Marked for genocide
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
Comments (68)
sorted by:
It's always crazy when you see them take their lunacy that one next step.
I've seen 'no white people.' But I hadn't seen 'no Caucasian people.'
It's similar to when they said gender was a social construct...then said they didn't know what a woman is, and that male/female/biology weren't real.
The redefined White People as a culture instead of a skin color. It’s why they can call conservatives of other races as white supremicists.
No, it's still about being a precursor to genocide. They really have a deep seated blood lust that they want to slake.
That’s the end goal. By redefining and reducing the people you want to destroy into the other category, it makes it easier increase their targets.
So, let's assume there is a system that keeps a few hundred people firmly in power and they treat/view everyone else like cattle. What would they be most afraid of?
Some of the cattle becoming aware that the "elites" exist? No, that's easily dealt with by lawfare or worse.
A supposed "maverick" coming into political power? Nah, they have stacks of kompromat and a real outsider would never make it that far anyway.
What they really fear is for the cattle to rally around a common identity and organize in numbers they cannot handle. That's why they constantly attack Whites and Men, because that is where the danger lies.
More people need to realize this. Trump will not save us. Only we can do that!
Well, gender is a social construct that was invented in the 70's by a Leftist as a mechanism of rejecting sex differences in males and females.
Yep, back before John Money mutilated children and the language, gender was merely a synonym for sex instead of being its own thing.
it was the "in polite company" word for sex.
Inanimate objects have a "gender," living things have a sex.
I don't have sex :(
they should try going to the Caucasus to tell the locals. be sure to have someone filming. you'll probably want some body armor on the cameraman.
Does that mean they are Jewish, then?
"There's no such thing as a Jew."
Comment Reported for: Rule 16 - identity attacks
Comment Approved: Comments like that are, at most, so wrong-headed that it's silly. The denial of the existence of a population isn't really an attack on it, as much as it is a self admission that the conversation isn't grounded in an agreed upon reality anymore. Its a "Finland isn't real" level of argument.
I put it in quotes for a reason, silly. I was mocking the 'no such thing as white people.'
its just an act of drive-by moderation. part-and-parcel of modern social media.
I'm saying in general.
And of course the rule 16 afficionados jumped in to throw no true Scotsman at you.
No. Typically they are Leftists (which puts ideology above everything else), and are thus non-practicing jews. Making them a) not-jews, b) heretics.
A non practicing jew is still a jew
It's right there in the name even. How could he have missed it?
"A non practicing Christian is a Christian"
Nope. They are, at best: not Christian, and more likely: heretics.
No, they are atheists.
You are willfully dishonest and people should hate you for it.
I have been entirely honest and consistent about this position.
You have been consistently dishonest.
You wish I was.
No, this is tabloid nonsense made by regressive leftists who focus on ideology first.
https://archive.md/e5F0i
https://archive.md/6mpIl
https://archive.md/JJ4RD
https://archive.md/SXdXC
Whoa, that started off with a doozy!
And, depending on type of measurement, don't humans and chimps share roughly that same amount?!
Tiny, tiny differences make up huge differences. It's always tiny percentiles.
You could take that same argument, and say that a pygmy woman from the Congo is, assuming the differences broke in the same directions, as close to a chimp as she is to a big bad White Male Human. She is become monke.
But even if the differences don't line up exactly, saying there's almost as much difference (even if they aren't so close to chimps, which is the most hilarious outcome) between two human groups and humans and monkeys...kind of blows the whole sham argument out of the water, doesn't it?
Again, before anyone calls me out, it all depends on how you measure DNA; the 98%/99% similarity between chimps and humans isn't set in stone and, if you measure differently, can get much - much - less similar. The point remains though, that a tiny difference in, you know, genetics, you know, the building blocks of life, do make huge, huge differences.
It would be more shocking if a pygmy Congolese woman and Hwite Man had more genetic difference, honestly. Because at some point you would just be talking completely different species. So if you believe in a human race (which I assume this "race debunker" still does), of course they will be similar, genetically.
Talking about chimps, research finds that chimps like African and Indian music but dislike European and Japanese music. https://archive.md/8e1Nw
Food for thought.
That is indeed food for thought.
The human genome contains about 3 billion base pairs, which means that the entirety of human diversity (genetically) comes down to about a million base pairs. I'd say that's probably more than enough to allow for separate 'races' or 'species', but I'm not a geneticist.
You would be correct. There's a lot of shared data, but that's your source code for everything - you've got to know how to make proteins, blood cells, bones, etc.
If tall Dutchmen and Pygmies were judged by another species using the EXACT SAME FUZZY RULES humans use when classifying other animals, they would totally be two different subspecies (races) AT BEST. If they were only known from fossils, they would TOTALLY be two different species, maybe even different genera.
The problem is thinking "race" is on the same level as "species", when it's more like "sub-species".
There are technically only one species of rabbit, and one species of hare. All rabbits can breed with any other rabbit (including domesticates), and all hares can breed with any hare. But hares and rabbits can't crossbreed.
Honest question from someone who only had Biology 101: What's the difference between a subspecies and a variety?
See, that's where it's fuzzy.
I've heard it used the same way as subspecies, but also as simply to refer to variants within a population, that haven't split off into their own populations, like, say, black wolves amongst grey/timber wolf populations, or redheads within northern teutonic/saxon/celtic populations.
Two races can hybridize into their own populations as well, such as Metis or Mexicans, amongst humans, or like I remember seeing Red Wolves might be (a self-sustaining group of coyoteXwolf descendants), or the European Wisent (genetically discovered to be a cross between an extinct relative of the North American bison and the Aurochs.)
Real speciation can only really happen if there's a long enough break in geneflow for genetic drift/adaptations to take enough effect to hinder the two populations from producing offspring that are both viable and fully fertile. (viable meaning they don't tend to die before being able to breed, fully fertile means they can breed with either parent species, or each other. Horses and donkeys are two different species because while mules and hinnies are viable, they're not fertile. There's a species of European crayfish that split off from another species about 25-30 years ago, but the new species is completely parthenogenic; they produce clones of themselves and do not/cannot mate with the males of the parent species.)
Strain or variety could also refer to what humans think of as bloodlines, or breeding lines.
Medicine uses race as part of its diagnostic process, nevermind that pesky complication with organ transplants when a donor isn't the same race as the recipient.
But because wokies have hijacked med schools, they're also pushing this insanity in medicine, and lots of people are gonna die, including the people they claim to care about.
This truly is our Lysenkoism.
I think Strawberries and Marijuana are only 5% different in DNA so it's a stupid argument.
Biological stratifications exist, but "race" ends up being a cultural construct. This is someone asserting that there isn't biological stratifications.
Race refers to the biological strata you mention and those that point to some nebulous social theory are doing so out of ideological reasons.
If you were referring exclusively to biological strata, then there's no cultural, political, or social concerns that are part of race.
good lad
I guess we can say nigger whenever we feel like it then
After all, niggers don't actually exist, niggers are a social construct.
Why would you even be mad about being called a nigger? You're not a nigger, are you?
This is a half a step from "If I close my eyes when I punch, I'm not actually hitting you"
What is the above comic from? Looks like another good webcomic to follow.
https://sinfest.xyz/
Whoa, that's what sinfest is like these days? Cool
Sinfest has been an emotional rollercoaster, that's for sure.
Sinfest went from radical leftist, to radical feminist, to radical terf, to born-again christian, to pro hamas in the short time I read it.
he didn't go pro hamas(calling out israel's genocidal behavior is not "pro hamas"), he went anti jew. Big difference.
He’s anti-Christian, pro-Paganism now.
what a ride
Damn, this is gold!
So wait, white doesn't exist? So what do I default to next then? Black? Jew? American Indian? I'll take my free shit now.
it's more than that; they're trying to keep us at each others' throats while they sell us down the river a piece at a time...
it's the four oxen and the lion in a nutshell...
This is the same logic that Putin uses when he pushes neo-Stalinist revisionism about how Ukrainians aren't a real people. And way too many people on the right fall for that shit because they don't wanna admit that Zelensky's regime and Putin's regime are both dogshit.
Meanwhile, the legacy of the holodomor is left in the dust, as the leftoids that Russian propaganda appeals to explicitly deny that it ever happened, while the rightoids that the same Russian propaganda appeals to just forget about it, because muh based Russians.
It's a bitter pill to swallow but Ukrainians are basically just screwed. Their options are going back to Oriental despotism, or becoming debt slaves to BlackRock, with both options entailing their long-term destruction as a culture.
Palestinians aren't a people because it's not an actual ethnic group. They are arabs. "Palestinians" is effectively a Pan-Arabist ideological construct, a literal Proletariat Nationalist race-class, constructed by the Left.
That being said, jews are a religion. Not a race, not even an ethnic group. Jews have ethnic groups within them, but they are not a race, have never been one, and never will be. So a non-practicing jew, is just: not a jew. Their religious practices may keep them generally socially isolated, but it also prevents them from actually having genetic uniqueness (because the bronze age religion doesn't understand genetics)
"White people" is a weird concept that has evolved over time. Typically it meant British Protestant, but the Americans kind of bastardized the concept to merge into the term "Caucasian".
White is a purely abstract concept, but there was a white culture, if you are referring to WASPs, effectively.
Caucasian is an abstract concept, in so much that is a container for both the category of humans indigenous to Europe, though it's a misnomer to act like Europeans originate wholly from the caucuses. Caucasians as a biological stratification can be identified as a series of underlying genetic markers.
There definitely isn't a thing such as "caucasian culture" because the indigenous populations of Europe are far too varied to have that low level of commonality. Even if a group of caucasians have a similar culture in another country that is outside of europe, it is because they are a group which has migrated, and developed a shared culture in that place and time. Which means you can't say something like: "Rhodesians whites have a similar culture, therefore they are an example of the uniform culture of all Europeans". You're going backwards in the inheritance of culture.
What is typically being done is "white", WASP, and "caucasion" are being intentionally confused as a mechanism of rhetorical warfare.
gopower, you know I love your trolling, but it really gets a bit one note...
I've explicitly challenged him on Israel.
Except that isn't me. It turns out my facts are well known.
Sure. "Caucasian" is a broad general category, tho less general than "white." As someone who hasn't read much cultural anthropology, It seems to me that cultures are determined by geography, and the tribes, nations, the various collective arrangements humans have formed to survive in different physical environments confer "identity."
So why do so many insist that there is such a thing as "black culture" and at the same time claim there is no "white culture"? To denigrate people with white skin regardless of whichever culture they are raised within? I mean, it's obvious that there are real differences between a Lithuanian, a Russian, and an Englishman, as well as differences between a Zulu, a Bantu, a Chicago ghetto black man, and so forth.
Divide and conquer.
Because they hate White people.
It's really that simple.
Every single time, it is that direct and straight forward. It explains almost every aspect of their behavior.
Cultures are also determined by economics and religion as well.
Beyond that, I don't disagree.
Except there is no such thing as Palestine. Its a made up term that rootless drifters picked up to lay claim to the sacred land of Israel.
This white replacement conspiracy theory is made by the same people to scare country boys into thinking some funny army with blue hats is coming to glass their trailer park. Is it really da joooz fault that the feds have to roll in and clean out their meth labs because they cant find real jobs?