Nationalism and Homogeneity

"Homogenous" does not mean "clones" in a human context. Give me a break. You're like those people who suppose that any ethnically contiguous population is inbred ;(

No, but Schopenhauer would consider such a population abnormal and undesirable.

We now come to those other relative considerations which depend on each individual trying to eradicate, through the medium of another, his weaknesses, deficiencies, and deviations from the type, in order that they may not be perpetuated in the child that is to be born or develop into absolute abnormities. The weaker a man is in muscular power, the more will he desire a woman who is muscular; and the same thing applies to a woman....

...if a big woman choose a big husband, in order, perhaps, to present a better appearance in society, the children, as a rule, suffer for her folly. Again, another very decided consideration is complexion. Blonde people fancy either absolutely dark complexions or brown; but it is rarely the case vice versâ. The reason for it is this: that fair hair and blue eyes are a deviation from the type and almost constitute an abnormity, analogous to white mice, or at any rate white horses. They are not indigenous to any other part of the world but Europe,—not even to the polar regions,—and are obviously of Scandinavian origin. En passant, it is my conviction that a white skin is not natural to man, and that by nature he has either a black or brown skin like our forefathers, the Hindoos, and that the white man was never originally created by nature; and that, therefore, there is no race of white people, much as it is talked about, but every white man is a bleached one. Driven up into the north, where he was a stranger, and where he existed only like an exotic plant, in need of a hothouse in winter, man in the course of centuries became white. The gipsies, an Indian tribe which emigrated only about four centuries ago, show the transition of the Hindoo’s complexion to ours. In love, therefore, nature strives to return to dark hair and brown eyes, because they are the original type; still, a white skin has become second nature, although not to such an extent as to make the dark skin of the Hindoo repellent to us...

...it has been seen that the intensity of love grows with its individuation; we have shown that two individuals may be so physically constituted, that, in order to restore the best possible type of the species, the one is the special and perfect complement of the other, which, in consequence, exclusively desires it. In a case of this kind, passionate love arises, and as it is bestowed on one object, and one only—that is to say, because it appears in the special service of the species—it immediately assumes a nobler and sublimer nature. On the other hand, mere sexual instinct is base, because, without individuation, it is directed to all, and strives to preserve the species merely as regards quantity with little regard for quality.

Seems to suggest we all strive necessarily for homogeneity of a different kind - by breeding with our opposites so as to produce the least number of deficiencies in the child.
 
No, but Schopenhauer would consider such a population abnormal and undesirable.



Seems to suggest we all strive necessarily for homogeneity of a different kind - by breeding with our opposites so as to produce the least number of deficiencies in the child.

'Schopenhauer' must of thought race was only skin deep. :heh:
 
That doesn't invalidate his point even if it was true.

I hate when people refer to European's skin and hair color...like that matters one bit. It may just a little, but who we are as a race is what really matters. I don't care what physical type we are...we have a right to preserve what nature gave us. That goes for non Europeans as well.
 
That 'right' seems to have entirely arbitrary foundations.

Call it whatever you want, fact remains self preservation is natural and desirable. If people feel they want to commit race genocide then let them, but they are going to have a hard time trying to get the moral upper hand against the so called ‘racist’ who want to preserve all races. In reality, the leftist are the real racist and the ones who will commit genocide. They hate racial identity and they want to mix all races to death…they have had a lot of success.
 
Rubbish - the argument is not that races 'should' breed together, just that they 'should' be able to if they desire.
 
Rubbish - the argument is not that races 'should' breed together, just that they 'should' be able to if they desire.

It's actually neither, and no one has said they should breed together, just that we do so unwittingly. Then again, no one has presented to me any justified reason they shouldn't (the "natural to do so" slant is getting tiresome and rather ridiculous).
 
It's actually neither, and no one has said they should breed together, just that we do so unwittingly. Then again, no one has presented to me any justified reason they shouldn't (the "natural to do so" slant is getting tiresome and rather ridiculous).

That they shouldn't? Well, I suppose you'll have to define "justified," as I can't prove it absolutely; is that what you are seeking? I think it is more of ignorance ingrained within your mind through all the years of your life, years within a society that has a high taboo against the very concept of race being more than skin deep. As such, any explanation shall most likely fall upon self-deafened ears, as intelligent explanations most often do.

Oh well. The first justification is the prevalence of the practice within nature, and the value of instinct. Nearly all animal species are divided into sub-groups, about equivalent to our "races." Members of these sub-species strictly breed with only members of their sub-species, except in very rare exceptions, or very trying times (e.g. when there is no other member of it's own species left). So, this structuring of race within nature is firmly rooted not just in our species, but all through nature.

As all other species, our instincts gravitate us very strongly towards our own race, and those within our race that are fundamentally similar to ourselves. One who is strongly in touch with their instinct (a rare individual today indeed) can hardly become attracted to a member of another race in such a way, the innate preference is so strong. The more I personally become in touch with my instinct, as I constantly try to do by separating myself mentally from being "civilized," the less I am attracted to those of other races. There is no question that this is part of our instinct, as it is clear in human behavior from the dawn of our species and in the behavior of many other species.

What is the role of instinct? and its importance? This seems something (stupidly) debated in modern times. We like to think ourselves "above" instinct. Funny, and moronically hypocritical, as we utterly submit ourselves to the shallowest component of instinct: inhibition, or drive towards pleasure, while away from pain. But we aren't above instinct, to think so is ignorant to an extreme. Instinct is the aspect of our nature that tells us what is good for our nature. To not heed it, or at least place importance in it and judge its use with our reason, is a great part of the undoing of modern man. Instinct is by nature positive to a species, as it always leads the species in some way to evolution and betterment. There are some deeply rooted instincts that we still are in touch with, such as the mother's instinct towards her children, and anyone denying these as vastly positive is surely a no-wit. Instinct directs us towards things positive, and leads us away from those negative, for our species and self; and guess what, Instinct tells us to breed within our own race. This is the first "justification," though somewhat basic, it truly should be enough. (I'm guessing it isn't, though, so I'll continue).

Returning to how nearly all other species naturally create sub-species, races, and stick to them; there are concrete reasons for this easily deducted through logic. A race is basely a unit adapted to its environment to thrive & evolve in it to the greatest degree. The environment of any species is vastly important to it, as it defines their developed traits and the strengths of such. I'm sure you know Darwin's natural selection and other evolution "theories," so I hope I don't have to explain that to you as well. Anyway, our environment defines what and who each of us is, defines our race, and every aspect of us, every strength. The traits that thrive in a given environment, when instinct is allowed to rule to at least some extent, become the most prevalent. Obviously this improves a race, evolves it. But environments are also very different, so this means there MUST be different races per environment. If races were blended, so would all environments need to be, as otherwise we would be quite a weak species in comparison to when we did have racial diversity. Strength comes through specialization, and races are specialized units, each being vastly different, with its own vital strengths and weaknesses. The second "justification."

I'll end there for now, but I've a half dozen more if you need them. Just give a peep and I'll continue if need be!
 
Domesticated animals, which includes humans, have a tendency to not be discriminating in their sexual partners. There have even been cases of dogs mating with sows and bulls with mares.
Wild animals have stronger instincts which create a revulsion against mating with slightly different kinds. Hybridity only occurs to a very small extent with only certain kinds of wild animals.
Given time, the less discriminating of a White ethnic group will cease to be part of that ethnicity, whereas those who maintain an instict to select mates of their own group will become more concentrated in that group. That would seem to be those who have kept the wilder instinct.
Humans have been as indiscriminating as domesticated animals for a long time, as evidenced by the fact that there have been laws against bestiality for thousands of years.
 
Domesticated animals, which includes humans, have a tendency to not be discriminating in their sexual partners. There have even been cases of dogs mating with sows and bulls with mares.
Wild animals have stronger instincts which create a revulsion against mating with slightly different kinds. Hybridity only occurs to a very small extent with only certain kinds of wild animals.
Given time, the less discriminating of a White ethnic group will cease to be part of that ethnicity, whereas those who maintain an instict to select mates of their own group will become more concentrated in that group. That would seem to be those who have kept the wilder instinct.
Humans have been as indiscriminating as domesticated animals for a long time, as evidenced by the fact that there have been laws against bestiality for thousands of years.

Humans are the same species, so that is why we breed with one another. When animals don’t breed with each other, they are usually separate species regardless of their similar phenotypes. Humans have very different phenotypes that are easily distinguished from one another not just in a social perspective…but a scientific one as well. Despite this, we are all the same species and we create fertile offspring extensively when brought into contact with one another…that is why I urge separation.

Humans naturally want to live with their own people and when that hasn’t happened conflict and genocide has been the end result. The biggest argument against racial thought is that it brings ‘genocide’. Well so does racial blindness and multiculturalism…history has demonstrated that very well.
 
It's actually neither, and no one has said they should breed together, just that we do so unwittingly. Then again, no one has presented to me any justified reason they shouldn't (the "natural to do so" slant is getting tiresome and rather ridiculous).

There's a reason the old saw suggests not placing all of one's eggs in a single basket, and a gray race of middling men isn't going to get us anywhere we might actually wish to go.

MetalBooger delenda est.
 
Humans are the same species, so that is why we breed with one another. When animals don’t breed with each other, they are usually separate species regardless of their similar phenotypes. Humans have very different phenotypes that are easily distinguished from one another not just in a social perspective…but a scientific one as well. Despite this, we are all the same species and we create fertile offspring extensively when brought into contact with one another…that is why I urge separation.

Humans naturally want to live with their own people and when that hasn’t happened conflict and genocide has been the end result. The biggest argument against racial thought is that it brings ‘genocide’. Well so does racial blindness and multiculturalism…history has demonstrated that very well.

Don't be so quick to say humans are of the same species. We live in such backward times that science has not (or more likely doesn't like to) properly define what SPEICIES means. How pathetic is that?

Various so-called animal "species" can interbreed and produce fertile offspring.
Also, within certain species there are situations were two populations cannot breed together to produce viable offspring yet one or both of them CAN breed with a third population within the same "species" and the offspring is fertile!
 
There has never been an American culture (with the exception of the Native Indian culture and that of the Solutreans from Europe who preceded that) because the US is such a young country. The present modern culture is vividly exemplified by Speed's description of an American man.

I disagree. There was certainly an American culture in the years following the Revolution, a point at which Americans were overwhelmingly Anglos. Further, this culture was not equivalent to the one that speed described scornfully in his OP; must admit, the man hit the nail on the head.
 
Now for the "white nationalists" that try to separate the white race from the world fearing it's "extinction" and try to keep racial homogeneity, it's not very healthy, recall what happn when members of the same family breeds (i mean cousins) the results may be harmful for the next generation(genetic problems, in french "mongolisme"), if we expand that to the whole aryan nation to a long term it would be kinda the same result, well i suppose, i'm just extrapolating.

There is enough genetic variation within "whites" to prevent this from ever becoming a problem. Furthermore, according to optimal outbreeding theory, it is not advantageous to breed with a mate that is too distant, either. The ideal is neither too nearly related, nor too distantly, as the latter disrupts co-adapted gene complexes.
 
Inbreeding is only an issue when a breeding population gets down to less than a few thousand individuals. There are nearly 1 billion whites in the world. There's no problem here.