Let me explain to you brainlets why mass immigration is the best thing that ever happened to us

Let me explain to you brainlets why mass immigration is the best thing that ever happened to us.
It is very beneficial for the human race to invite all these cavemen to our countries.
The idea is to start a civil war sooner or later and the winners will be the strongest of both the native inhabitants and the immigrants. In this way we can remove the dysgenic parts of the population which in better days was filtered by constant wars.

Kys shill
Sage

no

yes

> human race
There is no human race, there is human species

Why? Immigration is caused by capitalist society with simple change of leadership in politics there would be no need for that civil war.

Gentlemen, is OP a massive gay nigger faggot?

Yes, and poles do not belong to any of them since they are sub-humans.

accelerationism for the sake of accelerationism
what a time to be dead

That change in itself means that the west has wised up and can properly defend itself. But if it doesn't then all the cucks accepting all this will be exterminated by the millions of refugees they're accepting. And this is completely natural we have to get rid of people with no will to survive and fight, they're an evolutionary dead end.

I agree OP. We should start by having you removed the gene pool. Kill yourself save us the trouble. You are obviously one of the weakest ones and no doubt be one of the very first to die.

We'll see about that sweetie :)

Evolutionary pressures don`t apply in post-agricultural society. Besides no evolutionary change is going to take part in few generations of warfare.

there are evolutionary pressures that come from outside (competing with other species) and there are evolutionary pressures which are from the inside (for example women picking immigrants over cuck natives) the second type of pressure works much faster and it is always present based on what women find attractive at any given moment. Which is also why it is so important to brainwash women with immigration propaganda.

>sweetie :)

shut up jew pig die fucking scum

> commie fag with faggot's flag
> says that Poles are sub-humans

hmmmm

The Muslim and African hordes are going to bring the feminist west-Europeans to justice.

Eat a log you fucking nigger.

this is the gist of what I'm saying yeah

...

>The idea is to start a civil war sooner or later and the winners will be the strongest of both the native inhabitants and the immigrants.
But we already know that we are stronger and better in every way. Why would we want to destroy our own infrastructure and beautiful historical cities just to fight a civil war in our turf? Shouldn't we be emigrating to the shit hoels in Africa, if we wanted to take part in this stupid experiment?

>Evolutionary pressures don`t apply in post-agricultural society.
what magical thinking leads to this thought process

mutations occur every generation which are selected for or against

I'd suck a log out of her ass

Because at the current moment we aren't the strongest, the strongest need to be selected during the hard times that will come. From the looks of it natives are absolutely cucked at the moment and have no will to fight back against the hordes that are coming in.

If I could I would sign Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty any day of the week, just to kill off the fucking liberals.

We are cucked because of our degenerate culture. We are still by far the strongest genetically. This is literally the worst time to be doing this civil war experiment, since our culture is hellbent on destroying us.

Dawkins God gene explains it with few good examples that for those mutations to stabilize it takes from 7-11 generations.

the experiment is happening due to our degenerate culture, if we weren't degenerate we wouldn't have taken any refugees. But since we are and are still doing it, it is change and very hard times are inevitable. Think of it as a way to pay for our sins, and besides IF we overcome it we'll come out stronger.

Idk, we could benefit from 1918 pt.2 electric boogaloo

there were a whole hell of a lot more more than 7-11 generations since agricultural communities started, so either way you are wrong. commies are the new creationists.

What I meant by that is more in line of following: Before agricultural revolution humans genes were determined by their ability to hunt and it effected their skills as hunter-gatherers. Agriculture changed all that and after that your genetics became more irrelevant to your current job. We have multiple left-overs form that period in our early history, for example our very good long-distance running. That was again changed in hunting by creation of new tools, domestication of horses etc. Less applied evolutionary pressure, more of social effect.

but that's completely wrong. lactose tolerance is a a clear example. agree ability and non combativeness are other traits that agricultural societies selected for. as well as intelligence.

just give up. you are wrong. you deny evolution because of your feels. like a creationist.

You call lactose tolerance recent? Its already 10,000 old change. That is more than 7-11 generations of humans.

Do you seriously think that human genes are going to radically change or mutate in single or two generations of warfare since that is the point I`m arguing against originally?

If you would consider stopping larping then you wouldn't be such a nigger

yes, why wouldn't they? evolution isn't a gradual change either way, it is long islands of stability book ended by periods of violent and revolutionary change. one or two generations of warfare is definitely enough to dramatically change the genotype of a population.

Question was regarding the changes in race, not genotype.

i fail to see how race is divorced from genotype

either way now you're just playing semantics and shifting goalposts, just give up.

Not really. Populations tend to be very homogeneous. That is what keeps them together. You are altruistic only to those who share significant amount of their genes with you, and that altruism is necessary for group cohesion. If you wanted to truly make a population different through warfare, you'd have to practically genocide it completely or separate a tiny group from the rest. Otherwise pretty much all genes will survive.

homogeneous don't mean all members of a certain population are carbon clones of each other, if a certain selection pressure was applied certain individuals within this group would definitely breed more, many would die yes but not all. so no, not all genes would survive.

>homogeneous don't mean all members of a certain population are carbon clones of each other,
They don't need to be clones. They need to be only similar enough. The set of all genes of a population, let's say [1,2,3,4,5,6], can be recreated with a tiny subset of the whole population, [1,2] + [3,4] + [5,6].

So it would take 2 generations to change racial definitions then?

yes, theoretically two generations of intense genocide and war would be able to increase the average black iq significantly

If you purposefully tried to change a race, one generation would be enough. All you need to do is to carefully select the features you want. But if you tried to do it through random selection, you'd need to take a very small sample, like a few hundred people.

Russians managed to domesticate some foxes in a single year. One single generation. A few generations later almost all foxes of the population were domesticated.