[speakeasy]

(04-12-2014 08:44 PM)Excelsior Wrote:  

I'm at a loss. My understanding of the reproductive process as far as humanity is concerned was that when you created a child, you contributed to half of its genetic makeup. The DNA you are passing to that child is yours; you got that DNA from your ancestors. Therefore, your child is genetically linked to your ancestors by definition, as are any descendants of that child.

I feel there's no logical way around this reality, but some here seem to think otherwise. Thus, I have to ask: how precisely does the act of interracial procreation result in the complete severance of genetic ties with one's ancestors?

To them, if the kids doesn't look like the parents phenotype, that have destroyed their heritage. It's as simple as that. It's based upon what the kid looks like.

[Excelsior]

(04-12-2014 11:16 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 08:44 PM)Excelsior Wrote:  

I'm at a loss. My understanding of the reproductive process as far as humanity is concerned was that when you created a child, you contributed to half of its genetic makeup. The DNA you are passing to that child is yours; you got that DNA from your ancestors. Therefore, your child is genetically linked to your ancestors by definition, as are any descendants of that child.

I feel there's no logical way around this reality, but some here seem to think otherwise. Thus, I have to ask: how precisely does the act of interracial procreation result in the complete severance of genetic ties with one's ancestors?

To them, if the kids doesn't look like the parents phenotype, that have destroyed their heritage. It's as simple as that. It's based upon what the kid looks like.

That sounds like the train of thought. It is foolish, but it is what it is I guess.

[Switch]

@Excelsior and speakeasy

I have to say that you guys are correct. It is absolutely what the child looks like. I believe there is research that backs this up. Fathers tend to leave their families more often when the child doesn't look like them. Babies tend to look like their fathers when they are first born. This keeps the father around, and with a father around, the baby is more likely to survive. Makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint, correct?

Now when white people mix with other races, their genes are suppressed because darker features are dominant genes and lighter genes are recessive. That is why it is very rare to see a person with dark skin and light eyes. When a white father has a child with a black mother, the child will not end up looking like the white father. Skin and hair color are two of the most defining features of a person. So, as a white skinned person, I must say that yes, it is mostly about what a child looks like, and not about their genetic makeup.

One more thing, over 50% of today's African Americans have white genetics in them, but still identify as black. I know I would struggle to come to terms with the fact that my own child does not identify with my race. I do not know if this is for better or for worse.

By the way, I am not some sort of crazy white supremacist and I don't want to be labeled as such. All I'm saying is that people want their kids to look like them, and there shouldn't be anything wrong with that.

[Crackshot]

Culture can be passed on and is more important than genetics. Look at Drake, he is still a Jew even though he looks like a mixed-race man

Mixing races can be good or bad. I have more in common with a traditional African person than 99.9% of white westerners ( I am white) with my red pill views on life but on the other hand if diff cultures mix it can create problems.

[Deluge]

Saying mixed race kids have their white parents skin tone is usually true, but it's the same with the other parent. Whenever people talk about this they only ever talk about how the white parent looks in relation to their kids, and they never talk about this with mixed races with two non-white parents. I wonder why.

Also, it's not like the genes for light hair and eyes disappear after race mixing. Look at people who are 3/4 white and see for yourself, keep in mind that the average African American is already 20% European according to DNA testing. Some 1/2 white people have it too, especially Indian or Asian mixes.

Barack Obama Senior and Junior.


Seal and his kids


First pic of Quincy Jones off Google Images


First pic of Rashida Jones off Google Images

[speakeasy]

On this issue of mixed-race kids and heritage, it was interesting that when Obama visited Ireland, the Irish seemed genuinely interested in his Irish heritage from his mother's side. It didn't seem like they viewed him as an alien, but viewed him as someone that was an extension of their country.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew...llage.html

Quote:

Nearly 37 million Americans claimed Irish ancestry in 2009, according to census estimates.

The website Ancestry.com has calculated that Mr Obama is 3.1 per cent Irish.

It is only a small proportion but his “Irishness” has been embraced by the country’s prime minister Enda Kenny.

He said: “The moment Air Force One touches down on Irish soil, President Obama comes 'home' as the fulfillment of the American Dream. A dream which, on his election, regained so much of its allure around the world.”

@Deluge

I also notice that people assume that black genes wipe out white genes, but never acknowledge that it happens both ways. Sometimes the kid looks more Caucasian than African such as Derek Jeter:



No one would guess that Jennifer Beal has a black dad:




Here are some more famous people who are mixed black and white but look way more white:

http://www.madamenoire.com/302769/celebr...-are-black

[Switch]

It can go both ways, but like was mentioned, usually the white genes take the "phenotype hit" so to speak. I've seen mixed white/black people look totally black, but I've never seen a mixed white/black person look totally white. At the whitest, they end up looking like the people whose images appear in the original article, mixed.

[speakeasy]

(04-13-2014 04:28 AM)Switch Wrote:  

It can go both ways, but like was mentioned, usually the white genes take the "phenotype hit" so to speak. I've seen mixed white/black people look totally black, but I've never seen a mixed white/black person look totally white. At the whitest, they end up looking like the people whose images appear in the original article, mixed.

I guarantee you that you haven't. I already addressed this further up in the thread. I said that in America people define "black" very broadly as in anyone with any degree of recognizable African ancestry. This is merely an illusion. Imagine it we did the opposite and labeled anyone that had even a slight degree of European ancestry as white. That would mean virtually every black American would be considered white since black Americans are distinguishable from black Africans on average due to Caucasian admixture. Do you see what I'm saying?

The mixed people you see are not "totally black" in phenotype. This is totally black, someone with unmixed African genetics:



I challenge you to find me a photo of any half and half black/white person who looks even close to this man above. Don't waste your time, because you won't.

[Deluge]

I've met half white half Asians with hazel or greenish eyes and specks of blonde or red in their hair (the later had a redhead parent). One of my friends is a White-Indian mix yet I didn't find out for months. She has an English surname and completely white skin and green eyes but a Middle Eastern looking nose, but I never asked about her heritage. Turns out she is half dark-skinned South Indian, dark as some African Americans or people from the Horn of Africa. You'd never believe she was her daughter or even related at all if you saw them in public together.

EDIT: She actually looks kinda like Duke pornstar Belle Knox (who is also half Indian) but with paler skin and green eyes

[Moma]

speakeasy, then by your definition of black, then 90 percent of African Americans should not also be considered black. This would also go for black people of Caribbean descent who are also mixed. You keep picking dark skinned black males to highlight being pure black but skin complexion is not always the defining factor.

I already put up some pics of African lizards who may have even more 'non-African' blood than you since you define mix depending on how much melanin is visible in the skin tone (I assume you are not a first generation mulatto -excuse my terminology if not politically correct).
So does that make you more 'black' than Africans like Iman, Omotola etc?

Didn't a DNA test between Snoop Dog and Charles Barkley show that Charles has more African DNA in him? Yet Charles is a redbone! So how does that work?

[Teutatis]

Moma is right, just like Europeans and Asians, black Africans come in a wide variety of skin tones, facial features, heights, etc. Saying a lighter skinned black person is somehow not black because there are darker skinned blacks is the same as saying a darker skinned south European is not white because there are some lighter skinned Euros somewhere up north.

[Samseau]

There are some good posts in defense of multi-racial mixing here.

I'd like to remind people of a theory by Arthur Schopenhauer (the same guy who wrote On Women, which is considered a manosphere classic):

When two people are attracted to each other, it's because they will produce attractive offspring. The built-in attraction mechanisms we all have are reliable ways to produce healthy and beautiful offspring.

When different races mix, it's because subconsciously they know their kids will be better looking for it.

Thus when looking at all the uglies on pg. 2, I have to wonder: what did the parents look like?

[jariel]

Um, so I'll be either old as fuck or six feet under by the time this country is full of hot Black women?

[CactusCat589]

Who knows. They might have been mediocre-looking, but they might have produced even uglier children had they gone with their own race. It's a coin flip.

[Moma]

Samseau - people mix cos they are horny and that's what available.
Whoever has the nicest smelling vagina, big tits, round arse etc. and youthful looking skin will attract the man..

I don't think there is any race that signals health any more than the other race...if one is a young attractive lizard..fcuk if you are white, blue or purple..men are trying to fcuk and this has been proven throughout the ages!

We all have preferences but when it comes down to the meat and bones, REAL MEN will fcuk any reptile that has nice hip to waist ratio, big jugs and a tight, yet warm, juicy vagina.

[Giovonny]

(04-12-2014 05:03 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

In the next 20-40 years the western parts of the USA will become huge multiracial zones; we will be able to observe and judge on the success of these cultures by their successes or failures.

We don't have to wait 20-40 years to evaluate the success of "multiracial zones"

You are a walking "multiracial zone"

I think you said that you are Chinese and White

You are a living, breathing example that a multi-racial man can be successful.

[Dusty]

I'm a white dude, but I'd rather have intercourse with Latina and Asian chicks that white ones. White ones tend to have more surly dispositions, and so many are overweight. My natural biological urge is to spread my seed into other races that have more pleasing personalities and tighter bodies.

[speakeasy]

(04-13-2014 06:16 AM)Moma Wrote:  

speakeasy, then by your definition of black, then 90 percent of African Americans should not also be considered black. This would also go for black people of Caribbean descent who are also mixed. You keep picking dark skinned black males to highlight being pure black but skin complexion is not always the defining factor.

I already put up some pics of African lizards who may have even more 'non-African' blood than you since you define mix depending on how much melanin is visible in the skin tone (I assume you are not a first generation mulatto -excuse my terminology if not politically correct).
So does that make you more 'black' than Africans like Iman, Omotola etc?

Didn't a DNA test between Snoop Dog and Charles Barkley show that Charles has more African DNA in him? Yet Charles is a redbone! So how does that work?

Just one minor thing first, by "black" we usually mean Negroid so to speak, someone of central West African descent. I don't think Iman would be included in that group. People from the horn region of Africa tend to have Caucasian facial features.

I already understand the point you are making above, I've long understood that. That skin color varies amongst Africans and that you can't always use skin color as a proxy for their genetic heritage, though on average it does give you some idea. I feel reasonably sure that Vin Diesel has more Caucasian heritage than Don Cheadle without giving them a DNA test to prove it.

The reason I post the picture of the dark African men is to reset people's notion of what a "totally black" person look like, because no half black/white person looks anything like someone that is pure African. People will think someone like Louis Farrakhan or Barack Obama look black to them when it's clear to my eyes that these men are not completely black but have mixed heritage. So their argument is that any mixed black/white kid will automatically be black because they "look black". And that's due to the way the one-drop rule has made people view ANYONE with even a drop of black blood as being fully black, whatever that means.

(04-13-2014 07:06 AM)Teutatis Wrote:  

Moma is right, just like Europeans and Asians, black Africans come in a wide variety of skin tones, facial features, heights, etc. Saying a lighter skinned black person is somehow not black because there are darker skinned blacks is the same as saying a darker skinned south European is not white because there are some lighter skinned Euros somewhere up north.

Not quite a fair analogy. The range of European skin tones that are considered "white" is nowhere near as wide as the range of skin tones people call "black" in America. Anything from Wesley Snipes to Rasheeda Jones. A Sicilian may have a more swarthy skin tone than a Dutch, but they are still easily identifiable as European. Now if you want to see very dark Caucasians, we have them in India. But no one refers to this guy as white:



Now if we defined "white" as broadly as we define "black" in America, then IRT above would be considered white.

(04-13-2014 12:22 PM)CactusCat589 Wrote:  

Who knows. They might have been mediocre-looking, but they might have produced even uglier children had they gone with their own race. It's a coin flip.

Alicia Keys mom certainly is not attractive.

[Don Juan Tenorio]

(04-13-2014 04:04 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

I also notice that people assume that black genes wipe out white genes, but never acknowledge that it happens both ways. Sometimes the kid looks more Caucasian than African such as Derek Jeter.



No one would guess that Jennifer Beal has a black dad:




Here are some more famous people who are mixed black and white but look way more white:

http://www.madamenoire.com/302769/celebr...-are-black

When mixed raced people like those mentioned above mate they can have full black kids, full white kids or anything inbetween. That's why people labeled as black (who in fact are not) can have white kids or black kids and everything in between like Peter Griffin or the aforementioned Darek Jetter.





That's basic high school stuff, Mendel, the beans; and that applies to humans as well as to any other animals and plants.

I don't understand globalists here trying to destroy something that has taken thenths of thousands of years to be created... now it seems we all have to look the same, speak the same language, eat and drink the same stuff, dress the same, pray to the same god, listen to the same music, and so on; it doesn't matter if in the process to create that utopic new better and more beautiful human specimen we have to exterminate some of the existing ones till they're reduced to a reminder in the genetic pool like it happens with our Neanderthal ancestors in Europe.

Now we have to take sides, either we are with the globalists or we are for the preservation of our heritage (linguistic, cultural, religious, and genetic as well).

Another issue is that in the USA most people have mixed heritage with white or black or indian or others among their ancestors. Many famous people who you call black like Will Smith, the Obamas, Denzel Washington, are mixed raced people who are so black as white, people just refuse to call each by its accurate name, during the colonial time there was in Latin America a precise denomination for each type, think brazillians still use something such classifications.





How is it possible that something is studied and classified since the XVIth century cannot be used today just because it's easier to fit people in three or four groups no matter how scientifically unaccurate it is?

[speakeasy]

Did you guys hear about the fascinating story of a Nigerian couple with no white ancestors that gave birth to a blonde, white-skinned baby? It's been determined that the baby isn't an albino.

It's still not understood how this happened and I'm sure she'll be the subject of much research. Africans left Africa and mutated into Caucasians. Our DNA is constantly throwing out mutations and if any of these mutations offer some survival advantage, they will survive. I think that's what we may be seeing here. An African couple had a white baby because of a genetic mutation. If this had happened in Africa, that skin color would not last because having no melanin under an equatorial sun is bad for survival. But being born with that skin color in a cold region of the world would be an advantage, and that DNA would then survive and replicate more copies. We might be seeing right in front of our eyes how the white race evolved from Africa.

There is at least one known case of the reverse, a white couple having a black baby. It happened under apartheid South Africa:

http://abagond.wordpress.com/2009/05/13/...e-parents/

[mikado]

Actually for me the issue is a case of
"Do what I say not what I do"

Many of the "afraid of white color disappearance" here are like
" I don't want my race to disappear. To hell those other people ( especially men)who come here and take our girls.However I reserve the right to fuck any girl I like, including from other races."

That double standard.

[tylerdurden1993]

(04-13-2014 02:50 PM)mikado Wrote:  

Actually for me the issue is a case of
"Do what I say not what I do"

Many of the "afraid of white color disappearance" here are like
" I don't want my race to disappear. To hell those other people ( especially men)who come here and take our girls.However I reserve the right to fuck any girl I like, including from other races."

That double standard.

Stop being a you said exactly the same thing in the thread about the german girl being boned by the black guy and look how that turned out

[Excelsior]

(04-13-2014 02:10 PM)Don Juan Tenorio Wrote:  

I don't understand globalists here trying to destroy something that has taken thenths of thousands of years to be created... now it seems we all have to look the same, speak the same language, eat and drink the same stuff, dress the same, pray to the same god, listen to the same music, and so on; it doesn't matter if in the process to create that utopic new better and more beautiful human specimen we have to exterminate some of the existing ones till they're reduced to a reminder in the genetic pool like it happens with our Neanderthal ancestors in Europe.

Who is getting "exterminated" here? What is getting "destroyed"?

Quote:

How is it possible that something is studied and classified since the XVIth century cannot be used today just because it's easier to fit people in three or four groups no matter how scientifically unaccurate it is?

You're completely ignoring historical realities here. Iberian colonists did not go about their business in the manner that British colonialists did. The Iberian method encouraged more mixing, and the social system in the Latin colonies allowed for fuller integration (and greater socio-economic advancement) of the products of interracial unions.

The Anglo colonial method made many fewer allowances. In the USA especially, a much stronger, firmer divide was placed between whites and non-whites (especially blacks). The American system did not encourage mixing to the same extent and provided many fewer paths to full integration for the products of such unions because it was more concerned with maintaining the relative "purity" of the white population and keeping it distinct from the black population. This is why the USA developed the one-drop rule, which you do not see in Latin America. The American model of social organization (and, to a lesser extent, the models elsewhere in the Anglo-colonial world) has always prioritized the maintenance of very distinct racial groups. When you follow the Latin model, you make mixing more tolerable and more feasible, hence the widespread mixing in the likes of Brazil. This is not what Anglos wanted to see.

Why the distinction? Historians have made many arguments about that. Some put it down to different social circumstances of early colonists (ex: Iberian colonists didn't bring as many of their own women with them as the Anglos did, making mixing more useful for them). Some put it down to economics, others religion (Protestant v. Catholic).

In any case, there are historical differences here. When you refer to "something is studied and classified since the XVIth century", you are referring to the Latin understanding of race. This understanding never existed in the USA, and that is not simply because "it's easier" not to have it. There is a historical rhyme and reason for this distinction. Also, it is not correct to say that this understanding of race "cannot be used today". It is being used today in Latin America, where it was born, but it will never gain a foothold in the USA. The one drop rule is king here.

[speakeasy]

^^^ From what I understand the mixing in Latin America was only allowed between European men and black and indigenous women. Black and indigenous men weren't mixing with European women. Black and indigenous always mixed freely and their offspring were called zambos.

There was of course a lot of mixing going on in the USA as well and it was tolerated under one condition. That it only be a slavemaster and his slaves. So he had his proper white wife and children, and a bunch of black concubines he routinely knocked up in the barn. In effect making himself more slaves without having to buy them.

[Samseau]

(04-13-2014 12:23 PM)Moma Wrote:  

Samseau - people mix cos they are horny and that's what available.
Whoever has the nicest smelling vagina, big tits, round arse etc. and youthful looking skin will attract the man..

I don't think there is any race that signals health any more than the other race...if one is a young attractive lizard..fcuk if you are white, blue or purple..men are trying to fcuk and this has been proven throughout the ages!

We all have preferences but when it comes down to the meat and bones, REAL MEN will fcuk any reptile that has nice hip to waist ratio, big jugs and a tight, yet warm, juicy vagina.

Who cares about men's preferences? Everyone knows men will fuck any hot babe. You need to take into account the women, who are by far the picker of sexes. It's their subconscious mind that might be directing them to a man who they will produce more attractive offspring with.

(04-13-2014 01:03 PM)Giovonny Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 05:03 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

In the next 20-40 years the western parts of the USA will become huge multiracial zones; we will be able to observe and judge on the success of these cultures by their successes or failures.

We don't have to wait 20-40 years to evaluate the success of "multiracial zones"

You are a walking "multiracial zone"

I think you said that you are Chinese and White

You are a living, breathing example that a multi-racial man can be successful.

Just because I am a multi-racial man does not mean I live in a multi-racial zone. I live in the North East, dominated by whites. If it wasn't for the generosity and affluence of white people, my mother would have never been adopted from her poor life in Seoul. (I'm not Chinese!)

Thus it's directly in my self-interest for me to be wary of anything that abolishes white culture, otherwise I'd be biting that hand that feeds me.

Remember: "The sum is greater than it's parts." A white society with a bit of color splashed in? No problem. A totally multi-racial society with no dominant race? Will it be like Brazil? Super violent? No mobility? Dirty? Lots of dancing?

In giving up white society of course there will be huge unintended consequences and I am wary of changing things too fast without understanding what is being changed.

(04-13-2014 02:31 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Did you guys hear about the fascinating story of a Nigerian couple with no white ancestors that gave birth to a blonde, white-skinned baby? It's been determined that the baby isn't an albino.

It's still not understood how this happened and I'm sure she'll be the subject of much research. Africans left Africa and mutated into Caucasians. Our DNA is constantly throwing out mutations and if any of these mutations offer some survival advantage, they will survive. I think that's what we may be seeing here. An African couple had a white baby because of a genetic mutation. If this had happened in Africa, that skin color would not last because having no melanin under an equatorial sun is bad for survival. But being born with that skin color in a cold region of the world would be an advantage, and that DNA would then survive and replicate more copies. We might be seeing right in front of our eyes how the white race evolved from Africa.

There is at least one known case of the reverse, a white couple having a black baby. It happened under apartheid South Africa:

http://abagond.wordpress.com/2009/05/13/...e-parents/

First off, no one knows if people came from Africa or not. I've already shown before that we know far less than we think we do.

Second, far more important than mutation is the role of sexual selection.

I believe the reason races exist is mostly because of sexual preferences, not because of adaptations to the environment.

I have read a lot of history and consistently a big theme is non-white men invading white lands just for the women.

Likewise, when white men invade areas they systematically find the most beautiful women and either rape or pressure them into sex. For example, Alexander the Great is the reason why Persians have a lot of white features. Him and his army probably raped half of Asia, just like Genghis Khan did.

So when considering how races develop, I think sexual choices and attraction to specific types of females play a way bigger role than most people realize.