"Race Mixing" and "Racial Purity"

by **Bakery Hill** » Mon Mar 27, 2017 4:20 am

Sparked by a short interaction on another thread, I've decided to ask the good people of NSG this question.

Which is better "race mixing" or "racial purity"? Should "races" (of which we assured there are only four thanks to 19th century ideological pseudo science) seek to mix? Or should they maintain their distinctiveness? What does this mean on the micro level? Should people from different "races" avoid sexual relationships? Or should such relationships be encouraged?

As for me? I don't give a fuck who people hook up and I don't believe in biologically essential races. Just be happy fam. That said genetic diversity is almost always better for a group. As the royal families of Europe have shown us, it's better to outbreed to inbreed.

Your thoughts NSG?

by **Caracasus** » Mon Mar 27, 2017 4:23 am

Frankly I look forward to the day when this is barely a question that is asked. Perhaps when great-grandchildren read about "racial purity" in text books the same way we read about divine right of kings etc.

by **Bakery Hill** » Mon Mar 27, 2017 4:24 am

Caracasus wrote:Frankly I look forward to the day when this is barely a question that is asked. Perhaps when great-grandchildren read about "racial purity" in text books the same way we read about divine right of kings etc.

Amen comrade.

by **Napkiraly** » Mon Mar 27, 2017 4:26 am

I don't care either way. Those raging against "race traitors" whether they are white, black, etc are just hilarious tbh. But who cares what I think, I am just a filthy race traitor after all. :^)

by **Caracasus** » Mon Mar 27, 2017 4:27 am

Bakery Hill wrote:
Caracasus wrote:Frankly I look forward to the day when this is barely a question that is asked. Perhaps when great-grandchildren read about "racial purity" in text books the same way we read about divine right of kings etc.

Amen comrade.

Frankly it depresses me whenever I see the resurrected pseudo-scientific nonsense of "races" rearing its maggoty head online.

by **The BlAAtschApen** » Mon Mar 27, 2017 4:28 am

Is this even an issue? Have I landed in 1950s America again?

I don't give a crap about "race". So I guess "race mixing" is my answer.

by **Bakery Hill** » Mon Mar 27, 2017 4:28 am

Napkiraly wrote:I don't care either way. Those raging against "race traitors" whether they are white, black, etc are just hilarious tbh. But who cares what I think, I am just a filthy race traitor after all. :^)

Here's to the "race traitors", long may they miscegenate.

by **Populi-Terrae** » Mon Mar 27, 2017 4:29 am

Anyone who doesn't believe in or is against 'the mixing of the races' must've missed basic science back in school. We need to interbreed with other races to stay keep our race alive. If we kept breeding within our own race, the white race will eventually go extinct. It might take thousands of years, but it will eventually go extinct because we all decided that having sex with Asians/whites/blacks, etc was somehow bad. Several strands of DNA from other races can build up our immune system against certain diseases and in some cases, can make us immune from certain diseases such as rabies. Breeding within the same race over and over again delivers unnecessary risks to our chances of survival in the future.

by **Sjealand** » Mon Mar 27, 2017 4:29 am

I really dont care whatever youre mixed from. I guess ethnic mixing i care about in that if youre under 50% danish or whatever ethnic group i no longer recognise you as ethnically danish/whatever. Not that it means im better than you. Seriously though, bang whoever you want

by **The East Marches II** » Mon Mar 27, 2017 4:29 am

The Blaatschapen wrote:Is this even an issue? Have I landed in 1950s America again?

I don't give a crap about "race". So I guess "race mixing" is my answer.

Our radical left sometimes goes so far as to defend these concepts in another manner. It's a big issue among Native Americans atm. What's even better is watching "anti-racists" support them.

by **Bakery Hill** » Mon Mar 27, 2017 4:30 am

The Blaatschapen wrote:Is this even an issue? Have I landed in 1950s America again?

I don't give a crap about "race". So I guess "race mixing" is my answer.

You've landed in the internet, where everyone old and offensive is fresh and edgy again.

Though tbf, these ideas never died. They were open, and were driven underground. Their latest resurgence is both farcical and worrying.

by **Stanistani** » Mon Mar 27, 2017 4:30 am

I'd like our scientists to explore splicing chlorophyll into our genome.

We need to be green.

by **Vassenor** » Mon Mar 27, 2017 4:30 am

Let's be honest. This whole idea about racial purity or the superiority of one race over another is just a load of old wank.

by **Bakery Hill** » Mon Mar 27, 2017 4:31 am

The East Marches II wrote:
The Blaatschapen wrote:Is this even an issue? Have I landed in 1950s America again?

I don't give a crap about "race". So I guess "race mixing" is my answer.

Our radical left sometimes goes so far as to defend these concepts in another manner. It's a big issue among Native Americans atm. What's even better is watching "anti-racists" support them.

Yep, that crowd is just as ridiculous.

by **Kaidou** » Mon Mar 27, 2017 4:31 am

I don't see why this is an issue at all.

by **Napkiraly** » Mon Mar 27, 2017 4:31 am

The East Marches II wrote:
The Blaatschapen wrote:Is this even an issue? Have I landed in 1950s America again?

I don't give a crap about "race". So I guess "race mixing" is my answer.

Our radical left sometimes goes so far as to defend these concepts in another manner. It's a big issue among Native Americans atm. What's even better is watching "anti-racists" support them.

The feels.

by **Sjealand** » Mon Mar 27, 2017 4:32 am

Vassenor wrote:Let's be honest. This whole idea about racial purity or the superiority of one race over another is just a load of old wank.

Bah, Homo sapiens is clearly better than Homo Erectus

by **Baltenstein** » Mon Mar 27, 2017 4:49 am

Sjealand wrote:
Vassenor wrote:Let's be honest. This whole idea about racial purity or the superiority of one race over another is just a load of old wank.

Bah, Homo sapiens is clearly better than Homo Erectus

Go back to Africa! #NeanderthalPride

by **Napkiraly** » Mon Mar 27, 2017 4:51 am

Baltenstein wrote:
Sjealand wrote:Bah, Homo sapiens is clearly better than Homo Erectus

Go back to Africa! #NeanderthalPride

Make Caves Great Again

by **Alvecia** » Mon Mar 27, 2017 4:56 am

I look forward to the day everyone is a lovely shade of chocolate.

Mmmm. Chocolate.

by **Conscentia** » Mon Mar 27, 2017 4:57 am

"Races" as biologically distinct sub-species in the human species do not exist. That's not to say there isn't significant variation in the human species, or that there aren't geographical trends. However, "race" is at best a naive oversimplification. There are no races, only clines. Clines do not allow for a delineation of subspecies. The alleles responsible for "racial" traits are distributed independently of each other, and they are distributed as gradients not allowing for a clear demarcation between populations.

Additionally, low genetic diversity in populations often leads to increased frequency of genetic disease and increased susceptibility to epidemics of infectious diseases. Notions of "racial purity" are therefore not only misguided but are in-fact a threat to public health.

by **Philjia** » Mon Mar 27, 2017 4:57 am

It's bobbins. We're all homo sapiens. Heck, our direct ancestors were perfectly happy screwing neanderthals.

by **The Conez Imperium** » Mon Mar 27, 2017 5:04 am

I am reminded of this impressive thread outlining "race" titled Race is a social construct without scientific support

Race is a constant subject on NSG and usually engenders a great deal of ignorant statements. The purpose of this thread is to educate those who don't already know that:

1. The concept of race has little or no basis in biology, genetics, anthropology, or any other science. Now, "race" can be a malleable word and used in some contexts -- well removed from common understandings of the term -- is argued by some to have some relevance in some fields. But overall, the scientific consensus is "race" doesn't exist except as a socio-political construct.

2. Race is actually 1) a social construct that is 2) poorly descriptive of the phenomenon it seeks to describe and 3) has a long history of devastating consequences for individuals.

by **Anywhere Else But Here** » Mon Mar 27, 2017 5:11 am

Philjia wrote:It's bobbins. We're all homo sapiens. Heck, our direct ancestors were perfectly happy screwing neanderthals.

I hear Melania Trump still does.

by **Neutraligon** » Mon Mar 27, 2017 5:56 am

Given how much mixing there already has been, I doubt there is such a thing as "racially pure." And no I do not mean recently.