Quote: (07-11-2015 01:39 PM)Brian Shima Wrote:  

Samseau do you consider yourself white or mixed?

It doesn't matter what anyone "considers" himself. Bruce Jenner is a man no matter what he considers himself, Rachel Dolezal is White no matter what she considers herself. I am mixed because that's what my DNA test shows.

But guess what? One's individual racial identity means very little! "Racial characteristics" are terms that describe millions of individuals. It is impossible to jump to conclusions about any one particular member of a group based on knowledge of the group as a whole. Individuals must always be judged as individuals, and not based on group stereotypes. This is known as the fallacy of composition and division.

Although it should not come to anyone's surprise if the group's stereotypes are true about the individual - it's where the stereotype comes from in the first place; but to be logical one must always discriminate the individual based on their actions and not merely based on their group to which they belong.

This changes, however, for government policy which never sees individuals but only groups - racial characteristics are immensely useful for utilitarian policy.

Quote: (07-11-2015 03:42 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Like I said, it's not the same thing. In East Asian countries, there's basically no separation between ethnicity and national identity. Meaning someone that isn't Korean by blood ancestry will never be considered Korean even if they are born there 3rd generation and fully assimilated into the culture. You'd be a permanent foreigner. America on the other hand even if it does have a white majority has not defined itself as an ethnic state where blood ancestry defines who is or isn't a part of that society. Thus Oprah Winfrey or Bobby Jindal are just as American as Donald Trump and nobody thinks a thing about it. Or having an Indian descent woman winning Miss America doesn't raise an eyebrow(as long as she's hot). This is a nation of immigrants, not indigenous denizens with thousands of years of homogenous population. This makes us more similar to the Latin American model of national identity where a white Mexican, mestizo and indigenous Mexican see themselves as all equally Mexican.

I get what you're saying though. That the majority population will be perceived as the representative of what that country is. But at the same time just realize how a term like "all American" being associated with white, blonde and blue eyed is going to come across if you're black and you've been here as long as whites have. I'm not saying that dude that said it is racist by any means. I realize it's something of a figure of speech. Sometimes I just like to discuss shit if it's interesting.

And a mestizo would "win" the "Chris Evans" test for "All-Mexican"-ness over a Squanto-lookalike or a Louis CK-lookalike, and it would certainly be annoying and baffling if a Squanto-lookalike or a Louis CK-lookalike had a hissy-fit over that.

You over-estimate the "one-to-one"-ness of the map between national identity and ethnic identity and the homogeneity in East Asia, like most Westerners. There is tremendous linguistic, phenotypic, and genetic diversity across and within East Asian countries that go unnoticed by Westerners (many who just think of them as sub-groups of the Yellow Horde with Kim Chi instead of Sushi or General Tso's), and sometimes even East Asians themselves who are of the hegemonic sub-groups (e.g. Han in China, non-Ainu in Japan, non-Aboriginal in Taiwan).

Japan and Taiwan align much more closely with the "Mexican Model" than does the United States, where there are Non-Ainu (Jomon and Yayoi mestizos) and Ainu in the former; and "Chinese", "Taiwanese" (Chinese/Aboriginal mestizos), and Taiwanese Aboriginals in the latter--all of whom consider themselves and by others equally Japanese/Taiwanese (sometimes in particular situations the exception is the "Chinese" in Taiwan), and the groups are relatively continuous in their boundaries like Mexico, rather than relatively discrete like the United States (not only in popular-perception, but also where statistical software can very cleanly and accurately discriminate genetically between East Eurasians, latinos, West Eurasians, and blacks with no instructions on race at all, but not so cleanly between Group A/Mestizos/Group B).

And there is even greater diversity in China, hence the Uyghur example I mentioned. You and others would be or are dismissive of the hypothetical Uyghur because you are not emotionally invested in Chinese identity as you are American identity, leading to double standards, even though said Uyghur could make similar claims about China and the Han as you do about American and whites. Thus, you should understand when others view your concerns about "All-American"-ness with the same degree of seriousness, or lack thereof, as they would a hypothetical Uyghur about "All-Chinese"-ness.

You also over-estimate assimilation-ability in the United States relative to East Asian countries, even Korea. Latinos and Asian Americans routinely report being treated as permanent foreigners, even after multiple-generations. "Whites and Blacks are the Only Ones Considered 'Real Americans' and This is a Problem" is a common type of writing from cultural "thinkers." The Indian chick winning whatever Slam Piece competition that was did raise some eye-brows; we even had a thread on it.

Quote: (07-11-2015 04:00 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Although it should not come to anyone's surprise if the group's stereotypes are true about the individual - it's where the stereotype comes from in the first place; but to be logical one must always discriminate the individual based on their actions and not merely based on their group to which they belong.

Indeed, this is straightforward as a result of Bayes'.

Quote: (07-11-2015 04:00 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

This changes, however, for government policy which never sees individuals but only groups - racial characteristics are immensely useful for utilitarian policy.

Yes. Demographic information is always helpful across a variety of settings, among which race is a large one. Socioeconomic outcomes between different "racial" group falls in line with psychometric predictions. Telling doctors not to use racial characteristics in diagnoses and treatments would literally cause more deaths. The insurance industry, absent government subsidy, would be untenable without using demographic information (especially age or sex) to inform premia rates.

Quote: (07-11-2015 04:00 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

It doesn't matter what anyone "considers" himself. Bruce Jenner is a man no matter what he considers himself, Rachel Dolezal is White no matter what she considers herself. I am mixed because that's what my DNA test shows.

Yeah... Changing names/labels on things doesn't affect the underlying phenomenon at hand. Nor do labels/names help create insight on the underlying phenomenon; it's just a means of identification and definition. Simultaneously, it doesn't make names/labels not useful. Thus, any alleged shifts in the definition of "white" over time is irrelevant. Relevant Feynman:

Quote:Quote:

I turned the page. The answer was, for the wind-up toy, "Energy makes it go." And for the boy on the bicycle, "Energy makes it go." For everything "Energy makes it go."

Now that doesn't mean anything. Suppose it's "Wakalixes." That's the general principle: "Wakalixes makes it go." There is no knowledge coming in. The child doesn't learn anything; it's just a word[.]

What the[y] should have done is to look at the wind-up toy, see that there are springs inside, learn about springs, learn about wheels, and never mind "energy". Later on, when the children know something about how the toy actually works, they can discuss the more general principles of energy.

***

I don't care if potential immigrants from a given country take a lot of pride in their original country and preserve some trappings of their original culture. Although I think national pride is silly, I'm in favor of cultural diversity to the extent that it doesn't impose externalities on others. Fly whatever flags you want, dance your national dances in the street, sing your songs. I might even join in.

However, if on average, they impose negative externalities on others in the form of increased crime rates, being net tax recipients, crowding out public schools with lower-than-average-performing and higher-than-average-misbehaving students, and needing affirmative action policies restructured to accommodate them in schools and workplaces, then it's better for extant Americans that they stay in their origin country.

It's a cost-benefit analysis at the margins. No need to evoke sky is falling, "doomsday" imagery, which is silly...

It's just: Is it better for extant Americans if these group(s) of potential immigrants come or not? If not, America should keep the door shut on them.

Note that the above pertains to any groups of potential immigrants regardless of source country.

However much it may rankle many people these days, the United States was unquestionably founded as a white nation. And since the meaning of the term "white" is apparently contentious, we can precisely define it as having ancestral origins in Northwestern Europe. In the case of the United States, we can further break down the precise ethnic meaning of "white" to majorly entail those of English, Germanic and Scots-Irish ancestry. These were the major ethnic groups that immigrated to the New World in large numbers in the 17th century, who founded the United States in the 18th century, and who built a great nation in the 19th century.

Up until the Hart-Cellar Immigration Act of 1965, immigration legislation in the U.S. had been specifically written to strictly limit non-white immigration into the country, beginning with the Naturalization Act of 1790, which applied only to "free white persons of good character". Later there was the Page Act of 1875, which was passed explicitly to prohibit "undesirable" immigration by non-whites (in this case, Chinese). And half a century later came the Immigration Act of 1924, which strictly limited the number of non-white immigrants into the U.S. (these quoates included Eastern Europeans and Slavs - lending further credence to our earlier definition of "white" Americans as applying to those of Northwestern European extraction).

These are historical facts. You may not like them, but that does not make them any less true. The United States was founded and built by men of Northwestern European ancestry, and those men and their descendents made efforts over numerous generations to preserve the racial and ethnic makeup of the country they founded. The United States of America was never intended to be home to large numbers of non-whites. America was not founded as a melting pot, or a "nation of immigrants". It was, from the beginning and for the vast majority of its history, explicitly a nation comprised of citizens from Northwestern European stock. This is made very clear not only by the historical demographic data of the U.S., but by the surviving letters, publications and legislation of prominent Americans of the 18th and 19th century.

The modern, multicultural America we know today, regardless whether one views it as an improvement or not, must at least be recognized by all honest observers as a corruption of the historic American nation. In other words, this was never the intended outcome. Our founders had absolutely no intention of allowing massive, unchecked immigration from non-white countries, and went to great lengths to explicitly preserve the white (Northwestern European) ethnic identity that they regarded as being "American".

For these reasons, it's completely dishonest for people to make the claim that "white identity" does not exist (especially in America), or that white people have no legitimate claim to exclusively consider themselves the original American people. Whites do have an identity as the original, historical American people. They settled the land, founded the country, built it into a great nation and explicitly wrote numerous laws to maintain its historical ethnic composition. It doesn't get much more cut and dried than that.

Quote: (07-11-2015 02:55 PM)MidWest Wrote:  

More evidence that America is an immigrant nation.

That is a common misconception for the US. I didn't know it myself, but up until the 1970s the overwhelming majority of new Americans were born and not immigrated. They had just a lot of kids.





And contrary to mainland Europe many of those kids survived. So yeah - every immigrant mother gave birth to 7 new Americans. The economic system in the US was much more bountiful than in continental Europe - even going back 200 years ago.



As one can see most population growth even during the hay-days of European immigration came not from foreign born immigrants. Only in the 1970s does immigration severely outpace internal population growth.



But leaving the race discussion aside - the elite has plans to make both Canada and the US Spanish speaking countries predominantly inhabited by what can be called "Latinos". It's not their fault for taking part in the social engineering. It is the future of the US and it will be achieved rather sooner than later.

It is what it is. I personally like Latinas and have nothing against the more macho South American culture. Those immigrants are pawns in a global game of control.

The top in all countries will remain rather "white-ish" - I have no doubts about it. A diverse country is just easier to rule via divide-and-conquer.

Quote: (07-10-2015 08:35 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

Quote: (07-10-2015 08:23 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

I'd rather take 5'2 ompa loopas over the Muslims migrating into Europe.

The men are 5'2." The women are around 4'11" at least judging from what I see in the Baltimore-DC area.

Which brings up an important point for all short(er) guys in the game community who happen to live in cities or suburbs with a lot of Hispanics. If you're 5'7" you just got a promotion, height-wise.

With this many people coming from Mexico, the average height is going to go way down. The perception of which guys are "short" will be altered very soon, if it's not already.

I'd made a joke about this a few months back on a thread somewhere, but after observing this for a while, I'm not kidding. It really looks to be this way.

I don't want to take the thread too far off-topic, but this should be something any guy under 5'9" keeps in the back of his mind.

It's the same here.

I used to be able to buy size 13 (US14) shoes quite easily in shops ten years ago. These days not at all.

My city is plagued by tiny little immigrants. At 6'4" I feel like I'm in Gulliver's kingdom most of the time.

A lot of those shortys are much more Alpha and masculine than the average, 6'2 white urban male. Funny how that works.

Quote: (07-11-2015 06:37 PM)Brian Shima Wrote:  

A lot of those shortys are much more Alpha and masculine than the average, 6'2 white urban male. Funny how that works.

Unfortunately it's the 6'2" beta white males you speak of who keep society advancing and running smoothly.

Hood dwelling alpha immigrant shorties aren't really of any great use in the grand scheme; I know this because my city is plagued by them...it is neither a nicer nor more pleasant place than before the "third world peasant fuelled immigration experiment".

Agreed. I would force an Arizona type law nation wide that has cops checking every short and brown person if it was up to me.

Quote: (07-11-2015 02:22 PM)Blick Mang Wrote:  

Quote:Quote:

Honest question Blick, have you ever lived or traveled to border states like Texas, California, Arizona and New Mexico? Or traveled by the border South Texas, Southern Cal, etc...? That whole region is overwhelming Hispanic, so its only obvious that the people overseeing the border are going to be Hispanic. You guys do know that the majority of border patrol agents are Hispanic right? They aren't 5'2 oompa loompas either, more like 6'0 feet tall motherfuckers packed with muscle. The older ones have beer guts. I've seen them myself since I cross the border into Mexico all the time when I go on vacation.

Quite a bit actually. LA is shit but I really enjoyed San Diego, Sacramento, Dallas, Albuquerque, and Phoenix while traveling for work (usually 4-6 weeks per year in the West Coast for meetings and conventions). I also went on a few coyote hunting trips in New Mexico with my dad near Hobbs, and went caving in Carlsbad Caverns as a young kid. Besides that, tons of exposure and time spent with Hispanics during my time in the Army. My big brother in my college fraternity was also a Colombian green card holder who joined the Air Force to earn his citizenship.

I've been called a "paradox" by friends of various backgrounds more times than I care to count. I treat everyone I meet - regardless of heritage - with the same level of respect, but my views (basically, advocating for my own group the same way you advocate for yours) can sometimes come off as cruel or harsh to people who have been living under a rainbow-painted rock for the last 50 years. It's not that some views here are extreme, it's that you've had your bread buttered by guilt-ridden equalists for so long that any attempt by Whites to assert themselves seems foreign and unnatural to you.

The more "diverse" the West becomes, the more Whites will collectivize to act in self-interest. Nothing opens society up to conservatism like mortal salience stimuli. I see it first-hand in America, and I see it first-hand in Europe. If you're offended by posts critical of our open borders now, you're going to be absolutely shit-the-bed terrified of the state of discourse when your dream America becomes a reality.

Ha! Trust me man. Pro-White posts don't offend me in the slightest, I've seen worse, believe me. Neither do white nationalists since I know the game and their arguments, so I'm not terrified or offended with their threats of upcoming "race wars".

I was merely trying to understand where you were coming from and your perspective of things. Now I know and thanks for keeping it 100, that's 1000x better than going the PC route.

Also, what do you mean by "your dream America"? Nobody here is advocating for some kind of Brown people takeover. Personally I don't think that's going to happen and neither is a race war. When Dylan Roof tried to start a race war, most white supremacists threw him under the bus and distanced themselves from him. That's the problem I have with the race war argument because I don't even believe that white people hold racial hatred that deep enough to start a war. I don't think your average white guy working at Starbucks at the mall cares enough for it, he's just trying to get by. For some kind of civil war to start, there needs to be a high level of hatred for another group and I just don't see it, but I'll be glad to see some evidence proving their is. Most whites, Hispanics and Blacks get a long fine, aside from some gangs here and there.

You say the more diverse the west becomes, the more whites will stick with each other and collectivize in self-interest. I don't know how old you are, but I'll tell you this. By 2050 whites will be majority minority and Hispanics would constitute about 30% of the population (still not the majority at all). By then I'll be around 61 years old or so and will probably be kicking back at a beach somewhere in the Caribbean if God willing something doesn't happen to me by then. Maybe by 2100 when whites are a little smaller in size there will be a race war (which I doubt) by then I'll be long dead and probably you too.

I don't believe I'll see a race war in my lifetime or even some kind of Latino takeover.

Quote: (07-10-2015 02:56 AM)Blick Mang Wrote:  

Just have a quick look at Mexican television and compare the appearance of anchors/personalities

You mean mexican jews?

Quote: (07-11-2015 07:17 PM)germanico Wrote:  

You mean mexican jews?

I'm either going to get banned, jailed, or die in a mysterious car accident for posting this but I can't pass up the opportunity.

Quote: (07-11-2015 06:58 PM)MidWest Wrote:  

Also, what do you mean by "your dream America"? Nobody here is advocating for some kind of Brown people takeover.

I don't believe I'll see a race war in my lifetime or even some kind of Latino takeover.

Just gonna respond to these statements before I pop off and do some approaches.

I may come across as strident MidWest. I don't mean to just so you know. I think a discussion of this would be valuable.

For the race war business, I can't think of a single multiethnic state that has not devolved into a civil war.
Maybe there are but they are likely the exceptions. And to be frank, most ethnic hatred is directed at the more "privileged" caste rather than the other way around. Examples include the Christian Lebanese, Chinese in Southeast Asia, Jews, Whites in Africa.

Which is why the fact that the narrative justifying harmful actions against whites already exists (white privilege) should be worrying.

But the other statement is what I want to disagree with because for me at least it is a strawman.
I don't believe in a brown takeover wherein Hispanics become the new majority and institute some crazy apartheid system.
Does that mean that suddenly this situation is good? Is it wrong for whites to remain a majority? Especially since being more than 80% of the population is too far fetched now.

Moreover, changing the subject a bit I know, when we cross the Atlantic we find the exact same process happening in Europe except decades behind.
Mass immigration, welfare assisted fertility, affirmative action, demonization of white identity as racist.
The only constant is that apparently these sorts of things should just happen to whites.

And I say that because if America decided to expel immigrants the way Mexico does to its immigrants, we would be compared to Nazi Germany.

So i suppose my meta question concerning all of this is as follows: is it wrong for whites to want their own territory where they prosper and have close to absolute demographic mastery over? Other human groups are permitted the same right, or at least nobody denies that such a thing would be best for them.
So why not whitey?

To me that is the issue, a deliberate hodge podging, because as Zelcorpion has said it makes a society easier to rule.
And when I say deliberate I simply mean almost everyone who has power over these decisions either approves of or fails to oppose this process. Not that a cabal of Jews are doing it behind the scenes (since these same forces would doubtless expect the same of Israel and generally are anti-Israel).

What I think will happen, and it might start soon but take many decades to fully unfurl, is that the more conservative states are just going to start ignoring the federal government and the feds won't be able to do anything about it. Whites will migrate to states with more traditional USA values while minorities will prefer to live in more "liberal" states.

Just spit balling here.

The nation overall will vote liberal as the proportion of whites declines and minorities vote for things like "hate speech laws" and gun restrictions and forcing churches to marry gay folk, but the conservative states will say "fuck you" and ignore federal law. The military and law enforcement is made up conservative people, so the liberal presidents will know they won't do much to enforce the law. It will be a cold civil war with no shots fired but constant tension. We'll have predominately white conservative states with their own values and laws similar to the USA until a few decades ago, and the other states will be "diverse" and live under values that look like today's university values: speech codes, yes means yes, affirmative action, feminism, white male scapegoating, celebrating LBQTKWEBG, gun control, generous welfare, etc.

I grew up in Tennessee and now live in Arizona. I'm weird in that I would much prefer stronger border security and a restricted immigration policy but at the same time I do appreciate a lot of Mexican culture. It's odd.

Quote: (07-11-2015 09:35 PM)Hyperion Wrote:  

I grew up in Tennessee and now live in Arizona. I'm weird in that I would much prefer stronger border security and a restricted immigration policy but at the same time I do appreciate a lot of Mexican culture. It's odd.

What's odd about it? You can still enjoy and like other cultures and their people, while preserving your own culture.

The race war talk strikes me as tinfoil hat talk, but who knows...anything is possible I guess.

In the mean time, I am going to focus on an escape strategy so that I can be sitting on a beach somewhere in South America relaxing with a beer and hard-bodied slut while "Rome burns", so to speak.

Quote: (07-11-2015 09:42 PM)Tex Pro Wrote:  



The race war talk strikes me as tinfoil hat talk, but who knows...anything is possible I guess.

In the mean time, I am going to focus on an escape strategy so that I can be sitting on a beach somewhere in South America relaxing with a beer and hard-bodied slut while "Rome burns", so to speak.

I can't say if there will be a race war...does seem a bit tinfoil to me. But best case scenario, you'll have a white elite with the minority masses moaning about their disenfranchisement. It won't be pretty.

But yea, I think you have the right idea. Time to jump ship.

At least in South America, you have automatic status as a white guy. The "blame whitey" epidemic hasn't infected them yet. But who knows what the future may hold.

As for me, I think I'll return to my ancestral homeland in the north of Europe and create a brood of nordic wunderkind (credit speakeasy).

Quote: (07-11-2015 07:17 PM)germanico Wrote:  

Quote: (07-10-2015 02:56 AM)Blick Mang Wrote:  

Just have a quick look at Mexican television and compare the appearance of anchors/personalities

You mean mexican jews?

RIP Jacobo Zabludovsky

Quote: (07-11-2015 11:24 AM)MidWest Wrote:  

Dude looks white as hell. But when he talks to Americans he always considers himself a proud Mexican Latino and never "white". But when he talks to Mexicans he's considered a "guero" or "whitey".

If he came to Europe, especially Spain, trying to play the identity politics card he'd be laughed out the room. Dude's as European as McDonald's is American

Quote: (07-11-2015 01:19 PM)Chick Magnet Wrote:  

Are you that dense?

Look at Brazil, pal.

Their economy is in tatters. Endemic corruption. Slums everywhere. One of the highest murder rates in the world.

Yea...an aspiring model for America.

Do I need to publish Brazil's racial stats again? Brazil is a majority white country, with incredibly harmonious racial integration etc. The problems it has are nothing to do with its racial demographic make up. Just because Americans don't think of white Brazilians as 'proper' white, it doesn't make it so. If you want to argue the differences between Northern European and Southern European whites in terms of work ethic and so on, that's a discussion for another day - but bear in mind that a lot of white Brazilians come from Germanic stock, so the usual "southern Europeans are lazy" argument doesn't really hold water in regards to Brazil's white population.

Quote: (07-11-2015 02:05 PM)Captainstabbin Wrote:  

Fundamentally, traditional American culture is better than other cultures. That culture is primarily called white, but it isn't. When any race lives with traditional American values he becomes part of the greatest culture in the history of the world.

This is why multiculturalism is nonsense. Mexican, French, Russian, Angolan, Egyptian, etc and even smaller subcultures here have nothing to contribute. It's only when people happily renounce their failed heritage and embrace US culture do they become contributors to it. Otherwise it's like walking into a museum and spray painting graffiti on masterpieces.

When someone tells me how proud they are of their whereeverthefuck homeland I just wonder why they don't go back. You'll never hear me talking about the amazing Irish, German, English or French cultures my Great, Great whoever came from because I literally don't give a fuck. We took the best of Europe and made it better than they ever could.

Ha, I refer you to both this post and, whilst I never thought I'd quote Krauser's rant for backup in a discussion, here goes:

Quote:Quote:

- First time I went to America I was shocked at how empty and vapid the culture is. It's like every city was thrown up overnight faster than a movie set, there's no sense of history, and the popular culture is inane. I'm not joking about being shocked.“

The notion that the U.S has a richer culture than those places in Europe is nonsense. It quite simply doesn't have enough history, and also for the reasons Krauser stated. George Carlin puts it better than I can. Obviously, I'm playing devil's advocate somewhat in this thread, but the points still stand. If you honestly think the current U.S has a richer culture than somewhere like France then I don't know where to start.

Quote: (07-11-2015 05:22 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

However much it may rankle many people these days, the United States was unquestionably founded as a white nation. And since the meaning of the term "white" is apparently contentious, we can precisely define it as having ancestral origins in Northwestern Europe.

Sorry, I had to.

Quote: (07-12-2015 04:20 PM)Teedub Wrote:  

Do I need to publish Brazil's racial stats again? Brazil is a majority white country, with incredibly harmonious racial integration etc. The problems it has are nothing to do with its racial demographic make up. Just because Americans don't think of white Brazilians as 'proper' white, it doesn't make it so. If you want to argue the differences between Northern European and Southern European whites in terms of work ethic and so on, that's a discussion for another day - but bear in mind that a lot of white Brazilians come from Germanic stock, so the usual "southern Europeans are lazy" argument doesn't really hold water in regards to Brazil's white population.

Race relations in Brazil are anything but harmonious. You have a white elite, and bonafide racial caste system...just like the rest of South America.

There are parts of Brazil that have worse crime and poverty than sub-saharan Africa. Naturally, those are the black parts.

Honestly, it's laughable that Brazil is held as this melting pot model for the rest of the world. It doesn't work.

If it did...there wouldn't be hordes of upper middle class Brazillians (whites) pouring into South Florida where I live.

Quote: (07-12-2015 06:11 PM)Chick Magnet Wrote:  

If it did...there wouldn't be hordes of upper middle class Brazillians (whites) pouring into South Florida where I live.

Fair point, I didn't know that occurred (though it doesn't disprove my point about Brazil's problems being related to race). Point is though, are those guys really seen as adding to 'white America'...I think not. Despite being 'white' if you asked anyone outside of the States. I mean, Brazilian soccer player Kaka is now playing for Orlando City FC...is he seen as white by the local non-'Latino' populace? Not really.

^Brazilians are generally viewed more favourably here than Hispanics. They do seem to integrate better.

But I agree with you, Americans can have a flinty perspective on who is white. But our census is a bit silly in this regards too. Indians (from the subcontinent) and Arabs are counted as White.

From my perspective, it's anybody originating from the European continent whether north or south.

Sorry to hear you Cali guys are getting the 5'2 oompa loompas, we get them in Texas too but heres the latin lineup in dallas:




Although they are shorter than average I don't mind because living near a hispanic area of north texas I get plenty of ass just for being 6ft and blue eyes

The problem with identifying hispanics is that they're so mixed, I get my groceries from "Fiesta" which is a latino food store because they have good prices but shopping there you would struggle to guess which races are what, too many times I've said to myself "oh hey another white guy" and then he starts speaking in spanish to his friends/family and I'm proven wrong again.

The dark skinned 5'2 oompa lumpas are obvious and everyone would quickly label them as hispanic, but the problem is you could pass 20 other hispanics and easily mistake them for white or Indian/Arab until you hear them speak.

If you walked by most of the people in these videos you probably wouldn't be so sure as to guess "mexican"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0R6GUVpz4Io

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThyulfsphFo

Also a question for anyone with strong knowledge in science/biology/epigenetics

I had a friend from China on a project and we took a break to get something to eat and he came with me to the latino grocery store, he said there are papers (written in Chinese) that summed up pretty much state

good nutrition: stronger european features
bad nutrtion: stronger 3rd world features

Any science to this? I know there is some research that shows famine/severe hunger can affect offspring for up to 3 generations and after living in a heavily hispanic area for a few years I've noted a few times the "mestizo scale", where you'll see a grandmother, mother/father, their child, and then the grandkids and each generation looks a little bit more European than the last with the younger grandkids (most likely born here) having the most white features.

Quote: (07-12-2015 06:36 PM)btz Wrote:  

Also a question for anyone with strong knowledge in science/biology/epigenetics

I had a friend from China on a project and we took a break to get something to eat and he came with me to the latino grocery store, he said there are papers (written in Chinese) that summed up pretty much state

good nutrition: stronger european features
bad nutrtion: stronger 3rd world features

Any science to this? I know there is some research that shows famine/severe hunger can affect offspring for up to 3 generations and after living in a heavily hispanic area for a few years I've noted a few times the "mestizo scale", where you'll see a grandmother, mother/father, their child, and then the grandkids and each generation looks a little bit more European than the last with the younger grandkids (most likely born here) having the most white features.

No. Similar claims have been made about Asian Americans. It's a combination of confirmation bias, just-so stories, and a mis-association of things like increased height, better teeth, greater muscle (and sometimes fat) mass as being "European" features.

And epigenetics, as in the trans-generational passage of experiences influencing genetic expression in a predictable manner, is bunk. For purported explanations on humans, they're again just just-so stories and confirmation bias, like palm-reading or astrology. The much ballyhoed experiments on mice in popular media suffer fatally from lack of replicability and multiple-testing.

Epigenetics is a very "hot" subject among Genetics graduate students right now, many of whom are having a lot of trouble in their research and/or dissertation work. Quite a few have admitted to me they're essentially just trying experiments on mice until something works or they'll never graduate, i.e until finally an experiment crosses some arbitrary p-value threshold.

Epigenetics is just another hail-mary for people trying to avoid the inevitable, politically-incorrect conclusion: Linear genetics models capture the bulk of variation in outcomes in complex organisms, including humans.

just read the entire thread, I think you guys are letting your fears turn into fantasies.

Illegals should be deported and we should build a fence because right now the cartels own the border and they know it. I found myself on a narco blog a few months ago and although I didn't understand everything I did understand that they were saying "what border patrol" as they drove 3 trucks full of drugs north, and another car with boxes full of cash south.

When I told my uncle I was moving to Texas he kept telling me to watch out for the mexicans because they hate americans and whites, "la raza" is trying to take over, i'll be the victim of hate crimes etc and I was paranoid but after going from rural Wisconsin that's 99% white to north Texas and living in an area that is 60% hispanic I'm not really seeing much of a difference except for the coin operated laundromats, a 5'7 average height, and darker skin.

Most of the white people in the area are older retired couples who've lived there for decades and or younger couples who want an affordable home. There are no bad race relations, no "reconquista", and no crime waves targeting whites.

There is slightly more crime, but it's stupid crime like public intoxication or shoplifting. Stuff whites wouldn't do but not exactly the type of crime that makes you fear for your safety.

For this weekend the city police site shows 9 incidents:

2 cases of class c shoplifting (under $50 in value)
3 cases of public intoxication (99% chance it was mexicans)
2 drunk driving stops (again, 99% chance mexican)
1 theft from vehicle
1 arrest for public urination, feminists worded the language so that even if you piss behind a fence you could get busted.

Higher than an all white area would be but not exactly white flight type of crimes.

The downsides:

some foul smelling food called "menudo", if you live in an apartment complex you will smell it at least once every weekend. Absolutely gross
higher cases of drunk driving, 38% of the Texas population, 49% of the drunk driving convictions.
little mexican boys are annoying little shits with very punchable faces

I'm not saying LA and Chicago aren't shit holes, they absolutely are but I think it has more to do with liberals running the cities rather than the hispanic population. I don't know how many of you listen to Larry Kudlow's radio show but a few weeks ago his guest made a very interesting point, the cities with the most booming economies also have booming hispanic populations and are in conservative cities (Dallas, Houston, Austin, Kansas City, Tulsa, Nashville, etc) and the hispanics there have higher incomes, higher graduation rates, low crime rates, and better quality of life than hispanics in liberal states/cities.

For black/hispanic minorities Texas has the highest graduation rates, Rick Perry made a very good point of it at the nationa press club:






I know all of this is anecdotal and just 1 persons view from 1 city but I really think you guys are overreacting by calling a hispanic population a threat to white people or the economy. In fact, it might even help:

http://www.autonews.com/article/20150518...the-market

Quote:Quote:

Last year, Hispanic buyers delivered 96 percent of Ford and Chevrolet's combined year-over-year retail sales growth, 33 percent of Nissan's, 35 percent of Toyota's and 100 percent of Honda's, according to IHS Automotive's Polk market data unit.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/02/2...h-by-2020/

Quote:Quote:

The U.S. Hispanic population will account for 40% of employment growth over the next five years and more than 75% from 2020 to 2034, according to a new study.

That’s around 11 million jobs out of 14 million new positions across the economy.

Job growth among the Hispanic population is particularly notable given that the growth of the non-Hispanic working age population is set to slow to near zero as the number of new non-Hispanic workers will barely match the drop from retiring baby boomers, according to the study from IHS Global Insight, an economic forecasting firm.

Again I think we should deport the illegals and build a fence, but I don't think it's going to be an issue. By the 3rd generation most of them look white and can't even pass high school spanish class so don't freak out too much.

Be more worried about liberals, they could take all of Germany's finest white engineers, put them in a city, and in less than a decade it would be a crime ridden cesspool with racial tensions between the Germans with blond hair and the ones with brown hair.