/lit/ - Literature

>>15751693
Interesting you only include caucasoids there, is it because you don't want people to see that there's an obvious cluster within caucasoids and even moreso relative to non-caucasoids?

>>14967811
The European genetic cluster.

>>14898240
I disagree, once established those regimes enjoyed a great degree of confidence and optimisim for several years (all revolutions however, are rectionary — so you aren't saying much). Germany impressed the world. I won't pretend that people weren't afraid of falling afoul of those governments, but let's also not pretend that Hitler and Mussolini weren't widely adored by their people. I reject the idea that a fascist government would have to foment war to persist (the joint instance of ger/ita does not convincingly prove such a necessity, ironically you're scaremongering here), and if we're frank we have to admit that major liberal powers today routinely manufacture/dramatize/spin events to keep people distracted and controlled.

I'm not arguing for snapshot, I understand that phenotypes change, but the speed and magnitude of the change induced by mass immigration is way beyond the historical genetic churn (as is the increased genetic 'distance' of people coming in... not just geographic neighbours anymore). This is reckless... In the case of Europeans with our recessive alleles, we are in the span of decades endagering a dviersity that took thousands of years to evolve. As for your criticism of the taxonomy, there are no 'perfect' boundaries (obviously), but if it were truly arbitrary then you literally wouldn't be able to distinguish between a Sardinian and a Sicilian, or a Northern/Southern Italian, or detect their genetic closeness relative to an African. As you're pointing out for me, Europeans are already significantly diverse and do not require an influx of destructive dominant genes which will -reduce- that diversity. As for being allied under a banner of 'whiteness', we are in fact a genetic cluster — a broad family if you will — and what your eyes tell you about who is 'white' (and to what degree) aligns very well with the genetic data (pic related). So yes, there are divisions (which can be preserved since we're not mingling with dominant genes), but there are also commonalities which make us a family relative to the rest of the world.

>>14898314
Yeah... I'm not a spiritualist, so that notion doesn't hold any water for me. Which isn't to say that I'm opposed to spiritualism (I recognize its utility), I just think that what we actually are and will become is a matter of biology.

I can understand your perspective. Things do look pretty grim... I would say though that white-flight has been a thing for many decades already, and there are still very charming smaller towns out there that are far less degenerate than the urban sprawls. While they won't prevent our countries from rotting in general, they at least represent possible redoubts for us (instead of leaving, which provides no gaurantees either).

>>13895119
Fixation indexes show that the populations of Europe (barring recent immigrants) are more closely genetically related to eachother (significantly so) than to populations elsewhere.

>>12515758
There is whiteness, if you'd bother to look at some genetic clustering data you'd see that Europeans are considerably more closely related to eachother than to other ethnicities.

America was almost exclusively built by the peoples represented by blue markers in the European cluster on this graph. Very closely related indeed. Also, you'll note that the populations on the edge of that cluster line up quite well with what your eyes tell you about who is less white (swarthy).