I never saw a white austrian woman with a mixed race kid

[Mortimer]

 

[SaxonJackson]

When you invade a White nation with non-white gang rapists ... you're bound to see mixed race offspring. That's the whole purpose of the invasion of White Europe -- to destroy the White race. Part of the plan.

 

[August West]

When you invade a White nation with non-white gang rapists ... you're bound to see mixed race offspring. That's the whole purpose of the invasion of White Europe -- to destroy the White race. Part of the plan.

The sheet and hood come out early on Saturday mornings.

 

[SaxonJackson]

The sheet and hood come out early on Saturday mornings.

You mean the truth comes out. I didn't produce the video. A Jewess did. And she openly admits to the plan.

 

[August West]

You mean the truth comes out. I didn't produce the video. A Jewess did. And she openly admits to the plan.

Another thing that comes out is a crackpot. Go back to bed.

 

[luiza]

I never saw a white austrian woman with a mixed race kids​

You should know that they are all removed at birth and taken to the underground base beneath Mount Grosslockner for special conditioning and education.
Later they are moved to a base in the Harz Mountains in Germany to guard Hitler's Gold and other treasures which are only to be used when the Fourth Reich awakes next year .

Ask if there are any cleaning jobs in the tunnels .

 

[Hypatia415]

When you invade a White nation with non-white gang rapists ... you're bound to see mixed race offspring. That's the whole purpose of the invasion of White Europe -- to destroy the White race. Part of the plan.

There is no "white race". All Homo sapiens can interbreed very successfully. And remember that our species evolved out of Africa.

DNA research just rewrote the origin of human species

Scientists have uncovered a surprising new picture of human origins that challenges the long-held idea of a single ancestral population in Africa. By analyzing genetic data from diverse modern African groups—especially the highly distinct Nama people—and comparing it with fossil evidence...

www.sciencedaily.com

Scientists have uncovered a surprising new picture of human origins that challenges the long-held idea of a single ancestral population in Africa. By analyzing genetic data from diverse modern African groups—especially the highly distinct Nama people—and comparing it with fossil evidence, researchers found that early humans likely evolved from multiple intermingling populations over hundreds of thousands of years. Rather than a clean split, these groups stayed connected, exchanging genes even after beginning to diverge around 120,000–135,000 years ago.

In other words it appears that from the outset Hominids have interbred very successfully.

 

[SaxonJackson]

There is no "white race". All Homo sapiens can interbreed very successfully. And remember that our species evolved out of Africa.

DNA research just rewrote the origin of human species

Scientists have uncovered a surprising new picture of human origins that challenges the long-held idea of a single ancestral population in Africa. By analyzing genetic data from diverse modern African groups—especially the highly distinct Nama people—and comparing it with fossil evidence...

www.sciencedaily.com

Scientists have uncovered a surprising new picture of human origins that challenges the long-held idea of a single ancestral population in Africa. By analyzing genetic data from diverse modern African groups—especially the highly distinct Nama people—and comparing it with fossil evidence, researchers found that early humans likely evolved from multiple intermingling populations over hundreds of thousands of years. Rather than a clean split, these groups stayed connected, exchanging genes even after beginning to diverge around 120,000–135,000 years ago.

In other words it appears that from the outset Hominids have interbred very successfully.

No White race? Tell that to my White family, friends, family, and ancestors. LOL

 

[SaxonJackson]

Another thing that comes out is a crackpot. Go back to bed.

So you ignored the video. Typical blind fool.

 

[Hypatia415]

No White race?

No. Skin tones are another matter.

 

[SaxonJackson]

No. Skin tones are another matter.

Skin tone is a small part of the differences between the races.

 

[Mortimer]

Skin tone is a small part of the differences between the races.

I think races exist you might call them biogeographic populations and human population diversity instead of races if one does not like the word and yes skin color differences are not the only difference

 

[Hypatia415]

Skin tone is a small part of the differences between the races.

There are no races. That is a construct.

From here: https://www.cambridge.org/core/blog...ological-so-why-do-so-many-still-think-it-is/

Even though findings from genetics and other sciences unequivocally refute biological conceptions of race, this erroneous viewpoint remains widespread among the general public. Why can’t scientists convince people that race isn’t biological?

Since the 1950s, scholars at universities have been spreading the message that race is a social construct – a way of categorizing people that society has devised – in this instance, based on the arbitrary criterion of skin colour. Genetic data clearly show that races are not separate genetic lineages, and that differences in skin colour are not indicative of underlying genetic divisions. Throughout history, humans have constantly interbred, mixing up our genes such that meaningful differences never arose.

[...]

A related concern is an overly simplistic conception of heredity that attributes the inheritance of traits, and of their differences, to genes and genetic variation. Recent years have witnessed an explosion of scientific interest in non-genetic inheritance. Many resources are now known to be passed across the generations, including molecular attachments to DNA (epigenetic inheritance), hormones, nutrients, antibodies, symbionts such as bacteria, cultural knowledge, including in other animals, and diverse ecological legacies. The significance of this non-genetic inheritance for understanding racial differences is only now coming to prominence. For illustration, persistent differences in the average levels of scholastic achievement between races is not explained by genetic transmission, but rather through the legacies of inherited wealth, inherited environments that vary in their amenities, opportunities and resources (e.g., toxins such as lead, nongenetic disease), and other inherited factors through which the experiences of parents (e.g., trauma, famine, racism) affect the physiology of offspring. People need to be introduced to the complexities of inheritance so that they don’t always assume racial differences are genetic.

My emphasis.

 

[Meathead]

Skin tone is a small part of the differences between the races.

Skin color is superficial to catagorization of race. There are people black as moonless nights in the south of India, but they are not negroes.

 

[Hypatia415]

I think races exist you might call them biogeographic populations and human population diversity instead of races

From here: Race and racism

Race does not reflect biological reality

Humans vary biologically and that variation is important in understanding the human experience. However, that variation is not distributed in clusters that correspond to racial categories based on phenotype (e.g. Black, white, Asian, etc.) or continental regions (Africa, Asia, Europe, etc.) (Lewis et al. 2022). In the context of human variation, it is often assumed that specific physical differences attest to specific racial, biological, or evolved group differences between racial categories of people, but they do not. In spite of over 300 years of trying to classify humans into mostly distinct biological units, human genetic, morphological and physiological variation does not correspond to racial categories such as Black, white, Caucasian or Asian. Instead most evolutionary scientists today think of human group variation in terms of existing populations, i.e. groups of people who either live in the same place or share other connections such as eating similar food or having children together. Human blood groups, body sizes, immune systems and skin colour simply do not map onto racial categories (Fuentes 2022, 74-91). The vast majority of genetic variation does not even occur across human populations but within them, as different parts of the human genome have different ancestral histories. In fact, there is nearly twice as much genetic variation among human populations in Africa as among all populations elsewhere (Fuentes 2022, 74-91).
[...]

The biological conceptions of race, in which skin colour and other phenotypical markers of human difference are made salient and prominent, are a product of the European Enlightenment. Enlightenment science enabled race to ‘become biological’ (Graves, Jr. and Goodman 2021, 21). For example, botanist Carl Linnaeus’ classified humans into ‘five varieties’ in the tenth edition of his Systema naturae from 1758 (Marks 2017; Blunt 2002). Immanuel Kant’s philosophical anthropology linked skin colour to human character and intellect, describing humans of paler skin as superior to humans of darker skin (Mills 2017). ‘Skin colour is the primary criterion by which people have been classified into groups in the Western scientific tradition’ (Jablonski 2021, 437), but skin colour was only one of the criteria: physical markers such as hair texture, head size, bodily shape, eye colour and shape, and the size of one’s lips, nose, and sexual organs have at various times also been seen as marking race. What is rarely appreciated is ‘the extent to which current thought and research remain influenced by colour-based race concepts’ (Jablonski 2021, 437).

European colonialism was also integral to the development of racism, as European conquest sought to legitimate itself by recourse to arguments about human difference in an age of European discovery of other parts of the world. Given that anthropology emerged as a science intimately linked to European colonialism (Asad 1975, Trouillot 2003; Gupta and Stoolman 2022), it is hardly surprising that early anthropology would play a central role in the development and elaboration of ideas about human difference and otherness intrinsic to European colonialism that created ‘biological’ (but actually social) conceptions of race. These ‘biological’ understandings of human difference have adapted to highly variegated historical, social, and political contexts, and have adopted different forms. It is in reference to this that cultural theorist Stuart Hall referred to race as a ‘floating’ or ‘sliding signifier’ (2017) or a concept with no fixed categories or meanings. Hall’s is not an argument for the timelessness and universalism of all forms of racism but rather for the malleability of race concepts underpinning racism. According to him, race works like a language. The meaning of racial categories is not primarily defined by what they refer to. Instead, their meaning depends on other meaning making concepts. People’s different histories, experiences and modes of living determine which racial categories they may find convincing. For Hall, the study of how racial categories are made and remade is thus not primarily about human and scientific progress, but it is driven by socio-cultural ruptures and continuities.

 

[Mortimer]

From here: Race and racism

Race does not reflect biological reality

Humans vary biologically and that variation is important in understanding the human experience. However, that variation is not distributed in clusters that correspond to racial categories based on phenotype (e.g. Black, white, Asian, etc.) or continental regions (Africa, Asia, Europe, etc.) (Lewis et al. 2022). In the context of human variation, it is often assumed that specific physical differences attest to specific racial, biological, or evolved group differences between racial categories of people, but they do not. In spite of over 300 years of trying to classify humans into mostly distinct biological units, human genetic, morphological and physiological variation does not correspond to racial categories such as Black, white, Caucasian or Asian. Instead most evolutionary scientists today think of human group variation in terms of existing populations, i.e. groups of people who either live in the same place or share other connections such as eating similar food or having children together. Human blood groups, body sizes, immune systems and skin colour simply do not map onto racial categories (Fuentes 2022, 74-91). The vast majority of genetic variation does not even occur across human populations but within them, as different parts of the human genome have different ancestral histories. In fact, there is nearly twice as much genetic variation among human populations in Africa as among all populations elsewhere (Fuentes 2022, 74-91).
[...]

The biological conceptions of race, in which skin colour and other phenotypical markers of human difference are made salient and prominent, are a product of the European Enlightenment. Enlightenment science enabled race to ‘become biological’ (Graves, Jr. and Goodman 2021, 21). For example, botanist Carl Linnaeus’ classified humans into ‘five varieties’ in the tenth edition of his Systema naturae from 1758 (Marks 2017; Blunt 2002). Immanuel Kant’s philosophical anthropology linked skin colour to human character and intellect, describing humans of paler skin as superior to humans of darker skin (Mills 2017). ‘Skin colour is the primary criterion by which people have been classified into groups in the Western scientific tradition’ (Jablonski 2021, 437), but skin colour was only one of the criteria: physical markers such as hair texture, head size, bodily shape, eye colour and shape, and the size of one’s lips, nose, and sexual organs have at various times also been seen as marking race. What is rarely appreciated is ‘the extent to which current thought and research remain influenced by colour-based race concepts’ (Jablonski 2021, 437).

European colonialism was also integral to the development of racism, as European conquest sought to legitimate itself by recourse to arguments about human difference in an age of European discovery of other parts of the world. Given that anthropology emerged as a science intimately linked to European colonialism (Asad 1975, Trouillot 2003; Gupta and Stoolman 2022), it is hardly surprising that early anthropology would play a central role in the development and elaboration of ideas about human difference and otherness intrinsic to European colonialism that created ‘biological’ (but actually social) conceptions of race. These ‘biological’ understandings of human difference have adapted to highly variegated historical, social, and political contexts, and have adopted different forms. It is in reference to this that cultural theorist Stuart Hall referred to race as a ‘floating’ or ‘sliding signifier’ (2017) or a concept with no fixed categories or meanings. Hall’s is not an argument for the timelessness and universalism of all forms of racism but rather for the malleability of race concepts underpinning racism. According to him, race works like a language. The meaning of racial categories is not primarily defined by what they refer to. Instead, their meaning depends on other meaning making concepts. People’s different histories, experiences and modes of living determine which racial categories they may find convincing. For Hall, the study of how racial categories are made and remade is thus not primarily about human and scientific progress, but it is driven by socio-cultural ruptures and continuities.

I agree

 

[SaxonJackson]

Skin color is superficial to catagorization of race. There are people black as moonless nights in the south of India, but they are not negroes.

If there's not differences between the races then why are the Globalists sending super dark-skinned people into super White nations? And why do black Americans hate White Americans? And why doesn't Poland allow for mass immigration of dark skinned people?

Race IS a thing:

 

[SaxonJackson]

There are no races. That is a construct.

From here: https://www.cambridge.org/core/blog...ological-so-why-do-so-many-still-think-it-is/

Even though findings from genetics and other sciences unequivocally refute biological conceptions of race, this erroneous viewpoint remains widespread among the general public. Why can’t scientists convince people that race isn’t biological?

Since the 1950s, scholars at universities have been spreading the message that race is a social construct – a way of categorizing people that society has devised – in this instance, based on the arbitrary criterion of skin colour. Genetic data clearly show that races are not separate genetic lineages, and that differences in skin colour are not indicative of underlying genetic divisions. Throughout history, humans have constantly interbred, mixing up our genes such that meaningful differences never arose.

[...]

A related concern is an overly simplistic conception of heredity that attributes the inheritance of traits, and of their differences, to genes and genetic variation. Recent years have witnessed an explosion of scientific interest in non-genetic inheritance. Many resources are now known to be passed across the generations, including molecular attachments to DNA (epigenetic inheritance), hormones, nutrients, antibodies, symbionts such as bacteria, cultural knowledge, including in other animals, and diverse ecological legacies. The significance of this non-genetic inheritance for understanding racial differences is only now coming to prominence. For illustration, persistent differences in the average levels of scholastic achievement between races is not explained by genetic transmission, but rather through the legacies of inherited wealth, inherited environments that vary in their amenities, opportunities and resources (e.g., toxins such as lead, nongenetic disease), and other inherited factors through which the experiences of parents (e.g., trauma, famine, racism) affect the physiology of offspring. People need to be introduced to the complexities of inheritance so that they don’t always assume racial differences are genetic.

My emphasis.

Then there's no need to push the woke "diversity" agenda. Leave the Whites (who aren't White) to themselves and leave the blacks (who are not black) to themselves. Problem solved.

 

[Hypatia415]

If there's not differences between the races then why are the Globalists sending super dark-skinned people into super White nations? And why do black Americans hate White Americans? And why doesn't Poland allow for mass immigration of dark skinned people?

What on earth has any of that to do with the evolution of our species?

Race IS a thing:

No it is not.

 

[Hypatia415]

Then there's no need to push the woke "diversity" agenda. Leave the Whites (who aren't White) to themselves and leave the blacks (who are not black) to themselves. Problem solved.

Oh so now the theory of evolution is "woke" ?