Nationalism and Homogeneity

[Patrick R.]

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.

Does he deserve the term ‘the great’ emancipator when he in fact defended a slave owner? Like I said call him whatever you want, but his true views on the racial reality of whites and blacks were much different then the liberal projection in modern Western academia.

He sure did sign a document to set the slaves free…he also wanted them to be sent back to Africa something you aren’t talking about. Nope sorry, I have no desire to separate from the Federal government or change they way it was set up by the constitution…I would rather have people who’s ideological views are more similar to my forefathers rather then some post war anti Western war mongers who use the people for their own selfish ambitions in the Middle East and the rest of the world. The only thing I ask is that white supremacy and racism not be a factor.

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.

Exactly…the Macedonians were Greek, Ancient Greece was a lot more then just Greek mainland, it was also places like Cyprus, the Aegean coast of Turkey (the Ionians), Sicily and southern Italy, and other places Greek colonist went, even as far north as the Ukraine. Your lack of understand the classical world is pathetic.

What does it matter if it was other parts of Europe you ask? Because that is the entire point I am trying to make, a point you can’t seem to understand. Culture changes, even with a person’s lifetime, whereas race will continue for thousands of years unless it is absorbed by another race or is physically destroyed…kind of like the fate the Carthaginians by the Romans.

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.

Right, some southern Europeans were considered non whites and yes they weren’t allowed into the United States (the 1924 immigration act). Hell the Irish weren’t even considered white by some Anglo Saxons as you clearly point out. Whatever the case, it only proves my point further that white Americans practiced racially homogeneity. You say people ‘abhor’ Americas racist past? Well now, I thought America was meant to be a ‘multi cultural’ nation, or that is what you tell me. But it appears that early white Americans were racist and never wanted a multiracial nation. So make up your mind, was America created for all people or was it racist and Nazi like?

As far as the Nazis go, it was Nazi rocket scientist that laid the foundations for NASA and thus made space exploration possible. Our Federal government took as many Nazi scientist as possible…these aren’t the ‘pseudo scientist’ they you are referring to. But in any case, I could care less about Nazism and I’m tired of people using it for the political agendas…let it go and let it die.

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.

Yes, what you are referring to is hybrid races. As far as these Arab Muslims you refer to, I’m sorry they would have a lot more in common with an Arab Christian then lets say…a black Muslim. Take a look the slavery in the Middle East…Arab slave traders made white American slave traders look like hair dressers. As far as your little friendship analogy, I’m sorry, but that doesn’t dispute the taxonomic accuracy of classification of humans into races. You don’t have to hate any other race just because you see an obvious difference. I would rather be friends with a Hispanic then a white trash moron, but I still see the reality of race.

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.

Yes, Irish were called names, so what? Does that stop the genetic reality of the European/white race and the sub races within Europeans? White can be a social construct, but if we go back the indigenous populations of Europe that came into existence through reproductive isolation then it is definitely racial rather then social. The term white was a name referred to Europeans obviously in reference to our fair skin long before the second world war and it became and anthropological reference to Europeans. After the second world war, that began to change.

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.

During the 1800’s people understood the concept of the white race very very well in political and cultural life. Even before the 1800’s, take Thomas Jefferson for example, also take the Lincoln/Douglas debates for another example. But in any case who cares what the races of humanity were called? Europeans during the 1600’s didn’t call the European honeybee ‘Apis mellifera’, does that mean the European honeybee didn’t exist? In fact, before the Swedish biologist Carolus Linaeus developed his binomial nomenclature the European honeybee had a 12 part scientific name ‘Apis pubescens, thorace subgriseo, abdomine fusco, pedibus posticis glabis, untrinque margine ciliatus' that was the polynomial name for an organism which was very long. My point is names don’t speak volumes…taxonomic accuracy does when it comes to humanity.

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.

Several religions and races came to Rome, but that most certainly wasn’t a Roman strength…the European element was and still is. Your reference to races taking on foreign cultures only proves my point even further…cultures will change, whereas race will not unless they are destroyed deliberately or if they just mix themselves to death.

A little tip for you, “post war” in Western usage refers to the period after the second world war. You talk about the north destroying the south? Well, I ask you, how was the slaughter over a half million people a good thing? Also, the north was a lot more racist then the south, as I have already documented, Abraham Lincoln wanted blacks out of the United States whereas the whites down south wanted them to stay.

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.

I have to ask you this…do you speak English? I only ask because you are putting words into my mouth and you aren’t understanding what I’m trying to say, I never said anything about the Middle East being a nation much less a ‘homogenous nation’. If you want to talk about rape and murder in the Western world you might want to talk about flood of non white immigrants that are murdering and raping Europeans at will. Take a look at France and the riots for example where an elderly women was burnt to death by non whites and take a look at the Danish controversy about cartoon depicting their holy prophet. I understand their anger 100% but we wouldn’t have these problems in a racially stable nation.

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.

So you approve eugenics slightly? Instead of improving hereditary diseases through selective breeding by sterilization, you should just merge gene pools? Morons try to say that about Jews, that the only way to get rid of Jewish genetic diseases is ‘intermarriage’ as if there is no alternative to hereditary diseases. Jewish hereditary diseases from inbreeding such as Tay Sachs may be a problem, but genocide of their genotype isn’t the answer.

As far as your ‘racist theory’ evolution, well, it is called speciation. Need species form and within these species diversity is the result as long as there is isolation to acquire new traits…remember mutations cause variation. What makes you say “women” are attracted to genetic diversity? That all depends on the women, some are attracted to people who are genetically similar to themselves whereas women aren’t, that goes for men a well. But it appears you and I have different views on genetic diversity. My view on genetic diversity is separation which over time creates new traits whereas if the races stay in the same spot there will not be any barrier of gene flow and no distinctive human races or genetic diversity. What you are referring to is mix all the races together that exist because of their separation and thus destroy racial diversity…that is the end result.

 

[Majesty]

"But even in countries which are racially isolated, like Finland, there are instances of rape, divorce, suicide, etc... Being racially exclusive means nothing."

Uhmmm... It isn´t racially isolated.
Swedes have been mixinbg it up in Finland for hundreds of years, and I´m guessing the Russians and other slavs have sent people in there as well.

 

[Patrick R.]

"But even in countries which are racially isolated, like Finland, there are instances of rape, divorce, suicide, etc... Being racially exclusive means nothing."

Uhmmm... It isn´t racially isolated.
Swedes have been mixinbg it up in Finland for hundreds of years, and I´m guessing the Russians and other slavs have sent people in there as well.

All of Africa, Europe, and Asia was racially isolated for thousands of years, it wasn't until 1500/1600's when that changed.

 

[Majesty]

All of Africa, Europe, and Asia was racially isolated for thousands of years, it wasn't until 1500/1600's when that changed.

If you consider Slavs and Germanics to be of the same race i guess that´s true.

 

[Patrick R.]

If you consider Slavs and Germanics to be of the same race i guess that´s true.

Yes they are the same race, they are two different linguistic groups the Slavs and Germanics. There are sub races within Europe, as anybody with eyes can tell there are Europeans with blonde hair, red hair, black hair, brown hair, blue eyes, green eyes, fair skin, some a little more darker then others etc. It is just variation within Europeans, some traditional anthropologist divided European sub races into Nordic, Alpine, and Mediterranean…but of course you could divide Europeans much more then those three sub-groupings.

 

[vikingligrveldi]

Does he deserve the term ‘the great’ emancipator when he in fact defended a slave owner? Like I said call him whatever you want, but his true views on the racial reality of whites and blacks were much different then the liberal projection in modern Western academia.

All of the presidents have been shamelessly aggrandized. I know you think you are telling me something new, but I already knew about this and agree with you. Americans have a history of mythologizing important figures in American history. It all starts with fairy tales about Washington not being able to tell a lie and continues through to modern figures. Even presidents as recent as Kennedy and Reagen have been fraudulently glorified. Look at Woodrow Wilson for example, he was a total scum bag for joining the first world war. But anyways what is the point of this whole Lincoln reference, I thought your point was that the founding fathers were white supremacists. Lincoln wasn't a founding father, and I stated in the long run he granted slaves their freedom and thus was termed "the great emancipator". Whether he was a racist or not isn't really my concern. Discrimination and prejudice are two very different things.

He sure did sign a document to set the slaves free…he also wanted them to be sent back to Africa something you aren’t talking about.

Well from what I read he wanted to send them to some island he had discovered, but the southern slave owners considered it property theft. And actually I did talk about that if you read back. I knew about Lincoln's desire to send away the blacks because he didn't believe that they could coexist peacefully with whites. Maybe it would have been better for everyone in the long run if he would have but it wasn't going to happen without a fight.

I would rather have people who’s ideological views are more similar to my forefathers rather then some post war anti Western war mongers who use the people for their own selfish ambitions in the Middle East and the rest of the world. The only thing I ask is that white supremacy and racism not be a factor.

You could call every war an exploitation of the masses. I am honestly not sure what it is you are trying to say here.

Exactly…the Macedonians were Greek, Ancient Greece was a lot more then just Greek mainland, it was also places like Cyprus, the Aegean coast of Turkey (the Ionians), Sicily and southern Italy, and other places Greek colonist went, even as far north as the Ukraine. Your lack of understand the classical world is pathetic.

As I stated before, classical Greeks didn't see themselves as a unified nation, but rather a collection of city-states. However, after Alexander conquered all of Greece he made exogamy a norm as I stated and Greeks mixed with Persians and Egyptians. After the fall of Athenian democracy and the practice of closed citizenship and nobility ended, Greek society became more all-inclusive. This was on par with Alexander's desire to intermarry Greeks. The "opening" of Greek society can be seen through an Isocrates quote;

"The people we call Greeks are those who have the same culture as us, not the same blood."

Macedonians were not Hellene, and Macedonia was never a member of the Hellenic League, a league that encompassed and "united" all the Greek city-states.

Macedonians didn't speak Greek and didn't participate in the city-state form of governance. They were essentially foreign invaders from a backwoods mountainous kingdom.

Commoners in Macedonia did not consider themselves Greek, and most Greeks regarded their northern neighbors as barbarians.

Although I will agree Macedonian nobles were considerably infatuated with greek culture and this was a main motive behind Alexander's intermarriage policies, to break down social barriers which prevented his people from being "true Greeks"

What does it matter if it was other parts of Europe you ask? Because that is the entire point I am trying to make, a point you can’t seem to understand. Culture changes, even with a person’s lifetime, whereas race will continue for thousands of years unless it is absorbed by another race or is physically destroyed…kind of like the fate the Carthaginians by the Romans.

I guess we just fundamentally disagree here because I do not believe that race could exist in a meaningful way without an acknowledgment of it meaning something. Ethnocentrism is meaningless unless a person thinks that their own culture (represented through the term "race") is worth something (because ethnocentrism is the act of comparing one's culture to that of another). The idea of "race" alone could never mean anything worthwhile, because it would just be a superficial love of one's one physical characteristics. Could you at least agree with that? If you believe that the only reason to preserve race is to preserve the physical characteristics because you believe that humans will somehow evolve into higher beings if they are kept separated from one another. But logically it is a hopeless endeavour to try to establish norms which will preserve an idea of race because it is a taboo and taboos simply wait to be broken. Most of the "eugenic" ideas you seem to believe that Americans have always held were closely associated with their interpretation of Christianity. It was a social phenomenon not a racial one.

Right, some southern Europeans were considered non whites and yes they weren’t allowed into the United States (the 1924 immigration act). Hell the Irish weren’t even considered white by some Anglo Saxons as you clearly point out. Whatever the case, it only proves my point further that white Americans practiced racially homogeneity.

yes they did and they were foolish to do so. And I don't see why now, when America is so heavily composed of Irish, Italians and Polish you think that people should respect the fact that a bunch of arrogant and ignorant pricks thought that they were better than everyone else.

You say people ‘abhor’ Americas racist past? Well now, I thought America was meant to be a ‘multi cultural’ nation, or that is what you tell me. But it appears that early white Americans were racist and never wanted a multiracial nation. So make up your mind, was America created for all people or was it racist and Nazi like?

You try to switch the terms "multi-cultural" and "white supremacist as though they are interchangeable. I will try to further elaborate what I said, people who have a knowledge of American history and don't believe that racism is an acceptable practice in the twenty-first century will most likely see such acts as slavery, imperialism and genocide as WRONG, and furthermore they will be moved to believe that we should learn from the past and accept people not based on their social caste or birth right but on their individual characteristics. Whether America was created for all people I guess is subject to opinion. The founding fathers stated that it would be a country where people were allowed "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" Perhaps some (or most) of these people didn't consider blacks, chinese, natives, etc human beings, but today it is known that they are in fact human beings and society therefor reinterpreted the constitution to include women and minorities. Whether or not the founding fathers were ignorant or hypocritical is rather meaningless wouldn't you say?

As far as the Nazis go, it was Nazi rocket scientist that laid the foundations for NASA and thus made space exploration possible. Our Federal government took as many Nazi scientist as possible…these aren’t the ‘pseudo scientist’ they you are referring to. But in any case, I could care less about Nazism and I’m tired of people using it for the political agendas…let it go and let it die.

I wasn't even Nazis for my agenda, in fact, you were the one who brought them up to try and elaborate that there were American and British "scientists" who believed in racial cleansing. I simply said they are frauds. Yes, there were Americans who influenced nazis and Nazi sympathizers, there were many more Americans and Brits who fought and gave their lives to defeat the Axis.

Yes, what you are referring to is hybrid races. As far as these Arab Muslims you refer to, I’m sorry they would have a lot more in common with an Arab Christian then lets say…a black Muslim. Take a look the slavery in the Middle East…Arab slave traders made white American slave traders look like hair dressers.

Again this barely makes sense. If one "muslim" has a problem with another "muslim" it is because they have a different ideological belief. The same with Christians. Otherwise, why would Christians from wealthy countries become missionaries and attempt to convert people across the world of their ideological beliefs. Anyone can be a Muslim and two people of the same ideological belief system of separate races will fair better together than two people of the same race with diametric ideological beliefs.

As far as your little friendship analogy, I’m sorry, but that doesn’t dispute the taxonomic accuracy of classification of humans into races. You don’t have to hate any other race just because you see an obvious difference. I would rather be friends with a Hispanic then a white trash moron, but I still see the reality of race.

Well fine then take the little analogy as two potential mates who though they are of a different cultural background choose to pursue a relationship. I would rather marry a woman who is say Iranian but is interested in all the same things as me, and with whom I feel comfortable than to marry a White woman because she shares my complexion and nothing else. Any other means of selecting a partner would be completely superficial.

Yes, Irish were called names, so what?

This is one of the most ignorant understatements I have ever read.

Does that stop the genetic reality of the European/white race and the sub races within Europeans?

Sub race? What is the point of combining "sub races" we are all "sub races" of Subsaharan Africans, so why stop at unifying "european/white races"??

White can be a social construct, but if we go back the indigenous populations of Europe that came into existence through reproductive isolation then it is definitely racial rather then social.

The greatest societies of the world have been those which interact with others. Even the Scandinavians as the Vikings would travel to far off lands and return home with foreign artifacts, and people. In fact, on many Viking expeditions foreigners were known to join the horde at various coastal trading spots.

During the 1800’s people understood the concept of the white race very very well in political and cultural life. Even before the 1800’s, take Thomas Jefferson for example

Yeah the guy who had a half-black baby??? Kind of funny a guy who cared about the white race would mix his precious DNA with other races.

I have to ask you this…do you speak English? I only ask because you are putting words into my mouth and you aren’t understanding what I’m trying to say, I never said anything about the Middle East being a nation much less a ‘homogenous nation’.

The way in which you express yourself is at times difficult to grasp. It is easy to become confused because it seems like you talk in circles, or maybe your philosophy seems so strange/hypocritical that I must really strain to make sense of it all.

If you want to talk about rape and murder in the Western world you might want to talk about flood of non white immigrants that are murdering and raping Europeans at will.

Europeans invite everyone into their nations and then treat the people like crap when they get there. Nobody told the Swedes and Brits they had to invite in every Tom, Dick and Harry who wanted to enter their country. Europeans are too socially liberal and for years they practiced basically an open-door policy to foreigners. Not to mention they just pay people welfare to sit on their ass all day. I feel sorry for any woman who gets raped, and I think it is disgusting and wrong. But if Europeans weren't such pussies it would never happen. They have grown soft. Period. They denounced everything that made them who they are, like modesty, hard-work and religion. And in denouncing it all for an easy life they made themselves soft.

Take a look at France and the riots for example where an elderly women was burnt to death by non whites and take a look at the Danish controversy about cartoon depicting their holy prophet. I understand their anger 100% but we wouldn’t have these problems in a racially stable nation.

Once more the French shouldn't let in minorities that they are going to treat like crap. This kind of stuff rarely happens in America. The cartoon thing was religiously based. I loathe the Islamic religion and think Europeans are stupid for letting it get as wild as it has gotten but really it is their problem not mine.

So you approve eugenics slightly? Instead of improving hereditary diseases through selective breeding by sterilization, you should just merge gene pools? Morons try to say that about Jews, that the only way to get rid of Jewish genetic diseases is ‘intermarriage’ as if there is no alternative to hereditary diseases. Jewish hereditary diseases from inbreeding such as Tay Sachs may be a problem, but genocide of their genotype isn’t the answer.

You are missing my point because it seems that you think that humans should have absolute dominion over one another as to whom they will or will not procreate with. Whereas I believe that people should be free to mate with whomever they damn well please because it is nobody elses business. I believe in liberty and part of that is being able to make a choice of your partner. You seem to think I advocate "mixing all races" when in reality I don't advocate any form of predetermined marriage/mating. I also don't believe that it is possible to form one race as I suggested, it is more like the world will become billions of one-person races.

As far as your ‘racist theory’ evolution, well, it is called speciation. Need species form and within these species diversity is the result as long as there is isolation to acquire new traits…remember mutations cause variation. What makes you say “women” are attracted to genetic diversity? That all depends on the women, some are attracted to people who are genetically similar to themselves whereas women aren’t, that goes for men a well.

Woman are naturally attracted to men with different genes than their father/husband.

The results showed that the women preferred the scents of men whose MHC genes were different from their own. The scent of men with similar MHC genes often remind the women of a relative’s odor, such as a brother or father while the smells of MHC dissimilar men would often remind them of a past or current boyfriend.

But it appears you and I have different views on genetic diversity. My view on genetic diversity is separation which over time creates new traits whereas if the races stay in the same spot there will not be any barrier of gene flow and no distinctive human races or genetic diversity. What you are referring to is mix all the races together that exist because of their separation and thus destroy racial diversity…that is the end result.

And then what?

 

[Justin S.]

I'm not getting into this mess, but I will comment on one misconception:

The evidence we have strongly suggests that modern humans migrated out of Africa, which is a continent, not some homogenous abstraction, and certainly not with respect to genetic variation! Humanity did not descend, and evolve, from modern inhabitants of the region ("Negroes"). Rather, we share common ancestry, which evidence shows being medium toned, and somewhat Asiatic looking (similar to the Ju/wasi). Factor in possible inter-breeding with Neanderthals, and the picture gets much more complicated.

Also, that bit about "racial" isolation until the colonial period is complete BS.

 

[Έρεβος]

I can't side with either fully on this ...

Patrick R. has gone a bit tad lot far in regards to the extent and importance of race. If races were all mixed entirely to form one breed it would not be the end of the world. It would be a grave loss, but still not the end of the world.

Race in itself is a piece of the picture, but not the whole picture as Patrick is seeming to imply. If all of a sudden we all were the same race a lot would be lost, and the human species would lose a good deal of strength - but there are so many other pieces of the whole picture that proclaiming this one of ultimate importance is ignorance.

As well, "racial isolation" is a complete pile of bullshit. There has never been such a thing, and never will be. Homogeneity has never been absolute, as race is not some sort of square, straight edged separation of humans by nature. There are no absolutes in nature, and there are certainly no absolute groups of "race" within humanity. Race loses all rational meaning when applied specifically and absolutely.

Not that I deny the importance of "race," but not in such a way that would make me proclaim isolation is in any way positive. Race is again not something absolute defined, but just in general gradations. This is like separating a rainbow into absolute sections and denying the relation from one to the next, and the importance of that relation.

Globalism is idiotic, but isolationism is just as much so. Globalism destroys variation absolutely, turning the rainbow into a constant shade of brown; while isolationism chops up the rainbow and turns each section into a single color. Maybe isolationism is "slightly" better, but in such a small way that it doesn't really matter (as in a healthy society there are nigh infinite variations - all the so many shades of the rainbow). Though both globalism and isolationism encompass a lot more than race, and hence are of much greater importance (to be opposed) than just the simple protection of race at all costs. The comparison simply shows that isolationism is just as stupid in regards to race as globalism is.

As for the other side ... um, .

 

[OldScratch]

I can't side with either fully on this ...

Patrick R. has gone a bit tad lot far in regards to the extent and importance of race. If races were all mixed entirely to form one breed it would not be the end of the world. It would be a grave loss, but still not the end of the world.

Race in itself is a piece of the picture, but not the whole picture as Patrick is seeming to imply. If all of a sudden we all were the same race a lot would be lost, and the human species would lose a good deal of strength - but there are so many other pieces of the whole picture that proclaiming this one of ultimate importance is ignorance.

As well, "racial isolation" is a complete pile of bullshit. There has never been such a thing, and never will be. Homogeneity has never been absolute, as race is not some sort of square, straight edged separation of humans by nature. There are no absolutes in nature, and there are certainly no absolute groups of "race" within humanity. Race loses all rational meaning when applied specifically and absolutely.

Not that I deny the importance of "race," but not in such a way that would make me proclaim isolation is in any way positive. Race is again not something absolute defined, but just in general gradations. This is like separating a rainbow into absolute sections and denying the relation from one to the next, and the importance of that relation.

Globalism is idiotic, but isolationism is just as much so. Globalism destroys variation absolutely, turning the rainbow into a constant shade of brown; while isolationism chops up the rainbow and turns each section into a single color. Maybe isolationism is "slightly" better, but in such a small way that it doesn't really matter (as in a healthy society there are nigh infinite variations - all the so many shades of the rainbow). Though both globalism and isolationism encompass a lot more than race, and hence are of much greater importance (to be opposed) than just the simple protection of race at all costs. The comparison simply shows that isolationism is just as stupid in regards to race as globalism is.

As for the other side ... um, .

I believe I have a rare disagreement with Herr Moogle!

Race in and of itself may indeed not be "everything" in terms of mankind's survival, but it may be nearly everything in maintaining certain standards of living, technological advancement, social development on a long-term basis. Of course, how you view that may well depend upon just what one views as important in the first place - or what "strengths" Moogle mentions are to (theoretically) be potentially lost. And this is not to suggest that only one race is capable of creating "great" things - but I know of only one race who has originally created, developed and perfected most of the things I find ultimately important. Thus, I place a great deal of importance on it for purely selfish(tribally as well as individually) reasons. I cannot honestly imagine the culture, art, technology, or social order I find appealing surviving very long in a world devoid of racial distinction. Of course, peoples from various races may also share common elements which are deemed strenghts - but none to me share all.
Would the end of race be the end of the world? Of course not. But it would ultimately be the end of the "world" I hold dear.

 

[Έρεβος]

I believe I have a rare disagreement with Herr Moogle!

Race in and of itself may indeed not be "everything" in terms of mankind's survival, but it may be nearly everything in maintaining certain standards of living, technological advancement, social development on a long-term basis. Of course, how you view that may well depend upon just what one views as important in the first place - or what "strengths" Moogle mentions are to (theoretically) be potentially lost. And this is not to suggest that only one race is capable of creating "great" things - but I know of only one race who has originally created, developed and perfected most of the things I find ultimately important. Thus, I place a great deal of importance on it for purely selfish(tribally as well as individually) reasons. I cannot honestly imagine the culture, art, technology, or social order I find appealing surviving very long in a world devoid of racial distinction. Of course, peoples from various races may also share common elements which are deemed strenghts - but none to me share all.
Would the end of race be the end of the world? Of course not. But it would ultimately be the end of the "world" I hold dear.

I don't think you disagree with me. In fact, that is exactly what I think. I was only saying that Patrick takes it a level to far, tackling race integration as the cause of all the worlds ails. It is a big part of it, but his interpretations were off, and his scope was blown out of proportion.

To lose race would be an incredibly grave loss to myself as well; but it is quite possible to have a entirely hollow society with no value or meaning that still has races very defined, and that would be basically just as bad as a meaningless society without defined races (as without any meaning it doesn't matter if things that can be given meaning are still there or not). To look at race as 100% important is blinding oneself to the full picture - there are many more parts of this that must be addressed, and many more things that need protecting along with race.

 

[Tabubua]

Society is crappy.

Society has always been crappy, even back in the 'good old days' you all keep referring too when we were *apparently* all racially distinct etc etc.

We have trampled out much of what we *perceived* back then was making our society crappy. But society still persists on being less than perfect. So we find new things to blame the crappiness on - racial mixing, loss of traditional values etc.

But even if you got rid of all cultural and racial differences - either by all inter-breeding so much there is no real racial differences left, or by serial genocide - we would still find things to disagree about and fight over and make society crappy, because thats human nature.

We are all equally as stupid as each other. We will always fight over everything, because at the end of the day, we're all just weird hairless apes with more intellect than is good for us, and we can't resist the urge to throw shit at each other.

 

[vikingligrveldi]

Three cheers for the white race everyone! Congratulations on being born white give yourselves a pat on the back.

 

[speed]

Three cheers for the white race everyone! Congratulations on being born white give yourselves a pat on the back.

, I'm certainly not mad about it. Although its a real bitch in the summer, to have pale skin and coppery hair. Why, I turn a pinkish red more akin to another race or even species.

 

[Έρεβος]

Society is crappy.

Agreed.

Society has always been crappy, even back in the 'good old days' you all keep referring too when we were *apparently* all racially distinct etc etc.

Society has become progressively more crappy. It was not always crappy; it always had flaws, but throughout ancient history the majority of societies were healthy, positive societies.

In the "good old days" we were racially distinct, yes. Distinct meaning separated naturally through gradations of racial differences. This came from the positive evolution of humanity - our strengthening by specialization. This evolution was made possible by the nature of strong societies, healthy societies.

Society has not always been crappy. Only in modern times has it truly become pervasively pathetic. Even 300 years ago it was far superior to modern times.

We have trampled out much of what we *perceived* back then was making our society crappy. But society still persists on being less than perfect. So we find new things to blame the crappiness on - racial mixing, loss of traditional values etc.

You seem to be implying that there were always [ignorant] people like us whining and moaning throughout history about the oh-so-horrible society. Nice excuse; it seems to be succeeding in blinding you quite well.

Modern society has pervasive and incredibly destructive problems that must be taken out. Modern society is a cesspool of degeneracy & cultural corruption. Modern society is leading this planet to becoming a lifeless rock covered in oily slime.

We don't sit here and scream "society sucks, man!", rather we have rationally and intelligently observed the nature of society and come to the conclusion that our modern society is a cancer upon this planet. Never before has such come anywhere close to this.

And who is it that trampled out what they perceived to be crap in the past societies? Geniuses, or masses of fools? I'm most certain it was the second, and is the second.

Trying listening instead of sitting behind an ignorant excuse that ignores the problems in lieu of there always having been perceived problems.

But even if you got rid of all cultural and racial differences - either by all inter-breeding so much there is no real racial differences left, or by serial genocide - we would still find things to disagree about and fight over and make society crappy, because thats human nature.

Disagreeing and fighting is what makes society crap? I'm pretty sure conflict is a necessity to any healthy society, real conflict anyway - conflict of ideas, rather than fighting for shallow purposes such as greed and power. Getting rid of all cultural and racial differences would do nothing positive, and would likely create a "Utopia" - a sort of averaged society, where everyone is fundamentally the same, and thinking differently is the highest crime. Fighting would stop, but what would replace it would be far worse - peace. Placid peace, dull and hollow existences. Humanity would live according to nature, and nothing else. And doing so in the situation that such a uni-cultural/racial society would create would make for a last man - a single human with billions of bodies; a planet populated entirely with one person. A lifeless and hollow body working for nothing more than base drives to function - a robot. Lifeless, artless, soulless, emotionless, loveless - fundamentally inhuman.

With your statement you made conflict seem something negative, while in reality it is the only thing that protects us and differentiates us from the above.

We are all equally as stupid as each other. We will always fight over everything, because at the end of the day, we're all just weird hairless apes with more intellect than is good for us, and we can't resist the urge to throw shit at each other.

I beg to differ - many of us are quite a bit more stupid. Nice bit of fatalistic idiocy. We are humans, not apes. There is nothing wrong with humanity, but with society - with ideas that destroy ideas.

 

[vikingligrveldi]

, I'm certainly not mad about it. Although its a real bitch in the summer, to have pale skin and coppery hair. Why, I turn a pinkish red more akin to another race or even species.

Yeah I barely leave the house in the summer due to the fact that I will burn,I am not fond of heat and the sun hurts my eyes.

 

[Tabubua]

Blagh blagh blagh.

Ha!

Were you around three hundred years ago to judge that?

Ever thought that our ideas of history are always painted by the rich and satisfied? The winners of every confict? The educated who were lifted above the chaos of everyday life?

Why is history full of civil wars and REVOLUTION, occurring time and time again, if everybody has always been so happy?

And of course some conflict is healthy for society - with out it we cannot reform our ideas and progress. But we have a habit of causing conflict where no conflict needs to happen, instead of focusing on areas in which conflict would be helpful.

Anyway,

I never said a single-race community would work - I said we would just find other things to fight about. We will always find something to fight about – even if the only thing in the world left to fight about was ‘what’s your favourite colour?’

We don't sit here and scream "society sucks, man!", rather we have rationally and intelligently observed the nature of society and come to the conclusion that our modern society is a cancer upon this planet. Never before has such come anywhere close to this.

This has happened many times - every great philosopher and social revolutionary through out the ages has done this. Look at Plato’s the Republic – he saw that the current social order of Greece was faulty, and laid out a (rather flawed) plan for a society he believed would work better.

Modern society is a cesspool of degeneracy & cultural corruption. Modern society is leading this planet to becoming a lifeless rock covered in oily slime.

Yes, it is, and it got here through all the layering of human filth and degeneracy throughout the ages. Cultural corruption has always occurred as well – by occupation and invasion, slavery and the travel of scholars – for example; in ancient Greece we know there were many scholars that had immigrated from Egypt and Ethiopia.

And who is it that trampled out what they perceived to be crap in the past societies? Geniuses, or masses of fools? I'm most certain it was the second, and is the second.

I’m pretty certain it’s a mixture of both. You seem to think everything in the world is very black and white – either people were stupid or they were amazingly brilliantly intelligent. I think you have to be pretty intelligent to set any kind of social change rolling, but like I said, we are only stamping out ‘perceived problems, rather than the real ones

We are humans, not apes.

Last time I checked, humans were apes. Descended from Apes, look like apes, certainly can act like apes too.

There is nothing wrong with humanity, but with society - with ideas that destroy ideas.

Society was built by humanity! If humanity were so perfect, then we would have built a perfect society. Where do these destructive ideas come from? Outer space? Toads? I have this horrid suspicion, I’m afraid, that they come from humanity.

Sorry.

 

[Patrick R.]

All of the presidents have been shamelessly aggrandized. I know you think you are telling me something new, but I already knew about this and agree with you. Americans have a history of mythologizing important figures in American history. It all starts with fairy tales about Washington not being able to tell a lie and continues through to modern figures. Even presidents as recent as Kennedy and Reagen have been fraudulently glorified. Look at Woodrow Wilson for example, he was a total scum bag for joining the first world war. But anyways what is the point of this whole Lincoln reference, I thought your point was that the founding fathers were white supremacists. Lincoln wasn't a founding father, and I stated in the long run he granted slaves their freedom and thus was termed "the great emancipator". Whether he was a racist or not isn't really my concern. Discrimination and prejudice are two very different things.

My point to the Lincoln reference was that Americans were racially aware the very beginning, politically and socially. It was only after the second world war when that was dramatically changed and the deconstruction of the West begun. You say and many others say ‘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’ and I say that not whites were excluded from America, those who responsible for the Declaration of Independence and the constitution which created the Federal government never wanted a multiracial society. As Article I section II of the United States constitution, that deals with the legislative power of the United States, the Senate and the House of Representatives (Congress), points out that Indians were excluded.

“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons”

www.usconsitution.net

Well from what I read he wanted to send them to some island he had discovered, but the southern slave owners considered it property theft. And actually I did talk about that if you read back. I knew about Lincoln's desire to send away the blacks because he didn't believe that they could coexist peacefully with whites. Maybe it would have been better for everyone in the long run if he would have but it wasn't going to happen without a fight.

That is my point exactly, Abraham Lincoln knew very well whites and blacks can’t live together peacefully, the present day points that out obvious fact. America was never meant to be a multiracial nation in the first place. But in any case, it would be better for everyone to separate.

You could call every war an exploitation of the masses. I am honestly not sure what it is you are trying to say here.

At least some wars have a benefit for society, these endless wars in the Middle East aren’t. None of the founders of America would want war in the Middle East for no purpose for the American public…that is what I am referring to here.

As I stated before, classical Greeks didn't see themselves as a unified nation, but rather a collection of city-states. However, after Alexander conquered all of Greece he made exogamy a norm as I stated and Greeks mixed with Persians and Egyptians. After the fall of Athenian democracy and the practice of closed citizenship and nobility ended, Greek society became more all-inclusive. This was on par with Alexander's desire to intermarry Greeks. The "opening" of Greek society can be seen through an Isocrates quote;

"The people we call Greeks are those who have the same culture as us, not the same blood."



Macedonians didn't speak Greek and didn't participate in the city-state form of governance. They were essentially foreign invaders from a backwoods mountainous kingdom.



Although I will agree Macedonian nobles were considerably infatuated with greek culture and this was a main motive behind Alexander's intermarriage policies, to break down social barriers which prevented his people from being "true Greeks"

The Germans weren’t a unified nation either, not until 1871 under Prussia. It was only Otto Von Bismarck that created the Second Reich. Before Alexander the Great came along, the classical Greeks already laid the foundations for Western civilization. The brilliant thinkers such as Aeschylus, Aristophanes, Euripides, and Sophocles, Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Herodotus, Thucydides Xenophon, Simonides, Pheidias, Pericles etc, already created their works which in tern were discovered by Europeans over 800 years latter after centuries of deliberate suppression by the church which sparked of the Renaissance and the Western world.

But yes, Alexander the Great made an attempt to consolidate the West and the East, he failed in this regard. Long before Alexander the Great came along, Greeks had non Greeks in their nation, but they were of the same race as the rest of the Greeks…European in marked contrast to the quote above. Which again, supports my stance on race rather then culture. The Macedonians were Greek, as many Greeks will agree with me.

“The surviving words of Macedonian do not show conclusively whether the Macedones spoke Greek or not in early times. But statements by Hesiod and Hellanicus make it virtually certain that they did speak Greek of the Aeolic dialect. The origin of the Greek-speaking peoples was expressed in the form of a genealogy: Deucalion had a son Hellen, whose three sons founded three branches, called 'Hellenes., and a daughter Thyia. who had by Zeus 'two sons. Magnes and Macedon ...dwelling around Pieria and Olympus'. It was these two who founded the Magnesian and the Macedonian branches as cousins of the 'Hellenes'." - The Penguin Encyclopedia of Ancient Civilizations, Edited by A Cotterell, Penguin Books, London, 1980, page 228.

I guess we just fundamentally disagree here because I do not believe that race could exist in a meaningful way without an acknowledgment of it meaning something. Ethnocentrism is meaningless unless a person thinks that their own culture (represented through the term "race") is worth something (because ethnocentrism is the act of comparing one's culture to that of another). The idea of "race" alone could never mean anything worthwhile, because it would just be a superficial love of one's one physical characteristics. Could you at least agree with that? If you believe that the only reason to preserve race is to preserve the physical characteristics because you believe that humans will somehow evolve into higher beings if they are kept separated from one another. But logically it is a hopeless endeavour to try to establish norms which will preserve an idea of race because it is a taboo and taboos simply wait to be broken. Most of the "eugenic" ideas you seem to believe that Americans have always held were closely associated with their interpretation of Christianity. It was a social phenomenon not a racial one.

In my opinion, my devotion to all human races has to deal with physical characteristics, so yes I do agree with you here 100% in that respect. I would like to add that race is biological, not cultural, in this respect race means something to me. In my own opinion, culture is meaningless, like Germans, French, Americas of European decent may have different culture, but for me our race is what matters.

The preservation of human races isn’t a hopeless endeavor, if those who hate race can work overtime to diversify all forms of daily life such as the work place, transportation, schools etc to end race, then those who love racial diversity can work overtime to preserve it. But the eugenicist of early America such as Madison Grant, etc wanted to improve heredity, not for any religious purposes. But some American Christians may have believed in eugenics and Christ, but at first the Christians didn’t believed in ‘universalism’. It was clearly a racial phenomenon, remember the 1924 immigration act we talked about? Remember how it prevented even non whites from citizenship?

yes they did and they were foolish to do so. And I don't see why now, when America is so heavily composed of Irish, Italians and Polish you think that people should respect the fact that a bunch of arrogant and ignorant pricks thought that they were better than everyone else.

Because Europeans fought for centuries over things, religious, language and other things. Now we are the same race, but there is still tension. But everyone knows the Irish are white, in the literally, socially, and racially. As far as pigmentation goes, the Irish are the ‘whitest’ of all Europeans. The Polish and Italian are indigenous to Europe as well, and always have been.

You try to switch the terms "multi-cultural" and "white supremacist as though they are interchangeable. I will try to further elaborate what I said, people who have a knowledge of American history and don't believe that racism is an acceptable practice in the twenty-first century will most likely see such acts as slavery, imperialism and genocide as WRONG, and furthermore they will be moved to believe that we should learn from the past and accept people not based on their social caste or birth right but on their individual characteristics. Whether America was created for all people I guess is subject to opinion. The founding fathers stated that it would be a country where people were allowed "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" Perhaps some (or most) of these people didn't consider blacks, chinese, natives, etc human beings, but today it is known that they are in fact human beings and society therefor reinterpreted the constitution to include women and minorities. Whether or not the founding fathers were ignorant or hypocritical is rather meaningless wouldn't you say?

My point is that American white supremacist weren’t to quick to make a multiracial nation as some people like to claim. That is just like people who hate gays brining in a bunch of homos into their town…very strange indeed. Furthermore, you are correct, civilized people will see slavery as a wrong thing. Remember who was the early white Americans that destroyed that practice along with the rest of the European nations around the world, whereas slavery still exist to this very day! Take Africa for example, slavery is still there and the liberal powers of the West do nothing, whereas the whites in early America who were racially aware abolished slavery and even provided free blacks with a homeland!! Take a look at the sex slavery all around the world…once again the dominant powers do nothing.

Founding fathers of America were ‘ignorant’ you say? When do ignorant people build highly successful nations? I didn’t know inventors and brilliant thinkers like Thomas Jefferson were ignorant. Why are they ignorant, because they didn’t support your multicultural agenda?

I wasn't even Nazis for my agenda, in fact, you were the one who brought them up to try and elaborate that there were American and British "scientists" who believed in racial cleansing. I simply said they are frauds. Yes, there were Americans who influenced nazis and Nazi sympathizers, there were many more Americans and Brits who fought and gave their lives to defeat the Axis.

I know you weren’t using them for your agenda. But no, the American racialist research predates the Third Reich, but they influenced Nazis scientist. The thing is, the Nazis had a lot of support during the war, but afterwards they didn’t have much which is understandable…nobody wants to side with the loser.

Again this barely makes sense. If one "muslim" has a problem with another "muslim" it is because they have a different ideological belief. The same with Christians. Otherwise, why would Christians from wealthy countries become missionaries and attempt to convert people across the world of their ideological beliefs. Anyone can be a Muslim and two people of the same ideological belief system of separate races will fair better together than two people of the same race with diametric ideological beliefs.

With individual Muslims, maybe, but as far a worldwide phenomenon…that is a totally different story. Islam and Christianity is universal, so yes they look for conversions but that didn’t stop the Arabic Muslims from taking millions of blacks back to the Middle East as slaves, regardless of their conversion to Islam. That still doesn’t stop the Arabic Muslims from disliking black Muslims to this very day.

Well fine then take the little analogy as two potential mates who though they are of a different cultural background choose to pursue a relationship. I would rather marry a woman who is say Iranian but is interested in all the same things as me, and with whom I feel comfortable than to marry a White woman because she shares my complexion and nothing else. Any other means of selecting a partner would be completely superficial.

Remember now, there are many Iranians of part of European decent, many have lived their sent Neolithic times and some entered that land during the spread of the Indo European languages. ‘Iran’ is derived from the word ‘Aryan’ and that goes for India, Iraq, and Afghanistan as well. But I understand what you are trying to say, you breed across racial lines, many humans do because we are the same species.

This is one of the most ignorant understatements I have ever read.

What kind of planet are you living on? Do you expect everything to be perfect? While there are wars and rapes going on right as we type this, you are going to worry about name calling?

Sub race? What is the point of combining "sub races" we are all "sub races" of Subsaharan Africans, so why stop at unifying "european/white races"??

It is called mutations and the recombination of alleles, that has created millions of organisms on the planet including humans, we branched of into different races and sub races. Regardless of humans understand that or not, it is the reality…that is about as simple as I can make it.

The greatest societies of the world have been those which interact with others. Even the Scandinavians as the Vikings would travel to far off lands and return home with foreign artifacts, and people. In fact, on many Viking expeditions foreigners were known to join the horde at various coastal trading spots.

That doesn’t include the clash of Arabic explorers and indigenous black Africans does it? But in any case, this has absolutely nothing to do with the term of white being a racial term and a social term.

Yeah the guy who had a half-black baby??? Kind of funny a guy who cared about the white race would mix his precious DNA with other races.

It is funny you should mention DNA because DNA testing disproved that theory. He never fathered black children, but nice try at mocking Thomas Jefferson…thanks for your Marxism I mean patriotism.

The way in which you express yourself is at times difficult to grasp. It is easy to become confused because it seems like you talk in circles, or maybe your philosophy seems so strange/hypocritical that I must really strain to make sense of it all.

I’m very straightforward with my messages, I have a preservationist agenda, whereas you have an abolitionist agenda…so maybe my message is strange to you. But in any case, you support anything that embraces your agenda and you attacking anything that doesn’t, kind of like the creators of the Untied States, but then you say I’m ‘strange/hypocritical’ when it appears you have integrated both of them.

Europeans invite everyone into their nations and then treat the people like crap when they get there. Nobody told the Swedes and Brits they had to invite in every Tom, Dick and Harry who wanted to enter their country. Europeans are too socially liberal and for years they practiced basically an open-door policy to foreigners. Not to mention they just pay people welfare to sit on their ass all day. I feel sorry for any woman who gets raped, and I think it is disgusting and wrong. But if Europeans weren't such pussies it would never happen. They have grown soft. Period. They denounced everything that made them who they are, like modesty, hard-work and religion. And in denouncing it all for an easy life they made themselves soft.

By giving them Federal hand outs and a free ride is ‘treating them like crap’. Hell, I don’t see whites going to non white nations and demanding their nations to support us financially. This is what I find strange, first Europeans are supposedly so genocidal to non whites, but yet, millions enter our lands at some points facing death trying to come in…hell I guess we can’t be to bad. Yes someone did tell Europeans to except non whites…people with Marxist agendas similar to yours did. These people who want to destroy the West have complete control over Western media and governments…how ironic. So in other words, I can’t say I blame these non Europeans for coming in…I blame those in power of the West. By helping others, we don’t have to import millions of them, we can help them in their own lands.

Once more the French shouldn't let in minorities that they are going to treat like crap. This kind of stuff rarely happens in America. The cartoon thing was religiously based. I loathe the Islamic religion and think Europeans are stupid for letting it get as wild as it has gotten but really it is their problem not mine.

Hell the French treat their minorities pretty good. I would like to see what any other non Western nation would do to French people if they were to go to their nation and burn the place down…they would be deported and executed.

There have been race riots in the United States, Watts, numerous riots during the civil rights area, the Rodney King beatings etc. This happens any time you have multiracialism.

You are missing my point because it seems that you think that humans should have absolute dominion over one another as to whom they will or will not procreate with. Whereas I believe that people should be free to mate with whomever they damn well please because it is nobody elses business. I believe in liberty and part of that is being able to make a choice of your partner. You seem to think I advocate "mixing all races" when in reality I don't advocate any form of predetermined marriage/mating. I also don't believe that it is possible to form one race as I suggested, it is more like the world will become billions of one-person races.

I don’t think humans should be forced into doing something, I say let the races separate naturally, kind of how blacks wanted to leave America under Marcus Garvey and the Nations of Islam. I say, set up non violent separatist organizations as an alternative to integration.

Woman are naturally attracted to men with different genes than their father/husband.


The results showed that the women preferred the scents of men whose MHC genes were different from their own. The scent of men with similar MHC genes often remind the women of a relative’s odor, such as a brother or father while the smells of MHC dissimilar men would often remind them of a past or current boyfriend.

With different genes then their husband? In this source less quote above it says the ‘scent’ of men with dissimilar MHC genes reminded women of a past or current boyfriend, so it makes sense when you say different MHC genes then their father, but I don’t see anything about a ‘husband’. Are the MHC genes race specific in any way?

And then what?

Speciation.

 

[Patrick R.]

I'm not getting into this mess, but I will comment on one misconception:

The evidence we have strongly suggests that modern humans migrated out of Africa, which is a continent, not some homogenous abstraction, and certainly not with respect to genetic variation! Humanity did not descend, and evolve, from modern inhabitants of the region ("Negroes"). Rather, we share common ancestry, which evidence shows being medium toned, and somewhat Asiatic looking (similar to the Ju/wasi). Factor in possible inter-breeding with Neanderthals, and the picture gets much more complicated.

Also, that bit about "racial" isolation until the colonial period is complete BS.

The evidence that humans migrated out of Africa is backed up by archeology, anthropology, and genetics. According to genetic theory, our most male common ancestor is African Adam…other males had offspring but only African Adams offspring has survived to the present day. Now once humanity left Africa and became reproductively isolated in Africa, Europe, and Asia the divergence of different distinct human races and sub races developed which is obvious to anyone with an eye. Yes, all humans do share common ancestry, just as all human share common ancestry with Chimpanzees, the reason for this is because we both share a common ancestor. The change in nucleotide sequences provides strong evidence for evolution.

You are another one that is going to challenge reproductive isolation until the colonial period? Well tell me, take a look at Africans, Asians, Australian Aborigines, the Aztecs, Olmec, Native Americans in North America etc. You telling me they weren’t isolated? The world is a big place…what makes you think that there couldn’t be isolation bearing in mind that humans didn’t have ships, airplanes, cars, and other forms of mass transportation? There has been racial clashes of course before colonialism such as Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, the Moors, the Ottomans in the attacks on Europe along with Middle Eastern explorations to Africa centuries before Europeans. All of this of course isn’t even comparable to European colonialism or modern imperialism (by the same powers who condemn European imperialism centuries ago). Still despite all these multiracial efforts, many parts of the world such as China, Korea, and Japan discourage massive racial movements into their land.

 

[Patrick R.]

I can't side with either fully on this ...

Patrick R. has gone a bit tad lot far in regards to the extent and importance of race. If races were all mixed entirely to form one breed it would not be the end of the world. It would be a grave loss, but still not the end of the world.

Race in itself is a piece of the picture, but not the whole picture as Patrick is seeming to imply. If all of a sudden we all were the same race a lot would be lost, and the human species would lose a good deal of strength - but there are so many other pieces of the whole picture that proclaiming this one of ultimate importance is ignorance.

Well at least I’m not being accused of racism. If all races were to mix, then of course there would be only one human race, the world wouldn’t end, but the races we know today would be gone. I only wish to prevent that, nothing more.

Well at least I’m not being accused of racism. If all races were to mix, then of course there would be only one human race, the world wouldn’t end, but the races we know today would be gone. I only wish to prevent that, nothing more.

As well, "racial isolation" is a complete pile of bullshit. There has never been such a thing, and never will be. Homogeneity has never been absolute, as race is not some sort of square, straight edged separation of humans by nature. There are no absolutes in nature, and there are certainly no absolute groups of "race" within humanity. Race loses all rational meaning when applied specifically and absolutely.

Bull shit? You are trying to tell me that Africans, Europeans, Asians, Australian Aborigines, Native Americans, etc weren’t reproductively isolated for thousands of years? How on earth can you even suggest such a thing…what about the reproductively isolated areas of the world to this very day? China, Korea, and Japan for example? That all depends on what you consider ‘absolute’, all humans have a common ancestor with Chimpanzees and other non human species…that is why we are similar genetically. But over time, we evolve and acquire new traits, that is just to obvious.

Not that I deny the importance of "race," but not in such a way that would make me proclaim isolation is in any way positive. Race is again not something absolute defined, but just in general gradations. This is like separating a rainbow into absolute sections and denying the relation from one to the next, and the importance of that relation.

Race is something defined, race refers to human populations that are easily distinguished from one another by phenotype determined by genes. The races of humanity are different in terms of our phenotype. Human races are also different genetically, numerous genetic studies document the genetic difference of humanity along with our population movements despite the fact that genetic studies has emerged in such a leftist environment deliberately ignoring the genetic differences of man and suppressing them as well.

Globalism is idiotic, but isolationism is just as much so. Globalism destroys variation absolutely, turning the rainbow into a constant shade of brown; while isolationism chops up the rainbow and turns each section into a single color. Maybe isolationism is "slightly" better, but in such a small way that it doesn't really matter (as in a healthy society there are nigh infinite variations - all the so many shades of the rainbow). Though both globalism and isolationism encompass a lot more than race, and hence are of much greater importance (to be opposed) than just the simple protection of race at all costs. The comparison simply shows that isolationism is just as stupid in regards to race as globalism is.

As for the other side ... um, .

Isolation created the rainbow if the rainbow is understood to mean that different races of humanity. Imperialism will only destroy the diversity of man and turn this metaphorical rainbow of colors that resemble human races.

 

[Patrick R.]

Last time I checked, humans were apes. Descended from Apes, look like apes, certainly can act like apes too.

Humans are Homo sapiens, 'Homo' is our genus and 'sapiens' is our species. Apes are gibbons, gorillas, orangutans, and chimpanzees.