• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Is white genocide in our future?

You know what doesn’t make sense to me? Christians not acting Christ-like.

Maybe it’s because people don’t get their values from their religion. They use their religion to bolster their values. They ignore the parts of their religion that conflict with their values.
Maybe so. But in my lifetime, I have never observed a Christian culture treat their woman as poorly as the present muslum culture does in Saudi Arabia.

And perhaps empowerment for women is really not a good thing. It just makes no sense to me for Jarhyn being the cheerleaderr for the same culture that does not empower women. Thats all Im saying.

Do the Saudis represent a large part of the Muslim world?
 
You know what doesn’t make sense to me? Christians not acting Christ-like.

Maybe it’s because people don’t get their values from their religion. They use their religion to bolster their values. They ignore the parts of their religion that conflict with their values.
Maybe so. But in my lifetime, I have never observed a Christian culture treat their woman as poorly as the present muslum culture does in Saudi Arabia.

And perhaps empowerment for women is really not a good thing. It just makes no sense to me for Jarhyn being the cheerleaderr for the same culture that does not empower women. Thats all Im saying.

Did you ever think it's because it's Saudi culture, not Muslim culture?
Just where does culture come from? Should we call Christian culture, US culture?

It is clearly the culture of Islam. See here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burqa

There exists no single reason why women may wear the burqa, and this practice must be understood within a particular social context. A woman may wear it to express her piety, her views on sexual modesty, her rejection of Western notions of sexuality, her desire for increased mobility or privacy in a social environment dominated by men, or her membership in a political movement. In the most publicized context, women were required, often against their will, to wear the burqa by the Taliban as a matter of policy during their rule of Afghanistan.


And I count atleast 20 countries that Wiki lists as places where the burqa is worn.

Saudi Arabia is only the most obvious that I used as an example.
 
...in my lifetime, I have never observed a Christian culture treat their woman as poorly as the present muslum culture does in Saudi Arabia.

Me either. But I have seen lots of putative Christian men treat "their" women just as poorly as any misogynist "culture" treats them.
At least as bad as any "muslum" (sic).
 
Did you ever think it's because it's Saudi culture, not Muslim culture?
Just where does culture come from? Should we call Christian culture, US culture?

It is clearly the culture of Islam. See here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burqa

There exists no single reason why women may wear the burqa, and this practice must be understood within a particular social context. A woman may wear it to express her piety, her views on sexual modesty, her rejection of Western notions of sexuality, her desire for increased mobility or privacy in a social environment dominated by men, or her membership in a political movement. In the most publicized context, women were required, often against their will, to wear the burqa by the Taliban as a matter of policy during their rule of Afghanistan.


And I count atleast 20 countries that Wiki lists as places where the burqa is worn.

Saudi Arabia is only the most obvious that I used as an example.

Are India or Indonesia on that list?
 
White Genocide is possible in our future.

And it will come from Incels taking out their frustrations with mass shootings, which inspires fear in more white people, causing them to get guns, which will lead to more stupid crap like this.

Plus the anti-science types wanting to bring us back to the Dark Ages. Then the christian fundamentalists if they got to turn this into a 'christian nation' would then start on deciding which is the right type of christian.

Maybe it should be called White Suicide, or a new word made up for a race destroying itself out of utter stupidity and intolerance.
 
White Genocide is possible in our future.

And it will come from Incels taking out their frustrations with mass shootings, which inspires fear in more white people, causing them to get guns, which will lead to more stupid crap like this.

Plus the anti-science types wanting to bring us back to the Dark Ages. Then the christian fundamentalists if they got to turn this into a 'christian nation' would then start on deciding which is the right type of christian.

Maybe it should be called White Suicide, or a new word made up for a race destroying itself out of utter stupidity and intolerance.

There already is a word. The word is "fascism".
 
If by white genocide they mean white people will cease to be a thing because of mixed breeding, I do think that will eventually happen. I don't see why it should be seen as a bad thing.
 
The point is, when someone advocates for Sharia law or whatever, the left doesn't support them.

The left isn't a monolith. Some in the left do support her.

And by all means, I will seek to kick them out of the tent. There is no room for them where I stand, nor where anyone I know here stand. They are not supported by "the left".

There's no faster way to alienate most progressives than to support religiously motivated laws.
 
If by white genocide they mean white people will cease to be a thing because of mixed breeding, I do think that will eventually happen. I don't see why it should be seen as a bad thing.

It makes the human species more biologically vulnerable to extinction. A biologically diverse species can better survive under duress from the environment and/or attack from pathogen.

But the human species will soon be extinct for other reasons anyway. So it probably does not matter in the long run.
 
If by white genocide they mean white people will cease to be a thing because of mixed breeding, I do think that will eventually happen. I don't see why it should be seen as a bad thing.

It makes the human species more biologically vulnerable to extinction. A biologically diverse species can better survive under duress from the environment and/or attack from pathogen.

But the human species will soon be extinct for other reasons anyway. So it probably does not matter in the long run.

Interbreeding doesn't make the species less biologically diverse. It makes the diversity less distinguishable.

In fact, it makes the whole system less biologically vulnerable to extinction.

Imagine there are two populations, Red and Blue. Red is immune to Bluepox, and Blue is immune to Redpox. Let's imagine for a moment that each disease targets a different biological vector.

Now, we can see that if there is an epidemic event of Bluepox among the red population AND an epidemic event of Redpox among the blue, we have an extinction happen. Even if the epidemics happen at different times.

If you interbreed red and blue, some of the offspring will have the blue immunity gene, and some will have the red immunity gene. Some children will have neither. Some children will have both.

In this scenario, if there is an epidemic event of bluepox, all of the pureblood Blues will die, but half of those children of mixed parentage will survive: there's a 50/50 chance that Bluepox immunity will be inherited from the Red parent (assuming it's a dominant trait, but whatever This is a thought experiment).

Now, later, when Redpox ravages the population, all the pureblood Reds die. And half of the mixed children do too; the ones not lucky enough to acquire the Blue parent's immunity to Redpox.

This means that of all the population, only children of mixed heritage survive. Long Live the purples.

Many different resistances work this way, both disease and environmental resistances. Only by SHARING those resistances and getting what synergy may exist between them can you get the most rugged population.
 
Back
Top Bottom