Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, you're speaking, and you're saying something very ugly and racist. White people are right to object to the racist policies that are decreasing their share of the population.
Since you spoke for me I guess I don't have to respond.
I guess this is the great thing about being in the forced collective. What a time saver.
Your choice.
Collectives are the most natural thing in the world, as they are the only thing that builds political power and ensures survival.
Our deepest psychology is inherently wired for it, and we tend to have psychological issues in cultural seclusion. This is a universal human psychological dynamic.
This is why communism's primary goal, above all else, is to uproot human cultural collectivism and sometime replace it with meaningless and sociopolitically ineffective economic (false) collectivism.
The latter, because it is politically ineffective, is not actually collectivism. Its a trick. Its a false psychological placeholder for the true cultural collectivism that humans have always prioritized and which specifically is the antithesis of communist slave culture.
No one is forcing you into a cultural collective. However, you shouldn't complain about the later results of your choice. No one will be there to protect you, politically or otherwise. And your ad-hominems won't help much either. Armies aren't known to fall to those.
Still expecting others to do your work for you. I'm not going to read long articles in an effort to derive your points. Summarize them here, or I'm not even going to assume that you read the articles that you are quoting.
If you were citing research instead of pop science articles, the titles alone can sometimes suffice as scientists look to create a form of research conclusion summary in the title. Pop science articles do not.
"Out of Africa" Theory and the Origin of Europeoids (Caucasoids) in Light of DNA Genealogy
A territorial origin of haplogroups α- and β-remains unknown; however, the most likely origin for each of them is a vast triangle stretched from Central Europe in the west through the Russian Plain to the east and to Levant to the south. Haplogroup B is descended from β-haplogroup (and not from haplogroup A... likely migrated to Africa after 46,000 ybp. The finding that the Europeoid haplogroups did not descend from “African” haplogroups A or B is supported by the fact that bearers of the Europeoid haplogroups, as well as all non-African haplogroups do not carry either SNPs M91, P97, M31, P82, M23, M114, P262, M32, M59, P289, P291, P102, M13, M171, M118 (haplogroup A and its subclades SNPs) or M60, M181, P90 (haplogroup B), as it was shown recently in “Walk through Y” FTDNA Project (the reference is incorporated therein) on several hundred people from various haplogroups.
A 28,000 Years Old Cro-Magnon mtDNA Sequence Differs from All Potentially Contaminating Modern Sequences
28,000 year old Cro Magnon man was anatomically and genetically a modern human.
Quote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interb..._modern_humans
Neanderthal-derived DNA was found in the genome of contemporary populations in Europe and Asia, estimated as accounting for between 1% and 6% of modern genomes.
The highest rates of archaic admixture overall have been found in indigenous Oceanian and Southeast Asian populations, with an estimated 4–6% of the genome of modern Melanesians being derived from Denisovans.
Neanderthal-derived and Denisovan-derived ancestry is significantly absent from most modern populations in Sub-Saharan Africa.
The observed excess of genetic similarity is best explained by recent gene flow from Neanderthals to modern humans after the migration out of Africa.
The findings show that the source of modern human gene flow into Neanderthals originated from a population of early modern humans from about 100,000 years ago, predating the out-of-Africa migration of the modern human ancestors of present-day non-Africans
Modern racial genetics is differentiated by percentage and type of hominid admixture. Africans lack the Denisovan and (Central Asian and East Asian) Neanderthal admixture that has contributed to the Caucaisan and Asian genomes.
Modern human inter-mixing with Neanderthal occurred in Europe before the proposed out of Africa out-migration, invalidating the out of Africa theory.
In case you need an interpreter for all of this, what this comes down to is that the out of Africa theory is dead.
What is clear for anyone who bothers to read past politically inclined DC institution articles and into what the most modern research says, and what is slowly being introduced and what will come to light in the next few decades, is that there was one unmixed modern human group, identical to Cro Magnid, for which we are largely unsure of their precise origins. They evolved from no known hominid and did not evovle from modern Africans (who have the African archaic hominid admixture that gives them their phenotype, and which Europeans do not possess).
What is most likely is that Cro Magnid traveled throughout Eurasia and Africa, and mated with the still existing hominids (the females were likely raped by hominids, to include Neanderthal - a hominid that is often labeled as modern human but who is decidedly not).
There is no female hominid mtDNA in the human genome, only male...indicating that only female humans mated with hominids, which is a strong indication that the standard process was rape.
After these events, the resulting groups (races) stayed relatively isolated in their regions until methods of transportation (horses, ships) and war became more advanced.
It is natural for people to migrate from one place to another.
First 4,500 years ago is not an ancient time period. You are essentially citing the European migration to Central (R1a lineage) Western (R1b lineage) Europe, which is not new information nor does it somehow reinforce your rhetorical points.
Caucasians evolved in central Asia, and were pushed from their due to encroaching Mongolian expansion. The Turkish people, who are not Dutch people for example, and can not be equated with them in quality, form, or culture, are the result of this Mongolian invasion and mass rape of the people who you now view as Western Europeans, Eastern Europeans, and any other original peoples of the Central Caucus / Central Asia region who escaped. Your benevolent "immigration" completely changed them to Turks in the regions that the Turks now inhabit.
Try understanding early Euraisan history before you clumsily cite it for selfish political reasons. You are essentially reminding us of the forced "immigration" that prior dispossessed us of central Asia, the Caucus region, and Anatolia.
None of that was "natural". It was horrific.
Quote:
Just as it is natural in the u.s. to migrate from one state to the next.
Quote:
Some even migrate to chit hole countries, imagine that. Also, men and women have been falling in love and having babies since time began and I don't think they said wait, what's your politics? before the proposal.
Sure they did. In fact, that's more or less the history of the world. And they used much more shocking filters than that, to the modern liberal sensibility.
Quote:
There is logic backed by decades of scientific research on the animal kingdom,
Humans are not mere animals, by definition. In spite of any liberal equivocation.
An article with an overt political bent that fails to cite its assertions all the way through? Please. If you base your claims and worldview on pop science articles such as these then your view is doomed. And guess what? It is.
Shy of being better cited, that article isn't worth mine or anyone's time to get all the way through. I read as much as I could stand before becoming frustrated with the un-cited assertions.
Moreover, they are largely making claims for Western groups that have always shared common DNA through Cro Magnid and a common hominid admixture, only differing by percentile ("original" peoples from the Caucus and Levant having a higher Neanderthal percentage, but of the same type that permeates Western Europe).
They are not making assertions in regard to any ingress of populations with completely foreign hominid genetic loads, from Africa or East Asia for instance. This is a crucial difference that is all the difference. For example, justifying African immigration into Europe is trying to justify an archaic hominid (Erectus, Habilis, etc) admixture for Europeans that they do not currently possess. For East Asians, it would be a different Neanderthal species and an entirely new hominid (Denisovan) genetic load.
That the Germans are made up of three races is not news whatsoever. In fact, I often cite that fact here. I believe that I did as recently as yesterday. Again, you are clumsily linking to shallow articles hat you do not understand in any depth whatsoever.
These warring of three tribes are responsible for most of the bloodshed in European history. Eight million dead in the Thirty Years War alone. They have always all been seen as "Germanic", as indicated in their shared common mythology (what don't know it? Maybe refrain from using them in your rhetorical points then) but still largely remain separate in their power centers that are all outside of Germany.
They barely get along, and history is marred by mass murder when they haven't. And these groups are relatively genetically close, and your thesis is that it is fine to bring in groups who have nothing in common with them? I've seldom read more uneducated, uninformed, reckless, and selfish posturing. That's me being polite.
On every one of these topics, you are lost and have little idea of what you are talking about. You act in self-interest alone in forever seeking something that you want from a people who is foreign to you, which should tell you all that you need to know about how problematic you are.
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 26 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,590,375 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by golgi1
There is very little African admixture in European blood, refuting the point that Africans had any significant migration to Europe.
The vast majority of Asian blood in Europe, where it exists, is due to the Mongol and Turkish military invasions.
Still posting links with no summary? Still ineffective rhetoric.
Absolutely, and genetics wholly refutes the statement that it isn't natural.
Still expecting others to do your work for you. I'm not going to read long articles in an effort to derive your points. Summarize them here, or I'm not even going to assume that you read the articles that you are quoting.
If you were citing research instead of pop science articles, the titles alone can sometimes suffice as scientists look to create a form of research conclusion summary in the title. Pop science articles do not.
Here, this is how it is done:
Scientists discover that Europe was the birthplace of humans, not Africa.
Scientists say that no known hominin is the ancestor of Neanderthal and Modern Humans
Scientists disprove out of Africa Claim.
Early modern humans mated with Homo species in Africa.
Sub-Saharan genetic diversity is due to introgression with archaic Hominids.
Early modern humans mated with Homo species in Africa.
Sub-Saharan genetic diversity is due to introgression with archaic Hominids.
28,000 year old Cro Magnon man was anatomically and genetically a modern human.
Modern racial genetics is differentiated by percentage and type of hominid admixture. Africans lack the Denisovan and (Central Asian and East Asian) Neanderthal admixture that has contributed to the Caucaisan and Asian genomes.
Modern human inter-mixing with Neanderthal occurred in Europe before the proposed out of Africa out-migration, invalidating the out of Africa theory.
In case you need an interpreter for all of this, what this comes down to is that the out of Africa theory is dead.
What is clear for anyone who bothers to read past politically inclined DC institution articles and into what the most modern research says, and what is slowly being introduced and what will come to light in the next few decades, is that there was one unmixed modern human group, identical to Cro Magnid, for which we are largely unsure of their precise origins. They evolved from no known hominid and did not evovle from modern Africans (who have the African archaic hominid admixture that gives them their phenotype, and which Europeans do not possess).
What is most likely is that Cro Magnid traveled throughout Eurasia and Africa, and mated with the still existing hominids (the females were likely raped by hominids, to include Neanderthal - a hominid that is often labeled as modern human but who is decidedly not).
There is no female hominid mtDNA in the human genome, only male...indicating that only female humans mated with hominids, which is a strong indication that the standard process was rape.
After these events, the resulting groups (races) stayed relatively isolated in their regions until methods of transportation (horses, ships) and war became more advanced.
First 4,500 years ago is not an ancient time period. You are essentially citing the European migration to Central (R1a lineage) Western (R1b lineage) Europe, which is not new information nor does it somehow reinforce your rhetorical points.
Caucasians evolved in central Asia, and were pushed from their due to encroaching Mongolian expansion. The Turkish people, who are not Dutch people for example, and can not be equated with them in quality, form, or culture, are the result of this Mongolian invasion and mass rape of the people who you now view as Western Europeans, Eastern Europeans, and any other original peoples of the Central Caucus / Central Asia region who escaped. Your benevolent "immigration" completely changed them to Turks in the regions that the Turks now inhabit.
Try understanding early Euraisan history before you clumsily cite it for selfish political reasons. You are essentially reminding us of the forced "immigration" that prior dispossessed us of central Asia, the Caucus region, and Anatolia.
None of that was "natural". It was horrific.
Sure they did. In fact, that's more or less the history of the world. And they used much more shocking filters than that, to the modern liberal sensibility.
Humans are not mere animals, by definition. In spite of any liberal equivocation.
An article with an overt political bent that fails to cite its assertions all the way through? Please. If you base your claims and worldview on pop science articles such as these then your view is doomed. And guess what? It is.
Shy of being better cited, that article isn't worth mine or anyone's time to get all the way through. I read as much as I could stand before becoming frustrated with the un-cited assertions.
Moreover, they are largely making claims for Western groups that have always shared common DNA through Cro Magnid and a common hominid admixture, only differing by percentile ("original" peoples from the Caucus and Levant having a higher Neanderthal percentage, but of the same type that permeates Western Europe).
They are not making assertions in regard to any ingress of populations with completely foreign hominid genetic loads, from Africa or East Asia for instance. This is a crucial difference that is all the difference. For example, justifying African immigration into Europe is trying to justify an archaic hominid (Erectus, Habilis, etc) admixture for Europeans that they do not currently possess. For East Asians, it would be a different Neanderthal species and an entirely new hominid (Denisovan) genetic load.
That the Germans are made up of three races is not news whatsoever. In fact, I often cite that fact here. I believe that I did as recently as yesterday. Again, you are clumsily linking to shallow articles hat you do not understand in any depth whatsoever.
These warring of three tribes are responsible for most of the bloodshed in European history. Eight million dead in the Thirty Years War alone. They have always all been seen as "Germanic", as indicated in their shared common mythology (what don't know it? Maybe refrain from using them in your rhetorical points then) but still largely remain separate in their power centers that are all outside of Germany.
They barely get along, and history is marred by mass murder when they haven't. And these groups are relatively genetically close, and your thesis is that it is fine to bring in groups who have nothing in common with them? I've seldom read more uneducated, uninformed, reckless, and selfish posturing. That's me being polite.
On every one of these topics, you are lost and have little idea of what you are talking about. You act in self-interest alone in forever seeking something that you want from a people who is foreign to you, which should tell you all that you need to know about how problematic you are.
Quote:
Humans are not mere animals, by definition. In spite of any liberal equivocation.
The human being is part of the primate group that walks on two legs rather than the usual four like most of the other primates, which is known as bipedal. The thing that sets human beings apart from other primates however, is the fact the human has a highly developed brain and therefore capable of abstract reasoning, language and problem solving.
You didn't say anything. You didn't even write a grammatically correct sentence with all two words that you chose to write it. You have no response to my replies and you haven't made a cogent point. We aren't even speaking on the same level. You tried to respond to one line, and failed at that. I said that we are not mere animals, which is true. You provided no effective rebuttal.
Having physical bodies like animals does not put us in the same class as animals. They operate on instinct and we are much more cognitively complex and tend toward conscious decisions over instinct. "Enough said" does not make your point. Only reductionist communism would equate humans with animals. Communism seeks to elevate our lowest impulses: our animal impulses. It denies what makes us human. We don't agree that those communist terms are what defines humanity, and you certainly haven't made a relevant point using this tack in regard to immigration.
If I were to use your tack, I'd offer that we prioritize thoroughbred animals. Animals also defend their territory to the death. There's your retort on your terms. You will get that once, as I and most other rational people would see a justification of immigration using an appeal to the Animal Kingdom as the silliest and most irrelevant of nonsense. Read my post again. Respond appropriately or, perhaps, save it and speak your concession with your silence.
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 26 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,590,375 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by golgi1
What is enough said?
You didn't say anything. You didn't even write a grammatically correct sentence with all two words that you chose to write it. You have no response to my replies and you haven't made a cogent point. We aren't even speaking on the same level. You tried to respond to one line, and failed at that. I said that we are not mere animals, which is true. You provided no effective rebuttal.
Having physical bodies like animals does not put us in the same class as animals. They operate on instinct and we are much more cognitively complex and tend toward conscious decisions over instinct. "Enough said" does not make your point. Only reductionist communism would equate humans with animals. Communism seeks to elevate our lowest impulses: our animal impulses. It denies what makes us human. We don't agree that those communist terms are what defines humanity, and you certainly haven't made a relevant point using this tack in regard to immigration.
If I were to use your tack, I'd offer that we prioritize thoroughbred animals. Animals also defend their territory to the death. There's your retort on your terms. You will get that once, as I and most other rational people would see a justification of immigration using an appeal to the Animal Kingdom as the silliest and most irrelevant of nonsense. Read my post again. Respond appropriately or, perhaps, save it and speak your concession with your silence.
Quote:
as I and most other rational people would see a justification of immigration using an appeal to the Animal Kingdom as the silliest and most irrelevant of nonsense.
You can't read the articles and make sense of them that I presented any more than I can undo the brainwashing you've and many like you have obviously under gone.
There's a reason white Evangelical decline in population that has nothing to do with the natural order of mother nature and everything to do with their wallets. They're so intent on population control so as to obtain more wealth, they've worked very hard to brainwash others to join them in decreasing the birth rates. More over they've even convinced people that opening their homes, their country to others is the wrong thing to do, and you regurgitate their talking points.
Enough said, does make my talking points when it is a known scientific fact that human beings aka homo sapiens are animals in the animal kingdom. The only difference being homo sapiens have enhanced reasoning capabilities. Well some of them do. When you are trying to refute a fact, enough said, is all that needs to be said. Your troll like responses are not doing you any favors.
"There are lots of reasons that whites have so much more wealth than nonwhites. How the GI Bill played out is one of those reasons. Whites were able to use the government guaranteed housing loans that were a pillar of the bill to buy homes in the fast growing suburbs. Those homes subsequently rose greatly in value in coming decades, creating vast new household wealth for whites during the postwar era.
"But black veterans weren't able to make use of the housing provisions of the GI Bill for the most part. Banks generally wouldn't make loans for mortgages in black neighborhoods, and African-Americans were excluded from the suburbs by a combination of deed covenants and informal racism."
(My emphasis - more @ the article)
The article clip I quoted above doesn't say NONE. I understand for the most part (para 2, line 1 above) to mean the majority.
I'm not claiming @ all, other than to report what the article @ the URL says. If you want to contest the content there, you need to take it up with Demos, where the article appeared.
Article say a LOT of things, Not EVERYTHING they say is accurate.
"In the New York and northern New Jersey suburbs 67,000 mortgages were insured by the G.I. Bill, but fewer than 100 were taken out by non-whites.[2][3]
Collectives are the most natural thing in the world, as they are the only thing that builds political power and ensures survival.
Our deepest psychology is inherently wired for it, and we tend to have psychological issues in cultural seclusion. This is a universal human psychological dynamic.
This is why communism's primary goal, above all else, is to uproot human cultural collectivism and sometime replace it with meaningless and sociopolitically ineffective economic (false) collectivism.
The latter, because it is politically ineffective, is not actually collectivism. Its a trick. Its a false psychological placeholder for the true cultural collectivism that humans have always prioritized and which specifically is the antithesis of communist slave culture.
No one is forcing you into a cultural collective. However, you shouldn't complain about the later results of your choice. No one will be there to protect you, politically or otherwise. And your ad-hominems won't help much either. Armies aren't known to fall to those.
You didn't say anything. You didn't even write a grammatically correct sentence with all two words that you chose to write it. You have no response to my replies and you haven't made a cogent point. We aren't even speaking on the same level. You tried to respond to one line, and failed at that. I said that we are not mere animals, which is true. You provided no effective rebuttal.
Having physical bodies like animals does not put us in the same class as animals. They operate on instinct and we are much more cognitively complex and tend toward conscious decisions over instinct. "Enough said" does not make your point. Only reductionist communism would equate humans with animals. Communism seeks to elevate our lowest impulses: our animal impulses. It denies what makes us human. We don't agree that those communist terms are what defines humanity, and you certainly haven't made a relevant point using this tack in regard to immigration.
If I were to use your tack, I'd offer that we prioritize thoroughbred animals. Animals also defend their territory to the death. There's your retort on your terms. You will get that once, as I and most other rational people would see a justification of immigration using an appeal to the Animal Kingdom as the silliest and most irrelevant of nonsense. Read my post again. Respond appropriately or, perhaps, save it and speak your concession with your silence.
So then, enlighten us, Great Sage. Where was the Garden of Eden located, if it existed?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
