What are the social/geopolitical pressures /sci/ that could make

None. Its not going to happen. If anything the non whites will slaughter every white within 30 years.

>>9145796
>If anything the non whites will slaughter every white within 30 years.

Your logic for this?

flood europe with third world people -> quality of life drops -> the white fascism gene activates -> ovens

>white populations are below replacement
>nonwhites populations are skyrocketing thanks to white charity
>jews engender hatred and jealousy of whites
>jews encourage nonwhites to kill whites
>int 30 years non whites will be a rich minority in their own homelands
>jews will sway their massive black crowds using bernie sanders communism
>blsme whitey
>day of the black daggers
>many many casualties
>white population halved again
>the war starts, but the numbers are too low for whites to win
>whites can either nuke the major population centres or be liberal pussies and go extinct.
>choose to go extinct because we are soooo tolerant.

>>9145811
and thats assuming the whites still even have control of the millitary at this point, and it isnt full of black mtf lesbians

in the UK the day of the daggers will be especially bad. without firearms the white population will be hopeless.

im seriously scared that in 30 years the muslims will literally be going house to house and killing us all.

“As man advances in civilization, and small tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. This point being once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and races.”
― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

“The great variability of all the external differences between the races of man, likewise indicates that they cannot be of much importance; for if important, they would long ago have been either fixed and preserved, or eliminated.”
― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

>>9146075
>>9146077
>>9145746
Did Darwin say all of these? It seems like he's contradicting himself

>>9146082
To an extent, he is.

But you have to look at the social structure he was a part of.

The idea of progress, of the superiority of the European as the progenitor of progress and as the missionary spreading progress and civilization around the world, was so much a given as to go virtually unquestioned.

Darwin would have believed implicitly in the superiority of European ideas and civilization -- his wring about other cultures in "Voyage of the Beagle" show disgust and contempt for practices of "savage" peoples.

But in "Origin," and "Descent," he was arguing for a scientific principal that held that such superiority could be reached by other varieties f man through further evolution -- in fact, that it must be, in time, or the less evolved varieties must be replaced.

His thinking on this was more than a little confused -- but cut him a little slack, he was trying to establish a new vision of science, it is inevitable he'd have to struggle with how it applied to situations that might or might not be analogous, and that he might not yet have resolved his thinking in areas where presuppositions might be in conflict with his new theory.

Asians will succeed where whities failed.

>>9146082
>It seems like he's contradicting himself

I think the statement made by Darwin in the OP is made with firm, scientific conviction, completely in agreement with what we see in the fossil record of hominid evolution.

Of course, Darwin was not a cruel man, and other statements made that appear to contradict it are more likely attempts by Darwin to ameliorate the impact of the intial observation.

>>9146075
You haven't responded to the OP's question, merely tried to muddy the waters on a subject which as a cowardly liberal you probably find horrifying.

Don't worry, when the time comes I'm sure the working class will do your dirty work as usual.

>>9146406
I was not attempting a response to OP's question -- I was pointing out that Darwin made more than one prediction and made more than one statement on this topic.

Social Darwinists tend to overlook that, because they are stupid. Or possibly dishonest, it is hard to be sure.

>>9146597
Your quotes sound more like Darwin talking from the perspective of an anthropologist, possibly trying to mollify his initial obervations for the sake of social mores.

As you have demonstrated it's liberals that obfuscate Darwins initial prediction, based on his sound evolutionary theory. This happens entirely for political reasons.

>>9146763
>possibly trying to mollify his initial obervations for the sake of social mores.

The mores of the society in which Darwin lived more closely tracked with the first quote, though.