Is race mixing a form of social darwinism?

social darwinism is a meme, read mutual aid

this tbh

Except the mixing of races does not eliminate deseases, scientific research does. Thus promoting it and allowing it take place is a misguided attempt at eugenics.

kek.
[citation needed]

kek. Explain me difference before you go back to tubmlr.

Are you one of those guys offended by suggestions that circumcision should be banned to not offend 🍀🍀🍀religious freedoms🍀🍀🍀?

lol

This is about races. Races do not equally mix. Have you heard of dominant and recessive genes?

Same with cultures. By your logic British and French cultures should have a significant amount of celtic customs in them. Except they're mostly roman with a bit of germanic and 0% celt. Celtic LARPing doesn't count.

What is "german race"? What is "french race"? What is "spanish race"?

I have a gf

I am against MGM because it causes bodily harm, not mixing races does not.

This user gets it. I'm starting to believe Holla Forumss autistic rage when it comes to "Race.mixing", is basically /r9k/-tier bitterness toward women just filtered through White Nationalist idpol.

Then why are most Indians Dravidian?

Holy fuck Holla Forums, just use the nazi flag already, it's pretty obvious your entire world view is shaped by info graphs, and Varg Vikerenes videos.

The french and spanish are just roman mongrels.

learn to sage ffs

so what is your solution? State-redistributed partners?

What about the germans? How come there are germans with dark hair and others with blonde hair? Shouldn't they all be the exact same replica?

I am not a racist or nazbol or whatever, but I'd support that since it would benefit me

>Make screenshots to post on reddit
Good work my fellow white man

Since germans have recessive gees, they are diverse in hair, skin, and eye color.

A better example would be central asians and indians. They all have black eyes and hair because these dominant genes caused the extinction of these formerly phenotypically and culturally diverse regions. Islamic arab culture has also largely assimiliated the various cultures, languages, and religions in central asia. The only reason India hasn't become Pakistan is because there were too many pagans for the muslims to assimilate or genocide.

I want propaganda and future socialist governments to heavily promote breeding within your own ethnic groups.

Also less immigration

Nice try Satan, but go shill your Varg shit on /r9k/

I hate pol due to it claiming certain races and ethnic groups as inferior and wanting their extermination. I simply want assimilition to be fought against the same way we fight against genocide and forcing religiousn. Also I didn't feel like looking for good images.

ＭＩＸ ＹＯＵＲ ＧＥＮＥＳ ＷＩＴＨ ＵＳ

youtube.com/watch?v=bBIubgsfK8E

What if we want the future human population to not consist of only mulattoes, dravidians and mestizos who only speak English and maybe Chinese or Arabic?

"Don't be a race traitor!"

'diversity' is a liberal pseudo value, in practice it means restricting what people can do and what can they be in order to preserve artificial categories. Traditional cultures are pretty much dead, when you talk about 'diversity' you are referring to the state imposed theme park version of traditional culture. we care more about realising human freedom and potentiality. If anything, a fully socialist world would dramatically increase possibilities for creative cultural differentiation.

Also I find them more attractive than any bantu woman.

Phenotypica diversity isn't artificial.
Agreed, but what does this have to do with preserving endangered races,ethnic groups, and languages?

You think people naturally want to globalize and assimilate into a dominant culture or race. That isn't the case, and it is promoted by pre-capitalist and capitalist governments as a form of dominance over the weak. A good socialist government should encourage endangered races with recessive genes and ethnic groups to breed among themselves. That will increase possibilities for "creative cultural differentiation".

tl,dr
Assimilating a an endangered ethnic group is the same as destroying ancient ruins to build a hotel on them.

But the changes are irreversible

But the changes are irreversible

Really makes you think. But to answer your question, irrelevant shiting, if not promoted by the state and left alone for individuals to decide, in not eugenic in nature. Now on the matter of if it is social Darwinist or not, is a different question and ultimately depends on what you consider the definition of social Darwinism. I have always have a problem with what most people consider is "social darwinist". I believe that for something to be darwinist it has to be naturally selective, just like darwinism in nature. If someone actively chooses what traits are good or not, in animals and humans, it is artificial selection, not darwinian natural selection. In contrast, if the individuals, again animal or human, are to breed based on selective pressures, outside the influence of the government, it is darwinism. In my definition of what social darwinism really means, it is mutual exclusive to eugenics, as darwinism was and still is a natural process. My question to you is, how is a natural process is "inherently wrong"?

Also, I believe the ethno-nationalist definition of diversity is as flawed as the liberal one. As any person who been in a 3 grade art class, mixing yellow and blue makes green. There is no loss in diversity in the pallet of colors, it has increased. The strawman that every nazsoc or nazbol uses against irrelevant shiting is always the dumping of all the colors into one bowl. But no artist is dumb enough to waste all is colors into making one color. Instead, he mixes them together modestly, he uses his reds and blues to make purple, he uses his yellows and greens to make lime, and so on. The really dumb artist,(aka the liberal agenda) is the one dumping all the colors into one brown. My former example is one solemnly ever used, as ethno-nationalists actually care very little about diversity, and just want an easy strawman to justify their meaningless crusade to "preserve the white race" (yet fail to accurately describe what white is, as shown by their constant in-fighting on what ethnic group is whiter than the other) If you are going to use this "this is true diversity" argument, then you are going have to accept that colors make other colors.

I never said I liked eugenics or social darwinism. Quite the contrary.

It is wrong because in all its form(economic, sexual, racial and cultural) because it causes individuals, cultures and races to permanently cease to exist at the benefit of a stronger individuals, races and cultures. Domination is ethically wrong for me. Natural selection also implies that the strong must destroy or dominate over the weak, and that the weak don't deserve to exist. You imply that unique races, cultures, and languages don't deserve to exist or be protected, which is also wrong, just as capitalists claim that the lower class should be at the mercy of the bourgeoisie because its "natural".

Human phenotypes aren't paint. If they are combined, one of them replaces the other, they do not merge to form a new phenotype.

Black and brown eyes/skin/hair dominate over other colours 100% of the time in the human species, and even if recessive traits pop up, its rare and dominant traits are always present. irrelevant shiting is like pouring black paint in white or pale paint, not mixing green and blue or something.

Bullshi>>1653359
A race is white it is not negroid(anywhere in subsaharan africa, dravidia or oceania) , mongoloid(East Asia and Americas) or mixed(Mulatto, Mestizo, Indian).

I don't want only the white race saved, I want all its ethnic groups saved too. I dissapprove of celts assimilating themselves in Anglo culture or the assimiliations of the Nuristanis by Pakis just as much as I dislike the genocide of native americans.

Then explain to me how would you obtain an ethno-state; by kicking out all the "non-whites"? If so, what is your definition of who is "non-white"? If you believe in one-drop rule (as no entho-nationalist truely does, as that would take too much effort and looks are good enough), then would you discriminate against majority white but part-non-white people? If your answer is yes, then you must be discriminatory on who gets breeding rights than others. Which would make you an eugenicist by definition.

Only if you believe in the one-drop rule. Of course, in the eugenic liberal environment we live in right now, they want to wipe the white race straight off this earth, which is something I disagree with. But to claim that irrelevant shiting is inherently because so higher power abuses it is fallible.

Yet you believe that one race should have dominance in what ever area they originated from instead to being open to all. Not something I disagree with necessarily, but you need to be more honest on what you actually believe, and not spout hogwash to sound more agreeable.

There is no force in this universe that said that the weak have no right to live. It is that the weak need to adapt to survive; not doing so would be their downfall. Natural selection isn't hostile by nature, either. Species develop mutually beneficial relationship for a reason, because it is helpful for survival. Races can and have did this to survive, even more so than two species together have, because we have a closer relationship in the tree of life. It is you who believes that this is an win-lose situation, when it does have to be.

Some one hasn't taken high school biology. Recessive genes still exist, even if they don't appear in the phenotype. That is why they are recessive. You are also thinking very linearly: multiple traits can appear, whether they are dominant and recessive. Races aren't clear cut between each other, and often times contain similar genes across all of them, so saying that all the traits will be dominant heterozygous is retarded as all hell.

Skin is co-dominate AND is determined by multiple alleles. If the paint analogy was to apply to anything, it would apply to this. Brown eye and hair color exists within white people already, even before blue, green eyes, and blond hair ever did, so I fail to see how these are characteristically "non-white".

Blacks aren't the only non-white race that exists, dip-shit.

Either you worded this piece terribly, or you have a screw loose. Negroid and Mongoloid are race categories.

Yet ethnic groups are formed by the pairing of two or more other ethnic groups. Do they deserve to exist?

kek

No I'm against that.

No, the point is to prevent irrelevant shiting in the FUTURE. If they're majority white then they can breed among their ethnic group.

What's so bad for an ethnic group to dominate over its native land(native as where they already reside, not take ancient land like the isreaelis)

>It is that the weak need to adapt to survive; not doing so would be their downfall.
Preventing irrelevant shiting and assimilation into anglo globalist culture is a form of adaptation to survive.

I agree and this should be encouraged, but that doesn't mean they have to mix.

Just because they exist doesn't mean that they have any meaningful influence on phenotypes.

However dominant genes will always be the absoluet majority and no irrelevant shited person will display entirely recessive genes unlike pure europeans.
Mulattos, hapas and mestizos are mostly just lighter skinned blacks, asians and native americans so they're pretty clear cut.

There is a more to being white than skin color. Having european facial features also defines whiteness.
The point is that if whites were to irrelevant shit, then non brown/black eyes and hair would be extremely rare. Like non-black eyes in Iran rare. Thats one of the aims to stop irrelevant shiting: to preserve the relative abundance of these features.
Oh, sorry, there's brown asian, black indian, and black african. Happy?

Except 99% of the time one ethnic group becomes almost commpletely assimilated. Japanese and Ainu? Ainu extinction. Romans and celts?. More Romans. Germans and Old Prussians? More germans.