@Eccles Not all of the white race has the same genetic traits. Unfortunately. I tried to discuss this before and the only person who would make you see sense is Someone who is scientifically based and as a part way scientist ... I can tell you the genetic makeup of certain people has a fault line and that's through mutations.

Indeed, it's a melting pot, I guess what I was pointing out that while most of the mutations are ancient and gradual, we have seen evolutionary changes on a relatively modest timescale

This is sickle cell disease, Crohn's disease e.t.c

Okay so no one is able to understand that the gene pool, needs to be mixed - because of genetic mutations. In order to eliminate them it would take generations and loads of blending of genes to make the perfect person.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but that's what you get for fucking your close relatives. In the gene pool arena . Hence why, a long time ago in America you needed to have a blood test before you got married, to see if you weren't a blood relative. It's illegal for a reason and it means there are birth complications and all sorts.

Now, back to the discrimination thing because the people who understand it correctly are @Fresh and @Holo who really got down to the fact that your going to be prejudice . Flagship SS orientation commences but it has consequences. Hence the reason why China, has birth problems now as well. Many of the women are Baron. Now, try and figure that one out. Why are they Baron? Was it because of the pressure of society ? Or was it because their parents secretly neutered their young girls ?

I definitely wouldn’t say tolerance and designing society with Ye ultimate goal of eschewing racism and even acknowledgement of genetic groupings is the “right” or “objective” path forward

name the places where inbreeding happens most

ayrab

why was i summoned

@☩ ✠ Valka ✠ ☩ we going by historical or present day

cause if we're going historical, europe takes the fucking cake

I am unaware of inbreedings outside royalty in europe, historically.

present day = Muslim majority countries (has been a incestuous place for very long) enough time to alter intelligence and cause health problems.

pretty sure most of that is rape, but i would prefer you source that information

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

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0109585

https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/article/muslim-inbreeding-huge-problem-and-people-dont-want-talk-about-it

```Marriage between cousins remains rampant in much of the Muslim world. And the results are entirely predictable.```
Fixed

Pakistan is, unsupisingly the worse for it, but its also previlent elsewhere.

the majority of muslims are not acknowledging the issue, Imams, televangelists are openly endorsing it.

No wonder Muslims haven't progressed as a society.

before I knew this, I thought statements like that are entirely racist.

From a religious perspective it makes sense. Your prophets bloody daughter married her cousin Ali...

*If its good enough for the prophets daughter then surely it is holy and blessed by god*

kek

https://gyazo.com/74c00405183d1c8fa00c1bfc9370a399

I don't see how you came to that conclusion.

I also heavily disagree with tolerance being an objective pathway. Tolerance is a personal choice, thus it is subjective.
I honestly don't even know why you're bringing objectivity and subjectivity into this. I think that only complicates the conversation because people disagree on what constitutes what (subjective/objective).

https://gyazo.com/6eb320eb90fefab46ccdc13203f43959

I completely disagree with that. Social cohesion is a big factor in humankind's survival. Our weakest members must be protected, but only *if they are truly our members and if they are truly weak.*
What constitutes a member of society and what constitutes a weak person is exactly what the political debates are always about.

When a government forces its people to accept foreigners, it has the duty to make sure that the people are welcoming of them. And that starts with demands on the foreigners: do not commit crimes, be a productive member of society, learn our language and our customs, etc.
Because those same demands have also been put on the native population, it is only fair to put them on foreigners.

Social cohesion is so important to humankind that many wars have been fought over it, and many crimes have been committed over it. This is not a phenomenon of modernity, it's been going on since the existence of the human species.

Even when in theory it would be more productive to work together, in practice our instincts very often override that idea. But I guess in the west we've lost sight of this, because we've lived in our cohesive bubble for too long, and now that cohesion starts to break down we have trouble accepting that human nature is much more primitive than we thought it was.

My argument is that racism must be fought against consciously, with methodical and slow thinking, which is the difficult path. Many people will choose to ignore that alternative because of personal biases. And we're all biased. Social unrest is all but guaranteed when too many foreigners come in at once who don't appear to be integrating properly. It doesn't matter then that the weak must be protected, the priority lies on cohesion, because that's what our nature dictates.

And also, who's to say that you're on the "good side" saying you want to protect the weak? What about the rape gangs in the UK? Isn't that exactly in your own interest, too? Protecting the children from these gangs? So maybe you see how easy it is to dismantle your argument. You can't just say "it's irrational fear, it's irrational fear!" and believe this argument will get through to people.

But we always like to think of ourselves as the smart ones, I'm aware.

In fact personally I doubt that many pro-mass-immigration activists have been to a migrant school before. My father used to work at one for several years. He told me about the behavior of the students, and the customs of the families. It's very eye-opening.

But this is a bit of a rant. My original point was that racial discrimination is natural and evolutionary beneficial. My argument is that modernity has blinded us from this truth, because we've escaped the need to live as primitively as people used to.

But not living primitively, and not being primitive, are not the same thing. I'd argue we won't escape our primitive nature, and thus racial discrimination will not go away, because it still has its use, and if only to quench irrational fears.

You can beat your chest about reason and rationality all you want, that won't evolve the human consciousness.