genes you get when you race mix. You have no way of knowing that a future mixed population would be better than the 2 current populations. There's nothing Europeans need that we would get from having 90 IQ mulatto children. Race mixed populations just become another burden for the majority.

    [–]SoylentCapitalist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

    You don't get to choose the genes you get when you race mix.

    You're not understanding evolution chooses the best genes from them while having a bigger gene pool to choose from. We're also talking about it from a large scale perspective. The Neanderthal example should've already made you realize this. It's why the discussion is on the long-term effect.

    There's nothing Europeans need that we would get from having 90 IQ mulatto children.

    The mean between black and white IQ is 92.5 which is what mulatto's would be expected to have. The Eyferth study showed male mulatto's have 97 IQ on average. The hereditarian Arthur Jensen stated heterosis may have contributed to that.

    The best criticism is that the individuals in the study were young and since IQ has lower heritability at that age it altered the children's scores, however the white boys still had an average IQ of 101 in this study. It is still plausible heterosis, which is demonstrated in nature in other species, made the dysgenic difference less than what was to be expected in the short-term.

    Jensen suggests that heterosis may have enhanced the IQ level of the mixed race children in the study.

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

    In addition, the source I gave earlier already described one example of something that can be contributed to future populations from Africans.

    [–]WatchOutThere 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    That would've been true then, but it isn't anymore. In our modern society, the most dysgenic of us are capable of having many children because they are coddled and protected. Survival of the fittest doesn't apply anymore. Bad genes stay in the gene pool.

    http://imgur.com/a/ndqRU39

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

    That's fair. The best solution to make it still true would be to stop giving them government aid and launch eugenics programs.

    [–]FoxySDTWhite Nationalist 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

    The mean between black and white IQ is 92.5 which is what mulatto's would be expected to have. The Eyferth study showed male mulatto's have 97 IQ on average. The hereditarian Arthur Jensen stated heterosis may have contributed to that.

    We already went through this. The blacks in the Eyferth sample had above-average IQ so their mulatto offspring would not have IQ of 92.5 but around 95-96. Precisely as the study found.

    Group Eyferth IQ Hereditarian “Prediction”
    White Males 101 100.5
    White Females 93 100.5
    Mixed Males 97 95.6
    Mixed Females 96 95.6

    The Eyferth study supports hereditarianism more than it does environmentalism. And as for Jensen, as far as I know, he only suggested heterosis as one possible explanation. And given that he didn't mention it when discussing Eyferth study in his 2005 review of literature he did with Rushton, it's safe to conclude he does no longer believe that. Not even as a possibility.

    [–]SoylentCapitalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    The blacks in the Eyferth sample had above-average IQ

    You forget 80% of the Africans in the study were French Africans during WW2. As I've already mentioned in our last debate, military service is required in France and they were scraping the barrel to begin with. French Africans AFAIK aren't even 85 average IQ like African-Americans who are 20% white, which makes even a mulatto score of 95.6 more impressive as it's higher than the mean of white and black IQ. The mean would be expected with French Africans and whites to be 90, assuming the genotypic IQ of 80 for Africans.

    Besides the Eyferth study anyway, my main argument that the beneficial genes will be preserved while inferior ones discarded long-term from the bigger gene pool is supported by evolution and what we've seen regarding the Neanderthal example. The key is just maintaining a strong white majority to avoid short-term issues.

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

    You forget 80% of the Africans in the study were French Africans during WW2.

    It's the other way around. 20% French North Africans and 80% American blacks. This is stated by both by Jencks & Phillips (1998) (the one cited by wikipedia) and by Rushton and Jensen (2005). Some wiki editor must have mixed up the percentages.

    my main argument that the beneficial genes will be preserved while inferior ones discarded long-term from the bigger gene pool is supported by evolution

    I don't know what you mean by this. Beneficial for what? Evolution selects for genes beneficial for further reproduction. Right now, low IQ people have higher birth rates and so genes for lower intelligence are being selected for. But I doubt most people would consider those genes to be beneficial.

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

    Some wiki editor must have mixed up the percentages.

    I see.

    I don't know what you mean by this. Beneficial for what? Evolution selects for genes beneficial for further reproduction.

    When whites mixed with Neanderthals we only kept beneficial genes for the immune system over time while discarding others that were inferior. Blacks have some minor advantages such as the bone strength example I cited earlier that can be carried on while others, like lower intelligence, will be discarded on a large scale over time.

    Osteoporosis has been defined as a systemic skeletal disorder characterized by compromised bone strength predisposing to an increased risk of fracture. The clinical consequences of fracture include short- and long-term morbidity as well as increased mortality. Several authors have examined data from the Health Care Financing Administration and noted that fracture risk, particularly risk of hip fracture, is higher in whites than blacks in both sexes

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1863580/

    The small amount of mulattos and hapas breeding with other whites will over time select for the best contributions. Which is why it isn't dysgenic in the long-term, especially if we remove low IQ blacks in the US.

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

    White women having an IQ of 93 (and a lower IQ than mixed-race people) sounds like pure bullshit to me. What German women were in that sample? Prostitutes and clinical retards?

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

    Those are IQs of children. But yes, 93 is unrealistically low by all means. It's probably result of sampling error. Eyferth only studied 5% of these children after all so this is expected.

    [–]Nombre27 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    You're not understanding evolution chooses the best genes from them while having a bigger gene pool to choose from.

    Counterpoint is that the modern welfare state, which in many areas seems to benefit a large proportion of minorities, has negated evolutionary pressures (i.e. successful procreation).

    It's why the discussion is on the long-term effect.

    I get your point about the long-term but as the eastern front in WW2 demonstrated, superior forces can run out of bullets before some people run out of men. Granted weapon developments since then may counter that but I think what amounts to an r vs. K-selection argument still stands. In other words, those potential long-term evolutionary gains can only manifest in those that have them and they also have to be alive.

    [–]AidsVictim69 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    You're not understanding evolution chooses the best genes from them while having a bigger gene pool to choose from. We're also talking about it from a large scale perspective. The Neanderthal example should've already made you realize this. It's why the discussion is on the long-term effect.

    On that sort of scale any discussion we're having is irrelevant. The most likely future for the West is a dumber, uglier, less socially cohesive society on any time frame we care about.

    [–]WatchOutThere 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    http://imgur.com/a/ndqRU39

    I put this together on /pol/. Science isn't on your side, mate.

    Hurr durr better bones!!11! That study was published and commissioned by Jews just so you know.

    [–]Nombre27 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

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

    How do you think this refutes anything I said related to how beneficial genes are selected and inferior ones discarded over time, just like what happen when whites mixed with Neanderthals?

    No one is arguing a mulatto on average will be inferior to a white. The argument is that when a mulatto mixes with another white and so on, on a large scale, over time the beneficial genes will make their way through while inferior ones are discarded.

    For the US example, the best way to do this would be to remove lower IQ minorities that are already here so only the best genes are being contributed to the white race. And as I stated in my original comment:

    Of course, whites only have 2% Neanderthal DNA on average so the population needs to remain vast majority white to see a net positive benefit in the future.

    [–]Nombre27 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    How do you think this refutes anything I said related to how beneficial genes are selected and inferior ones discarded over time, just like what happen when whites mixed with Neanderthals?

    You're assuming that the same selection pressures are present, so it's not that it isn't possible but your reasoning seems to be flawed.

    Interesting book on Neanderthals and Humans, and I should say that it is highly speculative, is Them and US by Danny Vendramini

    https://themandus.org/

    Basic premise is that Neanderthal predation was an extremely strong selection pressure for humans that selected for increased intelligence, aggression, etc., and was responsible for a genetic bottleneck.

    [–]DragonerneJesus is white 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

    Lol, neanderthals? Neanderthals had bigger brains than we do.

    Africans have smaller brains than we had 800k years ago. Breed with them at your own discretion. You only revert your lineage by 400k years. Your call of course.

    [–]Nombre27 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

    Africans have smaller brains than we had 800k years ago. Breed with them at your own discretion. You only revert your lineage by 400k years. Your call of course.

    I've wondered for awhile now if the default selection during mixing is to revert to the more primitive "blueprint." Kind of like trying to put on mods for an older version of a car that doesn't have a place for them.

    [–]SoylentCapitalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    I've wondered for awhile now if the default selection during mixing is to revert to the more primitive "blueprint."

    If that were true things like intelligence would revert back to the African IQ. Instead the average is around the mean between both races average IQ. For instance, Africans will have an average IQ around 70-80 but African-Americans who are 20% white on average have an average IQ of 85.

    [–]Nombre27 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    But that's exactly what you just described, just not absolutely. For whites with an average IQ of 100 it goes down. If those Black Americans mated with those Africans it would likely go down even further, wouldn't it?

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

    For whites with an average IQ of 100 it goes down.

    A mixed individual simply takes genes from both parents. It's not like genes for intelligence from the white parent just don't "fit" or anything. Since it's random what genes are chosen a mixed individual could probably, for instance, still lean more towards the white side in terms of intelligence but have darker skin from their black parent.

    [–]Nombre27 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    You're starting from a point where one part of that equation is already mixed and would theoretically be more compatible. I suppose what I'm hypothesizing about would be with a "pure" European mixing with a "pure" African, or any other combination of unmixed. Do you know of any studies that did an analysis like that?

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

    Neanderthals had inferior social skills which is partially why humans out-competed them to extinction. They couldn't form as complex, or large groups. Bigger brain size doesn't always mean better. Modern day sub-Saharan Africans can and have formed larger groups than Neanderthals ever could have despite only having a genotypic IQ of 80 on average.

    https://forbetterscience.com/2018/07/02/the-anti-social-mini-brains-of-neanderthals/

    https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/4/140421-neanderthal-dna-genes-human-ancestry-science/

    [–]Nombre27 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

    Are you sure that isn't due to socioeconomic factors?

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

    Are you sure that isn't due to socioeconomic factors?

    Bone strength? This is what the study says:

    Genetic, nutritional, lifestyle and hormonal factors may contribute to these ethnic/racial differences in bone strength.

    Nutritional and lifestyle factors probably are contributing a part of it. I would think more wealth would mean better nutrition which would increase bone strength though. In any case genes are playing a role, it's just not clear how much of it.

    [–]Nombre27 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

    Sounds like it might be due to poverty, I don't know about this genetic stuff.

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

    Black Africans have been genetically isolated from the rest of humanity for about 70,000 years. That is the time when the rest of humanity shared a last common ancestor with them.

    Since they have stayed in the same ancestral environment that humanity evolved in, Black Africans have not undergrone the 70,000 years of evolution that the rest of humanity has. They are living throwbacks to a more primitive era of our species.

    [–][deleted]  (1 child)

    [deleted]

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

      The humans who migrated out of Africa 80,000 years ago belonged to Haplogroup L3). These groups have been genetically separated from the black Africans for 80,000 years. This includes Europeans, Asians, Arabs, etc.

      There are blacks with higher than 160 IQ which is genius level even among whites.

      A statistical artifact, nothing more. If you search though a large enough group of people, you are bound to find a genius or two, even if the average IQ of the population is abysmal.

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

      It's not a political issue too, has literally nothing to do with gaining power. It's just a way for unserious clownboys to bitch and whine about shit like wamen, if it wasn't that it would be something else.

      [–]AidsVictim69 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      I contend that the demographic threat facing Western countries is nearly all down to mass immigration and non-whites breeding among themselves, they have a higher TFR than Whites in most cases. Mixed race people are a small minority in all Western countries. The vast majority of people (regardless of race) date, marry and breed with people of the same race.

      Racial mixing is basically bifurcated between older generations and younger, splitting somewhere among millenials. It's a fairly large minority among whites that does "date" out among sub 40's.

      Most women (and to a lesser extent men) that date out will have political views that are strongly correlated with general anti white sentiment. It's not just that these women date black/brown men, they almost always support immigration, "social justice", anti white media etc. I think a lot of white men are still in denial that a large portion of the current generation of white women has been raised to self hate, have outgroup preference, and generally hate white their own people. This outgroup preference shit is just a manifestation of it.

      For that reason, mixed-race people are not a genetic threat in white-majority and white supermajority countries. Mulattoes, Hapas, etc have 50% European DNA. When they breed with whites in the next generation, the offspring is 75% white and can usually pass as white for social purposes. After a few more generations, the alien genes are all but bred out anyway.

      In a healthy fertile population maybe. In a shrinking infertile combined with mass immigration not really, the US is going to become significantly less white over time and miscegenation is a significant part of that. And most mixed race people tend to be hostile to the idea of whiteness - hapas often hate their white fathers, mixed blacks almost always identify with black culture and political interests. Latinos to an extent are more open to integration with whites for their own cultural historical reasons.

      Many white Americans have small percentages of black or Amerindian DNA, like Nick Fuentes and James Allsup. No one but Nordicist spergs or subversives would unironically suggest they're not really white.

      This is propaganda.

      I hate to use this phrase but I don't know how else to put it. It's bad optics when white men in the DR bitch about white women sleeping with blacks, like that Coal Fax website. It comes across as jealous, bitter and it's beta male energy. Those women don't give a flying fuck what you think.

      These women will vote against your interests, they will shit on you and your family for social clout, they are fucking guys that would probably spit in their parents face or even theirs if the guys weren't getting pussy out of the deal. Whether these women care what I think or not is irrelevant, they are assuredly already deeply indoctrinated into the disease of modernity. I'm not particularly concerned with some "red pill" idea about frame over criticizing women who would probably drone strike me if they could.

      Most Americans have been propagandized into believing racial preference is no more significant than choosing the colour of their phone case. In fact this sort of outgroup preference common among white women (and it is fairly common in many areas) is deeply intertwined with the general self hate and anti white politics so common among younger white women.

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

      What are the figures for Millennials and Gen Z?

      I don't disagree with most of what you said, but I think race mixing is low on the list of issues we face. The women with shitlib beliefs are a problem, but many of these women are married to white men (also shitlibs) and have white children.

      There are definitely mixed-race people like you describe, and it's a problem. I do wonder it's cultural as it's something that's become prominent in the last 15 years with the rise of overt anti-white politics and wokeness. I grew up around mixed people in the 1990s and I don't remember any of them having a chip on their shoulder about whites or "racism".. actually the mulattos tended to resent their absent black fathers. The only one who grew up to be a piece of shit (drug dealing/gangster) was the one who still had his father (also a piece of shit) in his life. He has BLM shit all over his social media. I don't know as much about Hapas as I've rarely encountered them.

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

      It's bad optics when white men in the DR bitch about white women sleeping with blacks, like that Coal Fax website.

      They don't bitch so much as laugh, and one of the reasons they laugh is because the statistics about bm/wf relationships in particular are absolutely insane. I'm not sure if you're aware of them but everything from single motherhood to tremendous abuse abounds, and isn't normally talked about because people are terrified of 'bad optics'. There comes a point where being concerned about optics is counterproductive, and this is one.

      Those women don't give a flying fuck what you think.

      Just incorrect. Women respond to social shaming and group judgment even more than men. Some people deserve to be mocked and ridiculed, and single women with black kids (and a black eye, normally) screaming about how men suck because none of them will marry her really needs some mockery. If it's just the alt-right doing it, that's not good enough, but frankly most people probably agree with what the alt-right is saying on this one.

      And I say that as someone who doesn't care so much about the ideal cases. Clarence Thomas marrying a White woman doesn't keep me up at night. I'm frankly more concerned Rosie O'Donnell has kids.