The irony of European supremacist "race realists".

[TheStonerOne]

The ultimate irony of European supremacists who say "muh race is real" is that even the things that COULD indicate "race" (not that it does) actually destroys their ideology. Geographic clusters that "indicate race" (they don't) have "Europeans" clustering with Middle Easterners and to a lesser extent North Africans, Central Asians and South Asians. Yet only one of these is a "distinct race". How does that make sense?

A "realist" accepts reality. You either accept a "Western Eurasian/Caucasian race" or you're deceiving yourselves.

 

[Katoboy]

 

[looksmaxxed]

"race is real, but it's actually not"

this thread is a product of indian cognition on jewish propaganda

 

[BeanCelll]

View attachment 4049651

Elite Gif

 

[Katoboy]

Elite Gif

Fransisco Saarlowski

 

[TheStonerOne]

"race is real, but it's actually not"

this thread is a product of indian cognition on jewish propaganda

I didn't imply race is real at all. I simply indicated that if it WERE real (as a hypothetical) and if geographical clusters were analogous to such a concept, then we'd have to actually accept that such geographical clusters have BOTH Europe and West Asia (or the "Middle East") and to a lesser extent, North Africa, South Asia and Central Asia since that's what is shown in the literature in its entirety.

 

[neurosis]

"race is real, but it's actually not"

this thread is a product of indian cognition on jewish propaganda

"red isn't a real color because it kind of looks like orange" tier argument

 

[whiteegyptian]

I accept that the only whites, are the people from the Anglophone countries and France, that's it, this whole white brown black thing is ridiculous, It doesn't exist in 99.9% of the world, there's no reason for it to exist, what the fuck is a black identity? please go ask any guy that's not from United States about black identity, they will mostly just laugh it off and wonder how can dark skinned men from Africa have a shared identity, just stop.

 

[dr.nikki]

The ultimate irony of European supremacists who say "muh race is real" is that even the things that COULD indicate "race" (not that it does) actually destroys their ideology. Geographic clusters that "indicate race" (they don't) have "Europeans" clustering with Middle Easterners and to a lesser extent North Africans, Central Asians and South Asians. Yet only one of these is a "distinct race". How does that make sense?

A "realist" accepts reality. You either accept a "Western Eurasian/Caucasian race" or you're deceiving yourselves.

europeans cluster with other west eurasians but that doesn’t make them the same. sub-groups within broader families can still be distinct, and some sub-groups clearly outperform others. what is this nigger logic

 

[looksmaxxed]

I didn't imply race is real at all. I simply indicated that if it WERE real (as a hypothetical) and if geographical clusters were analogous to such a concept, then we'd have to actually accept that such geographical clusters have BOTH Europe and West Asia (or the "Middle East") and to a lesser extent, North Africa, South Asia and Central Asia since that's what is shown in the literature in its entirety.

by that standard, everyone is african or middle eastern because they contain genes originating from those regions. you're not thinking things through because you are coping with being one of the inferior races.

 

[TheStonerOne]

europeans cluster with other west eurasians but that doesn’t make them the same. sub-groups within broader families can still be distinct, and some sub-groups clearly outperform others. what is this nigger logic

If we use regional studies, then EVEN between "Europeans" some groups have notable distances. The FST value between Sardinians and Lapps is 0.0667. It shouldn't even matter if they're "population isolates"; according to the logic of European supremacists, Europeans are "homogenous between other Europeans" and distinct from "others" (and therefore, there shouldn't even be "European population isolates") even though that's factually wrong.

FST values between (non-isolate) Tuscans and Britons is 0.004. Between Tuscans and Syrians is 0.005. Why is a "European" barely closer to a "fellow European" compared to a "non-European"? If you admit Tuscans have notable Middle Eastern ancestry that shifts it eastwards (which isn't disputed), then the European supremacist argument is destroyed. Again, according to European supremacist thought, all "Europeans" are "homogenous between themselves and clearly distinct from all others". It's also an admittance of "non-European" admixture. One must also keep in mind that Tuscans also have a good ratio of Northern to Southern European ancestries. It's also well-known that Southern Italians are closer to Levantines, Iranians (of Iran) and Southern Caucasians than they are to Northern/Western/Eastern/Central Europeans.

There's no justification of separating "Europeans" from "Middle Easterners" since many Middle Eastern populations are closer to various Europeans than to other Middle Easterners and vice versa. If this holds true for regional data, how much more true is this for a global context?

 

[TheStonerOne]

by that standard, everyone is african or middle eastern because they contain genes originating from those regions. you're not thinking things through because you are coping with being one of the inferior races.

Yes, all humans originated from Africa. However, in terms of the differences between humans within the 0.1-0.5%, then Europeans and Middle Easterners SPECIFICALLY share more DIRECT ancestry and they only split from each other relatively recently. Southern Italians and Northern Italians split from each other over 14,000 years ago; guess they're a "different race" too, amirite?