Whites least likely homosexual

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2220120/White-people-likely-gay-Huge-study-reveals-highest-proportion-homosexual-people-African-American-community.html

“The survey – based on interviews with more than 121,000 people – contradicts the perception that lesbians and gays are mostly white, urban and affluent, said lead author Gary Gates.”
“‘But this data reveals that relative to the general population, the LGBT population has a larger proportion of non-white people and clearly is not overly wealthy.’”

In evolutionary terms, you don’t have to raise children you can’t make.

I cannot find survey data on what percentage of mixed race people aren’t straight.
That is weird.

It’s basic demographics, why is that buried?

You would think they’d shout it from the rooftops.
But parents want grandkids, don’t they? Or their own investment is worthless.

Very little research has been done into which races are more likely to be homosexual.”

That sounds likely.

“Estimates of the proportion of the population who are lesbian or gay range from 2 per cent to 10 per cent, although recent US surveys have put it at around 4 per cent.
In 2010, a survey by the Office for National Statistics concluded that 1.5 per cent of Britons identified themselves as gay or bisexual, although a 2008 poll put the proportion at 6 per cent.”

If you sample urban gay areas, your data will be skewed.

This is interesting but twists things.

http://www.mixedracestudies.org/wordpress/?tag=journal-of-the-history-of-sexuality

“The concept of continuity was harnessed to growing attention to miscegenation, or “amalgamation,” in social science writing in the first decades of the twentieth century. Edward Byron Reuter’s The Mulatto in the United States, for instance, pursued an exhaustive quantitative and comparative study of the mulatto population and its achievements in relation to those of “pure” white or African ancestry.”

That bias isn’t science, it’s propaganda.

How little he turned up is great negative evidence though.

Spot the frauds.

“Xavier Mayne, for example, one of the earliest American advocates of homosexual rights, wrote, “Between whitest of men and the blackest negro stretches out a vast line of intermediary races as to their colours: brown, olive, red tawny, yellow.” He then invoked this model of race to envision a continuous spectrum of gender and sexuality: “Nature abhors the absolute, delights in the fractional. . . . Intersexes express the half-steps, the between-beings ”

Most hermaphrodites are infertile.

We evolve FOR one thing and AGAINST another.

Nature loves the absolute, bears can’t breathe underwater.

You evolve for ONE ecosystem at the EXCLUSION of all else.

This is Origin of the Species tier, old biology. This guy’s anti-evolution.

“In this analogy, Mayne reversed dominant cultural hierarchies that privileged purity over mixture. Drawing upon irrefutable evidence of the “natural” existence of biracial people,”

What about the evidence of their fertility issues?

And there’s no such thing as irrefutable in biology on the level of individuals.

Real identity problem, huh?

If race doesn’t matter, why pretend you have one?

Miscellaneous is not a category, that’s a category error.

Why have racial pride if that’s the root of evil to you?
And how can atheists believe pride is a sin?

“Mayne posited a direct analogy to a similarly mixed body, the intersex, which he positioned as a necessary presence within the natural order.”

False equivalence. Naturalistic fallacy.

You can see the slow creep of genocidal rhetoric.

Pure races have a human birthright to exist in their homeland, invader.

If you want the whites kicked out of Africa but not the blacks from America, you’re a massive hypocrite.

Patriarchy hates bachelors

https://www.thevintagenews.com/2018/11/23/bachelor-tax/

Always has done, always will.
It was a wealth tax on those who inherited from their family but refused their family’s wishes to continue the line, spitting on generations of sacrifice.

“Single, footloose, and fancy-free, the bachelor life is often portrayed as an ideal existence.”
Only in the 60s. Look how they turned out.
Historically, they were objects of pity and vice.
“For 2,000 years, bachelor taxes have periodically appeared in societies across the world, targeting single, childless men who were thought to be a useful source of revenue.”
No, they owed their family children (the purpose for their own birth) and, not being able to press the matter of family lineage, it was a useful incentive for the useless pajama boys of their age alongside tying inheritance to making a ‘good match’ and delivering at least one heir. Would you object to that too? Or should we further encourage the aptly named trust fund babies?
A single man doesn’t need a husband and father’s income. They’re spoiled brats who, if they did marry, would ‘marry their mother.’ It’s a good thing the difficult genes are seldom passed on.
They don’t even have to risk death in giving birth unlike the woman, it’s like refusing the draft. (Which bachelors often did, childish).
“In 9 AD, the Roman Emperor Augustus levied the ‘Lex Papia Poppaea’, which imposed a tax on single men and married couples who did not have children.”
Husbands who ‘prevented’ their wife’s fertility, in the latter case.
What about the Spartans?
They were successful because bachelors were considered like children. No responsibility was expected because they were incapable, too soft for it. As such, they were disrespected but at least not slaves.
“The purpose of the tax was to encourage marriage and procreation and to prevent immoral behavior.” They owe society by virtue of being in it, neglecting their duties to the nation – they’re funding, among other things, the women who cannot provide children because they refuse to marry. That’s a direct loss of population to the state.
If they didn’t like it, they could have left.
It was unpatriotic to be single for selfish reasons.
That’s bloody why.
The old wisdom is also coming back on the subject but the West can afford to drop back to its normal pre-WW populations, as long as its resources and infrastructure are not strained by immigration and foreign ‘aid’. We aren’t responsible for the world.
Look at Italy, picture how much better off they’d be now if they imposed a bachelor tax in the 50s.
I heard an old wives’ tale (untrue) that anyone who doesn’t want children, whatsoever, in an earlier era of less medical intervention, would have been destined to die as one, and that was Nature’s way of addressing the fate neatly, just one generation down. Funny how these stories explain things in the fatalistic manner. The impulse to have a healthy, happy family is connected to survival instinct and does frequently diminish in the sickly or traumatized. You could say a lot of modern men are traumatized by the modern world of globalization that forces them to financially compete with the world – so they can never afford a housewife. At minimum, they’re stressed by global concerns. I’d like to see studies on paternal instinct but the bitter segment of bachelors (and they do exist) would cry about it.
“In 1695, when the English Crown was struggling to raise capital for yet another expensive war with France, a bachelor tax was imposed to generate income. This law, known as the Marriage Duty Act, placed a fixed tax on all single men over the age of 25.”
A luxury tax, since you’d have to be rich to afford it. Taxing playboys is a national right, they’re a bad influence. Look how they ruined London. There goes the neighborhood.
Basically it was a eugenic tax on the dead-ends.
It worked.
“Bachelor taxes could also be used to regulate population growth. In South Africa, in 1919, a tax was imposed on bachelors in order to encourage white families to have children, a policy rooted in pre-apartheid racial politics and born out of fears that the white population would soon be eclipsed by the black community.”
No comment.
“In other cases, however, the bachelor tax was more about imposing moral order on society in a time of heightened panic about the hedonistic behavior of young single men.”
They were right…? The degeneracy of today is fueled by vain male demand.
Shut down the porn industry and women might listen. You can’t complain women are showing more skin without complaining about the billboards of lingerie models viewed by toddlers, sex scenes in minors’ films and free porn viewed by five-year olds online because age restrictions and checks would be a mild inconvenience to adults. They know about the brain damage of various vices, they don’t care to ban it. Why would anyone take them seriously? You must also complain about the double standards, like men walking around topless at gyms. We don’t actually want to see that. Plus it’s homoerotic. Sets a bad example.
“Many men complained that such an initiative was an intolerable form of gender discrimination, questioning why men ought to be singled out for extra taxation and not women.”

Men were bitching about muh sexism for decades first.
Broflakes. Men were the ones to propose, duh. It was a one-sided choice.
Plus the men were splashing the cash in illegal avenues difficult to trace (mobs).
Unmarried men only caused trouble to civilized society.
They still do.
Everyone complains about the marriage rate but never gets on the case of men who could marry but refuse.
It reminds me of Leonardo DiCaprio and how he rails against pollution while flying a private jet.
The men bitching about low marriage and birth rates in a personal way can’t be hypocrites, either marry or shut up.
Why don’t they just…? Well, why don’t you?

It’s a valid question, you begged it.

~mic drop~

If you’re rejecting your own gender role, that’s one potential wife you deprive of hers.
They sound like old women, traditionally the ones trying to force marriages.
With such paternalism, and that’s what it is, they must get married or get over it.
The worst are the bad husbands you see online, avoiding their family to lecture others on why they’re single.
Well… people like that. People who shouldn’t have married but wanted the status to browbeat others.
“More successful initiatives appeared at the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century. The arguments that prevailed during these debates often centered on the behavior of single men, and the perceived need to coax men into marriage.”
All they had to do was shut the gin shops and brothels.
Make the manwhores leave the country, where they can’t be a bad influence on the native and naive.
The old-fashioned attitude was lynching for seduction.
“Opponents of the bill, however, suggested that if the bachelor tax were to stand, then a similar tax needed to be imposed on all women of marriageable age who had refused marriage proposals.”
This is hilarious. That would be fine?

Single men really don’t understand women, do they?
No woman would refuse a proposal from a man she was seriously courting.
However, to make it fair, men should be taxed according to the number of women they proposed to (including false promises and ex-wives) without a successful match.
Just punish the r-types until they move abroad, it’s very simple.
“In addition to this, in 1934, the state of California proposed a $25 bachelor tax, primarily as a strategy to boost the state’s falling birth rate. However, the proposals were not taken forward and the bill was never actually implemented.”
And look how well they’re doing!


This is like the elusive search for an atheist society that didn’t die out.
Such taxes will come back in the age of impossible unfunded pension liabilities.
Not might, must.
Why should they be entitled to live off other people’s children?
Why do you think the Boomers felt safe to abort their children? Social Security!
Then there’s the contribution to moral decay.
It’s funny how the very men who complain loudly about “degeneracy” also drink, smoke, fornicate, gamble and attend “massage parlors”.

We are not fooled.

What about a broad Hypocrite Tax?
Nobody could object.
That’d bring back the honor culture you so desire.
If you wouldn’t want an establishment opening next to a school, why is it allowed in your society at all?
At least make all of it underground and difficult to access. Don’t glamorize it.

It would make more sense to give all bachelors free vasectomies and make them sign a document that they’ll never ask the public to fund their sexual healthcare.
They won’t take you up on it though, r-types enjoy the idea of reproductive abuse.
They are the creeps who remove condoms against consent and don’t think of themselves as rapists.
Actually why aren’t there more child support cases about that? Most women are not on the Pill. Deliberate STD infection is a crime too. One very chiseled actor was in a Canadian court about that. Sometimes misogyny is obvious.

Traditionally, it was known rapists wanted to steal fertility* without the male investment of marriage. Why isn’t it assumed that producing such a child was an act of rape? Especially if the mother expressly didn’t want it? I’m sure we’ll come back to that legal position again soon, by necessity.

*or else they’d favour non-reproductive sex

I guess we could tattoo their forehead with a B for bachelor.
So they can’t lie to women about their intentions.

Empirical appropriation?

Read it and weep, intellectually dishonest history re-writers.

From link in this.

Source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316823911_Managing_Science

They’ll claim Newton was Asian next.

You didn’t write these formulae or the many treatise on empiricism that makes science formally a method. It’s like when they try to call ancient philosophers ‘psychologists’ when Galton is probably spinning in his grave, clutching all the mathematics he brought to invent the field of psychometrics. He invented correlations and developed fingerprint technology when most people were still starting fires to cook dinner. Sure, give dick-measuring Freud credit, sounds fair.

Psychology is a “behavioural science” aka it needs maths!

https://apa.org/pubs/info/reports/stem-discipline.aspx

The National Science Foundation (NSF) definition of STEM fields includes mathematics, natural sciences, engineering, computer and information sciences, and the social and behavioral sciences – psychology, economics, sociology, and political science (National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics, 2009).”

https://www.simplypsychology.org/wundt.html
Wilhelm Wundt opened the Institute for Experimental Psychology at the University of Leipzig in Germany in 1879. This was the first laboratory dedicated to psychology, and its opening is usually thought of as the beginning of modern psychology. Indeed, Wundt is often regarded as the father of psychology.”

Freud opened his office in Vienna in 1886, for comparison.

Get over yourself. Even the Gutenberg press making the wide publication of scientific materials possible was European.

[inb4: Engineers aren’t scientists either.]

Nowadays the Method could actually be patented so ownership claims are valid and vital parts of legally-protected cultural heritage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_(patent)

http://www.cultureindevelopment.nl/Cultural_Heritage/What_is_Cultural_Heritage

“Cultural Heritage is an expression of the ways of living developed by a community and passed on from generation to generation, including customs, practices, places, objects, artistic expressions and values. Cultural Heritage is often expressed as either Intangible or Tangible Cultural Heritage (ICOMOS, 2002).”

Ideologies too, including the invented philosophy of secular empiricism (not religious-based).

“Driving force behind all definitions of Cultural Heritage is:
it is a human creation intended to inform (John Feather, 2006).”

Methods of information in a race.

The more formalized, the better!

“Having at one time referred exclusively to the monumental remains of cultures, cultural heritage as a concept has gradually come to include new categories. Today, we find that heritage is not only manifested through tangible forms such as artefacts, buildings or landscapes but also through intangible forms. Intangible heritage includes voices, values, traditions, oral history. Popularly this is perceived through cuisine, clothing, forms of shelter, traditional skills and technologies, religious ceremonies, performing arts, storytelling. Today, we consider the tangible heritage inextricably bound up with the intangible heritage. In conservation projects we aim to preserve both the tangible as well as the intangible heritage.”

culture (includes precise philosophy and its movements) and technologies as a result of culture, what could that refer to?

On another note, white people have a legal right as a race to the exclusive use of our own symbols, including art, stories, architecture, fashions and food!

Give it back, you racist bigots.

They didn’t tell you that, did they?

Brief detour before the big reveal.

You have exclusive rights to your People’s

“traditional skills and technologies”
“objects, artistic expressions”

Picture Trump in a rice hat. Imagine their reaction. ….But this is fine.

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2018/10/30/what-about-the-white-minstrels/

WHITE CULTURE

DOESN’T BELONG

TO THE WORLD.

pinterest.com/sylviacrose/ancient-world-jewelry/

It’s embarrassing when you have no culture of your own to wear.

I’m big on earring archaeology.

https://www.harpersbazaar.com/fashion/trends/g21930727/layered-necklace-looks-ideas/

“The ubiquitous coin necklace makes for the perfect starting point when layering—let it be your focal point and build from there.” “Pair a wider chain link necklace with your dainty pendants for the perfect contrast to your layers.” “Play with texture by mixing and matching different style chains with one another so each individual piece stands out.”

You mean like this?

Plagiarizing the style of dead Athenians from their very tombs. Shame on you.

On food, for fun.

It reminds me of the food lies (Dutch baby is an American name in the 1900s) like Americans stealing Yorkshire puddings and abusing them by covering them in sugary bullshit.
“Manca’s Cafe claimed that it owned the trademark for Dutch babies in 1942.” – wikipedia
https://www.historic-uk.com/CultureUK/Yorkshire-Pudding/
“The prefix “Yorkshire” was first used within a publication by Hannah Glasse in 1747
or how pizzas date back to 1570, long before America.
http://www.oldcook.com/en/cooking-recipes_medieval#piz
Mac & cheese to the 15th century
http://greneboke.com/recipes/macaroni.html

Back to SCIENCE

Further reading: an important philosophical figure on par with Newton

https://www.famousscientists.org/francis-bacon/

was English.

Technically, Science (Method) was invented by the English.

BOOM.

That’s why everyone hates us, we invented pretty much everything.

“Francis Bacon discovered and popularized the scientific method, whereby the laws of science are discovered by gathering and analyzing data from experiments and observations, rather than by using logic-based arguments.”

Discovered = invented.

It isn’t a natural phenomena so ‘discovered’ is an inaccurate legal term.

Older books say invented.

It also has a true, academic name.

The Baconian method marked the beginning of the end for the 2,000-year-old natural philosophy of Aristotle, unleashing a wave of new scientific discoveries, particularly in the hands of devotees such as Robert Boyle.

Philosophy is not science, no math, no method. Bacon really invented falsifiability.

OT but

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5832789/Young-people-really-getting-stupid-IQs-falling-seven-points-generation.html

The above points were important because if you were taught these core fundamentals, you’d know 7 points in IQ is gigantic, especially in one generation. You could lose less than that with blunt force head trauma.

Since it’s rooted to a norm value of 100, that’s 7% of mind power. Compounding, heritable mental degeneration.

What about the white minstrels?

Yeah, aren’t racial stereotypes evil? Or could they be reasonable at times?

Such as…. when they’re true?

My issue with those is that they aren’t true/were never true/are deliberately inflammatory and personally insulting in a way you simply couldn’t get away with, with any other race.

What would be the term for this? Crackaninny? The American media stereotype of certain white people as weak, silly and abusive.

Note: yeah is the redneck form of Yes, you all sound like that abroad.

In spite of the fact Brits have better teeth on average than the modern American (sure, blame corn syrup), our celebrities are rarely anorexic or fat and rugby players don’t wear padding and cups, unlike the NFL sissies.

White people more ill

Guess we deserve all the positive discrimination, according to the last post‘s link.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4619848/
The science is settled. We’re genetically oppressed, hire us, BBC.
Celtic blood is especially prone.
RH-Neg blood is also connected to Ancient Hebrews, choose your opinion wisely.
It could even be a fine test for Jewish pretenders. If you’re one of the original tribe, you won’t mind a glance at your sheet?
Recessive genetics (islands and nomads) are more fragile and deserve special legal status because we don’t want to be anti-science, do we?

According to this proof, the Japanese, Chinese, Korean and Indians merit less positive discrimination than the British, Basque, other European and American.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rh_blood_group_system#Population_data
I guess Mother Nature isn’t a white supremacist. Tell me, where’s the data for immigrant RHF? Does Magic Dirt transform them? Who is needy?

“Rhesus-positive and Rhesus-negative persons differ in the presence-absence of highly immunogenic RhD protein on the erythrocyte membrane. The biological function of the RhD molecule is unknown. Its structure suggests that the molecular complex with RhD protein transports NH3 or CO2 molecules across the erythrocyte cell membrane. Some data indicate that RhD positive and RhD negative subjects differ in their tolerance to certain biological factors, including, Toxoplasma infection, aging and fatique. Present cross sectional study performed on 3,130 subjects) showed that Rhesus negative subjects differed in many indices of their health status, including incidences of many disorders.

Which direction?

Rhesus negative subjects reported to have more frequent allergic, digestive, heart, hematological, immunity, mental health, and neurological problems. On the population level, a Rhesus-negativity-associated burden could be compensated for, for example, by the heterozygote advantage, but for Rhesus negative subjects this burden represents a serious problem.”

Since wikipedia tends to delete certain data once I link, here’s a spare.

Read it and weep.

Do Jews count as white?

Suddenly highly relevant, isn’t it?
If white = passing, then all calls for a “white genocide”, regardless of method, are anti-Semitic and can be tried by a court as such.

If you hold them to their own rule book.

The “passing” point is important, because she’s a self-hating white. She also targets white women aka the majority of white people, so she’s a misogynist to boot. After all, you can’t tell who’s a Jew just by looking at them.

A single Jewish ancestor would suffice if there’s a one-drop rule on this.

I think it would benefit a lot of people to claim such. She herself is using this as a shield from critique.

Could you imagine what would happen to their narrative if all white people they attacked claimed to be part-Jew? They’d have nothing, it would be the Identity Politik version of a Trump card. They can’t deny a white person is part Jew (I identify as….) without defining what a Jew really is to the general public (involving a test) and that’s in danger of No True Scotsman.

Various factions of self-identifying Jew hate one another too and consider some of the others to be faking it, open discussion is not what they want, it risks just exclusion.

The Jew signal (like the bat signal only with the outline of Israel) works for them ONLY because their imagined enemies (the out-group) never claim it, keeping it pure.

They’re scared to claim it, which is strategically stupid. If it keeps you alive and earning, not to claim it would be far from Darwinian adaptation. If Group A has more human rights, a privilege, which camp do you stand in? So many old records were lost in wars and fires that it’s almost impossible to disprove a European’s ancestry.

People convert to Judaism every day so there is also a cultural argument.

All Christians could claim to be at least partially Jewish (Old Testament).

One unfortunate consequence of an abundance of such claims would be the impression that Jews are everywhere and run everything.

Technically, if there’s no such thing as race within this species, and all humans originated from a single Tribe… we’re all Jews.

What a comforting thought.

In conclusion:

I find all claims for a white genocide to be anti-Semitic.

1929 elderly Americans

The humour, the dignity, the health.

I think TV + bad food causes modern ugliness, mostly.

Looking at these types of footage, they’re definitely poisoning your food.

Comment

Amazing! These people over 100, you can easily knock off 25 or 35 years. They look like “our” 65 and 70ish year olds. Must be the lack of processed food and simplicity of life.

Hedonism too, think who you compare them to, burned out hippy Boomers looked incredibly aged and haggard compared to the good old-fashioned self-controlled Boomers (who do exist, rarer). It can’t just be sun damage because these people did more outdoor, honest work and remember many STDs also affect appearance (just burning on the immune system, even if they’re treated and cleared getting any disease it’s a physical stressor).

nah, they just worked way harder then nowadays

very true they worked about a thousand times as hard as we do

Hard labour is good for young boys (teens) and men, helps them develop. Gyms don’t develop the body properly, especially with starvation diets. Compare a man in an outdoor job e.g. building with a gym rat of the same age and it’d be easily to tell who looks younger (the one that isn’t pushing his body to the limits, burning it out and using its full range of motion instead). Body builders are some of the most haggard people around.

I’ve noticed women who exercise like men started to look like them, and older. Much older than other girls/women their age. Drinkers too, across the sexes. Everyone knows about druggies.

It’s not just hard labor. They knew how to manage life and didn’t try to over complicate their lives. They had real values, not perfect but, real as oppose to the moral relativity of the day.

I’ve noticed real Christians have a glow of health that others don’t, including CHINOs and Churchians. A good way to spot.

The more sallow a young person is, the likelier they are to be atheist. I don’t know why. It also applies to the fake moniker “born again” cultists, the people who hide behind a cross and hope you won’t know they’re wearing sheep’s clothing. Ex-sinners are not superior to the people who were never malicious enough to do bad things, daily, for years, America. Karma is an idea you’ll also find in the Bible, you don’t get to ignore it.

Anyone who wasn’t fit and healthy was dead, today half the population is dying but kept alive through advances in medicine.

….True.

Most refreshing of all, that adds to the dignity, they aren’t dressing like teenagers or trying to act cool or younger than they are. I think those Boomers will go down in history as the clown ones nobody should emulate.

Only a person who wasted their life wants to be 21 again.

It’s easy for idiots to point and laugh at these people, but someday, we’ll all be old, if we’re lucky.