Tuesday, June 6, 2017

Are Europeans an Endangered Subspecies Minority Ethnic Group?

In 2015, Europeans constituted not more than 15% of the world population.

At least 85% of the world population consists of non-white ethnic groups.


Non-whites are often said to be minorities, but this was only true in Europe and the U.S.A.  In the world population, non-white ethnic groups far outnumber Caucasians.  China alone, for example, has 3 times as many Asians as the total U.S. population, which is not even an entirely European nation any longer.

The fact is, Europeans – white people – are a minority in the world.  No less than 85% of the world population is non-European (non-white). 

When the population of a non-human animal species is threatened with demise, it is given "endangered species" status.

Joe Biden thinks it is "good" to replace the small European population in North America (not more than 300 million) with non-Europeans.


Biden says: "Its not going to stop, nor should we want it to stop.  We should be proud of it."  We should be proud of replacing the dwindling European population with other ethnic groups.  Its good to replace white people with non-whites.  Its the right thing.

The blackness of Africa is wonderful.  The Asian character of Asia is celebrated.  But the whiteness of America is simply unbearable.

Apparently, the whiteness of Europe is also unbearable. 

Sweden is a 172,756 square mile homeland to no more than 9.8 million white people of a unique ethnic group.  Africa has a land area of 11.73 million square miles – 68 times the size of Sweden – and is homeland for 1.2 BILLION Africans.  So Africans alone outnumber Swedes by about 100 to 1.  But a Swedish propaganda group apparently believes Africa, Asia, and the Middle East all put together are too small to accommodate Africans, Asians, and Middle Eastern people, while Sweden is too big to be populated only by native white Swedes, so it is time for white Swedes to be replaced by non-white people.  Light colored skin, hair and eyes and Scandinavian psychophysiology are just so unbearable, it is high time to get rid of them.



In 2015 Germany had a population of 81.41 million, not all native (white) Germans, and a land area of 137,983 square miles.  Germany is even smaller than Sweden, but according to some its also too big to be populated only by native white European ethnic Germans.  Some German politicians think its high time and good that Germans are being replaced by non-European ethnic groups:


Again, its a good thing to replace white people with non-whites.  It must be so.  Europeans are evil, the worst kind of people.  Only Europeans have done bad things in history, and Europeans have never done anything good enough to make up for all the bad they've done.  No one has ever benefited enough from culture, science or technology developed by Europeans.

How could they?  Just look at Europe.  Many Europeans still live in flimsy shacks without running water.  Europe doesn't have any buildings that are hundreds of years old.  Europeans don't have any art, literature, music, medicine or science of any value. Africans have been sending medical missionaries to Europe for more than a hundred years now. 

On the other hand, look at Africans in Africa.  They had running water before anyone else.  They built buildings and roads that have stood for centuries.  Their native art, literature, music and science are outstanding.  Their economy is strong and lifting the Europeans out of poverty.

Oh, wait, I've got it backwards. Africans have never on their own built a major enduring city in Africa in 3000 years.  Some structures still standing in Europe – such as those comprising Cambridge and Oxford Universities – were built in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries, long before Europeans ventured into Africa; but there are no similar structures in Africa built by Africans alone in any historical time period.  In other words, its not the fault of Europeans that Africans didn't build any Oxford, Cambridge, Great Wall or Taj Mahal type structure in Africa by the 11th century or any other time.  Sorry, its just a fact, and this man is trying to get his people to come to terms with it.


Before you say "but the Egyptians were Africans...," analysis of the DNA of ancient Egyptian mummies indicates that they "shared little DNA with modern sub-Saharan Africans" and "were more closely related to ancient Europeans and Anatolians than to modern Egyptians."

Nevertheless, Europeans are so bad, so destructive, so useless, and non-Europeans are so good, so constructive, so productive, that Europeans must go.

National Geographic magazine celebrates "the new Europeans."  Its totally acceptable for non-Europeans to take over Europe.  We must accept it.  If we don't, we're hateful bigots and racists.

Wait.  If Europeans were invading and replacing the populations in non-European nations, would it be considered "good"?  

Why do these people think it is good to replace Europeans with non-Europeans? Would they also celebrate replacement of any non-European population with Europeans?

Does the (apparently, at this point, planned) replacement of Europeans with non-Europeans qualify as 'ethnic cleansing'?

If not, why not?

The U.N. defines "genocide" as follows:


What if you force members of the group to pay taxes at a level that makes it difficult for a man by himself to provide for a family, and makes it necessary for women to work outside the home in order for a family to "make a living," so the women can't focus on quality child care, then you use that tax money to provide support for migrants and 'refugees' who have a higher fertility rate than the indigenous group?  Will that qualify as "Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part"?

I know, its not "deliberate," right?  (Are you sure?)

What if you demonize white men ('the patriarchy'), then teach young, smart white women (those who make it to university) to hate and avoid men – especially white men (through feminism), or to use birth control when they are young and most fertile, and to delay attempts to have children until they have 'succeeded' in professions, and are far less fertile?  Will that constitute "imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group"?


By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=31462840

What if you teach and encourage a whole generation (my generation) of the group (Europeans) that they should avoid bearing children because there is an urgent need to stop a "population bomb" (which was by the way only happening only in Africa and Asia, i.e. among non-whites), then 30 years later you tell them there is now a "demographic crisis" that requires the injection of different, more fertile ethnic groups from Africa and Asia?  Will that constitute "imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group" or "Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part"?

I know, you might say "it wasn't imposed," right? 

What if the tax dollars taken primarily from white people are used by the State's broadcasting company to fund programs that encourage Europeans to mate with non-Europeans – another way to get rid of the European ethnic groups – and celebrate the disappearance of European people and their replacement with non-Europeans?  Such as the video produced by the Canadian Broadcasting Company:


Is it looking deliberate yet?

Have these policies and programs prevented births among white people of European ethnicity?  Is the white population of the world in decline?

Well, in America, white deaths exceed white births, so "the white population isn't replacing itself."

Across Europe, more white people are dying than being born

In the U.S.  "minority" (i.e. non-white) infants outnumber white infants.

Is the fact that all of these doctrines and policies culminated in a dwindling birth rate among and now demographic replacement of Europeans in their own lands just an accident?

Of course.  There is no plan to erase white people.  Only demented lunatic backwater inbred conspiracy theorists would think that.  The fact that politicians are vigorously promoting replacement of Europeans in Europe and North America through unchecked immigration does not demonstrate intent to get rid of Europeans. Its just a coincidence that it all worked out this way. 

And just be sure that you don't defend the Europeans.  If you think Europeans deserve protection or should be defended from replacement by non-Europeans, or deserve a homeland of their own, or it would be nice if white couples had more white babies, you are a "racist" and "white supremacist."



If an African prefers living with Africans – his own kin–, that's just natural and moral.  If an Asian prefers living with Asians – his own kin –, that's just natural and moral.  If an Arab prefers living with Arabs – his own kin –, that's just natural and moral.

But if a European prefers living with Europeans – his own kin – rather than with non-Europeans who don't share his biology, psychology, or values, he's a moral failure, a racist, and an evil white supremacist.  Europeans MUST accept the invasion of non-Europeans into their lands, else they are the worst kind of criminal.

Its just a forgone conclusion that Europe will cease to be "monolithic" i.e. European.  According to Barbara Spectre, Europe "must" become multicultural i.e. non-European.  It is just an absolute requirement.  We can have African nations, we can have Asian nations, but we just can't have any white nations.



And if any Europeans want to preserve their native lands for themselves?  That also is "extreme," "right wing," criminal and "racist."

Its okay for the majority Africans to kick the minority Europeans out of South Africa.


Its also acceptable for Asian majorities to keep European minorities out of Asia.  Its okay for Japanese to keep Japan Japanese, or Chinese to keep China Chinese, for Indians to keep India Indian, for Thais to keep Thailand Thai, and so on.  We need cultural and ethnic diversity.

But apparently some think we don't need whites (who are themselves highly diverse in skin, hair and eye color at the very least) as part of that diversity, and whites have no rights to keep their homelands for themselves.  If any Europeans want to keep Europe and the U.S. for Europeans, if any German wants to keep Germany German, any Scandinavian wants to keep Scandinavia Scandinavian, or any Briton wants to keep Britain British, well they are the most vile, despicable people who have ever existed.  Foul racists.  Hateful people.  The worst kind.  

Because only white people are ethnocentric, all non-whites live in perfect harmony, and its "literally impossible to be racist to a white person." 

Because, most importantly, Europeans aren't minorities.  

Right?

Wrong.

White people of European genetic stock are a unique human subspecies.


The European subspecies of humankind became biologically and psychologically unique, with distinctly unusual and highly diverse hair, eye, and skin colors through long times of geographic isolation and adaptation to a uniquely demanding European environment.

http://file.scirp.org/pdf/AA_2014052111183356.pdf
Click on image to read the full text.


Tigers are an endangered species because their populations are decreasing:


Currently there exist six distinct subspecies of tigers, each adapted to a specific habitat and of value in itself.  According to TigersInCrisis.com:
"Of the original nine subspecies of tigers, three have become extinct in the last 80 years; an average of one every 20 years. It has been predicted all tigers may become extinct in the wild within the next decade."

"Poaching, habitat loss and fragmentation have reduced the global population of tigers from over 100,000 in the 1900′s, to less than 4,000 in the 1970′s.

"Today, four of the remaining subspecies of tigers are considered endangered by the IUCN, while two of the subspecies are considered “critically” endangered. The total number of all the wild populations of the six remaining subspecies of tigers (Bengal, Indochinese, Malayan, Siberian, South China, and Sumatran) is estimated to be between 3,000 – 3,600 tigers."
Each of the remaining subspecies of tiger is unique.  Bengal tigers are not Siberian tigers.

Siberian Tiger.  Threatened.  By Appaloosa - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=8890924
Bengal Tiger.  Threatened.  By Bjørn Christian Tørrissen - Own work by uploader, http://bjornfree.com/galleries.html, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=11188128

No conservation zoologist would advocate breeding Siberian tigers with Bengal tigers, because this would produce offspring that are neither adapted to Siberia nor adapted to the tropical Indian subcontinent.  These subspecies are unique and our goal is to preserve each subspecies and therewith the diversity of tigers.

Europeans are a distinct minority ethnic population that is dwindling in numbers, like an endangered species.

It appears that some groups have an intent to get rid of the unique European subspecies through promoting ethnic interbreeding that will inevitably erase expression of the unique but recessive traits of ethnic Europeans (such as light color of skin, hair, and eyes).

Because whiteness is just unbearable? 

So, at what point do white people – Europeans – deserve the same protection and breeding support that we gave to the bald eagle and the spotted owl?

Do Europeans warrant protection as an endangered minority?

Or is it "right" that the whites be extinguished in their own homelands?


ADDENDUM:

This white woman shares why she doesn't want to become a minority in her native land. 


3 comments:

anti.insects7@gmail.com said...

تعلن شركات ابادة الحشرات انها كبري الشركات التي تعمل علي مكافحة الحشرات جيدا من خلال الوسائل الحديثة والمطبقة من شركة مكافحة حشرات بمصر العالمية .
http://www.anti-insects.com/

care olders said...

يعلن دار مسنين بالقاهرة انة يعمل علي توفير جليسات كبار السن وذوي الاحتاجيات الخاصة لرعايتهم في دار رعاية مسنين باقل اسعار دار المسنين بالقاهرة الكبري .
http://www.careolder.com/

Jonathan Groot said...

Funny how you choose to talk about a South African woman and her 'native land' after a lengthy post about racial separatism and adaptation to specific geographical regions. Surely you see the irony.