You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →


[–] Rotteuxx 2 points -1 points (+1|-2) ago 

Religion is practiced differently in different areas of a racially pure nation, there's more to it than that, their customs are also constantly changing to represent the narrative of its local leaders & following other influences such as environmental factors just to name one.

Raising an Sub-Saharan infant in a white christian family will most probably lead to having a decent member of society, raiding a white European infant in a Bushongo family will lead to a violent white nigger hunting gazelles.

Integration is the underlying factor here, any mass displacements of population inevitably lead to a replacement of local culture, that's way besides the point of my previous comment.

My point earlier was that the culture & religion any human being is raised with has far more influence on the outcome as a grown adult that simply it's race.


[–] GlassSmith 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Raising an Sub-Saharan infant in a white christian family will most probably lead to having a decent member of society,

all evidence points to that being untrue, especially on a societal level. Whites have tried everything in an attempt to civilize blacks both in their own nations and abroad, it has all failed. The best case scenario is the black adopted child is better in some areas than the one from Africa but they still do worse in school, commit more crime, and are far more violent over all, and on top of that after a few generations the black descendants of that adopted child end up much the same as most other blacks. It's called "reversion to the mean" and it is a very real phenomena; any results gained from differences in conditioned can't fully offset the biological differences and are quickly lost once strong outside pressure is no longer being applied to maintain that artificial state. I suggest at least glancing at some of Dr William L. Pierce's writing, I think you would find it very interesting

You are claiming that all societal differences are purely a result of cultural conditioning and that biological factors are negligible, you are claiming that despite thousands of years of separation in drastically different environments that any evolved differences are purely cosmetic, you are claiming that evolution does not affect intelligence or temperament... were you to say this of any other species of animal it would be considered insane. I have actually had this exact conversation before and I even have a canned response for it.

Also, you haven't answered my questions, so let me restate it

Imagine for moment you have a population of people with naturally low impulse control, high hormone levels (emotionally unstable and prone to violence), and lower frontal lobe development, what is the likelihood of that population developing a culture or religion based around pacifism and high social trust?