Jambo’s Jargon

Roc.

Roc.

Member
New
Joined
Nov 3, 2025
Messages
75
Reaction score
39
A dedicated thread for discussion of “Jambo’s Jargon”, jargon like “race realism” etc.
 
Cad e do chulra cine? What's your own ethnic background, if you don't mind me asking?

Do you have any objection to Myles being reinstated?
 
Great to see the three amigos....well, two really....back together shitposting and derailing every thread they're allowed on.:)
 
Irish as they come back as many generations as anyone on this island. Of course I don’t object. I hope he wasn’t banned on my behalf. He was probably going on about that chap fingered in Aldo’s great “sting” the twat.
 
Roc. said:
A dedicated thread for discussion of “Jambo’s Jargon”, jargon like “race realism” etc.
Click to expand...
Race realism refers to the fact that race is real. Race is a social construct is also, of course, "jargon".

You are an idiot.
 
Diarmuid said:
Cad e do chulra cine? What's your own ethnic background, if you don't mind me asking?

Do you have any objection to Myles being reinstated?
Click to expand...
Was wht Myles banned this time, s'il vous plait?
 
Roc. said:
Irish as they come back as many generations as anyone on this island.
Click to expand...
Gael Irish, Viking Irish or Norman Irish? No offence meant, and none taken I'm sure.
I take it you don't speak the Gaelic and have contempt for it?

What did your family do in WWII? My instinct tells me they collaborated with the Brits and the Soviets, but please correct me if I am wrong.
 
Diarmuid said:
Gael Irish, Viking Irish or Norman Irish? No offence meant, and none taken I'm sure.
I take it you don't speak the Gaelic and have contempt for it?

What did your family do in WWII? My instinct tells me they collaborated with the Brits and the Soviets, but please correct me if I am wrong.
Click to expand...
Diarmuid, the UK and USSR were on the same side in WW2.
Just a little historical trivia for ya.
 
Another 'shitposting for wankers' thread for the ignore list.
The stench of Pervert off it.:sick:
 
Diarmuid said:
Gael Irish, Viking Irish or Norman Irish? No offence meant, and none taken I'm sure.
I take it you don't speak the Gaelic and have contempt for it? What did your family do in WWII? My instinct tells me they collaborated with the Brits and the Soviets, but please correct me if I am wrong.
Click to expand...
a. Irish Gael. “Atlantean” as I sense and might identify with. Ancestry in Connemara and Wexford.

b. No, don’t speak it unfortunately. Took honours Irish in leaving. Last few years have been reading hiberno-Irish studies and studying old Irish grammar because I am interested in how my ancestors thought. I’d like to be able to think in the same way as them. I loathe the “cupla focail” and the standardisation and anglicisation of the language to make it conform with Anglo American European thought patterns.

c. True, I had relatives on my father’s side fought for the Brits in WW2. It was economic necessity as I understand. Though much later on I had two dear relatives who were on an IRA hitlist for many years. They contributed significantly to the end of that organisation’s terror campaign as I understand. I am very proud of them as what that organisation became in the post ‘69 years was a disgrace to the country. As are that organisation’s present day remnants.
 
The Equalizer said:
Race realism refers to the fact that race is real.
Click to expand...
That may be a fact. But the question is how significant of a fact put next to other competing facts.

That’s why Dawkins dwells on the magnitude of intra race versus inter race gene differences, to try and place the fact in its rightful place.

Which is a quite different place to the sense your jargon aims to communicate.
 
Diarmuid said:
Why are you so keen to import more foreigners?
Click to expand...
I'm not. I speak out against what is going on.
However I hate racism and ignorance.
See the difference.
No. But you're another gobshite.
 
clarke-connolly said:
I betcha that Richard Dawkins wouldn't walk around London ( in the areas known for robbing wealthy people of watches etc etc etc )

Let Richard Dawkins prove that he is an African by doing that ! ! ! :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
He's simply talking in evolutionary terms, the idea of a common ancestor..

He's probably too much of a libtard to realise that the 'Out of Africa' theory is rather politicised (by anti-Whites) but push him and he'll tell you that race is real, and the idea of a social construct is "nonsense" (I've posted a video of him saying this)
 
You're an idiot, Jambo.

No one is disputing the fact that there are DNA differences between races (that your jargon translates as "race is real" or "race realism" etc.).

But there are an additional two facts here to take account of.

First the fact of intra-racial DNA difference.

Second the fact of the much greater magnitude of these intra-racial differences as compared to the inter-racial differences.

And don't try to divert acknowledgement of those key additional facts by trying to drag things down your "social construct" rabbit hole.

I and most people would generally agree that the claim that race is a "social construct" is not a fact per se.

(Rather what it is is a Socratic type of social agreement about meaning - basically agreed on as a counter the attempt of your movement to rebrand discredited biological racism - who as we see use pseudo-scientific jargon to obscure the ideological nature of your beliefs. But I divert.).

So put that aside. No one here is claiming race as "a social construct" as fact or argument. As per my aside above, it is a social phenomenon. Perhaps warranting a separate discussion down the line. But let's stick to the scientific like facts here.

Now answer the question straightforwardly. Do you acknowledge and accept the additional two facts I pointed out?
 
The Equalizer said:
He's simply talking in evolutionary terms, the idea of a common ancestor..
Click to expand...
Says you.

He illustrated evolutionary distance to those ancestors. He did that specifically to make his point about how incredibly uniform we are as a species.

He talked about two distinct "Out of Africa" migrations. The first, Homo Erectus, a little over 1.5 million years ago, who left Africa and colonized Asia, Europe, and definitely Indonesia as well. (Now extinct).

The second migration Dawkins said was extremely recent, less than 100,000 years ago. (Reminiscent of what seems to be showing up in the Trinity research data of Dan Bradley and Bob Quinn's investigations in his documentaries that I sometimes post up for interest.)

He then talked of human genetic uniformity saying if you look molecularly at the molecules of modern human races, we are astonishingly uniform.

He pointed out that such genetic variation as there is exists mostly within Africa.

He said this suggests that the deepest divides of cousinship in our species are within Africa itself. While the whole of the rest of the world is "a very, very recent branch-off of the human species."

He said if you look at the amount of genetic variation in the human species, it's extremely low. He said if you take two chimpanzees from the same forest in Africa, they are likely to be more different from each other genetically than any two humans in the world.

He finished by noting how surprising this may be to people less inclined to abstract thinking like yourself when you consider that races look so different to our eyes.

But he emphasised that the genetics is very clear - that we are an astonishingly uniform species, that we are all one species, one very uniform species, and we originated very recently in Africa.

And that is exactly what he said. And he wore the t shirt to emphasise his words.

Also noting Dawkins goes further in acknowledging these tiny inter racial differences than most of his scientific peers who say they are too small and scattered across "racial groups" to be significant - who emphasise that "... no group of people is, or ever has been, biologically homogeneous or “pure.” Furthermore, human populations are not — and never have been — biologically discrete, truly isolated, or fixed. Genetic and phenotypic variants are not distributed across our species in a manner that maps clearly onto socially-recognized racial groups. This is true even for aspects of human variation that we frequently emphasise in discussions of race, such as facial features, skin color and hair type..."
 
Roc. said:
You're an idiot, Jambo.

No one is disputing the fact that there are DNA differences between races (that your jargon translates as "race is real" or "race realism" etc.).

But there are an additional two facts here to take account of.

First the fact of intra-racial DNA difference.

Second the fact of the much greater magnitude of these intra-racial differences as compared to the inter-racial differences.

And don't try to divert acknowledgement of those key additional facts by trying to drag things down your "social construct" rabbit hole.

I and most people would generally agree that the claim that race is a "social construct" is not a fact per se.

(Rather what it is is a Socratic type of social agreement about meaning - basically agreed on as a counter the attempt of your movement to rebrand discredited biological racism - who as we see use pseudo-scientific jargon to obscure the ideological nature of your beliefs. But I divert.).

So put that aside. No one here is claiming race as "a social construct" as fact or argument. As per my aside above, it is a social phenomenon. Perhaps warranting a separate discussion down the line. But let's stick to the scientific like facts here.
Click to expand...
Roc. said:
Now answer the question straightforwardly. Do you acknowledge and accept the additional two facts I pointed out?
Click to expand...
I acknowledge and accept that you're a bullshit artist.

If you want me be able to answer your question, please define these two terms (that you used) -

1. Fact per se
2. Biological racism
 
Last edited:
Roc. said:
Says you.

He illustrated evolutionary distance to those ancestors. He did that specifically to make his point about how incredibly uniform we are as a species.

He talked about two distinct "Out of Africa" migrations. The first, Homo Erectus, a little over 1.5 million years ago, who left Africa and colonized Asia, Europe, and definitely Indonesia as well. (Now extinct).

The second migration Dawkins said was extremely recent, less than 100,000 years ago. (Reminiscent of what seems to be showing up in the Trinity research data of Dan Bradley and Bob Quinn's investigations in his documentaries that I sometimes post up for interest.)

He then talked of human genetic uniformity saying if you look molecularly at the molecules of modern human races, we are astonishingly uniform.

He pointed out that such genetic variation as there is exists mostly within Africa.

He said this suggests that the deepest divides of cousinship in our species are within Africa itself. While the whole of the rest of the world is "a very, very recent branch-off of the human species."

He said if you look at the amount of genetic variation in the human species, it's extremely low. He said if you take two chimpanzees from the same forest in Africa, they are likely to be more different from each other genetically than any two humans in the world.

He finished by noting how surprising this may be to people less inclined to abstract thinking like yourself when you consider that races look so different to our eyes.

But he emphasised that the genetics is very clear - that we are an astonishingly uniform species, that we are all one species, one very uniform species, and we originated very recently in Africa.

And that is exactly what he said. And he wore the t shirt to emphasise his words.

Also noting Dawkins goes further in acknowledging these tiny inter racial differences than most of his scientific peers who say they are too small and scattered across "racial groups" to be significant - who emphasise that "... no group of people is, or ever has been, biologically homogeneous or “pure.” Furthermore, human populations are not — and never have been — biologically discrete, truly isolated, or fixed. Genetic and phenotypic variants are not distributed across our species in a manner that maps clearly onto socially-recognized racial groups. This is true even for aspects of human variation that we frequently emphasise in discussions of race, such as facial features, skin color and hair type..."
Click to expand...
Who denies that we are one species, I certainly don't.

But that gets twisted into a (anti-white) slogan like - "There is only one race, the human race."

That's nonsense. Human races are subspecies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest Threads

Popular Threads

Back
Top Bottom