White Supremacy

This thread has been so insecure small-dicked white men can feel good about themselves

लिखा द्वारा Darth., 23.11.2016 at 05:37

This thread has been so insecure small-dicked white men can feel good about themselves

coming from an indian lol

Cancer

Simply put abundance of resources and sheer luck caused certain groups to gain genetic traits which are dominaint over there ancestors. Asians, Arabs, Europeans have all had glorious dynasties guided and built by the best of them, this is not to say every race can't have brilliantly built individuals though and that is why I'm a strong supporter of genetic cleansing through birth control only the best of us should have childeren it will save planet.

*Cancer intensifies*

लिखा द्वारा Helly, 26.11.2016 at 01:54

Simply put abundance of resources and sheer luck caused certain groups to gain genetic traits which are dominaint over there ancestors. Asians, Arabs, Europeans have all had glorious dynasties guided and built by the best of them, this is not to say every race can't have brilliantly built individuals though and that is why I'm a strong supporter of genetic cleansing through birth control only the best of us should have childeren it will save planet.

If that were the case, any of us would be allowed to have children, including you XD btw, for every "superior" individual, he needed thousands of other "inferiors" to follow him in some way

लिखा द्वारा Helly, 26.11.2016 at 01:54

Simply put abundance of resources and sheer luck caused certain groups to gain genetic traits which are dominaint over there ancestors. Asians, Arabs, Europeans have all had glorious dynasties guided and built by the best of them, this is not to say every race can't have brilliantly built individuals though and that is why I'm a strong supporter of genetic cleansing through birth control only the best of us should have childeren it will save planet.

You would'nt want to live in their glorious times or even families, surely not trust these glorious people enough to serve in their armies.

लिखा द्वारा RaulPB, 26.11.2016 at 05:48

लिखा द्वारा Helly, 26.11.2016 at 01:54

Simply put abundance of resources and sheer luck caused certain groups to gain genetic traits which are dominaint over there ancestors. Asians, Arabs, Europeans have all had glorious dynasties guided and built by the best of them, this is not to say every race can't have brilliantly built individuals though and that is why I'm a strong supporter of genetic cleansing through birth control only the best of us should have childeren it will save planet.

If that were the case, any of us would be allowed to have children, including you XD btw, for every "superior" individual, he needed thousands of other "inferiors" to follow him in some way

I'm fine with that, we are a parasite at this point on mother earth either we regulate ourselves now or we are probably doomed.

लिखा द्वारा Rock Lee, 26.11.2016 at 13:05

लिखा द्वारा Helly, 26.11.2016 at 01:54

Simply put abundance of resources and sheer luck caused certain groups to gain genetic traits which are dominaint over there ancestors. Asians, Arabs, Europeans have all had glorious dynasties guided and built by the best of them, this is not to say every race can't have brilliantly built individuals though and that is why I'm a strong supporter of genetic cleansing through birth control only the best of us should have childeren it will save planet.

You would'nt want to live in their glorious times or even families, surely not trust these glorious people enough to serve in their armies.

I support Putin I'd serve in his army ^^

लिखा द्वारा Helly, 26.11.2016 at 13:16

I support Putin I'd serve in his army ^^

That's right, but not the point.

You wold'nt serve in these people's armies not because of the terms, but because you know they would use you and let you die for their own selfish reasons and profit and not for everyone's sake.

These glorious people are incapable at any standart to the modern world, and will certainly fail and make damage to every institute that will give them any authority.

Genetics can affect many things, but keeping it in close circle did'nt prove itself, i am taking example of place that were issolated for hundred of years like sibir or the pasific islands, years of issolation affected their look, but do they have any advatge on the common folk? are they smarter? higher moral? better communicating? more commited? working harder? certainly not.

लिखा द्वारा Rock Lee, 26.11.2016 at 13:24

लिखा द्वारा Helly, 26.11.2016 at 13:16

I support Putin I'd serve in his army ^^

That's right, but not the point.

You wold'nt serve in these people's armies not because of the terms, but because you know they would use you and let you die for their own selfish reasons and profit and not for everyone's sake.

These glorious people are incapable at any standart to the modern world, and will certainly fail and make damage to every institute that will give them any authority.

Genetics can affect many things, but keeping it in close circle did'nt prove itself, i am taking example of place that were issolated for hundred of years like sibir or the pasific islands, years of issolation affected their look, but do they have any advatge on the common folk? are they smarter? higher moral? better communicating? more commited? working harder? certainly not.

The opposite actually, years without common struggle of warfare degenerated them, when famines and pleagued struck they where mostly spared, without the trials of being part of our ecosystem they never rose to the standards of there cousins. As for those with strong genetics in the past your right none are fit to lead today, but who's to say there blood is not what drives our world today? Ganges Khans Ancestor could be an industrial giant in China, Alexander the greats ancestor could be the one to bring greece back into the light, ISIS might be so successful for the fact of how many great Generals the Islamic world has fostered. Saladin, Omagalu (Turkish king spelt wrong) Timur, Attila the hun, Napoleons ancestors might one day unpussify the french people. Who knows.

लिखा द्वारा Helly, 26.11.2016 at 13:50

The opposite actually, years without common struggle of warfare degenerated them, when famines and pleagued struck they where mostly spared, without the trials of being part of our ecosystem they never rose to the standards of there cousins. As for those with strong genetic in the past your right none are fit to lead today, but who's to say there blood is not what drives our world today?

years of isolation might cause techlonogic and adminastrative disatvantage compared to experienced groups of people, but if we are taking your theory that genetics drives everything, years of peace and prosperity should award the common folk of those isolated placed the advantage at adopting or integrating into these systems, let's assume that common folk is now migrator in germany, he comes with diffrent values from less evoulated culture, but are'nt hundred or thousands of years in close genetic circle that induces your positive features suppuse to give him advantage? that's not what really happens right?

on the other hand, nations like france and germany lost their best sons in wars at every decade for more than a millinium and still are leading the world, how do you explain that?

who says it's not their blood that drives the world? well unless every dictator in history raped half of his nation it's not how it works

as i see things our values our culture and our behaviour make most of the effect

लिखा द्वारा Rock Lee, 26.11.2016 at 14:07

लिखा द्वारा Helly, 26.11.2016 at 13:50

The opposite actually, years without common struggle of warfare degenerated them, when famines and pleagued struck they where mostly spared, without the trials of being part of our ecosystem they never rose to the standards of there cousins. As for those with strong genetic in the past your right none are fit to lead today, but who's to say there blood is not what drives our world today?

years of isolation might cause techlonogic and adminastrative disatvantage compared to experienced groups of people, but if we are taking your theory that genetics drives everything, years of peace and prosperity should award the common folk of those isolated placed the advantage at adopting or integrating into these systems, let's assume that common folk is now migrator in germany, he comes with diffrent values from less evoulated culture, but are'nt hundred or thousands of years in close genetic circle that induces your positive features suppuse to give him advantage? that's not what really happens right?

on the other hand, nations like france and germany lost their best sons in wars at every decade for more than a millinium and still are leading the world, how do you explain that?

who says it's not their blood that drives the world? well unless every dictator raped half of his nation it's not how it works

as i see things our values our culture and our behaviour make most of the effect

Wrong, peace bring complacency and stagnation, war famine death, the need to survive forces your genetic makeup to change to better your chances of survival.

लिखा द्वारा Helly, 26.11.2016 at 14:12

Wrong, peace bring complacency and stagnation, war famine death, the need to survive forces your genetic makeup to change to better your chances of survival.

Sense of danger intensifies the need to reproduce, not more than that. i also learned that evolution is random, if you want to see my personal perspective: since i was borned my nation fought five times, i don't think that the people that are younger than me gonna be smarter than me (mostely cus of their role models and media devotion) or that i gonna get even close to be granpas or grandmas. i would like to see your rescourse anyway.

also, does'nt mass death of your best people in war take good genes out of the circle? ai'nt it hazardous when you fight a big war (and in medivial times scales they are really big) in average every decade for a millenium and high percentage of your young men die? does it matter if you changed a bit if you just lost evolutional advantage of hundred of years?

I won't be here tomorrow so i am sorry if you will have to wait for an answer

लिखा द्वारा Rock Lee, 26.11.2016 at 14:37

I won't be here tomorrow so i am sorry if you will have to wait for an answer

Genetics is random, but then someone gets better eye sight more muscle tone and he survives in war longer, whilst those without the triats dies quicker.

लिखा द्वारा Helly, 26.11.2016 at 14:54

लिखा द्वारा Rock Lee, 26.11.2016 at 14:37

I won't be here tomorrow so i am sorry if you will have to wait for an answer

Genetics is random, but then someone gets better eye sight more muscle tone and he survives in war longer, whilst those without the trials dies quicker.

sorry that i have to leave in middle or argument but i don't have time right now, i will answer asap when i find time.

लिखा द्वारा Helly, 26.11.2016 at 14:54

Genetics is random, but then someone gets better eye sight more muscle tone and he survives in war longer, whilst those without the triats dies quicker.

That's the point, natural selection barely excists anymore, in past times you had variety of attributed and only the capable survived or kept their numbers (tall people in cold place, sharp people in the hunting eras and etc), but in human economies and welfare systems everybody survives, all genes are preserved.

when it comes to agriculture you have aimed selection - you breed animals of high productivity only with other animals of high productivity or other attribute that you want to add, but it does'nt work that way with humans.

If you live in "competitive" nation that is in constant war it does'nt mean that it will make your children genes any better, ourdays evolution continutes only through mutations and exciting genes that we preserve or treasuring (as possibility to our children)

We have mapped the genome... it doesn't matter. If we get too 'x-men' we just restore our mutated DNA every few generations.
It's all been decided... decades ago... go back to sleep. ♥

लिखा द्वारा International, 23.11.2016 at 04:43

लिखा द्वारा Valetorious, 04.08.2016 at 17:53

-snip-

It's important to note that the K-selective ethnicities such as Europeans or East Asians didn't always have that low birth rate. They are a very dramatic result of industrialisation.

The decrease in child mortality caused by industrialisation, I think, is the key factor in this. Knowing that the risk of your children dying is very low discourages women from having many children, and of course women with fewer children will in general take better care of them. Then there is also the fact that parents in poorer societies need children to help them survive old age, while richer societies can not only afford to save but also generally have lovely things like pensions.

Having 6~8 children per woman and letting them go hungry makes good sense when your society has a 40% child mortality rate, but they make very little sense when your society has 0.4%. Perhaps genetics has something to do with it as well, but empirical observation suggests that quality of life is a far more important factor in human fertility than genetics is.

If South Korea can go from 6.1 children per woman to 1.3 children per woman in just 50 years (2 generations), then perhaps the same can be done for all the other ethnicities that still have high fertility rates. Note how dozens of developing countries are today in the process of making this transition from a high natality, high mortality society to a low natality, low mortality society. India's fertility rate is 2.5 and declining. Egypt, 2.8 and declining. Namibia, 3.1 and declining. Kenya, 4.6 and declining.

As wealth spreads, so does the low-fertility population model.

Ugh coming back to this thread again. A decrease in Child mortality leads to a proportional increase in a nations dependency ratio on the upper age spectrum as the population of elderly rises. Industrialization while being factor in decreasing population rates in More Developed Nations isn't the almighty cause of the decline, rather its effects have led to conditions that make bearing children not worth it. As we know, child mortality is low in MDN's, however such a thing should promote fertility, the issue has absolutely nothing to do with child mortality, rather the economic realities that a child entails in an MDN. Having a child in MDC's (More developed countries) is a burden outright, and is a massive investment and financial responsibility, such a reality enters the realm of economical effects on Human population factors that for this statement need not be addressed. I don't understand where the idea stems that women regardless of child mortality or number of offspring will care for them in any different manner, if you imply the resources to be able to actually care for the child, then so be it, in quality of care and attention however, all mother's strive for their offspring's betterment; do not insult mothers in such a manner again. In actuality the lower of risk of child mortality should equate to encouraged fertility, not create a hindrance. Now in nations that in earlier stages of the demographic transition model such as stage two being the case on most lesser developed nations, the population birth rate is far greater than the death rate, this is known because of the medicine and 2nd agricultural revolutions in these nations brought forth by more advanced nations. You are utterly wrong about nations "needing" children to help them survive to old age, as being that the life expectancy has been increasing in lesser developed nations due to technological advancements not to "survive" this fact alone refutes your logic; now relating how India prefers baby boys over girls due to the cultural need of men taking care of parents and the home is one gender aspect of population pyramids that has nothing to do with the "need" for children. Besides the reason there are population increases in said nations is caused by the fact that they live longer in the first place. Along with the cultural implications that even though the nation is advancing and no longer needs such large families to address the reality of the former high mortality rates, as those rates decrease, the cultural response doesn't, thus High birth rates persists, along with ill-usage of contraceptives and condoms to reduce pregnancy, be it to belief, religion (as is the case in India) or the fact that men want to retain the "pleasure" that having sex with without a condom entails all contribute to the fact that birth rates are so high in these lesser developed regions. The fact that "richer societies" can save (which is made null by the fact of debt, financial responsibilities and unstable economies in the sense of wage and burden of the common folk) has nothing to do with anything, it befits the society that people inhabit, and pensions are part of a social program called welfare to aid primarily the elderly and those in need (although this tends to be abused) and has nothing to do with birth rates. You seem to have this privilege idea in your mind, which is clouding the reality of this discussion, i suggest you terminate it, it is revolting and applies absolutely nothing to this.

Having 6-8 Children and not feeding or caring for them is abuse, has no logic and has no justifiable reason, the point of having offspring is to care for it and ensure its survival not spawn a bunch of them to see which one lives to a proper age. (of course in high child mortality areas this is the cultural response chosen, considering disease and lack of resources, of which spawning more "justifies" however merely exacerbates the issue) Obviously the environment affects the fertility, but also does the culture, other races like Blacks or Middle-eastern folk while being present in the same "quality of life" as that of Asians and Whites still bear large families not only due to cultural, but also due to hormonal differences that created their cultures in the first place, thus environment and biological/cultural implications do effect fertility, but it affects contrasting people differently. Such things are irrefutable.

Mind this now, do not manipulate or abuse history here. Now lets analyze South Korea, the nation went from a poor to a war torn nation in the period between 1950-1953, after the war, if you follow population pyramids, a baby boom had occurred (as is the case with wars in general) explaining the 6:1 birth rate, however in the period that south Korea and Japan (who also had a baby boom, explaining their population issues today) underwent massive industrialization and modernization because of the US. As their standards of living and economies rose, children became less and less desirable, and women working more in Asia and raising families less as is demonstrated by Asian culture (Especially Japan) lowered the birth rates drastically. Along with the same factors (excluding industrialization) and rapid female liberation movements in the west led to the birth rate decline in western nations. This can be done with other ethnicities, but my dear fellow, unless you have a way to destroy their cultural aspects and identity and balance their hormonal levels, I'm afraid it isn't going to happen anytime soon and you are no-one to force it (considering the fact that we no longer bear the responsibility to civilize anyone by imposing the western ideal of culture, of which the reason other cultures aren't our biggest fans in the first place). In order to maintain a population you need a rate of 2.1 children per couple, understand right now that western nations are far below this (notable exception of USA due to massive immigration and other immigration dependent nations, but if you view it demographically you can see that there is an obvious deficiency in those nations Natural birth rate of the natives.) Thus adding "declining" doesn't those national birth rates seem positive at all. 4,6 children per couple in Kenya are you serious, how is adding "declining" going to make that seem positive???? Those nations, Especially India are expected to have large population increases. Where is the logic in adding declining as if it negates the fact that their births rates are unreasonably excessive.

Wealth encourages population increase in a pure form due to better access to resources, however due to the financial burden capital economies contain, wealth by discouragement is what leads to population decline, thus saying because nations are rich and thus have less people is correct, the reason so is not. Wealth doesn't magically have people say to themselves "lets f*** less and have less kids with all the extra resources we have to support them", No it makes no sense, this "wealth" brings about burdens to having children, especially when most are working class just trying to get by. Thus flawed, ineffective and seemingly doesn't effect other cultural and ethnic groups from spawning more and more offspring.

लिखा द्वारा K_Himmelreich, 28.12.2016 at 00:34

Ugh coming back to this thread again. A decrease in Child mortality leads to a proportional increase in a nations dependency ratio on the upper age spectrum as the population of elderly rises. Industrialization while being factor in decreasing population rates in More Developed Nations isn't the almighty cause of the decline, rather its effects have led to conditions that make bearing children not worth it.

If A causes B and B causes C, then for all intents and purposes A is a potential cause of C. This is minor quibble.

लिखा द्वारा K_Himmelreich, 28.12.2016 at 00:34

As we know, child mortality is low in MDN's, however such a thing should promote fertility, the issue has absolutely nothing to do with child mortality, rather the economic realities that a child entails in an MDN. Having a child in MDC's (More developed countries) is a burden outright, and is a massive investment and financial responsibility, such a reality enters the realm of economical effects on Human population factors that for this statement need not be addressed.

I would challenge this assumption. A child is as large a burden in a less developed nation as it is in a more developed nation. Costs are lower, but so is purchasing power.

Please provide sources to support your assertion.

लिखा द्वारा K_Himmelreich, 28.12.2016 at 00:34

I don't understand where the idea stems that women regardless of child mortality or number of offspring will care for them in any different manner, if you imply the resources to be able to actually care for the child, then so be it, in quality of care and attention however, all mother's strive for their offspring's betterment; do not insult mothers in such a manner again.

This makes no sense. Fewer resources imply a lower quality of care, even if the mother invests as much effort into the welfare of the child.

लिखा द्वारा K_Himmelreich, 28.12.2016 at 00:34

In actuality the lower of risk of child mortality should equate to encouraged fertility, not create a hindrance.

That is incorrect. Accepted theory is that "the reduction of the mortality of children under five years of age is followed by the reduction of fertility with delay." (Raivio)

लिखा द्वारा K_Himmelreich, 28.12.2016 at 00:34

Now in nations that in earlier stages of the demographic transition model such as stage two being the case on most lesser developed nations, the population birth rate is far greater than the death rate, this is known because of the medicine and 2nd agricultural revolutions in these nations brought forth by more advanced nations.

How does this in any way refute my primary point?

लिखा द्वारा K_Himmelreich, 28.12.2016 at 00:34

You are utterly wrong about nations "needing" children to help them survive to old age, as being that the life expectancy has been increasing in lesser developed nations due to technological advancements not to "survive" this fact alone refutes your logic;

In what way does life expectancy increasing due to technological advancement mean that children are not necessary for longevity? Continued survival depends on multiple factors, of which technological advancement is just one.

"In developing countries children are needed as a labour force and to provide care for their parents in old age." (Nargund)

लिखा द्वारा K_Himmelreich, 28.12.2016 at 00:34

now relating how India prefers baby boys over girls due to the cultural need of men taking care of parents and the home is one gender aspect of population pyramids that has nothing to do with the "need" for children.

You have successfully introduced a point I didn't make and denounce it as irrelevant. Congratulations.

लिखा द्वारा K_Himmelreich, 28.12.2016 at 00:34

Besides the reason there are population increases in said nations is caused by the fact that they live longer in the first place. Along with the cultural implications that even though the nation is advancing and no longer needs such large families to address the reality of the former high mortality rates, as those rates decrease, the cultural response doesn't, thus High birth rates persists, along with ill-usage of contraceptives and condoms to reduce pregnancy, be it to belief, religion (as is the case in India) or the fact that men want to retain the "pleasure" that having sex with without a condom entails all contribute to the fact that birth rates are so high in these lesser developed regions.

High birth rates do not persist in a healthy society. Out of the dozens of countries with a child mortality rate of under 2%, those that has a fertility rate of above 3 children per women can be counted on one hand: Jordan, Tonga, and Samoa. ("Gapminder World")

Clearly the cultural factors which you have mentioned are not demographically influential.

लिखा द्वारा K_Himmelreich, 28.12.2016 at 00:34

The fact that "richer societies" can save (which is made null by the fact of debt, financial responsibilities and unstable economies in the sense of wage and burden of the common folk) has nothing to do with anything, it befits the society that people inhabit, and pensions are part of a social program called welfare to aid primarily the elderly and those in need (although this tends to be abused) and has nothing to do with birth rates. You seem to have this privilege idea in your mind, which is clouding the reality of this discussion, i suggest you terminate it, it is revolting and applies absolutely nothing to this.

They are all factors that make a larger family less economically necessary. Hence, they are relevant.

लिखा द्वारा K_Himmelreich, 28.12.2016 at 00:34

Having 6-8 Children and not feeding or caring for them is abuse, has no logic and has no justifiable reason, the point of having offspring is to care for it and ensure its survival not spawn a bunch of them to see which one lives to a proper age. (of course in high child mortality areas this is the cultural response chosen, considering disease and lack of resources, of which spawning more "justifies" however merely exacerbates the issue)

The wording that I used was "letting them go hungry." This means a lower quality of care, not the absence of care. Apologies if my wording used was confusing.

लिखा द्वारा K_Himmelreich, 28.12.2016 at 00:34

Obviously the environment affects the fertility, but also does the culture, other races like Blacks or Middle-eastern folk while being present in the same "quality of life" as that of Asians and Whites still bear large families not only due to cultural, but also due to hormonal differences that created their cultures in the first place, thus environment and biological/cultural implications do effect fertility, but it affects contrasting people differently. Such things are irrefutable.

Such things are indeed refutable.

Statistical evidence suggests that the inherent culture of a nation, as measured by its geographical region, is a far less relevant factor to fertility than living conditions, as measured by child mortality. This can be clearly seen from this graph sourced from Gapminder World. Each circle is a country, green circles are Middle East and North Africa and blue circles are Sub-Saharan Africa.

लिखा द्वारा K_Himmelreich, 28.12.2016 at 00:34

Mind this now, do not manipulate or abuse history here. Now lets analyze South Korea, the nation went from a poor to a war torn nation in the period between 1950-1953, after the war, if you follow population pyramids, a baby boom had occurred (as is the case with wars in general) explaining the 6:1 birth rate,

South Korea's birth rate was high prior to the war. It was a condition of that time more than it was a condition of the post-war baby boom.

लिखा द्वारा K_Himmelreich, 28.12.2016 at 00:34

however in the period that south Korea and Japan (who also had a baby boom, explaining their population issues today) underwent massive industrialization and modernization because of the US. As their standards of living and economies rose, children became less and less desirable, and women working more in Asia and raising families less as is demonstrated by Asian culture (Especially Japan) lowered the birth rates drastically. Along with the same factors (excluding industrialization) and rapid female liberation movements in the west led to the birth rate decline in western nations. This can be done with other ethnicities, but my dear fellow, unless you have a way to destroy their cultural aspects and identity and balance their hormonal levels, I'm afraid it isn't going to happen anytime soon and you are no-one to force it (considering the fact that we no longer bear the responsibility to civilize anyone by imposing the western ideal of culture, of which the reason other cultures aren't our biggest fans in the first place).

The factor that you mention as resulting in the low birth rate in East Asia - working women - was a creation of the 20th Century. It's not a meme inherent to traditional Asian culture. It is, in fact, a clear example that shows that to a certain extent, culture is influenced by living standards.

Similarly, the aspects of culture that you correctly point out results in high birth rates may be a result of poverty, as opposed to inherent traditions.

लिखा द्वारा K_Himmelreich, 28.12.2016 at 00:34

In order to maintain a population you need a rate of 2.1 children per couple, understand right now that western nations are far below this (notable exception of USA due to massive immigration and other immigration dependent nations, but if you view it demographically you can see that there is an obvious deficiency in those nations Natural birth rate of the natives.) Thus adding "declining" doesn't those national birth rates seem positive at all. 4,6 children per couple in Kenya are you serious, how is adding "declining" going to make that seem positive???? Those nations, Especially India are expected to have large population increases. Where is the logic in adding declining as if it negates the fact that their births rates are unreasonably excessive.

Historical evidence suggests that nations undergo the demographic transition more rapidly in the modern era than in the European industrial revolution.

The declining birth rates in countries like Kenya are clear signs that these countries are undergoing the demographic transition and can therefore be expected to rapidly reach near-replacement fertility levels.

लिखा द्वारा K_Himmelreich, 28.12.2016 at 00:34

Wealth encourages population increase in a pure form due to better access to resources, however due to the financial burden capital economies contain, wealth by discouragement is what leads to population decline, thus saying because nations are rich and thus have less people is correct, the reason so is not. Wealth doesn't magically have people say to themselves "lets f*** less and have less kids with all the extra resources we have to support them", No it makes no sense, this "wealth" brings about burdens to having children, especially when most are working class just trying to get by. Thus flawed, ineffective and seemingly doesn't effect other cultural and ethnic groups from spawning more and more offspring.

Again, please post sources that support your assertion that higher costs of raising children in a more developed nation outweighs the increased purchasing power that parents in these nations generally have.

Sources Cited:

Nargund, G. "Declining birth rate in Developed Countries: A radical policy re-think is required."

Raivio, K. "How does infant mortality affect birth rates?"

All above texts provided by the National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine.

Gapminder World

लिखा द्वारा GeneralPE, 01.08.2016 at 12:28

Does the research about lower black IQ's sway your view at all?

To fuck up your pretty stupid question, as a conservative, but not the extreme one, I'll make an opposition and tell you that statistically speaking, racists do have a lower IQ.

Read more here:
- http://www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism.html
- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/intelligence-study-links-prejudice_n_1237796.html

As always, population studies are good at predicting things about large numbers of people. They are not very good at predicting things about a specific person.
This does not mean all racists have low IQs, or that any given racist will have a low IQ; same thing applies to your question about general lower IQ of black people.

PS. Classification of people according to their body colour, dick size, boob size or beauty of their toes is very, very silly; even tho I have to admit that I like to see nice female toes same as I hate to see the ugly ones.... meh, fetishes...

YUMMY

लिखा द्वारा GeneralPE, 01.08.2016 at 12:28

Does the research about lower black IQ's sway your view at all?

The colour of person's skin has nothing to do with how well you use your brain. I wonder how much money is spent every summer on sun tan cream by white folks to turn brown? How many people spend lots of money on sun beds to turn brown? And thats worldwide. The day people stops piss balling about skin colour is the day we might change for the better.

This community is just as cancerous as an American College campus, too many people pretending to be intelligent.

लिखा द्वारा Ghostface, 01.08.2016 at 13:10

We all came out of africa so i guess you can say we are all africans , race is only a colour

Yeah, it's just color guys... look at these people with white skin and blonde hair... totally the same. We all look identical when we have the same pigmentation.







Miss Finland totally deserved to win... her victory wasn't imposed by dumb progressive post-modernism denying obvious objective beauty standards, it was equality, proving that we are all the s-s-ame... r-right guys?



R-r-right, g-guys?

लिखा द्वारा Tundy, 01.08.2016 at 20:35

White Supremacists are the Social Justice Warriors of the right. They are no better than deranged liberals, the only difference is that one appeals to fear while the other one appeals to anger.

There are few if any White Supremacists. There are only White Nationalists. Becoming a hated, vilified minority is a justifiable fear. Those who oppose that fate are justifiably angry at it being forced upon them. There are plenty of Non-White nations in the world yet everyone wants to move near us & tell us we should share our labor to the world.

The major difference between White Nationalists and the SJWs is that White Nationalists founded Western Civilization while SJWs, Marxists & liberals are destroying it. There is no comparison. Consequence of policy is what matters, not the language of said policy.

The Founding Fathers were White Nationalists. Western Civilization was White Nationalist right up until the 1960s. It put men on the fucking moon. The only thing SJWs have achieved is putting Men on addreall and hormone replacement therapy. There is no comparison. Only 'horseshoe theory' centrists make such comparisons from their shitty contrarian ivory towers. It is not rational, it is not skeptical. It's cowardice promoted to defend their liberal system which is destined to fail and give rise to the revolutionaries that will rightfully rebuild from its ashes.

Let it burn.

लिखा द्वारा Tik-Tok, 30.01.2017 at 16:34

लिखा द्वारा Tundy, 01.08.2016 at 20:35

White Supremacists are the Social Justice Warriors of the right. They are no better than deranged liberals, the only difference is that one appeals to fear while the other one appeals to anger.

There are few if any White Supremacists. There are only White Nationalists. Becoming a hated, vilified minority is a justifiable fear. Those who oppose that fate are justifiably angry at it being forced upon them. There are plenty of Non-White nations in the world yet everyone wants to move near us & tell us we should share our labor to the world.

The major difference between White Nationalists and the SJWs is that White Nationalists founded Western Civilization while SJWs, Marxists & liberals are destroying it. There is no comparison. Consequence of policy is what matters, not the language of said policy.

The Founding Fathers were White Nationalists. Western Civilization was White Nationalist right up until the 1960s. It put men on the fucking moon. The only thing SJWs have achieved is putting Men on addreall and hormone replacement therapy. There is no comparison. Only 'horseshoe theory' centrists make such comparisons from their shitty contrarian ivory towers. It is not rational, it is not skeptical. It's cowardice promoted to defend their liberal system which is destined to fail and give rise to the revolutionaries that will rightfully rebuild from its ashes.

Let it burn.

So you are creating victimhood but you accuse Jews when they do that? Why double standards?

I thought fascists are proud of their historic battles and warriors, so why creating victims and not heroes? Doesn't make sense.

p.s.
American did put a man on the moon, not that it had any significance(satellite for christ sake..), but american space program was copy of the communist one, and guess who created it? A muslim haha so gg my dear english friend with freckles but double zing on this one (muslim and a communist).

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

लिखा द्वारा Tik-Tok, 30.01.2017 at 16:34

लिखा द्वारा Tundy, 01.08.2016 at 20:35

White Supremacists are the Social Justice Warriors of the right. They are no better than deranged liberals, the only difference is that one appeals to fear while the other one appeals to anger.

There are few if any White Supremacists. There are only White Nationalists. Becoming a hated, vilified minority is a justifiable fear. Those who oppose that fate are justifiably angry at it being forced upon them. There are plenty of Non-White nations in the world yet everyone wants to move near us & tell us we should share our labor to the world.

The major difference between White Nationalists and the SJWs is that White Nationalists founded Western Civilization while SJWs, Marxists & liberals are destroying it. There is no comparison. Consequence of policy is what matters, not the language of said policy.

The Founding Fathers were White Nationalists. Western Civilization was White Nationalist right up until the 1960s. It put men on the fucking moon. The only thing SJWs have achieved is putting Men on addreall and hormone replacement therapy. There is no comparison. Only 'horseshoe theory' centrists make such comparisons from their shitty contrarian ivory towers. It is not rational, it is not skeptical. It's cowardice promoted to defend their liberal system which is destined to fail and give rise to the revolutionaries that will rightfully rebuild from its ashes.

Let it burn.

>tik-tok pretending to be a harmless sheep, even to his claws clearly reveal him as the wolf he truly is.

White nationalism always leads to white supremacy just like how capitalism always leads to imperialism and socialism to communism.

You know very well that half of your constituency is composed of 1488s that would love to see the world burn. The other half is composed of anime-fags.

The guy who created this post call us to kill all the others just because they have different colour of face?
Lmao

लिखा द्वारा Tundy, 03.02.2017 at 12:07

>tik-tok pretending to be a harmless sheep, even to his claws clearly reveal him as the wolf he truly is.

I have always been honest & always back what I say with data & facts. I'm a realist & a pragmatist.

लिखा द्वारा Tundy, 03.02.2017 at 12:07

White nationalism always leads to white supremacy just like how capitalism always leads to imperialism and socialism to communism.

'White Nationalism' ended the global slave trade. 'White Nationalism' conquered the world and gave it all back. Everyone else gets racial nationalism, so why shouldn't we? Why should we become hated, vilified minorities in our homelands? Where will that fate end? The only solution is White Homogeneity or my people suffer and die out. No thanks.

लिखा द्वारा Tundy, 03.02.2017 at 12:07

You know very well that half of your constituency is composed of 1488s that would love to see the world burn. The other half is composed of anime-fags.

And all of them have opposed every imperialist endeavor practiced by corrupt globalist western governments for decades. It was Liberals promoting imperialism, not Nationalists. It was Liberals who invaded Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan and it was Nationalists who wanted isolationism. British Fascists wanted a referendum on war in WWII and their America equivalent were an isolationist anti-war movement. Even the most radical Nat Socs I know want nothing to do with the world outside of Europe and its diaspora other than trade.

It is liberals that open borders and demand wars and debt. It was Liberals that created drug markets and prison police states. It was communism that wrecked Eastern Europe and China. And as they have liberalized, they all entered into the same corrupt debt inducing systems that will leave the world reeling from a recession, AGAIN.

Why should I not seek White Homogeneity and Isolationism?