Why do you want to fill America up with non-whites?

LOL...who the hell cares what the current population is?

More people want to come to America than Sweden...thats a fact. Millions more. Why does it matter what America's current population is? For whatever reason, they find America a more desirable destination than Sweden. Existing population of the destination has nothing to do with anything.

 

Your belief that something is true is not actual evidence of anything. It doesn't make it a fact just because you personally believe it.

Which science? Who exactly said that? This is a good example. Just because you believe something does not necessarily make it true.

Do you have any sources at all for these claims?

America's race problems are a pale shadow of what they were in the 60s. Back when we had a larger proportion of white people.

I am not hearing this from "everyone"...so do you have an actual source or are you expecting us to just take your word for it? You keep projecting your own opinion as if it is objective fact...it's not.

If everyone is annoyed, why are they not leaving? Why are we not seeing a massive exodus of people emmigrating from the US?

Well, I guess you are SoL then. Sorry. If people like you are a minority even in your native countries, I guess you are pretty screwed.

If there are THAT many of your own people against you, I don't see how you have any hope of convincing everyone else to change US immigration policy.

You keep moving your own goalposts...are races defined by appearance or not? Make up your mind. Jews have all the same traits "white" Europeans have.

How are you defining ethnicity if not by appearance?

Why should appearance matter?

We have established that most Americans do not care if other people look like them. So explain to me why you think America should limit immigration based on appearance.

Ancient Rome already failed. America has not failed yet.

No, they were not all a fraction of the size...China has always been larger than America. They have five times our population right now. The Soviets were also larger than us. And America has not always been larger than Europe.

I agree. Every single one of them has failed to compete with us. We are more fit than they were.

Apparently not. We were far weaker then than we are now. We did not even require nukes to take out Germany...and they had superior technology at the time and were entrenched.

What traits distinguish them?

How did you determine that? Have you done genetic studies on all dark skinned whites?

You keep changing your answers. In one sentence you say race is defined by appearance. In another you say it is defined by ancestry. Which is it? If a dark skinned white has 100% European ancestry, how is he mixed? Mixed with what?

 

If America is flacid, what does that make everyone else?

 

http://tech.mit.edu/V113/N51/agression.51w.html

Its an opinion of mine based on fact. Example: scientists agree that genes are shaped by your environment, and races or people have different environments, so why is it wrong to think that certain races evolved differently or have different genes affecting or influencing behavior?

Black on white crime is worse.

Because while its annoying, its not bad enough to leave the country for somewhere else. And there is nowhere to go to. Lots of people will leave if there was a better country politically in protest. I would.

I do and argue what I feel and believe. I do it mostly to vent because it helps me rather than convince people.

I think people are indifferent to race. They don't give a damn what color is in this country, whether its white or black brown or yellow. If the immigration law was changed to be all white again, I doubt people will protest it and it would be very hard to change back to the way you want it.

Of course, that is what race is. A race is defined as the difference in appearance between people

That's misleading. Many Jews are part European themselves and that is why they have white traits, but you can still distinguish them from other ethnicities. They are unique. Even white groups are different. You can tell a northern European from a Southern European.

Diversity.

Similarity is good and beautiful.

peace.

I think they do. They looks for mates who look alike. Most people who want a mate who is similar physically, culturally and believes the same stuff.

To avoid annoying race problems like diversity quotas, affirmative action, racism etc.

My point is that we were further ahead of other countries than we are now, but technically you are right as we have advanced from there but other countries have caught up.

An Armenoid forehead, like this:

https://sp1.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.607990266375113041&pid=15.1&H=195&W=160&P=0

long hook noses, beady eyes (that is not an insult but lots of jews have beady eyes)

Appearance/anthropology and history.

Both.

That's impossible. They are not 100 percent European if they have dark skin. You have to prove that.

I don't see the difference between your belief and my belief. You have a preference for this country to be a plethora of different colors, while I have a preference for it to be one color. I am a preservationist. I don't like to see anything go extinct.

 

If it was fact you'd have a source for it. By definition, it's not a fact if it's based on your opinion.

Your link does not support the claims you are attempting to make.

LOL, no they don't. White people in Italy and spain have a dramatically different environment than white people in Norway or Finland.

I thought you said in a previous post (#200) you did not believe race and behavior were related? You seem to be contradicting yourself.

Black on white crime is worse now than it was in the 60s? Source?

So why should we change our immigration policy then? It's obviously not annoying enough to make anyone do anything about it, right?

I guess we will never know, since you'd need to provide people with an incentive to change it.

It is a fact that at one point, racist ideology was dominant, and now it is not.

So why do you bring ancestry into it? Why does your ancestry matter as long as you look white?

And you just said (literally one sentence before) that appearance is what defines race. So why are these Jews not white?

Similarity is boring and stagnant.

LOL! Euro-nations were warring with each other for CENTURIES before America. Even genetically similar nations like France and Germany and the UK.

So...Jews who lack these features are not Jewish?

So you are saying race is NOT defined by appearance?

You can't have it both ways...either race is defined by appearance or it is not.

According to who? Who told you it was impossible?

Are Italians and Spanish white?

Things go extinct in nature all the time. The fit survive, and the unfit fade. It is how evolution works, and how organism's adapt to become better suited to their environment.

Aside from being inherently unjust, racist ideology works against nature and hinders adaptation. It makes the human race weaker on the whole. That is why it is a bad thing.

 

Yeah, and they don't look similar. White people in Southern Europe have darker skin tones and different head shapes due to the environment.

I am unsure.

You can find this in government states from the department of justice. I'd find it for you but I don't want to go through the stats for an hour right now.

You don't think Mexicans and minorities want to have it changed to be more diverse? You must have missed the massive immigration protests.

Okay.

Because you are unwhite unless your ancestry is pure.

I believe personality is connected to race, just like it is in dogs, cats etc.

because they look Ashkenazi, Mizrah and Sephardic and these aren't European ethnicities.

Again, a Jew may be part white which means he is not fully Jewish.

And peaceful and without troubles and annoyances.

What do you mean its stagnant?

Yes, but my point is that within each nation they had peace. Multicultural countries fight each other all the time.

Maybe. They'd need a DNA test.

No.

To me. I've never seen it. You have to prove a dark skin white can be 100 percent European.

Of course.

I'll give you an example. In Northern Spain the white skin tone is exactly the same as in Northern Europe, buts its not in Southern Spain because they mixed with the Arab invaders.

I don't think your immigration policy is natural. Especially considering the rest of the world agrees with me.

What's wrong with it?

How?

I disagree. If race mixing were good and made nations stronger, then places like Babylon, Sumeria, Egypt would still be around and be the strongest countries.

 

the intelligence in this topic is just too much, ifeel out of my depth so iwont post anymore.

 

I will say again, the one good thing about Super21.....

unlike so many on the Right, he is an HONEST and OPEN racist.

 

oh no doubt, in fact ilike him, no joke. well maybe not like, he's ok. He doesnt hide behind stuff, feels like a devils advocate to me..

 

Well, it would be a more honest discussion with them if they didn't hide behind code words like "youths", "thugs", or "inner city"....

 

What a ridiculous statement...all humans have similar DNA...or we would look like Parrots or Giraffes or Salamanders. LOL

I don't blame you...I blame public education.

 

Since beauty is subjective, this is a pretty meaningless thing to discuss. Perhaps you and me are simply biased towards whites because we ourselves are white. Maybe asians prefer asians. Also, I'm not sure there's such a thing as pure.

See, you're thinking of this too much in group terms, race vs. race. If you accept someone into your country as a citizen, you shouldn't think of them as "they" and what they're doing against "us". You make them part of "us".

Yes, sadly, that might be true. Ironically, the biggest obstacle for a multiracial society is the so-called anti-racists... Well, there was a time when such idiots didn't exist, perhaps we can see those times again.

Okay, you might have to elaborate on that. Parthians were themselves foreign conquerors -from modern day turkmenistan- ruling over persia. They were nomads and regarded as barbarians by the achaemenid empire (that of kurush and dariush), and their rule over Persia ended by a native uprising. The greek, or rather macedonian, empire was also foreign conquerors. In persia, they held power until the partians conquered them. In Egypt and elsewhere they held power until the romans conquered them. Scythians weren't a country, they were the greek name for tribes living on the pontic steppe. Don't know for sure about sumeria, but I'd guess they were conquered by either Babylon or Assyria, probably the former.

The only one which I know has something comming close to death-by-foreign-labour would be Rome, which in their later days employed many germanic people in their army. But then, Rome did rely on allies and mercenaries for pretty much all of it's history, and there were germans serving even in the height of the empire during Augustus, and the eastern roman empire survived another thousand years after the fall of the west, and they certainly had foreign soldiers employed. So I doubt they fell that way, I really do. Also, Romans themselves were foreign conquerors in their empire.

 

Then don't talk about immigration rate! Do you even know what a rate is, and more specifically what an immigration rate is? It's a ratio, a ratio between immigrants and natives, usually measured per thousands. Sweden's rate is higher.

 

Sure you are... :rolleye:

But I see your position clearer now....

 

I disagree that beauty is subjective. Angelina Jolie is considered by liberals to be the most beautiful women in the world, and would anyone argue she's ugly?

People who think she is unattractive are a insignificant minority. The majority of people regardless of culture regard her to be good looking.

But that is true, blacks tend to favor their own race and so do Asians. I think all races are the most attracted to people who are genetically close to them.

These people are a product of a multiracial society, and you cant get rid of them. The only way is to have a one raced society, where these people would be an extreme, insignificant minority. That is the only way to eliminate them.

That is my point. Because there was a one race society. We will only see those times if we eliminate multiculturalism.

Why did China, Japan and other countries survive thousands of years?

If a country upkeeps its purity they will not die out.

They occupied foreign countries and integrated with them, and eventually there was nobody of pure Roman descent.

 

I was just quoting urban dictionary to help clarify it for anyone who was confused, sharks are an obscure subject. I happen to be a sharkologist. You know nothing of my work.

 

So you are saying you do not actually have a source. It's an assumption you are making.

How did you determine that those protesters represent a majority? Or even a significant minority?Just because a few thousand people complain publically is not actual evidence of anything.

How are you determining who has pure ancestry? You do realize that most "white" people in the US cannot trace their ancestry back more than 3 or 4 generations, right?

They can go to the grave peacfully then. I prefer a society that is competitive and strong. Racist societies do not produce that.

Far more limited ability to adapt or advance.

No they didn't. The British Monarchy, for example, is the result of a string of wars between smaller monarchies. You really need to learn some European history if nothing else. There are not a lot of peaceful periods within European nations.

The exact same thing is true of every other mono-racial society. Look at China's history, or Native American history. "Racial unity" did not help any of these regions avoid wars or conflict.

According to your own opinion...ok. So you are using your own opinion as evidence. That's pretty convenient. You'll forgive me for not accepting your personal opinion over that of mainstream scientists.

It's completely natural...survival of the fittest. What is more natural than that? We are still the dominant world superpower, so we must be doing something right, eh?

You are denying people opportunity or choice based on superficial (and completely arbitrary) criteria that they have no control over.

For the reason I just explained above. You would deny Einstein US citizenship simply because he's a Jew? And completely ignore his accomplishments and abilities?

You are allowed to disagree. But my ideology is dominant, which is why I get my way. This is what social darwinism is.

In any event, I think this answers your question in the thread title.

 

I just did. A million people a year immigrate to the US. It's not an opinion of mine...it's an objective fact.

So what exactly would you call total immigrants per year if not Immigration rate. You tell me.

 

That just means that she's subjectively considered beautiful by a lot of people. That's still subjective.

No, I'd say they are the result of marxism.

No, it's about getting rid of that problematic leftist mindset which causes these problems. It's about making people stop caring so much about race, and start identifying with the nation instead.

But china and japan haven't kept their purity either. Japan expanded into ainu lands, and the chinese expanded into southern and northern modern day china in which there wasn't chinese. And many dynasties, most notably yuan and qing, were foreigners themselves.

I'm quite certain Rome would just've been an insignificant little italian village in history if they'd try to keep "pure". What does that even mean anyways? That they're supposed to build an empire with only the people in their city? Can't do that.

 

Huh?

I think its unnatural to do that. People will always care about their race and identify with it. You are an idealist.

But I see the logic of your opinion, its just not realistic to say that blacks will stop asking for handouts due to their race or muslims will do the same or believe that whites are their friends.

How are you going to get people to stop caring about their race?

Their foreign inhabitants are negligible. China and Japan are both over 90 percent pure. There are no race problems in Japan. There are only race problems in countries that are diverse.

You couldn't be a citizen of Rome unless you were of pure Roman descent for a long time.

There were millions of pure Romans.

 

For heaven's sake, if you don't know what terms mean, don't use them, and if you're called out on it by someone who knows don't continue pretending you do! Just look it up in wikipedia or whatever. Immigration rate is the ratio between immigrants and the rest of the population.

 

The "anti-racists", they are the result of marxism in our media and education.

No, it's not idealistic. There's plenty of examples in which people primarily identify by something else than their race. It's about having an identity which is soo much superior and more attractive than that of race, so that people will choose to identify by it. Britain had that for a while, this imperial identity which didn't just include white britons. Needless to say, your identity won't be very attractive if (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) marxists are constantly going on about how it sucks, and is the root of all evil, and is racist and exclusive, and that people should identify by their race instead, etc..

I think it's very unfair to say that a group's current behaviour is set in stone, or is somehow inherent. Basically, I think most groups are by and large the same in terms of potential. We're all human, and the differences are mostly just the result of different situations, to which we'd all react pretty much the same. For muslims, which must remember that terrorism in such a manner as they do now is a rather new phenomena. Islamism, which the cause of this, has only been around for about a century, and has only been powerful since a few decades ago. There's been female heads of state in muslim countries, there's been secular muslim countries: they're not inherently islamist. The muslim world was once a very good ally against communism, and they had a rather positively neutral relation with the west overall. What we need to do is re-radicalise the muslim world. And whites are certainly capable of terrorism as well, as german communist and irish nationalists will surely prove.

As for blacks, there once was a time when the unemployment of blacks was lower than that of whites, when the black family was stronger than the white one, and that was before all welfare programs were set in place with the specific aim of helping blacks. I don't think blacks are inherently bad, I think they are the victim of a failed system. it's a system which'd make failures out of any group.

All countries are diverse. It's all a matter of what differences people choose to make a fuss about. If it's not race or religion, it can be language, or city vs country, rich vs poor, men vs women.. As with race, the root of the problem here is in my view mainly the left, who make their living dividing up the country and telling groups they are victims, making them feel resentment towards the other. There's plenty of cases in which a minority group in another country lived peacefully and good, for all purposes. The jews in Sweden for example, have never been a problem, nor was our jugoslavian immigrants a problem.

There was millions of romans because romans didn't make arbitrary restrictions based on "race". Did you know that some of their greatest emperors weren't actually "roman"? Justinian the great was thracian, and Constantine the great was illyrian. And they didn't have citizenship tests based on race. How would they even distinguish between a "pure" roman and another italian? And there wasn't such a thing as pure roman anyways, because Rome was made up of other italians and etruscans which had moved there from other places.

 

Lets see what the word means shall we?

Gee, not seeing anything about ratios in there. Maybe you should take some of your own advice.

You want to play semantics by using "net migration rate" instead of "total immigrants". The existing population of the host nation has nothing to do with anything in this context.

More immigrants come to the US every year than Sweden...significantly more. That is an objective fact. "the movement of non-native people into a country in order to settle there" - More non-native people move to the US to settle each year than move to Sweden to settle each year. There is no way to spin that.

 

According to who? You keep saying this as if it is an objective fact, but there is a lot of evidence proving the exact opposite. If what you assume as true were actually true, the US should be a white nation stuill. because the majority of the population is white, and the majority defines policy. Your thread, in fact, should not even exist. Because why are you even asking the question if "people always care about their race"? The fact that this thread even exists is evidence you're wrong.

"Natural" is survival of the fittest. That is how nature works. If your race/ideology/whatever is not fit to survive without help, it is unnatural to help it survive artificially.

I agree diverse populations are more prone to racial strife.

Those pure-race nations are far behind us technologically though. Diverse cultures develop new ideas faster. Mono-racial cultures lack our perspective.

 

That's because you gave a definition of immigration. You would be right if it was immigration you were talking about when I first quoted you. Unfortunately, and embarassing for you, you didn't talk about immigration. You talked about immigration rate. In fact, what I first quoted was this "We have the highest immigration rate in human history...". And as I've said, a rate is a ratio. And as I've also already said, don't go around using terms if you don't know what they mean. You obviously have no idea of what you talk about. Stop embarassing yourself further and just admit that you are wrong. You really ought not have have that tone when you don't know anything.