Debate:"We can't save the white race"

This is a Debate page. Feel free to add your own spin on the story. Please keep it civil! This debate was created by some loser.

Before you label me a white nationalist just hear me out. Ok ?

Proposition

It's impossible to save the white race from extinction or genetic dilution to the point where it's impossible(even assuming the most liberal standards of "whiteness") to find whites that even exist. While many white nationalists talk grandly of the saving the west and the white race I believe both to be impossible. This stems from "Who the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad." I believe that our current society is very mad. (both definitions of the word). I also believe that when these people make allusions to rome(in comparison with the US) they ignore the fact that rome fell. I also want yall to operate on the assumption that race is real, and western civilization is a good thing in the world.

Evidence and Reasoning

White birth rates are below replacement. We know this. Huge amounts of Immigrants are coming from the 3rd world. We also know this. Mixed-Race children are more and more common. (I am one of them). We also also know this. The polarisation of society has been increasing near exponentially. We can assume that a civil war(s) are soon to occur.

Based upon these facts and one highly educated guess let me explain my reasoning. Regardless of whether or not immigration is halted whites will eventually die out. (assuming the birth rates stay constant) This is ignoring the increasing amounts of interracial marriage. Combined ,this means that whites will soon be a minority. However where people like richard spencer gets things wrong is A.) stopping immigration won't change anything and B.) an american white ethnostate is an unachievable goal and C.) even if you do manage to get up to 90% white the white majority will still be slowly chipped away and D.) people with progressive views control much of academia which means you're still gonna have ... you know what screw it.

The only way to preserve the white race is a totalitarian government capable of literally stripping away people's citizenship on the basis of race, complete control of academia, and lots and lots of violence.

What if white birth rates don't stay constant? ^{— Unsigned, by: 100.16.152.25 / talk / contribs}

Conclusion

The ship is sinking so you might as well move to the middle of the woods(or east asia) ^{— Unsigned, by: 2601:CA:8200:34A:5C61:FDEF:BD49:C265 / talk}

So...are you a white nationalist? RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

No. White nationalists believe they can save the white race. Also my mom was black.^{— Unsigned, by: 2601:ca:8200:34a:5c61:fdef:bd49:c265 / talk / contribs}

So you're just a pessimistic white nationalist who is mixed-race? Great, glad to have that cleared up. RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm aint a white nationalist.^{— Unsigned, by: 2601:ca:8200:34a:5c61:fdef:bd49:c265 / talk / contribs}

Really? Aside from your belief that the struggle of white nationalism is futile, how is your ideology different from it? RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Much of white nationalist ideology is contingent upon the fact that whites are savable. I'm personally a neo-monarchist absolutist(both philosophically and politically) and I agree with them on traditionalism as well. However their cause is hopeless naive. 2601:CA:8200:34A:5C61:FDEF:BD49:C265 (talk) 17:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Why exactly does it mean if the 'white race' continues to exist? Even if race was real, nothing like modern races extend back through our ancestors from millions of years ago. If our ancestors had a concept of races, they would be completely meaningless now. Likewise, our descendants will look so different from us that the concept of a 'white race' would be meaningless (By extension, the 'black' or 'asian' race will cease to exist as well). Not even a totalitarian ethnostate could stop the march of genetics. You would have to resort to forced abortions for any offspring that deviated genetically from their parents by too much to prevent new 'races' from arising naturally. No amount of breeding would be sufficient to generate enough children to get the 'Goldilocks' children necessary to keep the race around in a recognizable state for more than a few hundred thousand years. Ancestry can be traced genetically, it can be proven whether or not you are related to someone, and breeding with someone doesn't magically break the ancestry of your children. Race has these arbitrary bounds we as a species just decided because some people look different and are from far away. It is unscientific because it cannot be defined strictly with uniformly applicable definitions. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Sure, assume race is real. Then what? It still doesn't explain why anyone should care about skin colour/identify with it. Why does it matter? 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:2876:3C83:70A9:92EA (talk) 17:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

So, you don't care about race? RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Of course I don't. I'm trying to find out based on what principle (beyond a history of persecution) anyone would care. Is it just aesthetics? 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:2876:3C83:70A9:92EA (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Ironic how you think that people won't identify on the basis on skin colour and not segregate into tribes because of such. Regardless of whether or not race is real people will still use it as an identifier. This tribalism and basic human nature plan and simple. You can't change human nature which is why I tell you to assume race exists. (Because it may not exist but definitely matters) 2601:CA:8200:34A:5C61:FDEF:BD49:C265 (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

The definition of who is "white" is flawed (they have to be "pure" to be considered "white"), completely stupid, and will naturally decline over it; it's set up to fail. To panic over such a perceived decline is the racists' fault for defining "white" in narrow terms. Sucks for them, they get to eat it. In reality, you can apply this racist "purity" logic backward too: with the rise of mixed race people, there's gonna be a black race extinction, Asian race extinction, Hispanic extinction; after all, if a white and a black person marry, are both not "sacrificed" in the process??? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

(EC) Mixed-race supremacism for the win. And basically everyone's already mixed-race in some way, so yay we can all live in peace now. :) 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:2876:3C83:70A9:92EA (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. The same could be said for any proportion of mixed race as well. All the people who are precisely 30% white and 70% black will have their racial purity violated if it becomes 50% white and 50% black. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 18:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

There are definitely white-skinned people who do not belong to a traditionally-lumped "Western Civilization" (Russia is a great example) so this assertion is also in error. Conclusion: Please learn more about the wide variety of the sociopolitical construct of "race" (note that biological constructs are indeed weak), as well as more details on what "sub-replacement birth rate" really means (the viewpoint expressed is horribly white nationalist). That way you won't come to stupid conclusions. Soundwave106 (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Most of the people I know are different shades of pink. Who speaks up for the "pink race"? (or maybe "light orange" or sort of "flesh coloured".)Hubert (talk) 19:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

"We can't save the white race"

Regardless if true or false... so what? Let's say that in the future the humanity will be all Asian... why that would be a problem? Thinker^(unlicensed) 22:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Facism is a loser ideology

It can't help but position itself as a victim even as its goals are to victimize everyone. This comes from the fact that every single ethno-nationalist and fascist is a loser, whose personal achievements are basically nothing of note. No family, no friends, no constructions, no projects. They have to invest their self worth into some thing they can imagine is capable of that. With fascists that's a "strong" leader who they think can, after eliminating all the scapegoats they've invented for their failures, do powerful things. Or for the wider group of ethnonationalists their "race", whose greatest achievements all come from people who'd never agree with them.

It's no surprise that mikeymike lives in self-imposed exile. It's not noteworthy that nazi-nerd fans of media think they're the ones who made it great and successful, not the people who put effort into making the thing. They suck ass at anything they actually do for themselves. All of them. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

As a reply to an email I received regarding this: No, I will not "video-debate" your loser nazi ass. Debate is a concept fundamentally dependent on good faith argumentation. Nazis belong in the following places: holes in the ground. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:08, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

"u r a loser". Thanks for your contribution to the debate. Bike Rider (talk) 09:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@🐐Bleat at me Why the fuck did you turn my debate into your rantings on fascism ? ^{— Unsigned, by: 2601:CA:8200:34A:5C61:FDEF:BD49:C265 / talk}

Take on Reparations

Edit: Thanks for taking this to a talk page, where I can call you out as the moronic fuck that you are.

So, whites should capitulate to reparations solely because race is clear cut and important somehow. If you believe in the death of the white race in America, you must also capitulate to the promise of 40 acres and a mule. I would say saving the white race is a non-sequitur, as far as biology and evolution goes. But if you believe that white skin = race, you have to at least admit that black skin = reparations. Unless you are so racist that you want to take Lincoln off the penny and the Five.

Or, if you don't like reparations, but you're still scared that white babies won't be born, you're a fucking maniac. I don't even have an argument for this beyond the fact that it's fucking insane. I will take part in a conversation about reparations, and that I don't think I support it but I will talk about it. But a conversation about the dilution of the whites is fucking racist and fucking stupid and so fucking insanely ignorant that I'll give you mercy points for grammar.

So which is it, do we owe black people for being the property of whites, or do we accept that whites and blacks can fall in love with each other and make babies? Who were your parents? Your view on humanity is so gross you must have a side on reparations.

EDIT2: If you can find me in the middle, you're still a dumbass. And finally, fuck you. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Are you alright, sir ? 2601:CA:8200:34A:5C61:FDEF:BD49:C265 (talk) 12:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Define "White Race"

Who are these people who are part of the "white race"? I'm a white, European descendant, from New Zealand (like most people from New Zealand) however I have slightly olive skin, go quite dark in summer and my father was very swarthy indeed given I have Tahitian blood in me (I'm a descendant of Fletcher Christian of HMS Bounty fame). Does that make part of the "white race"? Aceⁱ⁹ 02:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

White is a color metaphor for an ancestry cluster. Some East Asians are whiter than some Europeans. It's a metaphor. Did you seriously not know this or are you just gaslighting and lying? Do you feel no shame in doing this, with the intent of smugly telling Europeans they "don't exist" (much like the Palestinians), on a website called "Rationalwiki" no less. Bike Rider (talk) 09:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

huh? Aceⁱ⁹ 10:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Huh indeed. Does the "white race" include southern Europeans? Slavs? Arabs? Jews? North Africans? Persians? Indians of Aryan descent? Central Asians? What about east Asian people who often have very pale skin, or Inuit? Are you seeking to preserve skin whiteness alone, or are there other physical features like blonde or red hair or blue eyes or penis size that come into it? --Annanoon (talk) 12:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

"Europeans" refers to a group of people within an abstract political construct on an arbitrarily defined plot of land, so yeah, it technically doesn't exist. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

"It's not defined by skin color"

"What about pale Asians?"

I used to think you people were gaslighting. Increasingly I think you're just stupid. Omission (talk) 19:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

"White race" isn't an ancestry cluster. Simply take a look at Fst as a measure of genetic distance between populations in Europe -- Greeks are closer genetically to Palestinian Arabs (0.0057) and Ashkenazi Jews (0.0042) than Swedes (0.0084). So basically southerneast European populations have more in common with their East Mediterranean/Levant neighbours, than northern Europeans. This is simply the result of closer geographical distance. White nationalists are not only ignorant of genetics, but geography.Concerned (talk) 12:56, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

How ironic. Look at this chart. Ashkenazi Jews are geographically distributed hybrids. Somebody doesn't know anything, that's for sure. And the look at the huge gap in genetic space between Turkey and Greece. Presumably the geographic area of Russia doesn't exist because Vladivostok is closer to Seoul than Moscow. What a moron. Continua don't exist. It's always the same cheap fallacies. Omission (talk) 19:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

"Hybrids?" We're not talking different species of human, jackass, all humans alive today are the same species. Racialism is bullshit anyways, modern humans are notoriously genetically homogeneous. I mean, come on, chimpanzees with only a population of several hundred thousand individuals have more genetic variation within them than all seven billion modern day humans combined. Get a grip. — Oxyaena ^Harass 19:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I censored you. You were going off topic with ad hominem attacks. Stay on topic Mike, and your posts stay up. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 21:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

There's no genetic discontinuity between Greeks and Turks. It's an imaginary barrier for Mike to try to justify his weird pan-European ('white') nationalism. The most recent whole genome sequencing data: "Our analyses show that genetic variation of the contemporary Turkish population is best described within the context of the Southern European/Mediterranean gene pool." & "In the Treemix analysis, Turkish samples clustered together with South Europe/Mediterranean populations: Iberians from Spain and Tuscans from Italy". https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4236450/ Notice Mike will just ignore this study; he typically cherry picks i.e confirmation bias.Concerned (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, I would say don't waste your breath with mike, but still make decent arguments for yourself and for other good-faith participants. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Does it matter

At the end of the day does it matter? I mean, at the end of the day, your skin colour means as much as your eye colour. Why are their white supremacy and black supremacy and not "brown eyes" supremacy. It is completely arbitrary. ^{— Unsigned, by: SixtyNine / talk / contribs}

Yes, it does matter. While it is important to acknowledge that racial categories are arbitrary and constructed, so much blood is spilled and so much suffering is sowed as a result of structures of power and individuals that perpetuate racism. Let's take another social construct: Money. Money is a constructed idea that this piece of paper/coin/object/digital number has a universal purchase value within a country's economic system. However, you wouldn't say "Money doesn't matter" in an economic system where not having any of that paper means your access to food, shelter, and clothing are severely restricted and dependent on the kindness and generosity of others. We all understand that money is important, even though we made it up. Ultimately the "race doesn't matter because we made it up" argument is just a more developed version of "I don't see color", which really means "I don't want to acknowledge racism because it makes me uncomfortable". ^{— Unsigned, by: Milea Lyles / talk / contribs}

It's impossible to know for sure

I mean, right now, it seems that the white race will die out (assuming that interracial marriage will be just as common as non-interracial marriage, which it does not seem to be right now). However, a lot can happen in the next century, for instance, we could have nuclear war that would set us back technologically that could prevent people from marrying people around the world. This is just one example of what could happen. This is just one of many unpredictable things that could happen in the future. Maybe a new technology is invented, but it does not have the societal effects that we expect it to have. Who knows. Maybe people become more hard on immigration (not advocating for this. Just saying that this is possible). White birth rates could rise. A lot of other stuff can happen.

My point is that it's near impossible to predict much far into the future. ^{— Unsigned, by: 100.16.152.25 / talk / contribs}