Pelle is tired of being around white people!

[The Iceberg]

Is this racist? LOL

https://twitter.com/JebraFaushay/status/1664068111060934657

[*skriptis]

The Iceberg <iceber...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
> Is this racist? LOLhttps://twitter.com/JebraFaushay/status/1664068111060934657


I share the sentiment.

People have a right to a closed ethnic communities of their own.

If you don't have that, you have nothing.


And those who wish to drown themselves in multicultural cesspits should have that ability too, large metropolis should be "for all".

It should all be legal.



E.g. North American natives, who are losers in an epic fight to own the continent, nowadays have their own legal communities with the outsiders officially kept out, no?


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_reservation

"The tribal council generally has jurisdiction over the reservation, not the U.S. state it is located in or the U.S. federal government. Different reservations have different systems of government, which may or may not replicate the forms of government found outside the reservation."



Now isn't this absurd?

I'm not saying it's bad that the natives have this, but literally absurd.

They are total losers and they have more power and ethnic sovereignty over their own communities than the victorious Europeans (of mostly Anglo-Saxon origin + others).




Let's imagine Hitler wasn't a loser and had actually won WW2 and had succeeded in subjugating eastern Europe and Slavs and Russians and did to them what Anglos did to natives?

Total victory over their territory and displacement.

And forward, 100 or 200 years later, Greater Germanic Reich, Russian minorities who are decimated, but still survive, have their own ethnic reservations and a right to self-rule, while cities in this Germanic Reich are no longer German majority, instead are overwhelmed by Africans or Asians.

Wouldn't that be hilarious?
It's what's happening in America, lol.





US Whites should demand same what natives have.

If losers can have as much as this:

"The total area of all reservations is 56,200,000 acres (22,700,000 ha; 87,800 sq mi; 227,000 km2), approximately 2.3% of the total area of the United States and about the size of the state of Idaho."


Then the victorious whites should get at least ten times as much, no?


Imo ideally, 50% of the USA is allocated "free for all", but the the other half is given as reservations.

Of it, 40% is given to victorious Whites and 10% to defeated natives. It's a fair game, 80% to winner, 20% to loser?

And Africans should be given free tickets to Africa, if they desire to return there, else they can stay in multicultural parts of US.

I used think they deserve their reservations, but I've changed my mind.

They're neither natives, nor winners.




--




----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

[Sawfish]

I would like to explore one aspect of your position, skript. I will do
so with proper respect, of course.

I like to try to deduce how ancient social phenomenon evolved to the
present, and often I like to do the reverse. In this case it's the latter.

Starting with the assumption that humans everywhere, all
races/ethnicities, tend to want to associate with others of their type
in preference over associating with others of differing race/ethnicity,
I'd like to determine how/why this came to be, *as an evolutionary
function*. I think it's easily demonstrable that there are exceptions to
this general tendency, but by default, one wants to associate with like
kind. In my observation, the rule holds for at least 90% of any given group.

I'd also postulate that some races/groups are more prone to like-kind
association that other groups, but in general, like-kind applies to all
discreet groups, everywhere, and throughout time.

So how did this come to be?

I'd suspect that in early primate prehistory, social groupings were
relatively small. Extended family groups, with some level of blood
relationship. Periodically, surplus young adult males were driven from
the group by the dominant males. These surplus males would tend to be
the more aggressive males, with the lesser males subservient to the
authority of the dominant male and his clique. Now and then the dominant
male would falter, and either be killed or driven from the group, to be
replaced by either one of the young aggressive males, or perhaps one of
the clique. Basically that would be the end of the road for the former
dominant male.

So relatively physically capable young males were driven to the
periphery, and they often banded together for mutual
protection/survival. These were "stag" bands, with no females: likely
some level of mutual sexual gratification was practiced. These bands
might approach another group (or their former group) and try to either
defeat the dominant male and his clique, or more likely, simply steal
females for mating purposes.

So it would seem to me that deeply within human instinct is the
unease/rejection of outsider, males especially. From pre-human times
there was nothing but bad news to come from groups of outsiders.

This *tendency*, attenuated somewhat as surpluses of all kinds became
more routine, began to weaken as the surpluses reduced survival pressure
to maintain the social status quo. The comestible surpluses could
support both "surplus" males and females, to a degree, making for less
degree of blood relationship. But still the individuals of the groups
were more closely related to each other by custom, means of
communication, hunter-gatherer techniques--essentially clans--than any
outsider would be--who ostensibly came from his/her own social grouping.

A that point two mitigating motivations began to manifest themselves:
trade and intermarriage--which often was a form of trade.

I'd guess that after a certain point, two separate groups, whose social
strength was close to equal, thus discouraging open warfare, might
encounter each other and size each other up with minimal contact. In one
or the other of the groups, or maybe in both, perceptive and intelligent
individuals might perceive that members of the other group had material
goods that seemed of value, and since open warfare was impractical, and
individual theft was risky, these perceptive individuals proposed to
exchange material items with the other group.

Maybe the perceptive individuals might be thought of as "proto-Jews"...  ;^)

This was the beginnings of trade.

Now this same evaluation of each tribe's material goods would also
include individuals. But trading for a fully functional and unattached
male was nothing but trouble, for both sides, nor was an extra male
usually needed by a group, but there could never be enough mating aged
females, so this was the beginning of intermarriage/interbreeding.

So I'm saying that today's tendency for humans to want to associate with
others who appear to be very similar to themselves stems from these
early interactions between separate human social groups. It was risky to
interact, and it was most comfortable when limited to exchange, and not
necessarily to social gatherings for celebration ("party down!") since
customs/communication were uncomfortably strange. This instinct still
stays with us, and any outside attempt to enforce mixed association is
basically pissing against a headwind.

Your thoughts on this, skript?

--
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If there's one thing I can't stand, it's intolerance."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[*skriptis]

Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
> On 6/1/23 2:13 AM, *skriptis wrote:> The Iceberg <iceber...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r>> Is this racist? LOLhttps://twitter.com/JebraFaushay/status/1664068111060934657>> I share the sentiment.>> People have a right to a closed ethnic communities of their own.>> If you don't have that, you have nothing.>>> And those who wish to drown themselves in multicultural cesspits should have that ability too, large metropolis should be "for all".>> It should all be legal.>>>> E.g. North American natives, who are losers in an epic fight to own the continent, nowadays have their own legal communities with the outsiders officially kept out, no?>>> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_reservation>> "The tribal council generally has jurisdiction over the reservation, not the U.S. state it is located in or the U.S. federal government. Different reservations have different systems of government, which may or may not replicate the forms of government found outside the reservation.">>>> Now isn't this absurd?>> I'm not saying it's bad that the natives have this, but literally absurd.>> They are total losers and they have more power and ethnic sovereignty over their own communities than the victorious Europeans (of mostly Anglo-Saxon origin + others).>>>>> Let's imagine Hitler wasn't a loser and had actually won WW2 and had succeeded in subjugating eastern Europe and Slavs and Russians and did to them what Anglos did to natives?>> Total victory over their territory and displacement.>> And forward, 100 or 200 years later, Greater Germanic Reich, Russian minorities who are decimated, but still survive, have their own ethnic reservations and a right to self-rule, while cities in this Germanic Reich are no longer German majority, instead are overwhelmed by Africans or Asians.>> Wouldn't that be hilarious?> It's what's happening in America, lol.>>>>>> US Whites should demand same what natives have.>> If losers can have as much as this:>> "The total area of all reservations is 56,200,000 acres (22,700,000 ha; 87,800 sq mi; 227,000 km2), approximately 2.3% of the total area of the United States and about the size of the state of Idaho.">>> Then the victorious whites should get at least ten times as much, no?>>> Imo ideally, 50% of the USA is allocated "free for all", but the the other half is given as reservations.>> Of it, 40% is given to victorious Whites and 10% to defeated natives. It's a fair game, 80% to winner, 20% to loser?>> And Africans should be given free tickets to Africa, if they desire to return there, else they can stay in multicultural parts of US.>> I used think they deserve their reservations, but I've changed my mind.>> They're neither natives, nor winners.>>>>I would like to explore one aspect of your position, skript. I will do so with proper respect, of course.I like to try to deduce how ancient social phenomenon evolved to the present, and often I like to do the reverse. In this case it's the latter.Starting with the assumption that humans everywhere, all races/ethnicities, tend to want to associate with others of their type in preference over associating with others of differing race/ethnicity, I'd like to determine how/why this came to be, *as an evolutionary function*. I think it's easily demonstrable that there are exceptions to this general tendency, but by default, one wants to associate with like kind. In my observation, the rule holds for at least 90% of any given group.I'd also postulate that some races/groups are more prone to like-kind association that other groups, but in general, like-kind applies to all discreet groups, everywhere, and throughout time.So how did this come to be?I'd suspect that in early primate prehistory, social groupings were relatively small. Extended family groups, with some level of blood relationship. Periodically, surplus young adult males were driven from the group by the dominant males. These surplus males would tend to be the more aggressive males, with the lesser males subservient to the authority of the dominant male and his clique. Now and then the dominant male would falter, and either be killed or driven from the group, to be replaced by either one of the young aggressive males, or perhaps one of the clique. Basically that would be the end of the road for the former dominant male.So relatively physically capable young males were driven to the periphery, and they often banded together for mutual protection/survival. These were "stag" bands, with no females: likely some level of mutual sexual gratification was practiced. These bands might approach another group (or their former group) and try to either defeat the dominant male and his clique, or more likely, simply steal females for mating purposes.So it would seem to me that deeply within human instinct is the unease/rejection of outsider, males especially. From pre-human times there was nothing but bad news to come from groups of outsiders.This *tendency*, attenuated somewhat as surpluses of all kinds became more routine, began to weaken as the surpluses reduced survival pressure to maintain the social status quo. The comestible surpluses could support both "surplus" males and females, to a degree, making for less degree of blood relationship. But still the individuals of the groups were more closely related to each other by custom, means of communication, hunter-gatherer techniques--essentially clans--than any outsider would be--who ostensibly came from his/her own social grouping.A that point two mitigating motivations began to manifest themselves: trade and intermarriage--which often was a form of trade.I'd guess that after a certain point, two separate groups, whose social strength was close to equal, thus discouraging open warfare, might encounter each other and size each other up with minimal contact. In one or the other of the groups, or maybe in both, perceptive and intelligent individuals might perceive that members of the other group had material goods that seemed of value, and since open warfare was impractical, and individual theft was risky, these perceptive individuals proposed to exchange material items with the other group.Maybe the perceptive individuals might be thought of as "proto-Jews"... ;^)This was the beginnings of trade.Now this same evaluation of each tribe's material goods would also include individuals. But trading for a fully functional and unattached male was nothing but trouble, for both sides, nor was an extra male usually needed by a group, but there could never be enough mating aged females, so this was the beginning of intermarriage/interbreeding.So I'm saying that today's tendency for humans to want to associate with others who appear to be very similar to themselves stems from these early interactions between separate human social groups. It was risky to interact, and it was most comfortable when limited to exchange, and not necessarily to social gatherings for celebration ("party down!") since customs/communication were uncomfortably strange. This instinct still stays with us, and any outside attempt to enforce mixed association is basically pissing against a headwind.Your thoughts on this, skript?


I guess you described it near perfectly, explaining the evolutionary mechanism.

But what now?

It is what it is, e.g. you said 90% of folks want to stay around their own kind, yet even my modest proposals, that we split it as if the groups are even, 50-50, is met with disapproval. Weird, ha?

[Sawfish]

Yes, weird.

I tend to see it as a phenomenon of the changing evolutionary
environment. That said, it looks like my genes are likely to die out as
unfit for the present extreme cosmopolitan environment; I can't tell yet
if/how this is carried by my daughter. This means either I've got to
change my own *INSTINCTUAL* response (you can fake it, but the stress
remains back there, sublimated), or else there'd have to be an extremely
forceful realignment of the evolutionary environment, something like a
race war, with enforced separation.

As an interesting aside, so far as finding a suitable reproductive mate,
this natural aversion does not apply broadly. If it applies (and I think
it does) it's kinda narrow. So finding a sexually attractive female of
another race trumps the pervasive instinct to stick to one's on phenotype.

In a way, it works like finding a female of your own type who is *not*
suitable, so far as you are concerned: you will routinely see
reproductive females of your own group who inspire little to no desire
to mate. This sexual thing seems to work along a different axis from
general desire to associate with one's own group.

Does this even make any sense?  :^)

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant was awful--but at least the portions
were large!" --Sawfish

[bmoore]

Sure, but what's the big deal? Some like their mates to share skin color/ethnicity/hair color/music tastes, whatever. Each to his/her own.

[Sawfish]

That's fine, b; I understand your point and it's valid *per individual*.

But what I'm after is out of any given discreet grouping, *what
percentage is x*, where "x" is a behavior, a talent, a preference? I'm
looking at trends, because trends indicate the general direction of the
evolution of the group, socially, physically, whatever.

This interests me a lot. It answers questions that I have that beg
answers--if plausible and convincing.

You'll recall, too, that I'm in a interracial marriage with a bi-racial
kid. I'm not looking for "is this good/bad?", but more why is it that
many whom I've encountered do not seem to be attracted to any potential
mate of another phenotype. It's more than "well, it's their upbringing".
That might account for some of it.

But my best friend from college and beyond, until he died a while back,
was--how can I put it?--a hardened LA womanizer from college to age 46,
when he finally married for the first time. He was extremely eclectic in
his tastes, but for reasons not apparent, he was quite ambivalent about
Asian females who, to me, looked very desirable.

...and looking inside myself, I see a similar response to sub-Saharan
women. I can *see* a certain beauty in some, but I have no real
interest. And yet I've seen very dark Indian women who were extremely
attractive to me. Skin color is not the principal criterion.

I have some ideas about why this is so, in my case, and I suspect that
something similar operates in many others of various phenotypes *as a
general trend*. There are individual exceptions and these exceptions can
be characterized as of varying strengths among such individuals.

I think that it's best characterized as what do you find *repellent*
traits in those of a different phenotype, rather than "what do you find
attractive". I think that's the principal determinant.

--
--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them...well, I have others."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 8.6.2023 21.16, Sawfish wrote:
> But what I'm after is out of any given discreet grouping, *what
> percentage is x*, where "x" is a behavior, a talent, a preference? I'm
> looking at trends, because trends indicate the general direction of the
> evolution of the group, socially, physically, whatever.

So what have you found out? Do you have any trends for us we could look
at and say: "wow, saw is right!"

--
"And off they went, from here to there,
The bear, the bear, and the maiden fair"
-- Traditional

[*skriptis]

bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> Wrote in message:r

> On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 9:41:28 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:> On 6/8/23 2:25 AM, *skriptis wrote: > > Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r > >> On 6/1/23 2:13 AM, *skriptis wrote:> The Iceberg <iceber...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r>> Is this racist? LOLhttps://twitter.com/JebraFaushay/status/1664068111060934657>> I share the sentiment.>> People have a right to a closed ethnic communities of their own.>> If you don't have that, you have nothing.>>> And those who wish to drown themselves in multicultural cesspits should have that ability too, large metropolis should be "for all".>> It should all be legal.>>>> E.g. North American natives, who are losers in an epic fight to own the continent, nowadays have their own legal communities with the outsiders officially kept out, no?>>> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_reservation>> "The tribal council generally has jurisdiction over the reservation, not the U.S. state it is located in or the U.S. federal government. Different reservations have different systems of government, which may or may not replicate the forms of government found outside the reservation.">>>> Now isn't this absurd?>> I'm not saying it's bad that the natives have this, but literally absurd.>> They are total losers and they have more power and ethnic sovereignty over their own communities than the victorious Europeans (of mostly Anglo-Saxon origin + others).>>>>> Let's imagine Hitler wasn't a loser and had actually won WW2 and had succeeded in subjugating eastern Europe and Slavs and Russians and did to them what Anglos did to natives?>> Total victory over their territory and displacement.>> And forward, 100 or 200 years later, Greater Germanic Reich, Russian minorities who are decimated, but still survive, have their own ethnic reservations and a right to self-rule, while cities in this Germanic Reich are no longer German majority, instead are overwhelmed by Africans or Asians.>> Wouldn't that be hilarious?> It's what's happening in America, lol.>>>>>> US Whites should demand same what natives have.>> If losers can have as much as this:>> "The total area of all reservations is 56,200,000 acres (22,700,000 ha; 87,800 sq mi; 227,000 km2), approximately 2.3% of the total area of the United States and about the size of the state of Idaho.">>> Then the victorious whites should get at least ten times as much, no?>>> Imo ideally, 50% of the USA is allocated "free for all", but the the other half is given as reservations.>> Of it, 40% is given to victorious Whites and 10% to defeated natives. It's a fair game, 80% to winner, 20% to loser?>> And Africans should be given free tickets to Africa, if they desire to return there, else they can stay in multicultural parts of US.>> I used think they deserve their reservations, but I've changed my mind.>> They're neither natives, nor winners.>>>>I would like to explore one aspect of your position, skript. I will do so with proper respect, of course.I like to try to deduce how ancient social phenomenon evolved to the present, and often I like to do the reverse. In this case it's the latter.Starting with the assumption that humans everywhere, all races/ethnicities, tend to want to associate with others of their type in preference over associating with others of differing race/ethnicity, I'd like to determine how/why this came to be, *as an evolutionary function*. I think it's easily demonstrable that there are exceptions to this general tendency, but by default, one wants to associate with like kind. In my observation, the rule holds for at least 90% of any given group.I'd also postulate that some races/groups are more prone to like-kind association that other groups, but in general, like-kind applies to all discreet groups, everywhere, and throughout time.So how did this come to be?I'd suspect that in early primate prehistory, social groupings were relatively small. Extended family groups, with some level of blood relationship. Periodically, surplus young adult males were driven from the group by the dominant males. These surplus males would tend to be the more aggressive males, with the lesser males subservient to the authority of the dominant male and his clique. Now and then the dominant male would falter, and either be killed or driven from the group, to be replaced by either one of the young aggressive males, or perhaps one of the clique. Basically that would be the end of the road for the former dominant male.So relatively physically capable young males were driven to the periphery, and they often banded together for mutual protection/survival. These were "stag" bands, with no females: likely some level of mutual sexual gratification was practiced. These bands might approach another group (or their former group) and try to either defeat the dominant male and his clique, or more likely, simply steal females for mating purposes.So it would seem to me that deeply within human instinct is the unease/rejection of outsider, males especially. From pre-human times there was nothing but bad news to come from groups of outsiders.This *tendency*, attenuated somewhat as surpluses of all kinds became more routine, began to weaken as the surpluses reduced survival pressure to maintain the social status quo. The comestible surpluses could support both "surplus" males and females, to a degree, making for less degree of blood relationship. But still the individuals of the groups were more closely related to each other by custom, means of communication, hunter-gatherer techniques--essentially clans--than any outsider would be--who ostensibly came from his/her own social grouping.A that point two mitigating motivations began to manifest themselves: trade and intermarriage--which often was a form of trade.I'd guess that after a certain point, two separate groups, whose social strength was close to equal, thus discouraging open warfare, might encounter each other and size each other up with minimal contact. In one or the other of the groups, or maybe in both, perceptive and intelligent individuals might perceive that members of the other group had material goods that seemed of value, and since open warfare was impractical, and individual theft was risky, these perceptive individuals proposed to exchange material items with the other group.Maybe the perceptive individuals might be thought of as "proto-Jews"... ;^)This was the beginnings of trade.Now this same evaluation of each tribe's material goods would also include individuals. But trading for a fully functional and unattached male was nothing but trouble, for both sides, nor was an extra male usually needed by a group, but there could never be enough mating aged females, so this was the beginning of intermarriage/interbreeding.So I'm saying that today's tendency for humans to want to associate with others who appear to be very similar to themselves stems from these early interactions between separate human social groups. It was risky to interact, and it was most comfortable when limited to exchange, and not necessarily to social gatherings for celebration ("party down!") since customs/communication were uncomfortably strange. This instinct still stays with us, and any outside attempt to enforce mixed association is basically pissing against a headwind.Your thoughts on this, skript? > > > > I guess you described it near perfectly, explaining the evolutionary mechanism. > > > > But what now? > > > > It is what it is, e.g. you said 90% of folks want to stay around their own kind, yet even my modest proposals, that we split it as if the groups are even, 50-50, is met with disapproval. Weird, ha? > > > > > >> Yes, weird. > > I tend to see it as a phenomenon of the changing evolutionary > environment. That said, it looks like my genes are likely to die out as > unfit for the present extreme cosmopolitan environment; I can't tell yet > if/how this is carried by my daughter. This means either I've got to > change my own *INSTINCTUAL* response (you can fake it, but the stress > remains back there, sublimated), or else there'd have to be an extremely > forceful realignment of the evolutionary environment, something like a > race war, with enforced separation. > > As an interesting aside, so far as finding a suitable reproductive mate, > this natural aversion does not apply broadly. If it applies (and I think > it does) it's kinda narrow. So finding a sexually attractive female of > another race trumps the pervasive instinct to stick to one's on phenotype. > > In a way, it works like finding a female of your own type who is *not* > suitable, so far as you are concerned: you will routinely see > reproductive females of your own group who inspire little to no desire > to mate. This sexual thing seems to work along a different axis from > general desire to associate with one's own group. > > Does this even make any sense? :^) Sure, but what's the big deal? Some like their mates to share skin color/ethnicity/hair color/music tastes, whatever. Each to his/her own.

You're not being honest

[bmoore]

I like intellect. Conversely, I am repelled by stupidity.

[Sawfish]

Oh, for shit's sake yes!

I can recall some wit writing:

"Intelligence is the greatest aphrodisiac."

Now combine that, and a booty that just don't quit...ummm, ummm, ummm!

:^)

Hey, b, do you remember the old joke (might have been a cheech marin
monologue) about the pope having to have sex with a woman to save the
world?   ;^)

[bmoore]

:-)

> Hey, b, do you remember the old joke (might have been a cheech marin
> monologue) about the pope having to have sex with a woman to save the
> world? ;^)

I don't remember that one.