Post: #76

(03-28-2014 03:51 PM)Fisto Wrote:  What angle is that?

That if for some reason *white people* vanished or, if they never existed our world would be irreparable damaged. I would they think the world would just move on, or in the case of never even had existed wouldn't even miss it, because how could one miss what they have never had.

I don't think society would collapse if one particular race just upped and vanished. Elevating a particular race over another and, or saying one race contributed more than another seems odd to me. I don't see white people more important than black,asian or what ever.

Post: #77

(03-28-2014 04:00 PM)Sharky Jackson Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 03:53 PM)Tenerife Wrote:  Caucasian people did not evolve from the "negro" race, to be specific. This is not accurate.

Yes, hominids came from africa, but blacks and whites share a common ancestor. Whites didn't evolve from blacks.

Rather than pile you up with all the DNA evidence that obliterates your position, I'll try to walk you logically though to the correct conclusion:

Why are white people white? What specific evolutionary progression led to that result?

How did whites come to live in Europe? Keeping in mind that if they had an ancestor in common, that ancestor would have been in Africa.

Our ancestors surely had darker skin, that is not my point which you have missed completely.

Southern Indians are dark skinned and aren't negroes. Likewise, Melanesians.

European caucasians did not evolve from Negroes. Period.

Post: #78

Post: #79

(03-28-2014 03:59 PM)Tenerife Wrote:  Another thing that pisses whites off: we aren't allowed to be proud.

We can't express pride for our people or ancestors, because that is "racist". We don't have the same psychological freedom that minorities have. We have to express guilt and regret for who we are. And guess what, some of us are sick of that.

I think the problem is that historically, the expression of that pride was through terrorism and murder. Other groups had to express such pride through necessity, because they were excluded, and treated as inferior. That's what that grew from.

Post: #80

(03-28-2014 04:04 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 03:59 PM)Tenerife Wrote:  Another thing that pisses whites off: we aren't allowed to be proud.

We can't express pride for our people or ancestors, because that is "racist". We don't have the same psychological freedom that minorities have. We have to express guilt and regret for who we are. And guess what, some of us are sick of that.

I think the problem is that historically, the expression of that pride was through terrorism and murder. Other groups had to express such pride through necessity, because they were excluded, and treated as inferior. That's what that grew from.

You're so in your own frame it's ridiculous.

Post: #81

(03-28-2014 04:02 PM)Tenerife Wrote:  European caucasians did not evolve from Negroes. Period.

That sounds alot more philosophical than scientific. It must be so because you wish it to be so.

Next you'll regale me as to how the world was created in six days...

Post: #82

(03-28-2014 03:54 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 03:42 PM)L M McCoy Wrote:  I'm probably going to get the ban hammer for this but why is it that MAINLY blacks bitch and moan about racism/discrimination? In Europe, women who get boned by Arabs lose "value" but do you hear us crying? Blacks have a bunch of sympathizers to the point where you can't even disagree with someone whose black without being ambushed by people armed with "you're racist."

You see it here too, A "brutha" can ask "how do black guys do in X country" yet if someone of another race were to say it, they would get called a race troll.


Was this a meltdown?

The Indian Forum members don't seem to bothered about the whole IRT thing. Asian members seem to be cool with the whole "Asian guys are beta" thing going on. Yet picture someone posting about BRT.

I think you're being selective here. If a Black guy asks the question, he's immediately told that he's making excuses, he should tighten up his game, etc. etc. But when white guys post that you're golden in XY country if you're white, it's taken as truth. As Blacks, we can actually acknowledge that there is truth that whites may be better received in certain countries - we're just asking for opinions as to what areas would be largely a waste of time, and which we might have better success so to maximize time and money. The problem is that race gets introduced in so many threads that have nothing to do with race, and it isn't the Black guys doing that.

The difference is that White's are saying "you can pull better here if you're white" or "Spanish guys are seen as more exotic in parts of
Europe" whereas most Black are asking "is me being black an issue?" Which is fine I have no problem with it but I have seen other people being banned for asking if other races would not be accepted in that country.

I hope people are noticing that I am putting "most" not "all" and "a good majority" instead of "every." Not saying every Black guy does it, its just that I have personally only seen it with blacks on the forum and where I live. Although, I could be wrong and I will happily stand corrected.

Post: #83

There was a discussion about this in previous threads and is a really strong point. All of the immigrants that have come to America and built America from the ground up were White Europeans. The mass immigrations into America assimilated rather quickly into the culture, however they were all similar in skin color.

Whites factually built America. Now you have a bunch of immigrants coming in that are stark contrasts to White Europeans, and that's why Americans are pissed off.

These very different immigrants refuse to accept our culture, speak their own language, and leech off the benefits that White Europeans built.

America was really just United States for Free Europeans, now it's just a jumbled mess.

Europe was a competitive battlefield mess that was a true battle for survival of the fittest. Only the smartest survived in the densely populated continent called Europe. Physical attributes weren't as important compared to Africa(Sub-saharan for the most part)

Post: #84

(03-28-2014 03:27 PM)Sharky Jackson Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 03:20 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Not true at all. The "back to Africa" theory has been discredited just recently with the discovery of humans in Great Britian dating back over 1 million years.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scienc...14151.html

Two logical holes in your theory...

1. The genetic lineage of all humans traces back to Africa.

2. There is no way to determine the "race" of the British footprints. They may very well have been those of a Black African.

Look at this link:

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/xpedit...groupA.pdf

Please explain to me how they know the mitochondrial eve came from Africa? There's no explanation given, other than the fact that it was determined only in 1987 there even was a mitochondrial eve. Back in 1987, the oldest human fossils belonged in Africa so they assumed mitochondrial eve comes from Africa.

Bad logic, because it assumes the fossils were reliable. As we have learned from the footprints found in Britain dating back nearly a million years, our fossil record sucks.

Finally, even if DNA can be traced back to Africa on the mother's side, we still don't know where the fathers are coming from. The fact that they can only trace DNA back 200K years shows how incomplete our picture of humanity's evolution truly is. It is still entirely possible that today's humans are the result of an interesting crossbreed of many types of humans that took place over millions of years.

Furthermore, we don't know how intelligent the predecessors to modern humans were. We don't know their physical characteristics, such as race, either. What if there were an ancient race of humans far more advanced than we are today?

Post: #85

(03-28-2014 03:54 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  How did Africans manage to survive from the dawn of time up until 1500 before they ever saw a white person?

I spent years in African bushes. That's exactly what 95% of Africans do: survive from the dawn of time except in towns where there is (malfunctioning, badly maintained) Western "white" technology and science.

They survive in the bush, without electricity, no modern hygiene notions, many die young from terrible weird diseases (google noma, burkitt tumors, fistula), they walk 2-3 hours per day to get water. They live in close proximity of dirty animals in the houses. They have no latrines and they shit (liquid) around the house...

Funny thing, they are globally pretty happy

Post: #86

(03-28-2014 04:07 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Look at this link:

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/xpedit...groupA.pdf

Please explain to me how they know the mitochondrial eve came from Africa? There's no explanation given, other than the fact that it was determined only in 1987 there even was a mitochondrial eve. Back in 1987, the oldest human fossils belonged in Africa so they assumed mitochondrial eve comes from Africa.

Bad logic, because it assumes the fossils were reliable. As we have learned from the footprints found in Britain dating back nearly a million years, our fossil record sucks.

Finally, even if DNA can be traced back to Africa on the mother's side, we still don't know where the fathers are coming from. The fact that they can only trace DNA back 200K years shows how incomplete our picture of humanity's evolution truly is. It is still entirely possible that today's humans are the result of an interesting crossbreed of many types of humans that took place over millions of years.

Furthermore, we don't know how intelligent the predecessors to modern humans were. We don't know their physical characteristics, such as race, either. What if there were an ancient race of humans far more advanced than we are today?

I think what's more interesting is how desperate you and Tenerife are not to be African. Why you find the idea so repugnant is more illustrative of the entire issue of race than any discussion DNA.

For you guys this is a creation/evolution discussion. Not about fact but belief. Chosen belief. You choose to believe that you're not African because being African must be negative in some way.

Suffice it to say, I respectfully disagree.

Post: #87

(03-28-2014 02:58 PM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  It's funny that people still buy into the jungle fever myth anyways. Didn't okcupid do a study with all their data that showed that, excepting asians, women had a much higher preference for dating within their own race? As far as the "being tainted by banging a black guy" goes, I'd bet that has more to do with unconscious association of blacks with the underclasses.

I'm a white dude who finds black girls attractive, so I'm not making a moral judgement or whatever here, but it's totally logically for whites (and other races) to avoid fucking blacks for health reasons. Black people in the U.S. have dramatically higher rates of all STDs, particularly AIDS, than other races.

A white woman who makes a habit of hooking up with black guys is demonstrating that she's either ignorant of this or doesn't care. Either way, that's not a mark in her favor, particularly in an LTR/wife scenario. If you're a promiscuous male or female, avoiding blacks is a effective way of reducing your STD risk.

Post: #88

(03-28-2014 04:07 PM)NY Digital Wrote:  There was a discussion about this in previous threads and is a really strong point.

All of the immigrants that have come to America and built America from the ground up were White Europeans.

The mass immigrations into America assimilated rather quickly into the culture, however they were all similar in skin color.

Whites factually built America. Now you have a bunch of immigrants coming in that are stark contrasts to White Europeans,
and that's why Americans are pissed off.

These very different immigrants refuse to accept our culture, speak their own language, and leech off the benefits that
White Europeans built.

America was really just United States for Free Europeans, now it's just a jumbled mess.

Europe was a competitive battlefield mess that was a true battle for survival of the fittest. Only the smartest survived in the densely populated continent called Europe. Physical attributes weren't as important compared to Africa(Sub-saharn for the most part)

I think part of the problem is that Blacks, whose ancestors have been here for generations, are still kind of lumped in with immigrants. We too were right in there building this country, but are simply excluded from this discussion. In the eyes of many, we're still not seen as Americans.

Post: #89

(03-28-2014 04:18 PM)darklightdispatch Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 02:58 PM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  It's funny that people still buy into the jungle fever myth anyways. Didn't okcupid do a study with all their data that showed that, excepting asians, women had a much higher preference for dating within their own race? As far as the "being tainted by banging a black guy" goes, I'd bet that has more to do with unconscious association of blacks with the underclasses.

I'm a white dude who finds black girls attractive, so I'm not making a moral judgement or whatever here, but it's totally logically for whites (and other races) to avoid fucking blacks for health reasons. Black people in the U.S. have dramatically higher rates of all STDs, particularly AIDS, than other races.

A white woman who makes a habit of hooking up with black guys is demonstrating that she's either ignorant of this or doesn't care. Either way, that's not a mark in her favor, particularly in an LTR/wife scenario. If you're a promiscuous male or female, avoiding blacks is a effective way of reducing your STD risk.

Post: #90

(03-28-2014 04:17 PM)Sharky Jackson Wrote:  You choose to believe that you're not African because being African must be negative in some way.

This is a terrible point.

Europeans are not Africans. Africans are not Asians. Native Americans are not Russians.

(03-28-2014 04:18 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  In the eyes of many, we're still not seen as Americans.

The biggest problem is calling black people African American. No, they're just Americans.

My reasoning for your point is that since blacks are Africans in blood, the contrast to being from another continent can definitely be a reason for division.

Post: #91

(03-28-2014 04:21 PM)Avon Barksdale Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 04:18 PM)darklightdispatch Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 02:58 PM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  It's funny that people still buy into the jungle fever myth anyways. Didn't okcupid do a study with all their data that showed that, excepting asians, women had a much higher preference for dating within their own race? As far as the "being tainted by banging a black guy" goes, I'd bet that has more to do with unconscious association of blacks with the underclasses.

I'm a white dude who finds black girls attractive, so I'm not making a moral judgement or whatever here, but it's totally logically for whites (and other races) to avoid fucking blacks for health reasons. Black people in the U.S. have dramatically higher rates of all STDs, particularly AIDS, than other races.

A white woman who makes a habit of hooking up with black guys is demonstrating that she's either ignorant of this or doesn't care. Either way, that's not a mark in her favor, particularly in an LTR/wife scenario. If you're a promiscuous male or female, avoiding blacks is a effective way of reducing your STD risk.

What's unreasonable about that?? The same point was discussed on Danger and Play: http://dangerandplay.com/2012/04/25/how-...vent-stds/

Post: #92

(03-28-2014 04:17 PM)Sharky Jackson Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 04:07 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Look at this link:

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/xpedit...groupA.pdf

Please explain to me how they know the mitochondrial eve came from Africa? There's no explanation given, other than the fact that it was determined only in 1987 there even was a mitochondrial eve. Back in 1987, the oldest human fossils belonged in Africa so they assumed mitochondrial eve comes from Africa.

Bad logic, because it assumes the fossils were reliable. As we have learned from the footprints found in Britain dating back nearly a million years, our fossil record sucks.

Finally, even if DNA can be traced back to Africa on the mother's side, we still don't know where the fathers are coming from. The fact that they can only trace DNA back 200K years shows how incomplete our picture of humanity's evolution truly is. It is still entirely possible that today's humans are the result of an interesting crossbreed of many types of humans that took place over millions of years.

Furthermore, we don't know how intelligent the predecessors to modern humans were. We don't know their physical characteristics, such as race, either. What if there were an ancient race of humans far more advanced than we are today?

I think what's more interesting is how desperate you and Tenerife are not to be African. Why you find the idea so repugnant is more illustrative of the entire issue of race than any discussion DNA.

For you guys this is a creation/evolution discussion. Not about fact but belief. Chosen belief. You choose to believe that you're not African because being African must be negative in some way.

Suffice it to say, I respectfully disagree.

I'm being a good scientist by questioning previous evidence and demanding rigor. You're being a politically correct race troll by trying to implicate me as some sort of racist because I questioned the current orthodoxy with well-supported reasons.

Check yourself.

I am bringing up a very valid point you should not ignore, and that is very simple:

"How do we know the oldest humans come from Africa?"

It's a theory. Not a fact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_Afr...ern_humans

And the theory was based on large part from the fossil record, to quote:

Quote:Genetic studies and fossil evidence show that archaic Homo sapiens evolved to anatomically modern humans solely in Africa, between 200,000 and 60,000 years ago.

Our fossil record sucks! Seriously I'm not trying to be hyperbolic, but our current fossil record is like looking into outer space with a flashlight, and then describing what space is like.

The current fossil record tells us nothing about what life on earth used to be like. It is so empty and devoid of meaningful info that just about everything you hear on human evolution today is speculation.

I am more than willing to bet any man as much money as he wants that in 100 years from now our understanding of human evolution will be radically different. It is a certainty given how bad our fossil record is.

Think about it: most fossils from millions of years ago came from animals who were dumb enough to fall into peat bogs. What if there were intelligent animals during the time of the dinosaurs? What evidence would we have of them? What if they burned or gave proper burials to their ancestors? There would be no fossil record of such a species.

Likewise, what remains of humanity will survive another billion years from now? How many of us are burying humans in peat bogs so they can be preserved for millions of years?

The fossil record is a joke. Until people understand that they will continued to be fooled by evolutionists who think that using the fossil record is anything except a weak crutch.

The people who assumed humanity came out of Africa are wrong, are being proved wrong (as the discovery in Britain shows) as I type, and by the time both of us die humanity's origins will still be a mystery.

Post: #93

[/quote]

I think what's more interesting is how desperate you and Tenerife are not to be African. Why you find the idea so repugnant is more illustrative of the entire issue of race than any discussion DNA.

For you guys this is a creation/evolution discussion. Not about fact but belief. Chosen belief. You choose to believe that you're not African because being African must be negative in some way.

Suffice it to say, I respectfully disagree.
[/quote]

You've got it twisted. I frankly don't care where people evolved from. And I don't see why you keep bringing up creationism.

This is the problem whenever you try to get into a factual discussion of these matters, the other person starts turning it personal and starts twisting things.

You can choose to believe what you want, and frankly I'm done trying to have a discussion. This thread is a huge waste of time.

Post: #94

Lol. Samseau reminds me of the climate change denier that will point to one contrarian study when 99% of the scientific community weighs in on the other side.

BTW, are we now allowed to have race threads again?

Post: #95

(03-28-2014 04:36 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  scientific community

No such thing. All it takes is one guy to show the truth, and the rest of the masses must play catch up.

Post: #96

(03-28-2014 04:22 PM)NY Digital Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 04:17 PM)Sharky Jackson Wrote:  You choose to believe that you're not African because being African must be negative in some way.

This is a terrible point.

Europeans are not Africans. Africans are not Asians. Native Americans are not Russians.

(03-28-2014 04:18 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  In the eyes of many, we're still not seen as Americans.

The biggest problem is calling black people African American. No, they're just Americans.

My reasoning for your point is that since blacks are Africans in blood, the contrast to being from another continent can definitely be a reason for division.

The African-American designation has really only been around since the 80's, and gained popularity after Jesse Jackson began using it publicly. Designations such as colored and negro had painful connotations, and Afro-American didn't seem appropriate, thus African-American became the norm. The problem of Blacks not being recognized as citizens didn't grow out of this designation - it has existed as long as we've been here. Blacks fought in every war, and had more than earned their place as full citizens. Other ethnic groups have these hyphenated designations that recognize their cultural heritage, yet are acknowledged as citizens. Again, certain groups felt the need to identify with cultural heritage because they have always been excluded from full participation in their home nation.

Post: #97

(03-28-2014 03:05 PM)Sharky Jackson Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 02:58 PM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  Incidentally, it's funny how in deep space nine they only let the black characters date other blacks, even to the point of making black aliens.

Umm....

Worf may have been played by a black actor, but he wasn't a black character. Sisko's dead wife and girlfriend were both black humans, then Jake was dating the only black bajoran you ever saw in the series. I suppose it can be argued that a black person playing a bajoran isn't a black character either, but in that case it's just peculiar given every other bajoran is white.

Post: #98

(03-28-2014 10:27 AM)tylerdurden1993 Wrote:  Anyone else wondering why a porn star would be the face of a supposed "far right" party in the first place.

That struck me too ar first, but the American right and European right are two completely different animals. The American right tends to be steeped in evangelical Christianity. The European right it's more an emphasis on economics and ultra nationalism. Personal moralizing is not the big deal in Europe that it is in the states. The murdered Dutch ultra nationalist leader, Pim Fortuyn was openly gay.

Post: #99

(03-28-2014 04:07 PM)Lika Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 03:54 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  How did Africans manage to survive from the dawn of time up until 1500 before they ever saw a white person?

I spent years in African bushes. That's exactly what 95% of Africans do: survive from the dawn of time except in towns where there is (malfunctioning, badly maintained) Western "white" technology and science.

They survive in the bush, without electricity, no modern hygiene notions, many die young from terrible weird diseases (google noma, burkitt tumors, fistula), they walk 2-3 hours per day to get water. They live in close proximity of dirty animals in the houses. They have no latrines and they shit (liquid) around the house...

Funny thing, they are globally pretty happy

What are you talking about bro? Didn't you just read what Avon and Sharky have written? Black people in Africa would move on just from this primitive lifestyle on their own without being civilized by white people.

Avon, are you actually trying to suggest that everyone has contributed to this "woodpile" equally?

Are you actually ignoring the state of Africa? More specifically the regions with the least "white" influence? As if to say that is some shining example of how people just "move" on?

Those people are living in the stone age.

You or Sharky, I don't remember which, are accusing Tenerife of just saying something and expecting it to be true, but the contributions of Africa towards a civilized society with technological advancements are as lacking or more so than women when it comes to achievements.

I can say this objectively without any sort of tribal alliance as I can't take a single piece of credit for any of those advancements.

It sounds to me like you are actually claiming something that doesn't exist on behalf of black people or something.

Post: #100

Seriously...
So many people in this thread talk like being from African descent is being poor, dirty, significative for STD's etc etc...
It's a shame to be African. It sucks to be African. African are derivative from the pure whites. They only came to suck the White's priviledges.


". That's exactly what 95% of Africans do: survive from the dawn of time except in towns where there is (malfunctioning, badly maintained) Western "white" technology and science."



The amount of racism here, disguised behind "love for my origins", "need to express my roots" etc bullshit , is astonishing.
This is what is is: racism. Don't fool yourself. I don't know where do your insecurities come from. You try so hard to rationalize the fact that black people are the vampires.
Like, what is the point in bringing in this thread creationism, or origins of humanity?

What is the Manosphere? helping your comrades to get better, and get access to your common goals, on an equal footing, independantly from race?
Bullshit.

I am done with this thread.