Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old March 19th, 2016 #1
robertofrommilan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Milano, Italia
Posts: 51
Default race mixing and "genocide"

If a man or woman don't have an offspring at all, he/ she put an end to his /her genetical lineage. But mating with someone in a different "race", his/her genes pool pass to the next generation in the same way that if his/her partner would be of the same "race"...so where is the genocide you are so worried about?
 
Old March 20th, 2016 #2
White Brazilian Boy
Senior Member
 
White Brazilian Boy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Posts: 823
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by robertofrommilan View Post
If a man or woman don't have an offspring at all, he/ she put an end to his /her genetical lineage. But mating with someone in a different "race", his/her genes pool pass to the next generation in the same way that if his/her partner would be of the same "race"...so where is the genocide you are so worried about?
Because the kid will not be white, but a mestizo.
 
Old March 21st, 2016 #3
robertofrommilan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Milano, Italia
Posts: 51
Default

Obrigado for your answer, but you miss my point.You can call the kid a "mestizo" or a "mongrel", but the point is, he/she is carrying the genetic heritage of both the parents, so the "white" genes are not destroyed or lost, they just pass to the next generation in the same way of a "white/white offspring.
English is a second language to me, so I will make an example to explain better what I want to say: let assume that the intelligence and creativity of the great brasilian writer Machado de Assis (a "quadroon" or a "mongrel" if you prefer) was inscribed in his "white" grandfather 's chomosomes. Were they lost or destroyed in the "mixing"? No. They just pass throug the generation and eventually bloomed out in the "mongrel" grandchild, giving the world some of the finest novel in the nineteenth century ( unfortunately not enough appreciated outside Brazil ...)
My point here is not to questioning if "race-mixing" is good or bad or simply neutral, but to questioning the possibility to equate it to "genocide", because it has nothing to do with it.
Thank you for reading, I hope I had express myself well enough with my poor command of english.
 
Old March 26th, 2016 #4
robertofrommilan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Milano, Italia
Posts: 51
Default waiting...

There is someone alive on this forum?
 
Old March 26th, 2016 #5
George Witzgall
Senior Member
 
George Witzgall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,645
Default

Racial/ethno-nationalists want to preserve their race/ethnicity, so they view those who mix (thereby obliterating these distinctions) as a threat, and contributing to the downfall or "genocide" of their race/ethnicity.
__________________
Blood & Soul Aryan
 
Old March 26th, 2016 #6
andy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: london
Posts: 12,865
Default

I am surprised that I have to reiterate the same point but here it is. The fundamental principle of Darwin is natural selection.In practice this means that those that should will - those that should not will not. Procreation and the actions necessary to achieve it are quite fundamental human instincts.
__________________
The above post is as always my opinion

Chase them into the swamps
 
Old March 27th, 2016 #7
robertofrommilan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Milano, Italia
Posts: 51
Default

Thank you for the answers.

To Witzgall: my point is, there's no destruction, or "obliterating" as you say, in "race-mixing"...
The "superior white genes" WN are so worried about pass to the next generation in the same way of a white/white offspring. Even if, in a far future, all the world population will be "mixed" to the point of no geographic or ethnic diversity, there will be the genetic footprint of the people of the past...there will be no "genocide" at all, but a trasformation that you could like or not, but honestly you can't call it "genocide".
I'm italian: my remote ancestors, probably, were ancient romans. Who committed "genocide" against them? Nobody. Trough the centuries they slowly changed and became italian, a completely different people...

To Andy: I beg your pardon but I don't understand what you me AN.
 
Old March 28th, 2016 #8
Roger Bannon
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 838
Default

If you mix white paint with black paint you no longer have white paint.
 
Old March 28th, 2016 #9
robertofrommilan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Milano, Italia
Posts: 51
Default

Thank u Roger
If you mix white paint with black paint you got grey, of course.
You could also say that mixing milk with shit the milk is completely wasted. But I could say that mixing milk and coffee you got a drink with the good of both and a completely different taste. These are just ...images, not a scientific description of reality. You can choose between them according to your own bias.
But the science tell us that the genetic pool of an individual pass to the next generation in the same way if the partner is from the same or from a different "race". So, again, my question: where is the " genocide"?
 
Old March 29th, 2016 #10
Roger Bannon
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 838
Default

If everybody cared not and mixed you would end up with no people that looked European. Except perhaps a rare oddity akin to albinism but that's all they would be, a resemblance to a European.
 
Old March 29th, 2016 #11
robertofrommilan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Milano, Italia
Posts: 51
Default

In a far future there will be no one "looking european", or "looking african",probably.Human beings are a fast evolving kind of animal, quite different from living fossyls like celachantus. But to change and to disappeare are different, and "genocide" is a completely different thing. No one committed genocide against the celts, the romans or the phoenicians or the ancient g reeks, they just changed in different ways. I believe you can talk of genocide when there is the phisical extermination of a people, and last time I checked nothing like that was happening in the States or in Europe. Maybe in Darfur...
And, by the way,you can have how many "white" children you want, so why are you obsessed with other people business?
 
Old March 30th, 2016 #12
Roger Bannon
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 838
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by robertofrommilan View Post
In a far future there will be no one "looking european", or "looking african",probably.Human beings are a fast evolving kind of animal, quite different from living fossyls like celachantus. But to change and to disappeare are different, and "genocide" is a completely different thing. No one committed genocide against the celts, the romans or the phoenicians or the ancient g reeks, they just changed in different ways. I believe you can talk of genocide when there is the phisical extermination of a people, and last time I checked nothing like that was happening in the States or in Europe. Maybe in Darfur...
And, by the way,you can have how many "white" children you want, so why are you obsessed with other people business?
You are a bigot.

You don't care if the world turns brown or black and have no problems with erasing an entire people off the face of the earth because to you some genes may survive among the remaining brown and blacks. You can't fathom any reason why a people would want to save their own kind from extinction.

Do you hold the same contempt towards American Indians and their halt in cultural advancement as a people? How about the Australian aborigines? Do you disagree with forcing New Guineans to stop eating their dead? Or any western values forcing change on the third world? Do they all have the right to continue life as they see fit?

Having babies for the sake of having babies is irresponsible but government sanctioned for the minorities among us. The negative effect of that should be obvious.
 
Old March 30th, 2016 #13
robertofrommilan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Milano, Italia
Posts: 51
Default

What's a "bigot"? (Rethorical question)

I'm trying to keep it serious, so please do you, according to the rules of your own forum.

Again: I'm not questioning if race-mixing is good or bad, I'm questioning your right to call it genocide and pretend to sound logical or rational. Of course you have the right to say that a bull is a cow if it please you, but you will have hard times trying to milk it...

So please don't go off-topic speaking about New Guineans and an ipothetic "brown world" of the 50th century and answer me about the extermination of white people trough mass killing, forced abortions and sterilization , because this is genocide.

Have a nice day


.
 
Old March 30th, 2016 #14
Josie_in_SF
Junior Member
 
Josie_in_SF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 148
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by robertofrommilan View Post
In a far future there will be no one "looking european", or "looking african",probably.Human beings are a fast evolving kind of animal, quite different from living fossyls like celachantus. But to change and to disappeare are different, and "genocide" is a completely different thing. No one committed genocide against the celts, the romans or the phoenicians or the ancient g reeks, they just changed in different ways. I believe you can talk of genocide when there is the phisical extermination of a people, and last time I checked nothing like that was happening in the States or in Europe. Maybe in Darfur...
And, by the way,you can have how many "white" children you want, so why are you obsessed with other people business?
You could go to the blackest part of Detroit or to the brownest part of LA, and it's likely that virtually everyone there is "part white." White-progeny isn't some black or brown gangbanger walking down the street who hates white people.
 
Old March 30th, 2016 #15
robertofrommilan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Milano, Italia
Posts: 51
Default

Thank you Josie.

Your answer mean that, fot you, a "white-progeny" is a full white people who "lives white", right?
 
Old March 30th, 2016 #16
robertofrommilan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Milano, Italia
Posts: 51
Default

Thank you Josie.

Your answer mean that, fot you, a "white-progeny" is a full white people who "lives white", right?
 
Old March 31st, 2016 #17
Josie_in_SF
Junior Member
 
Josie_in_SF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 148
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by robertofrommilan View Post
Thank you Josie.

Your answer mean that, fot you, a "white-progeny" is a full white people who "lives white", right?
What it means, what everything in the world means, is that we do not need non-whites at all. Those supposedly really smart Chinese and Indians didn't bother traveling over a relatively short body of water to colonize it. A massive unpopulated continent was just sitting right there beneath them, and they lacked the impetus to go get it. We don't need anyone. I would take it even one step further. I don't think non-whites really have any real "diversity" at all beyond basic differences between them. They don't have much "color" either. White people can fill out an entire color palate. Whites are the real "people of color." It must be terrible to be non-white; people spending their entire lives doing little else besides trying to be "us." So no, I don't think "being White" can be defined as some unfortunate bits of DNA material hiding inside of an Al Sharpton or a George Lopez.
 
Old March 31st, 2016 #18
Roger Bannon
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 838
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by robertofrommilan View Post
What's a "bigot"? (Rethorical question)

I'm trying to keep it serious, so please do you, according to the rules of your own forum.

Again: I'm not questioning if race-mixing is good or bad, I'm questioning your right to call it genocide and pretend to sound logical or rational. Of course you have the right to say that a bull is a cow if it please you, but you will have hard times trying to milk it...

So please don't go off-topic speaking about New Guineans and an ipothetic "brown world" of the 50th century and answer me about the extermination of white people trough mass killing, forced abortions and sterilization , because this is genocide.

Have a nice day
Since you're being evasive.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide

"Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups."
-Raphael Lemkin (coined the term 'genocide')

It appears that you have difficulty grasping English. There's a definition you can study. Let's see how you twist the definition to suit your view.
 
Old April 1st, 2016 #19
robertofrommilan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Milano, Italia
Posts: 51
Default

" a massive unpopulated continent"

What are you talking about? There were millions of people in America

"They lacked the impetus to go get it"

Their cousins arrived thousands of years before. They had the impetus to stretch from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego in a few centuries

You take Al Sharpton, I take Puškin and Alexandre Dumas

And, Roger, thank you for your link and your concern about my ability to grasp english. Given my poor command of your language you would have the chivalry to continue our little debate in italian? Or in french? Or in spanish. Or are you trying to discriminate a fellow white aryan from the ancestral motherland? So, cultural differences can be stronger than "race"?...by the way, genocide (genocidio in italian) has a latin ethimology so I'm more entitled than you to understand its meaning. And I totally accept the definition you give, but nothing like that is happening to the "white race", and the individual option of fuck who do you want regardless of race has definitely nothing to do with it.
Nave a nice and diverse day
 
Old April 1st, 2016 #20
robertofrommilan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Milano, Italia
Posts: 51
Default

" a massive unpopulated continent"

What are you talking about? There were millions of people in America

"They lacked the impetus to go get it"

Their cousins arrived thousands of years before. They had the impetus to stretch from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego in a few centuries

You take Al Sharpton, I take Puškin and Alexandre Dumas

And, Roger, thank you for your link and your concern about my ability to grasp english. Given my poor command of your language you would have the chivalry to continue our little debate in italian? Or in french? Or in spanish. Or are you trying to discriminate a fellow white aryan from the ancestral motherland? So, cultural differences can be stronger than "race"?...by the way, genocide (genocidio in italian) has a latin ethimology so I'm more entitled than you to understand its meaning. And I totally accept the definition you give, but nothing like that is happening to the "white race", and the individual option of fuck who do you want regardless of race has definitely nothing to do with it.
Nave a nice and diverse day
 
Reply

Tags
race mixing, race pseudo-science

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:27 PM.
Page generated in 0.13655 seconds.