Talk:White genocide/Archive1

Fallacy
The main fallacy with this idea - which seems to be subtly accepted in the article at the moment - is that the very concept of "race" or "white race" is valid. It really isn't, which sort of moves it towards "not even wrong" territory.--Weirdstuff (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes and no. The white race, like all races, is a social construct with no grounding in biology. But just because it's a social construct with no real biological substance doesn't mean that racial identity doesn't have real effects and hugely determinative powers. There's a difference between saying "whiteness is socially constructed," which is what you mean to say, and "white people do not exist." Of course they do -- it's just that the term "white people" means very little in terms of human biology. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 20:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Ofcourse it does, because "white" is not an ethnicity. Europeans aren't some pan ethnic homogeneous people. A Russian is as genetically and phenotypicaly distinct from an Arab as he is an Italian. Your average British person (no matter Scottish, Irish, Welsh or English) cluster nowhere near close to Greeks, Italians, Spaniards etc. Nor do they share the same Y-dna/Mtdna subclades. White is a uniform term but it has no meaning in the grand scheme of things. White in itself was the worse thing to happen to European. All it has done is promote a more uniform culture and undermine the various different cultures of Europe. You can blame the United States for that.


 * The argument is poor from sociological and historical perspectives too, though. There is no overriding "white" culture, and the definition of what constitutes "white" people has varied to such an extent in the past that the term itself is largely meaningless. — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talk Do You Believe That? 21:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No doubt. But at the end of the day, people--hundreds of millions of them--identify as "white," and billions more people identify those people as "white." The term, and who gets to count as "white," has varied enormously over the years--I've read Ignatiev on the Irish too--but just because the terms of a signifier shift, that does not mean the signifier is meaningless. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 21:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, so it's context-dependent. "Race" has a social meaning to some people, but it has no meaning in a hard science like biology. At present the article is written from the perspective of those who would argue that it exists and is "real" in the sense that it makes some rational sense to talk about its biological implications.--Weirdstuff (talk) 21:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

It makes no sense to talk about race in its biological implications. But that's not the same thing as saying that somebody who wants to target a given race for extermination is somehow talking nonsense. The idea of "Tutsi" is meaningless in a biological sense, but that was irrelevant in 1994. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 21:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but the article could do a better job of pointing that out. — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talk Do You Believe That? 22:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * When you say race has no sociological reason for existence (or historical one), I don't think I get your meaning. Tons of studies on race can show almost exactly when "european" became white, and how italians in the 1920s fit into the "race game", etc.  the social construction of race is a very significant topic of study in history and sociology... or am i just missing the point?
 * I mean that there is no overriding "white culture" that is sociologically distinct across national boundaries, or that the definition of "whiteness" has been fairly fluid historically, not that it's not a significant topic. Sorry for the ambiguity. — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talk Do You Believe That? 22:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the RW article on race is actually quite good in its definitions. "The only difference skin color makes is whether or not you will burn quickly when left out in the sun and how quickly you can produce usable vitamin D from sunlight."
 * As for scientific studies into the social construction of race, you could do a study into belief in fairies or the loch ness monster - but that wouldn't mean that they had any real-world physical existence. Only that real-world people held beliefs in them.--Weirdstuff (talk) 08:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Drop the "hypothesis" part
It's a rhetorical claim, not a serious scientific proposition. "White extinction" is enough.--ZooGuard (talk) 08:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Race has no biological use
It's not like you can tell the race of a skeleton or anything. KingtheKing (talk) 02:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

You've obviously never met a forensic or a student thereof: http://shs2.westport.k12.ct.us/forensics/11-forensic_anthropology/skeletal_analysis_worksheet.htm

Drug resistance varies by race: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=study-shows-drug-resistan

Forensics can even help solve crimes by identifying the race: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVsV68-Ask0

Racial difference in blood clotting. “We may need to consider our patient’s race when using certain heart disease therapies.” http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-11-racial-difference-blood-clotting-warrants.html

There are even some medicines directed to people of a particular race: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15533851

This drug has "let your doctor or pharmacist know if you're of Asian origin": http://www.patient.co.uk/medicine/Rosuvastatin.htm

Racial and ethnic distribution of bloodtypes: http://www.bloodbook.com/world-abo.html

Even medicine is getting more race-oriented, since many drugs seem to work differently from race to race: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3328537/

Mixed-race patients struggle to find marrow donors. Since a body rarely accepts organs, stem cells, or marrow from someone of another race, sometimes even from a different ethnicity: http://phys.org/news162659550.html

Racial differences of muscoskeletal traits: http://analyseeconomique.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/brain-size-iq-and-racial-group-differences-evidence-from-musculoskeletal-traits.pdf

Germs in your gum can reveal your ethnicity: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2477436/Scientists-germs-GUMS-reveal-ethnicity-way-fingerprints-can.html

"Jews exhibit a distinctive genetic signature": http://forward.com/articles/155742/jews-are-a-race-genes-reveal/

Guiding principles on using racial categories in human genetics: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2530857/#!po=5.00000

Four genetic variants associated with blood pressure discovered in blacks: http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-09-african-american-genetic-variants-blood-pressure.html

Racial differences in survival of patients on dialysis: http://www.nature.com/ki/journal/v58/n3/full/4495489a.html

Race, evolution, and behavior: http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/race_evolution_behavior.pdf

197.202.57.144 (talk) 08:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * John Philippe Rushton? Seriously?
 * Anyway, the use of racial categories in medicine is of limited value at best. The base fallacy here, as usual, is circular reasoning: proponents assume in the first place that race (however defined) affects medical practice in some way, and then look for evidence. The methodical problem here is obvious: confirmation bias.
 * You can predict what racial category an individual would have been perceived as belonging to when alive from skeletal remains with high accuracy, yes. You can also predict perceived gender and age, but that does not mean that biologically, these matters are equally simple and clear-cut. They are not. --91.7.30.163 (talk) 00:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, the extraordinary athletic prowess of certain people of African ancestry does not nearly affect all those classed as "black", but specifically those of Kalenjin ancestry, the Kalenjin being but one ethnic group among thousands on the African continent. Certainly, I've never seen a "race" postulated that only included the Kalenjin and nobody else. --91.7.30.163 (talk) 01:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Dismissal through trivialization
Hello,

You can't just dismiss any legitimate worry of a whole race of people as irrational nonsense. A negative fertility rate in itself isn't so bad, obviously. Same for miscegenation, if kept at the current rates. But when those are coupled with liberal immigration policies, well, it can be problematic. At least, if the trends are sustained.

Many white populations are on their way of becoming a minority in the very countries their ancestors founded, fought for, built ex nihilo, and dwelled in for millenia. I'm especially talking of Europe. That, to me, is dispossession. And you can't blame people for not being okay with it. It's not irrational; it's just not right.

Race may be a social construct*. But just like the French and the Spanish languages are social constructs. They both branched off Latin, their common ancestor, but no one is saying, "There's only one language: the Latin language!"

Finally, I'd like to point out that dismissal through a trivialization that is devoid of arguments is a common liberal irrationality which you seem to indulge in, especially when it comes to some legitimate worries you may view as bigotted or too far to the right. I'm not fond of using the word "liberal" in this regard, because I am one myself. Especially when it comes to the rights of women and homosexuals.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/11/craig-cobb-white-supremacist-black_n_4256360.html
 * Although it doesn't seem like one when some "white supremacist"** is "busted" in a leftist media outlet as being 14% black. I mean, 14% social construct.


 * Most of those you call "white supremacists", like Jared Taylor, or myself, actually have no problem acknowledging that northeast Asians average higher IQ's than Caucasians, or that sub-Saharan Africans are inherently better at bursts of strength. Which, incidentally, is why they usually dominate the NBA, the NFL, and the 100-metres sprints.

Sincerely,

197.202.1.98 (talk) 09:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "That, to me, is dispossession. And you can't blame people for not being okay with it. It's not irrational; it's just not right." That's the issue there. This is a judgement which appears to be based on racist values. It's not irrational in principle to believe that if you care about the races of a country's population (since rationality is about achieving goals rather than what the goals are), but that sort of value system is usually based on misconceptions falling under the category of racial prejudice, and as such are irrational because they do not follow from the reality of the situation. Absent such things, what's the problem with the racial makeup of a country shifting over time? Who is being dispossessed, and what are they being dispossessed of? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 11:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Whites (people of European ancestry) are being dispossessed of their countries which equals political representation and economic resources. Every other country controls its borders and immigration, but it is only for European-populated ones illegitimate to do that. 10:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you justify the existence of any border as legitimate? Go on. 10:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Glad that you confirmed the reality of White (Indo-European) disposession as is evident with your changing the subject.

Is there any evidence that White people are 'going extinct'? I've heard the same thing about blondes(mentioned) and gingers specifically, and both of those turned out to be lies. I am Irish, and would be identified as White, with very little chance of having ancestors who weren't quite homogeneous too. I really don't see this as anything more than another unfounded fear. I would also like to say, with regard to the 'Black ancestor' point. Could the racial idea of 'Blackness' apply to that ancestor? I bet they were too different for that to be true, other than having dark skin. The linked article doesn't seem very concrete either. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 188.141.53.238 / talk 02:11, 8 February 2014

Race is only a "social construct" when topics like inevitable white extinction are brought up. "Whiteness" was seen as an obstacle to international economics (cheap labor) so depicting the white race as evil myth is simply profitable despite modern genetics more or less verifying the accuracy of the standard racial model. Race suddenly ceases to be a "mere social construct" and becomes a sacred, unquestionable thing when groups which provide cheap labor (ie african immigrants) are the topic. Many of these "heroic racial rebel" white males who egg on their own extinction could really benefit from a basic economics course to understand why, of all the world's ethnic groups, they alone are expected to go extinct "in the name of diversity". One thing is for sure; the fact that the white race was so easily defeated and won't exist in a few generations means most racial differences in intelligence were greatly exaggerated and human beings in general are hopelessly stupid. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 172.242.62.125 / talk / contribs 07:42, 9 September 2014‎


 * "You can't just dismiss any legitimate worry of a whole race of people as irrational nonsense."
 * Of course they will. These are the very liars that push this stuff. 125.61.100.2 (talk) 05:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * "One thing is for sure; the fact that the white race was so easily defeated and won't exist in a few generations means most racial differences in intelligence were greatly exaggerated and human beings in general are hopelessly stupid."
 * In fact White altruism was triggered by Marxist Jews. The same "we are all equal" "you are guilty" nonsense wouldn't work on savage races anymore than it would work on ants. 125.61.100.2 (talk) 05:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Shame on you for having brought up actual arguments and common sense in a place where they are forsaken. Concepts like peoples' right to self determination, self-preservation, national sovereignity, which should all be within every ethnicity's main rights according to at least the very basic principles of reason and humanity, and to defend which blood has been shed countless times, are not to be named in front of the snotty kids who run this cesspool of lies and hypocrisy. You either comply with them (and subsequently with the current economic and politic model which is main cause and foremost recipient behind mass immigration, and of course the controlled increase of ethnic frictions) or you are a conspiracy-nut/bigot/xenophobe et cetera. There's no reason with them, there's just them throwing around tantrums and strawmen or evading your questions when confronted with a reality they are not comfortable with. So much for people who boast about "rationality". 185.127.36.84 (talk) 23:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 00:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

The overall conclusion of the article
Seems to be "yes, whites are going extinct, but so what?". Well, according to basic biology it seems like continued existence and speciation would be the most basic goals of any living organism, but I suppose that isn't "rational" enough for this wiki, which seems to openly oppose evolution and genetics in favor of the much more malleable "everything is an imaginary social construct" approach. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 172.242.62.125 / talk / contribs 07:29, 9 September 2014‎
 * LOL did you even read the article? The white population is increasing but at a slower rate than any other demographic.Steelman (talk) 05:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Except that is wrong, the white population is no longer increasing: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/white-deaths-outnumber-births-for-first-time/2013/06/13/3bb1017c-d388-11e2-a73e-826d299ff459_story.html This is a US centric article, but there are plenty of articles about sub-sustainment level birth rates in Europe. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Rabidmob / talk / contribs 06:06, 8 October 2014‎

Debunking of decrease in overall whites misleading
"Their equivocation of decrease in the percentage of white people with decrease in the actual number. If we look at US census results, we see that whites comprised 75.1% of the total US population in 2000, and 72.4% in 2010 - giving the impression that whites have declined in number. But if we look at the actual population numbers we see that, between the ten years, the total number of whites actually rose from 211,460,626 to 223,553,265.[2] "

This is true, but only if Hispanics are considered white. Most proponents of white extinction don't think of Hispanics as white, as they use white as a synonym for European. Using the same census data, the non-hispanic white population increase between 2000 and 2010 rose from 194,552,774 to 196,817,552, an increase of 2,264,778 or 1.2 percent, which is dramatically lower than most other ethnic groups. Population estimates in 2012 show that total non-hispanic white deaths outnumber births.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/white-deaths-outnumber-births-for-first-time/2013/06/13/3bb1017c-d388-11e2-a73e-826d299ff459_story.html &mdash; Unsigned, by: 24.22.74.33 / talk 03:52, 21 February 2015‎
 * Fun fact: Spanish people are European. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 05:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh look more Leftist dishonesty. Hispanics are not exclusively "Spanish" as you know, liar, they are mainly Amerindian, especially those invading the USA. 125.61.100.2 (talk) 05:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Great. Why does a decrease in the number of non-"Hispanic" "whites" matter? 06:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Also interesting: "Whites" as a group will still increase, because "white" immigration outnumbers deaths. 06:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Another point consistently erased by racists is that power and cultural elites in Europe and North America are still overwhelmingly white (even if you apply some super-restrictive definition à la "of Northern/Northwestern/Central European descent, without significant Jewish ancestry"), so even if whites by whatever definition become a numerical minority in any country, that does not mean that they will lose their power and cultural dominance even if all citizens of non-white ancestry suddenly magically de-assimilated, formed an alliance for the purposes of rebellion and tried to overthrow the white elites. In African colonies, notably South Africa, whites have always been perfectly able to hold onto power despite forming a numerical minority – often a tiny one – and facing numerous violent rebellions. So all this statistical wankery is quite irrelevant in the first place. The system at place in white-dominated countries ensuring the continuity of white privilege and white supremacist ideology is very effective at self-perpetuation even despite pissing of people of colour.
 * Of course, we leftists have the goal to change this system and abolish white privilege, but given that the result would also give people of colour far less reason for rebellion in the first place, it would not exactly increase the risk of doom to the white demographic, despite the incessant panicking of racists that "Cultural Marxism" is destroying "white culture". Ironically, for all their sermons on precious white culture and values like science and democracy and human rights, in practice, most of them show remarkably little evidence of actually caring for white culture (except when it fits and propagates their preconceived ideas), science (except when it, or some bastardisation thereof, agrees with their prejudices), democracy and human rights (except for white people, obviously). The average Neo-Nazi is not exactly a paragon of education, either. --91.7.30.163 (talk) 20:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Why Hispanics don't count as whites?

-They have white skin

-Their ancestors are mostly European Iwillprobablygetbanned (Reply) 13:32, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

/r/altright is triggered
https://www.reddit.com/r/altright/comments/52o4ov/this_is_what_the_farleft_thinks_about_european/

The moment that final brown baby pops out and you become a white-minority country, bam! There go your human rights. Just ask the Japanese -- they're fascists, right? 12:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)