Nationalism and Homogeneity

[cryosteel]

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.

That is actually false, or an urban legend if you will. Have small, isolated South American, African, Polynesian or Middle Eastern tribes had health problems in the same manner as family interbreeding? What about small, isolated tribes all over the world in antiquity for thousands of years? The last data I read on this matter indicates that less than 1500 isolated people could make a lasting, healthy population.

In regards to your description of America and Morocco: all our peoples were well enough prior to the rise of nation states. America has an English and German heritage, with the others having been dragged in against their will, or just along for the ride, with no vested interest aside from materialism. We have nothing in all of existence indicating that nation states add value to the one or more tribes living within their borders. Nation states are no more than mere management systems, exchanging an often corrupt and disfunctional service for the blood and sweat of the tribes within.

 

[Έρεβος]

To be proud of your culture and roots is good, but as the human nature tends to excess, "over-the-limit" pride can be dangerous, renember that. I'm proud of my berber roots, but still i don't mind marry a different "race" (what a silly word, we are but one and only human race) and having children that will have both cultures to relate to and still be proud of it.

For an individual of mixed heritage it is very often very painful and confusing trying to be proud of their heritage, and as such they most often forsake it entirely. This is a horrible thing, as heritage is all that we have to build the present on, and removing it from beneath us would be like removing the concrete base of a house (it would collapse eventually, duh). Mixing of races in such a way is one of many things that contributes to a country's cultural death, and eventual collapse entirely.

Another thing, this racial mixing also largely destroys evolution of the human species. We are meant to evolve into ethnic and racial groups, hence the natural urges to be much more attracted to someone of your own race. This mixing destroys both the diversity you speak so fondly of, and the specialization that is so important in the advancement of our species. It also screws up the natural mechanism of eugenics created through attraction to those within your own race with the most strong qualities.

The U.S.A built its identity from the mixing of various cultures (italian, irish, british, scottish, indian, asian, african,...) and it's beautiful as itis, all cultures live together in harmony and mixing races will not destroy cultures nor society as it's feared by most nationalists.

America? Beautiful as it is? No, not in any way, shape, or form.

The areas of most "diversity" are the areas of highest crime, worst education, and overall worst living conditions. Hardly "living in harmony."

There was a recent study done here by a college professor, whose name and university I can quite remember, but it showed that bringing in an "outsider" to a community lowered trust not just towards the outsider, but towards EVERYONE. No wonder locks on everything are so important in our modern society. Locking ones door 200 years ago wouldn't have even crossed most people's minds, yet now with this absolute lack of trust we must every night - and for good reasons. And this isn't just people of different races, but even those of "next-door-neighbor" nations (such as a Swede coming to a Norwegian community.) Obviously introduction of those of a different race has an even greater effect.

This is on top of the complete cultural disintegration that has taken place here, due to the same integration, as well as complete forsaking of values - replacing them with materialism and hedonism. Sure, we don't have white mobs running around lynching people, we've worse: mtv, television, fast food, meaningless box jobs, lives revolving around materialism and hedonism, and all that is this current "American culture." Why? Because of this mixing of peoples, this so-called "diversity." It creates a mono-cultural incapable of truly functioning. Too much "diversity" completely destroys "diversity," just as too much "freedom" completely destroys "freedom."

 

[Arthyron]

By my perception, homogenity is not inherently something of value. The value of a homogenous culture is directly proportional to the inherent value of that culture as a whole, thereby dependent on the culture itself, not by the virtue of its homogenity.

Some cultures require homogenity to maintain their value, and are threatened by the introduction of different ideas/methods/values/beliefs/etc. Some can adapt and absorb other ways as their own without much ill effect. And another very few can peacefully coexist with other separate cultures.

As far as the USA goes, I think it's largely lost a homogenous, unified culture as it has grown and as new ideas and ways have been introduced. Culture in modern times is largely influenced by Region. For instance, my cousin visited over these past few weeks from California, and his methodology, way of thinking, way of doing, and his general life philosophy are vastly different than those of the region where I live (Indiana, the midwest), as are others I have met from California.

So it would seem that within the total American "culture" (if such a thing exists), there exist regional differences, and perhaps even smaller differences in sub-regional areas.

But then with America, because of the freedoms and liberties we possess (if we do indeed still possess them), there are many of those who practice a culture or sub-culture which is counter to the status quo (of which many metalheads are a part).

So in all this, I don't really know if one can rationally say whether or not homogenity is of value, especially in the USA, because homogenity hasn't been present for most of its existence (even the early settlers had to deal with the culture crossing of the various nations from which the early settlers hailed as well as the cultures of the indigenous peoples).

 

[AgoliantLives]

When cultures die off, its usually because of their inability to develop and evolve themselves... And the best way to develop and evolve your society is to reap the ideas of those who have lived in an environment where other ideas and values have been tried and tested.

Conservitism ( and nationalism) is a continually failing method of social organisation.

Besides, cultural mixing means we don't all end up inbreed!

This is the dumbest response I've read on this forum.

 

[OldScratch]

For an individual of mixed heritage it is very often very painful and confusing trying to be proud of their heritage, and as such they most often forsake it entirely. This is a horrible thing, as heritage is all that we have to build the present on, and removing it from beneath us would be like removing the concrete base of a house (it would collapse eventually, duh). Mixing of races in such a way is one of many things that contributes to a country's cultural death, and eventual collapse entirely.

Another thing, this racial mixing also largely destroys evolution of the human species. We are meant to evolve into ethnic and racial groups, hence the natural urges to be much more attracted to someone of your own race. This mixing destroys both the diversity you speak so fondly of, and the specialization that is so important in the advancement of our species. It also screws up the natural mechanism of eugenics created through attraction to those within your own race with the most strong qualities.



America? Beautiful as it is? No, not in any way, shape, or form.

The areas of most "diversity" are the areas of highest crime, worst education, and overall worst living conditions. Hardly "living in harmony."

There was a recent study done here by a college professor, whose name and university I can quite remember, but it showed that bringing in an "outsider" to a community lowered trust not just towards the outsider, but towards EVERYONE. No wonder locks on everything are so important in our modern society. Locking ones door 200 years ago wouldn't have even crossed most people's minds, yet now with this absolute lack of trust we must every night - and for good reasons. And this isn't just people of different races, but even those of "next-door-neighbor" nations (such as a Swede coming to a Norwegian community.) Obviously introduction of those of a different race has an even greater effect.

This is on top of the complete cultural disintegration that has taken place here, due to the same integration, as well as complete forsaking of values - replacing them with materialism and hedonism. Sure, we don't have white mobs running around lynching people, we've worse: mtv, television, fast food, meaningless box jobs, lives revolving around materialism and hedonism, and all that is this current "American culture." Why? Because of this mixing of peoples, this so-called "diversity." It creates a mono-cultural incapable of truly functioning. Too much "diversity" completely destroys "diversity," just as too much "freedom" completely destroys "freedom."

The study you reference was compiled by Harvard Prof. Robert D. Putnam.(a former Carter admin. official of all things). A quote from the study:

"In the presense of ethnic diversity, we hunker down. We act like turtles. The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. And it's not just that we don't trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we don't trust people who do look us."

Professor Putnam's study actually dates back more than half a decade. So controversial were these findings, and so distressed was he by the decidedly politically-incorrect conclusion, that Putnam essentially suppressed his own work, stating rather weakly, that he felt a need to develop proposals to compensate for the negative effects of diversity, noting that it, "would have been irresponsible to publish without that."

So much for genuine acedemic integrity and honesty. Indeed, a study that not only doesn't support the accepted orthodoxy on the much vaunted "Diversity" we are all supposed to celebrate, but actually refutes it is political dynamite - and nothing short of heresy in acedemic circles. It is most unfortunate that the socio-political climate of the western world is such that this intellectual cowardice is deemed not only acceptable, but altogether necessary.

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act"
- G. Orwell

 

[The_philosopher]

The fact of being repulsive to "other races" has always been an aspect of the so called "white" civilisations ( i don't mean that occidentals are responsible for it, but if we look at it closely, it appeared for the majority in europe and the usa).
Have you ever heard an arab, african, asian,... complain about whites invading his country?? or mixing races??

Then i ask these questions:

1)Is it logic to fear the "racial" coexistence in a country?

2)The "decay" of a civilisation or a culture will it really occur by the heterogeneity of a society??

3)Is it normal that you always hear only the white "race" nationalists complain about the decay of their "race"? are they more aware than others? And if that's the case, black peaople and other races should not be called minorities anymore, it's the white race who should be, ironically...

Sad, Sad, World..........

 

[Έρεβος]

1)Is it logic to fear the "racial" coexistence in a country?

It is natural, and logical.

2)The "decay" of a civilisation or a culture will it really occur by the heterogeneity of a society??

It is one of the major contributing factors, and it is a factor that links to many others.

3)Is it normal that you always hear only the white "race" nationalists complain about the decay of their "race"? are they more aware than others? And if that's the case, black peaople and other races should not be called minorities anymore, it's the white race who should be, ironically...

I don't know, and I don't really care - as I am white, hence I couldn't care less of the blacks or any other race are proud of their race & heritage, I just know I'm truly proud of mine & my own heritage. Maybe pride has been lost in other races because of the white race so invasively and disgustingly integrating ourselves with them, though I'm pretty sure there are plenty of individuals from every race that understand how important it is. Why does it matter if it is mostly "whites," anyway?

 

[cryosteel]

Have you ever heard an arab, african, asian,... complain about whites invading his country?? or mixing races??

Yes and the news of these complaints have been widespread and quite commonplace. Haiti, Zimbabwe, South Africa, India, China ("gweilo" as in "damned ghost man" as in "whites"), and Israel all come immediately to mind and that is just inside of the past two decades.

We can also call upon the collective complaints by third world UN members against the wealthier "white" nations and the people therein. Yes, racial views and bigotry are both quite human, not close to exclusively "white" or even predominately conducted by Indo-Europeans, considering primarily that such people compose less than 10% of the planet's population.

We really must wonder at the character and honesty of someone who, in a naked outburst of shameless bigotry, suggests that a tiny minority, Indo-Europeans, are responsible for most of the world's racism. What boiling hatred fuels such seething contempt for 500 million innocent people?

 

[Tabubua]

For an individual of mixed heritage it is very often very painful and confusing trying to be proud of their heritage, and as such they most often forsake it entirely. This is a horrible thing, as heritage is all that we have to build the present on, and removing it from beneath us would be like removing the concrete base of a house (it would collapse eventually, duh). Mixing of races in such a way is one of many things that contributes to a country's cultural death, and eventual collapse entirely.

Bull Poo. I know many 'mixed heritage' people who are very proud of *both* sides of their heritage. How does one set or cultural heritage plus another equal no cultural heritage exactly? Your heritage is whatever roots you come from, whether they are diverse or homogeneous.

Ok, our history does lay the foundations of our present. But we are all born into this present day and forced to make our way through the world as it exists now, not then. Although the heritage of our nations shaped what they are today, it has always been constantly changing and evolving - history is always being written - and so they must continue to change. You can't erase a countries heritage, but you can't stop its evolution and creation either.

 

[hibernal_dream]

For an individual of mixed heritage it is very often very painful and confusing trying to be proud of their heritage, and as such they most often forsake it entirely.

No it isn't. Only if you have limited thought capacity.

This is a horrible thing, as heritage is all that we have to build the present on, and removing it from beneath us would be like removing the concrete base of a house (it would collapse eventually, duh).

It is nothing like that.

Mixing of races in such a way is one of many things that contributes to a country's cultural death, and eventual collapse entirely.

Right, and we should just accept this comment at face value with nothing to back it up?

 

[cryosteel]

I don't want any distinct people bred out of existence even if 1) academia tells us it doesn't matter, 2) pop culture says it's cool and stuff, 3) the powers that be wish to replace ancient cultural continuity with transient rootless materialism, 4) extremists from the distant left claim that blending everyone leads to eternal peace and comfort; a mediocre goal for an intelligent species. None of the prominent reasons given to us have substantial historic reference with which to ground its argument and none leave us anything of value to strive for into the distant future. Diversity is soulless bunk, an engineered program of wholesale destruction of the genes, of distinct languages and of the world's unique cultures. Diversity is the largest hate crime in existence in our time.

 

[Patrick R.]

A salute for everyone in this thread, by the following, i'd like to express my point of view about this whole "homogeneity" thing.

Firs of all, for the american case, it's completely and utterly stupid to be a white nationalist in the U.S.A, "the white american identity" is just a stupid trial to be like their european "white brothers".
The U.S.A built its identity from the mixing of various cultures (italian, irish, british, scottish, indian, asian, african,...) and it's beautiful as itis, all cultures live together in harmony and mixing races will not destroy cultures nor society as it's feared by most nationalists.

On the contrary, being a white nationalist and an American makes complete and total sense on several grounds, considering the fact that America was created by white supremacist who owned black slaves and never for a second wanted a ‘multi racial’ or multi cultural nation, that is just post war leftist ideology at work here. Even the great emancipator, Abraham Lincoln wanted blacks to be sent out of the United States, he wanted to end slavery but not assimilate the Negro as an equal with the white man and he even defended a slave owner, Robert Matson, but he lost.

I hate white supremacy, I like all races and every race has the right to preserve their identity. Culture isn’t my concern, Italian, British, etc, race is all that is important in my book. Culture changes over the years, take a look at the classical Greeks who were European racially to the modern Greeks who are European racially…notice the great shift in culture? A better example would be all of the West during the 1920’s to the West right now…the former practiced racially homogeneity, eugenics as better form of breeding, family stability, education, morals etc. Take a look at the latter that is arrogant race abolitionist who import millions of different races and mix them all together to be one hybrid race. Anyone who supports multiracialism is a demigod, whereas if you support racial continuality you are a the root of all evil. The academics, politicians, journalist, opinion makers etc want to end the idea of race and it’s genetic difference. My point is culture is insignificant in my opinion because it can change even within my lifetime whereas race will continue until it evolves into another species or something else.

For example let me introduce you to a perfect example of racial and cultural diversity, Morroco, my country. In some regions there exists families that are completely white (aryan as others say), but still they are morrocans, we have numerous kinds of berbers (souss,amazighs, rifis) who live in different parts of morocco ,have different skin colors (from black to white), speak different dialects of the berber language, and there are those who are from arab descent,iberic descent, and subsharian descent, but still all those cultures mixed and it gave a particular diversity to the panorama of this country, but this diversity created a unique "Morrocan identity" that every "ethnie" can relate to. For the religious aspect ( because some nationalists link religion and race) islam is the dominant religion but there's a huge morrocan jewish community that can still relate to the "Morrocan identity".

If we apply nationalis in this country it would be a complete mess, ans nonsense too, see my point?

Well, who says the races of Morocco wouldn’t want to keep their distinctiveness? The way you explain Morocco sounds just like the post war Western democracies see the world, as a big melting pot. Not for the benefit of humanity, but for the benefit of the Western elitist power and interest…if the masses are to busy dealing with racial strife then there is no way they can challenge their power. Take a look at the United States Federal government and what they have done to Iraq with sectarian strife ripping that place to pieces.

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.

To be proud of your culture and roots is good, but as the human nature tends to excess, "over-the-limit" pride can be dangerous, renember that. I'm proud of my berber roots, but still i don't mind marry a different "race" (what a silly word, we are but one and only human race) and having children that will have both cultures to relate to and still be proud of it.

The end. Thanks for reading (or not)

It is healthy, that is how all human races came into existence, by thousands of years of reproductive isolation, over the years humanity acquired unique inherited traits and different genetically determined phenotype that makes the races of humanity very easily distinguishable from one another. It was this separation and distance which provided a barrier which didn’t allow gene flow to create a hybrid race, or just ‘the human race’ but rather a great diversity of human races. We are all the same species, but there are different races and sub races of humanity. If humanity is left alone for thousands of more years the we would spit into different species…hence divergent evolution. That is how evolution works.

 

[vikingligrveldi]

America was created by white supremacist who owned black slaves and never for a second wanted a ‘multi racial’ or multi cultural nation,

So then all men aren't created equal?? I guess we should also remove the plaque from the statue of liberty...If they didn't want a multi-racial nation why did they bring people from Africa with them?? Oh by the way there was also an entire race of people living here named Native Americans. What historic event do you mean when you say "America was created" anyways??

that is just post war leftist ideology at work here. Even the great emancipator, Abraham Lincoln wanted blacks to be sent out of the United States, he wanted to end slavery but not assimilate the Negro as an equal with the white man and he even defended a slave owner, Robert Matson, but he lost.

This is true to a degree. Lincoln even went to the trouble of locating islands to send all of the former slaves. Though in the end Lincoln saw no other alternative than to fight the southerners since they were unwilling to part with their slaves. He passed the Emancipation Proclamation so the Great Emancipator is a fitting name.

I hate white supremacy, I like all races and every race has the right to preserve their identity. Culture isn’t my concern, Italian, British, etc, race is all that is important in my book. Culture changes over the years, take a look at the classical Greeks who were European racially to the modern Greeks who are European racially…notice the great shift in culture?

"Classical Greece" was a combination of several city-states such as Athens and Sparta...Yet even then there were foreigners who flocked to Athens. They just couldn't become citizens because of a piece of legislation crafted by Pericles. Anyways Alexander eventually stomped them all, crashed democracy, and Greece became a cosmopolitan, mixed nation. Far from a recent development...

A better example would be all of the West during the 1920’s to the West right now…the former practiced racially homogeneity, eugenics as better form of breeding, family stability, education, morals etc.

Didn't the American slave owners you mentioned above rape black slaves to the point that most African-Americans today are at least part White???? That's why they created a rule that a slave is a slave if his/her mother was black. Because it was a regular practice to rape Black women and sell of the mixed babies as slaves. I thought from your above reference you knew this part of history... Or how about the "assimilation" of Native women when white colonists came to the New World?? Or do you think they waited to get laid til they returned to Europe???

Take a look at the latter that is arrogant race abolitionist who import millions of different races and mix them all together to be one hybrid race.

Who are you talking about?? Why do I think this is going to devolve into an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory?? I thought you said you hate white supremacy?? Abolitionists didn't "import" other races, slave-traders did (Africans and sometimes the Irish). duh...

Anyone who supports multiracialism is a demigod, whereas if you support racial continuality you are a the root of all evil. The academics, politicians, journalist, opinion makers etc want to end the idea of race and it’s genetic difference.

There are no laws forcing people into exogamy.People have the choice to date whomever they please. And racial mixing is by definition "genetic diversity" (ie "genetic difference") which coincedentally is good for any species.

My point is culture is insignificant in my opinion because it can change even within my lifetime whereas race will continue until it evolves into another species or something else.

Culture defines "race" more than anything else.

Well, who says the races of Morocco wouldn’t want to keep their distinctiveness? The way you explain Morocco sounds just like the post war Western democracies see the world, as a big melting pot.

Actually modern sociologists call it "Diversity Stew" instead "Melting Pot" because so many diverse cultural groups retain their identity though they are in close proximity to one another. What war are you referring to??The civil war??? if so you are funnier than I thought...

Not for the benefit of humanity, but for the benefit of the Western elitist power and interest…if the masses are to busy dealing with racial strife then there is no way they can challenge their power.

Ok...So you are saying people should mix now so there wont be racial strife?? getting confused here...you think racial distinctivness (and I assume pride) is supposed to stop racial strife?? So the elite western masonic masterminds plan is to mix all races so that the unified race will quarell over racial strife...BRILLIANT!!!!!

Take a look at the United States Federal government and what they have done to Iraq with sectarian strife ripping that place to pieces.

While I don't agree with the war, I don't believe it was the feds who created oppositional sects of the Islamic religion...And uhh these aren't different races to my knowledge they are different ideological beliefs. (maybe you could consider the Kurds a different race, I don't really know)

It is healthy, that is how all human races came into existence, by thousands of years of reproductive isolation,over the years humanity acquired unique inherited traits and different genetically determined phenotype that makes the races of humanity very easily distinguishable from one another. It was this separation and distance which provided a barrier which didn’t allow gene flow to create a hybrid race, or just ‘the human race’ but rather a great diversity of human races. We are all the same species, but there are different races and sub races of humanity. If humanity is left alone for thousands of more years the we would spit into different species…hence divergent evolution. That is how evolution works.

This is one of the wackiest justifications for eugenics I have seen thus far. You should make it into a comic book name it "Space Racist in the year 4000".

 

[Έρεβος]

So then all men aren't created equal??

Um ... nope, they aren't. :Smug:

I guess we should also remove the plaque from the statue of liberty...

Yep. We should also remove the statues head, and stick it up ole' lady liberty's ass. That would fit it quite well.

If they didn't want a multi-racial nation why did they bring people from Africa with them??

Because some people are retarded, and make pathetically idiotic mistakes.

Oh by the way there was also an entire race of people living here named Native Americans. What historic event do you mean when you say "America was created" anyways??

The destruction of the Native American race was an atrocity. Though, it is one in the past that we must not dwell on but rather learn from. Native Americans as a people are pretty much gone forever; they are now casino owners that sit inside counting green all day. So, why dwell on it? Try to be rational.

I'm pretty sure he refers to the foundation of the nation of white European immigrants - the drafting of the articles of confederation, and then the constitution, etc..

This is true to a degree. Lincoln even went to the trouble of locating islands to send all of the former slaves. Though in the end Lincoln saw no other alternative than to fight the southerners since they were unwilling to part with their slaves. He passed the Emancipation Proclamation so the Great Emancipator is a fitting name.

Actually I prefer "The Fucking Retard Of A President," (as he was mentally retarded, and showed it quite clearly).

Oh, by the way, the cival war was not about slavery.

"Classical Greece" was a combination of several city-states such as Athens and Sparta...Yet even then there were foreigners who flocked to Athens. They just couldn't become citizens because of a piece of legislation crafted by Pericles. Anyways Alexander eventually stomped them all, crashed democracy, and Greece became a cosmopolitan, mixed nation. Far from a recent development...

Uhh, your point being? Or were you just adressing an irrelevent percieved mistake?

Didn't the American slave owners you mentioned above rape black slaves to the point that most African-Americans today are at least part White????

Nope. That is what we call propaganda, my dear friend.

Sure, there was rape here and there; but to the extent that most of the blacks were part white? Not in your wildest dreams.

That's why they created a rule that a slave is a slave if his/her mother was black.

Actually I think it was something like if they were 1/32nd black, or maybe 1/16th. I don't remember anything about a "mother," as I'm sure that not all of the bastard children were concieved of a white male & black female.

Because it was a regular practice to rape Black women and sell of the mixed babies as slaves.

To the contrary, it was a common practice to hang white men that had sex with black women.

I thought from your above reference you knew this part of history...

What part of history are you refering to here, exactly?

Or how about the "assimilation" of Native women when white colonists came to the New World??

Is this a joke?

Or do you think they waited to get laid til they returned to Europe???

Another joke?

Who are you talking about??

I believe he was refering to globalists. =D

Why do I think this is going to devolve into an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory??

Because ... kill ze jewz!!!!!!!! Wait, huh? =DDDDDD

I thought you said you hate white supremacy??

I think that is what he said.

Is it so hard to just scroll up one quarter of a page to see for yourself? <3 <3 <3

Abolitionists didn't "import" other races, slave-traders did (Africans and sometimes the Irish). duh...

Liek totally, duh!

Wait, no ... He didn't say "slavery abolitionists," but rather "race abolitionists." Getdahfuckwitdahgame! <3

There are no laws forcing people into exogamy.

gofuckinfigure

There are also no laws that tell people to dress like the brainless goons on mtv; people still do.

Slavery without awareness - the most evil form of slavery. While there are no "laws" forcing people into exogamy, they are still forced. =DDDDD

People have the choice to date whomever they please.

O RLY?

And racial mixing is by definition "genetic diversity" (ie "genetic difference") which coincedentally is good for any species.

This one made me laugh. =D

Culture defines "race" more than anything else.

I'm sort of certain it is the other way around.

Actually modern sociologists call it "Diversity Stew" instead "Melting Pot" because so many diverse cultural groups retain their identity though they are in close proximity to one another.

And modern sociologists also say the mass depression of modern society is due to not having enough sex, money, or prozac. Geniuses.

What war are you referring to?? The civil war??? if so you are funnier than I thought...

HITLER AND NAZIIIZZ!!!!

Not the civil war.

Ok...So you are saying people should mix now so there wont be racial strife?? getting confused here...you think racial distinctivness (and I assume pride) is supposed to stop racial strife?? So the elite western masonic masterminds plan is to mix all races so that the unified race will quarell over racial strife...BRILLIANT!!!!!

Well, what he said is a bit confuzzled to me as well; but your interpretation of it is hilarious and obviously wrong. =DDDDDD

BRILLIANT!!!!!!!

While I don't agree with the war, I don't believe it was the feds who created oppositional sects of the Islamic religion...And uhh these aren't different races to my knowledge they are different ideological beliefs. (maybe you could consider the Kurds a different race, I don't really know)

Where did he say the feds created oppositional sects of the Islamic religion? XD

And well, it wasn't the greatest example, though it did add that oh-so-fresh twist of "ZOMGS THEWARONTERROR!" to the thread.

This is one of the wackiest justifications for eugenics I have seen thus far. You should make it into a comic book name it "Space Racist in the year 4000".

The realities of evolution are wacky justifications for eugenics? =D

BRILLIANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[vikingligrveldi]

Um ... nope, they aren't. :Smug:

Damn those lying forefathers with their "self-evident truths"...

 

[Έρεβος]

Damn those lying forefathers with their "self-evident truths"...

Uhm, basically.

You have such a remarkable way of speaking truth with your sarcastic remarks. =D

Oh, and I edited a good many responses into the prior post. =D

 

[vikingligrveldi]

The destruction of the Native American race was an atrocity. Though, it is one in the past that we must not dwell on but rather learn from. Native Americans as a people are pretty much gone forever; they are now casino owners that sit inside counting green all day. So, why dwell on it? Try to be rational.

Try to know what you are talking about before you post. Only about 25&#37; of Native Tribes receive casino money. In fact the poorest areas in America are reservations.

Nope. That is what we call propaganda, my dear friend.

Sure, there was rape here and there; but to the extent that most of the blacks were part white? Not in your wildest dreams.

I didn't say that most were black I said that most are now black because the white genes spread around. American Blacks are about 10% white, that is why they have lighter skin tone than African blacks. Molatoes as they were called were prominant in slave times; some famous ones were Frederick Douglass, Harriet Jacobs, Moses Roper, Lewis Clarke and William Wells Brown. Even Jefferson had a mixed child with a slave as ahs been proven.

Slavers committed rape (&#8220;amalgamation,&#8221; in Southern terminology; the 1860 census showed 588,000 mulatto women. Source: Barbara Goldsmith, Other Powers (NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 1998), p 154. Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), Notes on Virginia (1797), p 298, had provided background. So did Rep. Horace Mann, Slavery and the Slave-Trade (1849), p 19. Rev. Theodore D. Weld noted slavers' stamping "their own image in variegated hues, upon a swarming progeny!" in Bible Against Slavery (1837), p 94.

As family destroyers, slavers' policy was &#8220;to part children from their mothers at a very early age . . . before the child has reached its twelfth month . . . to hinder the development of the child's affection toward its mother, and to blunt and destroy the natural affection of the mother for the child.&#8221;&#8212;Frederick Douglass, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, Chapter 1 (1845). Kentucky clergyman Rev. Robert J. Breckinridge in the African Repository, 1834, said likewise.

Yes I am sure the history of slavery and all its abuses were just a series of propaganda created by evil northerners. In reality it was a tea-party for them...it was exactly like gone with the wind...

 

[Έρεβος]

Try to know what you are talking about before you post. Only about 25&#37; of Native Tribes receive casino money. In fact the poorest areas in America are reservations.

Do you understand the concept of "irrelevance"?

 

[Patrick R.]

So then all men aren't created equal?? I guess we should also remove the plaque from the statue of liberty...If they didn't want a multi-racial nation why did they bring people from Africa with them?? Oh by the way there was also an entire race of people living here named Native Americans. What historic event do you mean when you say "America was created" anyways??

Come on, if many of the heroes of the American revolution owned slaves and didn't consider Indians and other non whites as part of America then what makes you think they wanted a multiracial nation? They didn’t want on multicultural nation, in fact blacks weren’t given citizenship until 1868, almost a century after the creation of the United States.

As far as this ‘all men are created equal’, that obviously refers to all Europeans take a look at what Thomas Jefferson had to say.



"Blacks . . . are inferior to Whites in the endowments of both body and mind" (The Life and Selected Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Modern Library, New York, 1944, page 262).

Take a look at Abraham Lincoln had to say. He says even when blacks aren’t slaves, they aren’t ‘equal’ to the white race.


"Your race are suffering, in my judgment, the greatest wrong inflicted on any people. But even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on equality with the White race.

(The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, edited by Roy P. Baler, Rutgers University Press, 1953, Vol. V, pages 371-375.)


As far as the Native Americans go, did they write the constitution? Did they create the Federal government? Did they create the White House? Did the create Congress? Did they create the executive, legislative, and judicial branch of the United States Federal government? Did they fight the British off? No, these were all white people who did that. Don’t give me this guilt trip that whites ‘robbed’ their land because Europe has been under attacked by non European races for centuries…Attila the Hun, the Moors, the Ottomans, Genghis Khan etc. All races have lost there land at one point of history or another.

This is true to a degree. Lincoln even went to the trouble of locating islands to send all of the former slaves. Though in the end Lincoln saw no other alternative than to fight the southerners since they were unwilling to part with their slaves. He passed the Emancipation Proclamation so the Great Emancipator is a fitting name.

Yeah, the great emancipator who defended a slave owner, hated blacks, and wanted them sent out of the United States because they could never become an equal to the white man in his eyes. Call him whatever you want, but the facts couldn’t be any more clear.

"Classical Greece" was a combination of several city-states such as Athens and Sparta...Yet even then there were foreigners who flocked to Athens. They just couldn't become citizens because of a piece of legislation crafted by Pericles. Anyways Alexander eventually stomped them all, crashed democracy, and Greece became a cosmopolitan, mixed nation. Far from a recent development...

Alexander the Great was Greek and only Athens and her allies were democracies…Sparta wasn’t. But as you say, Pericles didn’t allow non Athenians to become citizens. But in any case, what does this have to do with my point that culture changes over time but race stays the same? All of these other foreigners that came into Greece were European as well, like I said, culture isn’t my big concern.

Didn't the American slave owners you mentioned above rape black slaves to the point that most African-Americans today are at least part White???? That's why they created a rule that a slave is a slave if his/her mother was black. Because it was a regular practice to rape Black women and sell of the mixed babies as slaves. I thought from your above reference you knew this part of history... Or how about the "assimilation" of Native women when white colonists came to the New World?? Or do you think they waited to get laid til they returned to Europe???

Ok there was mixing of the races…what is your point? Are you denying the fact that America practiced racially homogeneity, had racial laws, and even went against non European immigration such as the 1924 immigration act. In fact, American eugenicist laid the foundation for the Nazis racial laws unfortunately. Take a look at the Second Eugenics Congress which was hosted by the American Museum of Natural History in New York with more than 300 delegates from all over the world, mostly Europe.

Who are you talking about?? Why do I think this is going to devolve into an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory?? I thought you said you hate white supremacy?? Abolitionists didn't "import" other races, slave-traders did (Africans and sometimes the Irish). duh...

I do hate white supremacy, why on earth wouldn’t I? The race abolitionist are different from the slavery abolitionist…the former is the new ‘abolitionist’. Race abolitionist literally want to destroy all races through multiculturalism, but they want to start with Europeans first, take a look at Noel Ignatiev and his website that literally talks about the end of the white race, claiming that white race is only a ‘social construct’ but not a race. Take a look at this ‘RACE TRAITOR aims to serve as an intellectual center for those seeking to abolish the white race.’

http://www.racetraitor.org/

There are no laws forcing people into exogamy.People have the choice to date whomever they please. And racial mixing is by definition "genetic diversity" (ie "genetic difference") which coincedentally is good for any species.

Well, the Federal government and their media allies have worked over time to diversify the United States at the work place, schools, transportation, and other forms of daily life so mixing is inevitable. Racial mixing isn’t ‘genetic diversity’, the races of humanity were separated for thousands of years long enough to acquire new inherited traits and phenotypes that makes human races very easily distinguishable from one another. Race mixing will only destroy that.

Culture defines "race" more than anything else.

Genotype and phenotype defines race more then anything else.

Actually modern sociologists call it "Diversity Stew" instead "Melting Pot" because so many diverse cultural groups retain their identity though they are in close proximity to one another. What war are you referring to??The civil war??? if so you are funnier than I thought...

Oh ok, “diversity stew’, the name speaks for itself. I’m sorry but for thousands of years of humanity, ‘diversity stew’ wasn’t a part of our history. Whenever races did meet up hell broke loose…the Huns, the Ottomans, the Moors, Genghis Khan, colonialism etc. What civil war am I talking about? What civil war are you talking about?

Ok...So you are saying people should mix now so there wont be racial strife?? getting confused here...you think racial distinctivness (and I assume pride) is supposed to stop racial strife?? So the elite western masonic masterminds plan is to mix all races so that the unified race will quarell over racial strife...BRILLIANT!!!!!.

Ok let me ask you something…where on earth did I say anything about people ‘mixing’ to end civil strife? In your sci fi imagination maybe? I was saying the total opposite, the dominate powers of the post war West can rule over the masses much easier when there is diversity because then there can’t be any cohesive political action against them.

Yes, racial separation will end violence anywhere. Take a look at Japan and take a look at the Middle East…you see my point ? (Probably not) but the fact remains, racially homogenous nations are cohesive whereas multiracial nations aren’t…that reflects the nature of humanity.

While I don't agree with the war, I don't believe it was the feds who created oppositional sects of the Islamic religion...And uhh these aren't different races to my knowledge they are different ideological beliefs. (maybe you could consider the Kurds a different race, I don't really know)

Daniel Pipes, a neo-conservative enjoyed civil strife in Iraq after the bombing of an Islamic shrine. Furthermore, it is a divide and conquer strategy, not just Jews use it but rather arrogant Europeans along with their Jewish allies. But that doesn’t mean they created different religious sects, they just exploit the tension .

"The bombing on February 22 of the Askariya shrine in Samarra, Iraq, was a tragedy, but it was not an American or a coalition tragedy. Iraq's plight is neither a coalition responsibility nor a particular danger to the West. Fixing Iraq is neither the coalition's responsibility, nor its burden. When Sunni terrorists target Shi'ites and vice versa, non-Muslims are less likely to be hurt. Civil war in Iraq, in short, would be a humanitarian tragedy, but not a strategic one."



http://www.counterpunch.org/walsh03092006.html


Furthermore, the Middle East has had every race wonder across it, it is multi racial with people from different evolutionary back grounds taking part in the history of that area. That is why there is so much chaos.

This is one of the wackiest justifications for eugenics I have seen thus far. You should make it into a comic book name it "Space Racist in the year 4000".

Well, I guess evolution is wacky, because that is how isolation works my friend. Humans aren’t exempt from the laws of heredity as we came from animals.

 

[vikingligrveldi]

Yeah, the great emancipator who defended a slave owner, hated blacks, and wanted them sent out of the United States because they could never become an equal to the white man in his eyes. Call him whatever you want, but the facts couldn&#8217;t be any more clear.

Do you fail to see the root significance between the words "emancipator" and "emancipation"??? I didn't invent either terms but it makes sense to call someone who made a document called the emancipation proclaimation an emancipator. Anyways I imagine you are one of the southern types who still feels that the "south will rise again" or some such nonesense...Regardless of what he personally thought or said he signed a document stating that all slaves were to be set free. Period.

Alexander the Great was Greek and only Athens and her allies were democracies&#8230;Sparta wasn&#8217;t. But as you say, Pericles didn&#8217;t allow non Athenians to become citizens. But in any case, what does this have to do with my point that culture changes over time but race stays the same? All of these other foreigners that came into Greece were European as well, like I said, culture isn&#8217;t my big concern.

Actually Alexander was Macedonian...and after Alexander conquered Greece exogamy became the norm. What does it matter if it was with other parts of "Europe"?? At that time Europe didn't even exist and "Europeans" certainly didn't see themselves as such. They called everywhere outside of Helen (modern Europeans) "barbarians". Before this past century for the most part people identified themselves by their nationality, not by some pan-european term which suggested unity.

Ok there was mixing of the races&#8230;what is your point? Are you denying the fact that America practiced racially homogeneity, had racial laws, and even went against non European immigration such as the 1924 immigration act. In fact, American eugenicist laid the foundation for the Nazis racial laws unfortunately. Take a look at the Second Eugenics Congress which was hosted by the American Museum of Natural History in New York with more than 300 delegates from all over the world, mostly Europe.

Your idea of Euorpe and race is skewed from an historic perspective. Most of the "european" races which were excluded access into America were considered "non-white" in their own time. The specific act you speak of was aimed at restricting further entry by southern and eastern europeans. The "whites" of this day (white is a totally fluid term) were not considered white. There was also an act that made it illegal for the Chinese to enter America. And yes there were racially exclusive laws which you should loath because you hate white supremacists. Most modern people abhor America's racist past. My point is that you attempted to suggest that "whites" practiced racial separatism while it is well known that whites mixed with native americans and blacks on a regular basis.

Wow, some Americans created phoney anthropological theories that influenced the Nazis. Theosophy influenced the Nazis too. In fact, a bunch of weirdos and pseudo-intellectuals influenced the Nazis. This is on par with racism which is usually practiced by uneducated people.

Well, the Federal government and their media allies have worked over time to diversify the United States at the work place, schools, transportation, and other forms of daily life so mixing is inevitable. Racial mixing isn&#8217;t &#8216;genetic diversity&#8217;, the races of humanity were separated for thousands of years long enough to acquire new inherited traits and phenotypes that makes human races very easily distinguishable from one another. Race mixing will only destroy that.

Some "races" were formed that way, others are a mixture of different conquering tribes or foreign races tribes mixed. How will it destroy that? Even if everyone mixed there wouldn't be some quick-fix leveled out race. There would be tons of individuals with parents of different backgrounds. Even then people would more often associate with ideological beliefs. For instance an Arab Muslim will recognize more in common with a Pakistani Muslim than an Arab Christian. Or I will more quickly make friends with a Mexican metalhead than some preppy White guy.

I do hate white supremacy, why on earth wouldn&#8217;t I? The race abolitionist are different from the slavery abolitionist&#8230;the former is the new &#8216;abolitionist&#8217;. Race abolitionist literally want to destroy all races through multiculturalism, but they want to start with Europeans first, take a look at Noel Ignatiev and his website that literally talks about the end of the white race, claiming that white race is only a &#8216;social construct&#8217; but not a race. Take a look at this &#8216;RACE TRAITOR aims to serve as an intellectual center for those seeking to abolish the white race.&#8217;

As I suggested before, my family is Irish, and I could really care less about "whites", because throughtout the climax of these "white movements" Irish were called "white my pals" and subjected to every form of degregation by Americans and the English. Let them have their white race. Because white is a social construct. It was invented for the most part in post-WW2 America to exclude black people from adequate housing and a fair chance at economic stability. As I stated before, the term "white" or "european" could mean anything. It could mean the Irish are white, it could mean they are "white my pals" it could mean Polish are white, it could mean they are "dirty Polacks", even Jews can be considered white or not. Anyone who associates with a group of people who consider themselves white becomes a part of white culture regardless of their race. I couldn't care less what some nut-job says on his website.

Genotype and phenotype defines race more then anything else.

As I stated before, Americans are just a mixture of a bunch of races which 200 years ago wouldnt be considered "white". In the 1800s if you were to go to Chicago and enter a German bar and you were Polish they would probably punch you in the face and throw you out of the bar. Why? They are both "White" races of "European" descent. In fact they are neighboring countries and most likely share a similar genetic history. Because culture determines race.

Oh ok, &#8220;diversity stew&#8217;, the name speaks for itself. I&#8217;m sorry but for thousands of years of humanity, &#8216;diversity stew&#8217; wasn&#8217;t a part of our history. Whenever races did meet up hell broke loose&#8230;the Huns, the Ottomans, the Moors, Genghis Khan, colonialism etc. What civil war am I talking about? What civil war are you talking about?

Several races and religions co-existed in ancient Rome. And as I said before most coastal towns near large bodies of water were home to "diversity stew" all the way back into ancient times. Sure wars started, but once more look to the reign of Alexander. He would dress up as a Persian and pray to the Persian gods. He also prayed to Zeus-Amon which was a god combined from the meshing of Greek and Egyptian culture. You didn't say the civil war you just said post-war several times. I assumed you were talking about WW2, or perhaps even Vietnam. But the Civil War is funny. The north came stomped on the south like an old rag doll and took over the United States. They should have never messed with the North, and they wouldn't have had their problems. The north was more educated and on the cutting edge of engineering and agriculture, while the south was lost in this delusional haze, a bunch of inbred wannabe aristocrats.

Yes, racial separation will end violence anywhere. Take a look at Japan and take a look at the Middle East&#8230;you see my point ? (Probably not) but the fact remains, racially homogenous nations are cohesive whereas multiracial nations aren&#8217;t&#8230;that reflects the nature of humanity.

OHHHH yes the middle-east, they have been enjoying a peaceful coexistence in their "homogenous nation" (even though they aren't a nation). I guess whether the typical Middle-Eastern or Japanese family is cohesive could be debated. But even in countries which are racially isolated, like Finland, there are instances of rape, divorce, suicide, etc... Being racially exclusive means nothing.

Daniel Pipes, a neo-conservative enjoyed civil strife in Iraq after the bombing of an Islamic shrine. Furthermore, it is a divide and conquer strategy, not just Jews use it but rather arrogant Europeans along with their Jewish allies. But that doesn&#8217;t mean they created different religious sects, they just exploit the tension .

Point?

Furthermore, the Middle East has had every race wonder across it, it is multi racial with people from different evolutionary back grounds taking part in the history of that area. That is why there is so much chaos

and

Yes, racial separation will end violence anywhere. Take a look at Japan and take a look at the Middle East&#8230;you see my point ? (Probably not) but the fact remains, racially homogenous nations are cohesive whereas multiracial nations aren&#8217;t&#8230;that reflects the nature of humanity.

Well, I guess evolution is wacky, because that is how isolation works my friend. Humans aren&#8217;t exempt from the laws of heredity as we came from animals.

Evolution "works" through a certain species adapting to its environment in order to survive. And as I said before species go stronger through genetic diversity. Look at dogs for example, muts live much longer, healthier lives than thoroughbreds. Many have tried to create a racist theory of evolution but it just doesn't add up. Women are instinctually attracted to people who have genetic diversity, it is a natural mechanism which prevents incest.

But anyways regardless of what you say exogamy is not forced by any governmental measure. Any white person is free to date whites all they want. I see it all the time. I see white couples together and they dont get harrassed by cops. If you want to ger married to the most nordic looking woman you can find thats your choice nobody is stopping you. But I don't think people should look down on a white guy who dates an asian woman because that is just the way love works, it isn't always perfect and acceptable by everyone's standards. And frankly people who date outside of their race could care less what anyone thinks.