Quote# 131208

As a nature scientist with profound interest in paleontology and evolutionary biology I see the immigration with great worries, even if it is well-founded. We do know from the history of the earth and that of humans, how these invasions impact us.

Let's start first with some biology: there is a law in biology that says that a species adapted to its ecological niche can't be erased by a new existing species, because it would also have to adapt itself to that niche. This can't happen, because the niche is already occupied. From this view nobody could fight against our niche.



Aggressive Immigration

There is also an exception to this rule and that's immigration. If a species (or fauna) lives in ecological balance and if strangers come from outside or get introduced, the local life can't resist against it. The new enemies don't get viewed as such, the local fauna goes extinct and new ones take over their niches. In the history of the earth this has happened a lot, normally by continental drifts and the lowering of the sea level and is the reason why there aren't any marsupials in South America with the exception of the possum. The specific South American fauna had no chance against the robbers that aggressively came from North America when North America and South America drifted together.

Doesn't it sound familiar if I changed some words?

There is also another biological aspect of the affair, where I am by the human animal; A fact, that everyone wants to hide and that has to do with how big the hormonely guided instincts are in the behavior of the Homo Sapiens. Our species isn't that old, with the civilisation being younger and that what we call civilized behavior being 250 years old. The definition of >>Decadence<< is something I don't want to tackle, because it leads to quarrel. Much more important is the question, on what our entire existence from 600 million years - where 250 years of European civilisation doesn't matter anymore - is founded. It is exclusively the reproduction. Meaning the production of the next generation by preserving the species. This is stuck deeply in our genes and can be whitewashed by education, but can never be erased.



The instincts of station bludgeressses

The mechanisms of reproduction are well-known since the dawn of time: A female exemplar that is ready to mate searches for the best possible male exemplar of the same species and produces with them the best possible offspring. This is in no way an aware, but a from instinct guided behavior. The from the female exemplar selected male exemplar has to make sure, that the mother and the child and the genes that have been given to the child maximal protection. Women are already unsuited to be biological protectors, because they can be made fertile by invaders and therefore can give over its genes just as much as the local inhabitants. The invader, that has shown itself to be stronger, is even more attractive than the loser. The female is automatically less willing to protect the >>homeland<< than the man (which explains the failure of female >>Defence<<).

And now we come to human history and it's not a logical, but a purely instinctively executed genocide of men. The last case in Europe wasn't to long ago and took place in Bosnia. Despite civilisation finding this behavior scary it is completely natural. Why women are never affected by genocide can be seen in the previous paragraph: Women will - again completely unaware - decide for the remaining conquerors and murderers, because there isn't anything else left, because they have to instinctively give their genes.

This is why I am worried; and not because of any diffused feelings, but because I see clearly what is coming to us. It doesn't matter, from where the collection of viril men comes, that come in our country in the hundreds of thousands. I only know that I, as a white man, am endangered and that I have to protect myself against them. Because I can't resist the invasion anymore with a spear, bow and arrows, crossbow or shotgun I must at least vote for the only party that has the confidence to say something against it. The other things of the AfD, such as the Euro, the GEZ and the fight against gender-idiocy are things I support too, but they are to me only secondary in the fight to survive.

But: the station bludgeresses do behave instinctively. This is how we can hold it tight.

JÖRG B., PI News 7 Comments [9/2/2017 1:48:56 PM]
Fundie Index: 3

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 | bottom

Skidie

Lets just begin with the fact that we are not a bunch f different species but a collection of populations of a single one. Now from here all your retarded assumptions just crumble like a jenga tower.

Also as much as you want to whine about it, our species uses its brains to overcome instict, or at least a large enough portion of us do to make your poorly conceived notions of evo-psych to be thrown out the window, preferably with your ass right behind them.

9/2/2017 2:30:16 PM

Kanna

This is more RSTDT.

9/2/2017 3:39:48 PM

Pharaoh Bastethotep

The mechanisms of reproduction are well-known since the dawn of time: A female exemplar that is ready to mate searches for the best possible male exemplar of the same species and produces with them the best possible offspring. This is in no way an aware, but a from instinct guided behavior. The from the female exemplar selected male exemplar has to make sure, that the mother and the child and the genes that have been given to the child maximal protection. Women are already unsuited to be biological protectors, because they can be made fertile by invaders and therefore can give over its genes just as much as the local inhabitants. The invader, that has shown itself to be stronger, is even more attractive than the loser. The female is automatically less willing to protect the >>homeland<< than the man (which explains the failure of female >>Defence<<).

That's... that's not how human reproduction works. Not at all.
Raising a human child takes about two decades - far shorter than the time it takes to produce another baby. So no, actually, we would expect the opposite of what you predicted.
Once again, an e-woo psych peddler's knowledge of evolution and behaviour lacks even the slightest of depth.

I only know that I, as a white man, am endangered

Strange; to me, the vast majority of people here still looks white...

I must at least vote for the only party that has the confidence to say something against it. The other things of the AfD

Of course, he is a supporter of the Alternative für Deppen.

9/2/2017 4:06:55 PM

The Reptilian Jew

You're a "nature scientist" like I'm the fucking president of Uganda. You know fuck-all about biology and it shows. In the immediate first paragraph of your braindead thesis you already manage to fuck up the competitive exclusion principle, which is pretty much one of the cornerstones of studying populations.
there is a law in biology that says that a species adapted to its ecological niche can't be erased by a new existing species, because it would also have to adapt itself to that niche. This can't happen, because the niche is already occupied. From this view nobody could fight against our niche.

That is the stupidest bullshit I have ever heard. The new species will compete with the old, and if it manages to gain the upper hand, it will drive the old species out. Two populations can occupy the same niche on the short term, the law goes they cannot occupy the same niche long-term. This is basic ecology, you dumbass.
There is also an exception to this rule and that's immigration.

*confused sputtering*
How is that an exception to the rule?! How else is a new population introduced into an ecosystem than immigration?! Do they get beamed down by fucking space aliens?!
If a species (or fauna) lives in ecological balance and if strangers come from outside or get introduced, the local life can't resist against it.

More raping the competitive exclusion principle for fun and profit. If the newcomers lack the upper hand, they won't be able to outcompete the old population, immigration or not. Why do you think immigration is magically exempt from the CEP you just got done misinterpreting in the complete polar opposite way?
The new enemies don't get viewed as such, the local fauna goes extinct and new ones take over their niches.

Hey douchefuck, the Stone Age has been over for a couple tens of thousands of years by now. Humans aren't fighting over scraps of food anymore (at least they aren't in the West). Xenophobia used to play a vital part for humans, it helped protect their scant resources from rival tribes. Now we have plenty of food to go around so xenophobia became an evolutionary dead end in human behavior which now causes more haarm than good. Seeing as it is possible to integrate entire outsider human populations into a larger local population (ask the Japanese-Americans), there won't be any "driving out" anytime soon. CEP doesn't apply here since the two populations merge into one.
I only know that I, as a white man, am endangered and that I have to protect myself against them.

>I, as a white man
>nobody cares for my opinion but I, as a white man, are too motivated by unwarranted self-importance to share them anyway
>did I mention I'm a white man yet
>by the way I'm a white man, guys

I'm not even going to address the whole misogynist tangent and the remark about "viril men". This guy calls himself a "nature scientist" and proceeds to take a giant shit on the entire science of biology in the name of "scary brown people". That's a double insult towards scary brown people AND science, and a personal insult towards me. Disgraceful.
Go and jörg your B. in your basement, JÖRG B.
My work here is done.

9/2/2017 7:53:36 PM

dxdydz

As a nature scientist


Lol!

9/2/2017 9:08:56 PM

Pharaoh Bastethotep

@The Reptilian Jew, dxdydz:
"Nature scientist" would be a blind idiot translation of Geman "Naturwissenschaftler", in contrast to the "mental sciences" (what Anglophones call "the Humanities"). Considering that he does not give his field but merely has "profound interest" in palaeontology and evo-psych, the fact that he does not know how to properly write a binomial name, seems to have no knowledge of biological English ("nature scientist", translating "Räuber" - most biologists would have used "Beutegreifer", anyways - as "robbers" rather than "predators" and falling for the false friend "exemplar", which in German means "specimen"), and generally fails biology forever, I think it's safe to assume that, if he really is a scientist (doubtful since his grasp on English seems to be below working knowledge), it is not in a field of any relevance at all.

And no, I don't have any idea what "station bludgeresses" is supposed to mean, either.

9/3/2017 1:24:29 AM

SomeApe

@Pharao:

Bludger means "Faulenzer oder Sozialhilfeempfänger", so I think he got the plural wrong and wanted to say something like "Bahnhofhänger" (people on Hartz IV that slack around the train station everyday).

9/3/2017 5:53:41 AM

1 | top: comments page