"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" was the title of Darwin's insightful work which effectively established the theory of evolution in modern thought. Throughout history organisms have evolved natures which allowed them to outcompete and replace their same-species competitors. We see this in human evolution where the newly evolved Sapiens largely replaced the Heidelbergensis and Neanderthals from whom they developed. We also know that these groups were inter-fertile. Imagine if in the time of the newly formed Sapiens, there was an "anti-racist" policy. Any differences in the behavior and capabilities of superficially phenotypically different groups was ascribed to "historical oppression" on the part of the other groups. Policies were enacted to transfer any excess production by one group to the other group, rather than to simply allow competition. It became advantageous for your group to do less activity, and simply feed off the successful group and reproduce. I posit that this situation is in fact happening right now, and evolution is going backwards.
It can. If the direction of evolution is towards individuals closer to the ancestral type in some ways it can in a sense be said to be going backwards.
Obviously in one sense change occurs from one time to the next and always move forwards. But in another organisms can revert to a more primitive type. This is known as "regressive evolution". Regressive Biological Evolution due to Environmental Change
Not only is wealth transferred from the successful group to the unsuccessful, the unsuccessful group is allowed to flood en masse into the territory of the successful. This could truly be considered a reversal of evolution.
I'm calling bull (*)(*)(*)(*) on this thread. Will you please take your pet chemical engineer nutjob source for a long walk of a short pier?
I am in utter awe of your talent. I did not think that anyone could cram so much whackaddodlery and asshattery into so few words. Obviously, not even the most primative mind could concieve of a benefit from so ordering society. The only time that anyone, on a massive scale, decided that it might be somehow beneficial to mate people who they new would be repulsive to each other was in Cambodia under the Khmer Rougue. People are going to prefer to mate with beautiful or in other ways desireable people. Cuteness fits you for survival as a genetic line. Do go read what Darwin wrote and stop bothering those of us who understand these things already.
You're arguing with a strawman. I never said anything about mating, which can be considered incidental to the argument. This is what I said: Do you deny this is happening?
Nobody is voluntarily transferring the resources of the affected communities from the productive to the unproductive. And, in case you didn't notice, there is a LOT of race-mixing going on and the results aint all that bad.
Taxes and welfare do so necessarily. And you're not denying that people are flooding en masse from unsuccessful to successful countries?
I'm glad you decided to take the time to try and reason with a guy that not only is wrong on every issue, but actually becomes a threat to America by condoning the views and ideologies of our enemies. Even my three liberal brothers don't have as warped a sense of reality and vision as does this feminist marxist. Where is Scotty when you need him to beam someone up and out of here?
Most immigrants I know (about half of the people with whom I have any contact, actually,) are fully-employed, many of them small business owners. I have worked for a few of them. In most cases, they are moving to the countries that ripped off their homeland's natural resources or saddled them with unethical loans taken out by petty dictators on the take from foreing powers. This accounts for most of the Malians and Algerians in France, for example, or for Congolese in Belgium.
So what natural resources did France take out of Mali and Algeria? What natural resources did Belgium take out of the Congo? What loans are they paying now?
Gold, ivory, palm oil and peanuts. Wheat, olives and wool. Gold, diamonds, ivory and palm nut oil. IMF-backed loans that give them the leverage to insist that, when a loan goes into default, state industries and lands have to be privatized. Do people with the best interests of the native populations at heart have the capital to invest in those industries?
A cod accent? Would you be referring to the New England accent with the mention of cape cod? I do believe the slogan "Beam me up Scotty" originated from the Star Trek series. Oh, I get it now....that Irish/Canadian was and still is William Shatner....right?
Only problem here is that the "successful" group has rigged the system so that only they can be successful.
Really? But China, Germany, Japan, America, Russia etc. fought several hot and cold wars between and amongst each other in the last century, and they are all successful. Which group exactly "rigged the system"? Please explain exactly how the system is "rigged".
agreed evolution is survival of the fittest, and the white male has proven to be the alpha of our species, mixing only promotes inferiority in nature. but the evolved need someone to work for them to survive nature, so short of mixing they still need the other races as laborers.
The most highly evolved civilizations have not been dependent on foreign labor. Intelligent people are also capable of labor. It is better to have a population with maximum all round abilities. The inevitable result of importing large numbers of effective "slave labor" is that they mix into the population and collapse the civilization. This has historical precedents.
People can be educated not to mix, but the benefits of society to having less evolved laborers far outweighs the implications. Even Hitlers civilization proved that it could not compete with other white civilizations, who exploit less intelligent races or less evolved people, to strengthen their own country.
