I agree, interbreeding for the sake of it is total nonsense. Some will, most will not and of those that do they will recieve some resistance from within their family and society, its only natural. Kind of funny that breeders of animals strive for good solid blood lines to maintain consistancy of a breed, yet people with a politically correct agenda will lay a guilt trip on those that would like their own kind to remain their own kind.
Races
- Thread starter cannibal corpse
- Start date
Caladan
Member
- Sep 9, 2008
- 259
- 0
- 16
I agree too - "for the sake of it". At the same time though, neither do I see anything wrong with it. Be with whoever you like or choose, that's the way I see it.
Phantom - destruction of cultures? Over the years, "advancement" has been acheived mainly through that medium, either a culture being replaced through the vehicle of warfare and subjugation, or through some other form of social reform. I say again, culture is fickle, it changes or it dies. This is the power of humanity, that we have been able to change our cultures and to adapt at need.
I actually believe our cultural differences are a signature, a mark of the path we have trod towards arriving in the present day. These experiences have marked us in many ways. Some of these cultures are excellent for today's world. Some need some form of "refining". Either way, life goes on.
By the way Razor- Breeders of animals - slightly different from free thinking humans. If said animals were allowed to rut at will, would they still preserve those lines? Marry/mate with whoever you like, that's my message. Nobody is forced, and nobody has a right to disapprove.
Phantom - destruction of cultures? Over the years, "advancement" has been acheived mainly through that medium, either a culture being replaced through the vehicle of warfare and subjugation, or through some other form of social reform. I say again, culture is fickle, it changes or it dies. This is the power of humanity, that we have been able to change our cultures and to adapt at need.
I actually believe our cultural differences are a signature, a mark of the path we have trod towards arriving in the present day. These experiences have marked us in many ways. Some of these cultures are excellent for today's world. Some need some form of "refining". Either way, life goes on.
By the way Razor- Breeders of animals - slightly different from free thinking humans. If said animals were allowed to rut at will, would they still preserve those lines? Marry/mate with whoever you like, that's my message. Nobody is forced, and nobody has a right to disapprove.
PhantoMPhones
owning your ass since '03
- Jul 19, 2008
- 83
- 0
- 6
No thats precisely the point, the bloodlines would not be preserved, and what would you eventually have? 1 breed of dog, all look the same, all have the same characteristics. Boring, bland, useless... Same goes for humans... and yes, I do have a right to disapprove. People who are part of this mixing are not expected to understand because they are part of the problem.
Pray tell, what are the advancements that you hope will come out of interracial breeding? fucking whoever you want because you want to (for the sake of it... whether you love that person or not. its still just because.) I don't expect an understanding response as you are in full support of this (so it sounds). BTW you used my 'destruction of cultures' improperly. Cultures are destroyed all the time, but I'd like to see an example where the direct unrestrained freedom of interracial breeding has caused advancements for the species. Its just another 'me me me, my freedom, my choice, my wants, my lust' I think its animalistic. Selfish, disgusting. A sign of the growing ignorance and stupidity that is infecting humanity, masquerading as 'progress'.
Caladan
Member
- Sep 9, 2008
- 259
- 0
- 16
Problem? Let me tell you what the problem is. Where do you draw the line? British culture is different from french culture, which in turn is different from German culture and Swedish culture. Are we going to start distinguishing these cultures, and separating these people from each other? That will definitely build a sweet diversity of flavour in europe for starters.
Let me tell you a parable I once heard:
A girl was frying a fish when her mom walked into the kitchen. "Girl," her mother began "How many times have I told you to cut the fish in two before you begin frying it?"
"I know you say that mom, but why do I have to cut the fish in two before frying it?" The girl argued.
"Don't argue with me Girl" her mother overruled "just do as I say".
the girl however wanted a reason for this action and the argument continued for some time. Fortunately the girl's granny, who was the mother's own mom was in the house and stepped into the argument
"What's going on here" she asked, "what's this argument about?"
"Mom keeps telling me to cut the fish into two before frying it, and I want to know why I must" the girl replied
All attention shifted to the mother.
"Actually granny" began the mother "you were the one who taught me this. You always insisted that we cut the fish in two before frying it when we were young". Now the attention shifted to old Granny who burst out laughing quite hard. Finally, between breaths, she managed to squeeze out:
"Yes, yes I did insist. But you see back then, we had a small frying pan, and the only way to fit the fish into the pan was by cutting it in two"
Again - culture is temporary. Why, not too long ago, good old liberated europe was locked in a series of holy wars and Jihads (okay, so they called them crusades)...
You're quite right, you have a right to disapprove. I approve totally, and have had several, including the one I'm in currently.
Regarding your "unrestrained lusts" argument, then why breed at all? After all, all sorts of breeding is as a result of lust.
Selfish? Animalistic?? How does my choice of who I decide to spend the rest of my life with make me selfish?
And by the way - I'm not lauding interracial breeding as the answer to all our problems, in fact I'm not lauding it at all. I'm just saying it's okay. There's nothing wrong with it. You make your decision based on your choices and your lusts, and I make mine. Simple.
Since this is cultural, can you answer this - two people, one male one female grow up in the same neigborhood, have similar iqs, have similar tastes in music, are in the same upper 20% of their highschool and uni classes, and grew up in the same society. Is it okay for them to get married and have kids? How about a "city boy" who grew up in upper middle-class US, and a girl who can barely string her sentences together. Is it okay for them to get married and have kids?
Let me tell you a parable I once heard:
A girl was frying a fish when her mom walked into the kitchen. "Girl," her mother began "How many times have I told you to cut the fish in two before you begin frying it?"
"I know you say that mom, but why do I have to cut the fish in two before frying it?" The girl argued.
"Don't argue with me Girl" her mother overruled "just do as I say".
the girl however wanted a reason for this action and the argument continued for some time. Fortunately the girl's granny, who was the mother's own mom was in the house and stepped into the argument
"What's going on here" she asked, "what's this argument about?"
"Mom keeps telling me to cut the fish into two before frying it, and I want to know why I must" the girl replied
All attention shifted to the mother.
"Actually granny" began the mother "you were the one who taught me this. You always insisted that we cut the fish in two before frying it when we were young". Now the attention shifted to old Granny who burst out laughing quite hard. Finally, between breaths, she managed to squeeze out:
"Yes, yes I did insist. But you see back then, we had a small frying pan, and the only way to fit the fish into the pan was by cutting it in two"
Again - culture is temporary. Why, not too long ago, good old liberated europe was locked in a series of holy wars and Jihads (okay, so they called them crusades)...
You're quite right, you have a right to disapprove. I approve totally, and have had several, including the one I'm in currently.
Regarding your "unrestrained lusts" argument, then why breed at all? After all, all sorts of breeding is as a result of lust.
Selfish? Animalistic?? How does my choice of who I decide to spend the rest of my life with make me selfish?
And by the way - I'm not lauding interracial breeding as the answer to all our problems, in fact I'm not lauding it at all. I'm just saying it's okay. There's nothing wrong with it. You make your decision based on your choices and your lusts, and I make mine. Simple.
Since this is cultural, can you answer this - two people, one male one female grow up in the same neigborhood, have similar iqs, have similar tastes in music, are in the same upper 20% of their highschool and uni classes, and grew up in the same society. Is it okay for them to get married and have kids? How about a "city boy" who grew up in upper middle-class US, and a girl who can barely string her sentences together. Is it okay for them to get married and have kids?
PhantoMPhones
owning your ass since '03
- Jul 19, 2008
- 83
- 0
- 6
who said anything about separating people from eachother?
Precisely my point about not understanding. those that are a part of the problem, cannot see the problem. and yes, you are part of the problem. imho. too much freedom.
I am proud to be of norse/germanic ancestry, and personally I think any mixing in the bloodline is poison and pollution and has no place being in the bloodline. I intend to do what I can to keep it that way.
You can do what you want in regards to this, because unfortunately that is your right. But you shouldn't expect me to agree or even respect your choice or the parties involved.
Caladan
Member
- Sep 9, 2008
- 259
- 0
- 16
Hang on - You're irish if I recall correctly. You're a mix. When you factor in the original celtic people of ireland with this norse/germanic ancestry, then you're poisoned as well, friend. Nobody says you shouldn't be proud, I'm going to raise my son to be proud of his mainland africa/ caribbean heritage, as well as his Italian/ Scottish+others heritage. Proud as hell. Where is the poison? Where also is the purity? Where in the name of science?
You're totally right, I don't see the problem. You need to define this problem for me so that I can see it. If a St Bernard mates with a german shepherd, is this a problem? Especially since neither the German Shepherd nor the st Bernard is a pure dog, all are "developed".
PhantoMPhones
owning your ass since '03
- Jul 19, 2008
- 83
- 0
- 6
Thought it was worth a post, as a lot of people won't check links... Its a bit lengthy, but I think it illustrates a few good points.
The Myth of Diversity
Seldom have so many pretended to believe something so absurd
Jared Taylor
The idea that "diversity" is one of the country's great strengths is now so firmly rooted that virtually anyone can evoke it, praise it, and wallow in it without fear of contradiction. It has become one of the great unassailably American ideas, like democracy, patriotism, the family, or Martin Luther King.
The President of the United States glories in diversity. In May, 1995, in a message recognizing the Mexican holiday, Cinco de Mayo, William Clinton said, "The Fifth of May offers all of us a chance to celebrate the cultural diversity that helps to make our nation great." A few days later, when he designated May as Asian/Pacific American Heritage Month, he said, "With the strength of our diversity and a continued commitment to the ideal of freedom, all Americans will share in the blessings of the bright future that awaits us." In his 1996 speech accepting the nomination for President, he asked the audience to look around the hall and take heart in how varied the Democratic party was.
In his 1996 Columbus Day proclamation, he said, "The expedition that Columbus ... began more than 500 years ago, continues today as we experience and celebrate the vibrant influences of varied civilizations, not only from Europe, but also from around the world. America is stronger because of this diversity, and the democracy we cherish flourishes in the great mosaic we have created since 1492."
Appeals to diversity are not just for domestic consumption. In a 1996 speech before the Australian parliament, President Clinton noted that both the United States and Australia were becoming increasingly diverse, and added, "And, yes, we [Australia and America] can prove that free societies can embrace the economic and social changes, and the ethnic, racial and religious diversity this new era brings and come out stronger and freer than ever."
Hillary Clinton feels the same way. In February, 1995, she spoke to the students of her former high school in the Chicago suburb of Park Ridge. She noticed there were many more non-whites among the students than when she was a student, 30 years earlier. "We didn't have the wonderful diversity of people that you have here today," said Mrs. Clinton. "I'm sad we didn't have it, because it would have been a great value, as I'm sure you will discover."
Diversity has clearly become one of those orotund, high-sounding sentiments with which politicians lard their speeches. Of course, the idea that diversity -- at least of the kind that Mr. and Mrs. Clinton are promoting -- is a great advantage for America is one of the most obviously stupid propositions ever to see the light of day.
Nevertheless, there is one kind of diversity that is an advantage. A contractor, for example, cannot build houses if he hires only electricians. He needs carpenters, plumbers, etc. -- a diverse work force. However, functional diversity of this kind is not what the Chief Executive is on about. He is talking about largely non-functional differences like race, language, age, sex, culture and even whether someone is homosexual. One might call this status diversity.
What advantages would a contractor get from a mixed work force of that kind? None. What are the advantages the United States gets from a racially mixed population? None.
The idea that status diversity is a strength is not merely a myth, but a particularly transparent one. Explaining why diversity is bad for a country is a little like explaining why cholera is bad for it; the trick is to understand how anyone could possibly think it was good.
In fact, diversity became a strength after the fact. It became necessary to believe in it because skepticism would be "racist." Otherwise intelligent people began to mouth nonsense about diversity only because of the blinding power of the race taboo. After diversity began to include sex, mental disabilities, perversions, and everything else that was alien or outlandish, to disbelieve in the power of diversity was to show oneself to be "intolerant" as well as "racist."
Of course it is only white societies -- and white groups within multi-racial societies -- that are ever fooled by guff about diversity. Everyone else recognizes the Clinton-Harvard-New York Times brand of diversity for exactly what it is: weakness, dissension, and self-destruction.
Immigration
Despite President Clinton's view that "diversity" started with Columbus, for most of its history the United States was self-consciously homogeneous. In 1787, in the second of The Federalist Papers, John Jay gave thanks that "Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people, a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs ...."
This is not exactly a celebration of diversity, nor was Jay an eccentric. Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, and Thomas Jefferson were all explicit about wanting the United States to be a white country, and in 1790 the first federal naturalization law required that applicants for citizenship be "free white persons." Until 1965, it was very difficult for non-whites to immigrate to the United States and become citizens (an exception being made for the descendants of slaves). Immigration law was explicitly designed to keep the United States a white nation with a white majority. It was only in the 1950s and 60s that the country turned its back on nearly 200 years of traditional thinking about race and began its long march down the road to nowhere.
Once the country made the fatal assumption that race was a trivial human distinction, all else had to follow. Congress abolished not only Jim Crow and legal segregation but, with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, put an end to free association as well. The Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1965, which abolished national origins quotas and opened immigration to all nations, was a grand gesture of anti-racism, a kind of civil rights law for the entire world.
The Myth of Diversity
Seldom have so many pretended to believe something so absurd
Jared Taylor
The idea that "diversity" is one of the country's great strengths is now so firmly rooted that virtually anyone can evoke it, praise it, and wallow in it without fear of contradiction. It has become one of the great unassailably American ideas, like democracy, patriotism, the family, or Martin Luther King.
The President of the United States glories in diversity. In May, 1995, in a message recognizing the Mexican holiday, Cinco de Mayo, William Clinton said, "The Fifth of May offers all of us a chance to celebrate the cultural diversity that helps to make our nation great." A few days later, when he designated May as Asian/Pacific American Heritage Month, he said, "With the strength of our diversity and a continued commitment to the ideal of freedom, all Americans will share in the blessings of the bright future that awaits us." In his 1996 speech accepting the nomination for President, he asked the audience to look around the hall and take heart in how varied the Democratic party was.
In his 1996 Columbus Day proclamation, he said, "The expedition that Columbus ... began more than 500 years ago, continues today as we experience and celebrate the vibrant influences of varied civilizations, not only from Europe, but also from around the world. America is stronger because of this diversity, and the democracy we cherish flourishes in the great mosaic we have created since 1492."
Appeals to diversity are not just for domestic consumption. In a 1996 speech before the Australian parliament, President Clinton noted that both the United States and Australia were becoming increasingly diverse, and added, "And, yes, we [Australia and America] can prove that free societies can embrace the economic and social changes, and the ethnic, racial and religious diversity this new era brings and come out stronger and freer than ever."
Hillary Clinton feels the same way. In February, 1995, she spoke to the students of her former high school in the Chicago suburb of Park Ridge. She noticed there were many more non-whites among the students than when she was a student, 30 years earlier. "We didn't have the wonderful diversity of people that you have here today," said Mrs. Clinton. "I'm sad we didn't have it, because it would have been a great value, as I'm sure you will discover."
Diversity has clearly become one of those orotund, high-sounding sentiments with which politicians lard their speeches. Of course, the idea that diversity -- at least of the kind that Mr. and Mrs. Clinton are promoting -- is a great advantage for America is one of the most obviously stupid propositions ever to see the light of day.
Nevertheless, there is one kind of diversity that is an advantage. A contractor, for example, cannot build houses if he hires only electricians. He needs carpenters, plumbers, etc. -- a diverse work force. However, functional diversity of this kind is not what the Chief Executive is on about. He is talking about largely non-functional differences like race, language, age, sex, culture and even whether someone is homosexual. One might call this status diversity.
What advantages would a contractor get from a mixed work force of that kind? None. What are the advantages the United States gets from a racially mixed population? None.
The idea that status diversity is a strength is not merely a myth, but a particularly transparent one. Explaining why diversity is bad for a country is a little like explaining why cholera is bad for it; the trick is to understand how anyone could possibly think it was good.
In fact, diversity became a strength after the fact. It became necessary to believe in it because skepticism would be "racist." Otherwise intelligent people began to mouth nonsense about diversity only because of the blinding power of the race taboo. After diversity began to include sex, mental disabilities, perversions, and everything else that was alien or outlandish, to disbelieve in the power of diversity was to show oneself to be "intolerant" as well as "racist."
Of course it is only white societies -- and white groups within multi-racial societies -- that are ever fooled by guff about diversity. Everyone else recognizes the Clinton-Harvard-New York Times brand of diversity for exactly what it is: weakness, dissension, and self-destruction.
Immigration
Despite President Clinton's view that "diversity" started with Columbus, for most of its history the United States was self-consciously homogeneous. In 1787, in the second of The Federalist Papers, John Jay gave thanks that "Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people, a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs ...."
This is not exactly a celebration of diversity, nor was Jay an eccentric. Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, and Thomas Jefferson were all explicit about wanting the United States to be a white country, and in 1790 the first federal naturalization law required that applicants for citizenship be "free white persons." Until 1965, it was very difficult for non-whites to immigrate to the United States and become citizens (an exception being made for the descendants of slaves). Immigration law was explicitly designed to keep the United States a white nation with a white majority. It was only in the 1950s and 60s that the country turned its back on nearly 200 years of traditional thinking about race and began its long march down the road to nowhere.
Once the country made the fatal assumption that race was a trivial human distinction, all else had to follow. Congress abolished not only Jim Crow and legal segregation but, with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, put an end to free association as well. The Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1965, which abolished national origins quotas and opened immigration to all nations, was a grand gesture of anti-racism, a kind of civil rights law for the entire world.
PhantoMPhones
owning your ass since '03
- Jul 19, 2008
- 83
- 0
- 6
As has been pointed out in such books as Lawrence Auster's The Path to National Suicide and Peter Brimelow's Alien Nation, the backers of the immigration bill were at pains to explain that it would have little effect on the country. "Under the proposed bill," explained Senator Edward Kennedy, "the present level of immigration remains substantially the same. Secondly, the ethnic mix will not be upset. Contrary to charges in some quarters, it will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area." The senator suggested that, at most, 62,000 people a year might immigrate.
When President Lyndon Johnson signed the bill into law, he also downplayed its impact: "This bill that we sign today is not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions. It will not reshape the structure of our daily lives, or really add importantly to either our wealth or power."
The point here is not that the backers were wrong about the bill -- even though in 1996, for example, there were a record 1,300,000 naturalizations and perhaps 90 percent of the new citizens were non-white. The point is that "diversity" of the kind that immigration is now said to bless us with was never even hinted at as one of the law's benefits.
No one dreamed that in just 20 years ten percent of the entire population of El Salvador would have moved to the United States or that millions of mostly Hispanic and Asian immigrants would threaten to reduce whites to a racial minority in California by 1998. In 1965, before the discovery that "diversity is our strength," most people would have been shocked by the thought of such population changes.
Today, the intellectual climate is different, but in entirely predictable ways. "Racism" looms ever larger as the greatest moral offense a white person can commit, and anyone who opposes the arrival of yet more non-whites cannot but be "racist." There is therefore no longer any moral basis for opposing the prospect of minority status for whites, and what would have been an unthinkable prospect before 1965 must now be seen as an exciting opportunity. Thus did diversity become a "strength," despite the suspension of disbelief required to think it so.
This is a perfect example of an assertion, for purely ideological reasons, of something obviously untrue. Like the equality of the races, the equivalence of the sexes, the unimportance of heredity, the normalcy of homosexuality, and the insignificance of physical or mental handicap, the strength of diversity is one of a whole series of monstrous absurdities on which liberalism depends.
Having started with race, diversity now includes just about anything. Feminists, angry people in wheel chairs, AIDS carriers, militant homosexuals, and people who would rather speak Spanish than English have all taken much of their style and impetus from the civil rights movement. Demands for "inclusiveness" almost always include the language of grievance and compensation pioneered by blacks. Fat people fight discrimination, ugly people struggle against "lookism," and at least one local government has required that the stage set for a strip tease show be wheel-chair accessible. Anyone who opposes the glorification of the alien, the abnormal, and the inferior can be denounced with much fanfare and a huge sense of superiority. The metastasis of diversity is a fascinating story, but the disease began with race.
Occasionally a mainstream author sniffs around the edges of the population problem. At some risk to his professional respectability, columnist Scott McConnell of the New York Post has pointed out that if it will be such a good thing for whites to become a minority, there is no reason to wait until the next century. We could throw open the borders right now and become a minority in just a few years. "Why deny ourselves and our children the great benefits of Third Worldism that we are planning for our grandchildren?" he asks.
Advantages of Diversity
On those rare occasions when people actually attempt to defend diversity, the one claim they make with any semblance of conviction is that its advantages will become evident as the world becomes more "international." It will be a great thing to have citizens from all around the world as nations have more and more contact; specifically, our "international" population will boost American exports. Of course, since this view is based on the assumption that people communicate better with people like themselves, it is an argument against national diversity. If it takes a Korean to deal with the Koreans, how are Americans supposed to get along with the Koreans who live in America?
If anyone really thought a diverse population is good for trade, we would presumably be adjusting the mix of immigrants in accordance with trade potential. There would be no point in admitting Haitians, for example, since Haiti is a pesthole and never likely to be an important trade partner. After Canada, Japan is our largest trading partner. Does this mean we need more Japanese? No one ever talks about immigration this way, because no one really believes immigration has anything to do with promoting exports.
The example of Japan in fact shows just how little racial diversity has to do with international trade. Japan is one of the most racially homogeneous nations in the world. By American standards, Japanese are hopeless "racists," "homophobes," "sexists," and "nativists." They even eat whales. Here is a country that should therefore be a complete failure in the international economy -- and yet it is probably the most successful trading nation on earth.
Taiwan and Korea are close behind, with China now recording huge trade surpluses with the United States. These countries are even more closed and exclusionist than Japan. If they could ever be made to understand the American notion of diversity, Asians would politely wait until we had left the room and then die laughing. Germany is likewise one of the world's great exporting nations. Who would dream of thinking this was due to the presence of Turkish Gastarbeiter.
The fact that millions of Mexicans now live in the United States does not make our products more attractive to anybody -- certainly not to Mexico, which already has plenty of the things Mexicans know how to make. "Diversity" adds exactly nothing to our international competitiveness.
Racial diversity is also supposed to bring cultural enrichment, but what are its real achievements? The culture of ordinary Americans remains almost completely untouched by the millions of non-white immigrants who have arrived since 1965. Perhaps they have now heard of the Cinco de Mayo festival, but even if they live in California or Texas how many Americans know that it commemorates a Mexican military victory against the French?
Immigrants do not teach us about Cervantes or Borges or Lady Murasaki and it would be silly to think they did. Chinese stowaways do not arrive with a curator's knowledge of Ming ceramics and copies of the Tao-te Ching in their pockets. The one cultural artifact immigrants bring with them is their language -- which increasingly becomes an Americanized farrago that would astonish their countrymen -- but the so-called "culture" of immigrant settlements is a tangle of peasant folkways, Coca-Cola, food stamps, T-shirts with writing on them, and truculence.
High culture and world history cross borders by themselves. Who in America first learned of Tchaikovsky or the Mayans from an immigrant? Nearly every good-sized American city has an opera company but it wasn't established by Italians.
When President Lyndon Johnson signed the bill into law, he also downplayed its impact: "This bill that we sign today is not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions. It will not reshape the structure of our daily lives, or really add importantly to either our wealth or power."
The point here is not that the backers were wrong about the bill -- even though in 1996, for example, there were a record 1,300,000 naturalizations and perhaps 90 percent of the new citizens were non-white. The point is that "diversity" of the kind that immigration is now said to bless us with was never even hinted at as one of the law's benefits.
No one dreamed that in just 20 years ten percent of the entire population of El Salvador would have moved to the United States or that millions of mostly Hispanic and Asian immigrants would threaten to reduce whites to a racial minority in California by 1998. In 1965, before the discovery that "diversity is our strength," most people would have been shocked by the thought of such population changes.
Today, the intellectual climate is different, but in entirely predictable ways. "Racism" looms ever larger as the greatest moral offense a white person can commit, and anyone who opposes the arrival of yet more non-whites cannot but be "racist." There is therefore no longer any moral basis for opposing the prospect of minority status for whites, and what would have been an unthinkable prospect before 1965 must now be seen as an exciting opportunity. Thus did diversity become a "strength," despite the suspension of disbelief required to think it so.
This is a perfect example of an assertion, for purely ideological reasons, of something obviously untrue. Like the equality of the races, the equivalence of the sexes, the unimportance of heredity, the normalcy of homosexuality, and the insignificance of physical or mental handicap, the strength of diversity is one of a whole series of monstrous absurdities on which liberalism depends.
Having started with race, diversity now includes just about anything. Feminists, angry people in wheel chairs, AIDS carriers, militant homosexuals, and people who would rather speak Spanish than English have all taken much of their style and impetus from the civil rights movement. Demands for "inclusiveness" almost always include the language of grievance and compensation pioneered by blacks. Fat people fight discrimination, ugly people struggle against "lookism," and at least one local government has required that the stage set for a strip tease show be wheel-chair accessible. Anyone who opposes the glorification of the alien, the abnormal, and the inferior can be denounced with much fanfare and a huge sense of superiority. The metastasis of diversity is a fascinating story, but the disease began with race.
Occasionally a mainstream author sniffs around the edges of the population problem. At some risk to his professional respectability, columnist Scott McConnell of the New York Post has pointed out that if it will be such a good thing for whites to become a minority, there is no reason to wait until the next century. We could throw open the borders right now and become a minority in just a few years. "Why deny ourselves and our children the great benefits of Third Worldism that we are planning for our grandchildren?" he asks.
Advantages of Diversity
On those rare occasions when people actually attempt to defend diversity, the one claim they make with any semblance of conviction is that its advantages will become evident as the world becomes more "international." It will be a great thing to have citizens from all around the world as nations have more and more contact; specifically, our "international" population will boost American exports. Of course, since this view is based on the assumption that people communicate better with people like themselves, it is an argument against national diversity. If it takes a Korean to deal with the Koreans, how are Americans supposed to get along with the Koreans who live in America?
If anyone really thought a diverse population is good for trade, we would presumably be adjusting the mix of immigrants in accordance with trade potential. There would be no point in admitting Haitians, for example, since Haiti is a pesthole and never likely to be an important trade partner. After Canada, Japan is our largest trading partner. Does this mean we need more Japanese? No one ever talks about immigration this way, because no one really believes immigration has anything to do with promoting exports.
The example of Japan in fact shows just how little racial diversity has to do with international trade. Japan is one of the most racially homogeneous nations in the world. By American standards, Japanese are hopeless "racists," "homophobes," "sexists," and "nativists." They even eat whales. Here is a country that should therefore be a complete failure in the international economy -- and yet it is probably the most successful trading nation on earth.
Taiwan and Korea are close behind, with China now recording huge trade surpluses with the United States. These countries are even more closed and exclusionist than Japan. If they could ever be made to understand the American notion of diversity, Asians would politely wait until we had left the room and then die laughing. Germany is likewise one of the world's great exporting nations. Who would dream of thinking this was due to the presence of Turkish Gastarbeiter.
The fact that millions of Mexicans now live in the United States does not make our products more attractive to anybody -- certainly not to Mexico, which already has plenty of the things Mexicans know how to make. "Diversity" adds exactly nothing to our international competitiveness.
Racial diversity is also supposed to bring cultural enrichment, but what are its real achievements? The culture of ordinary Americans remains almost completely untouched by the millions of non-white immigrants who have arrived since 1965. Perhaps they have now heard of the Cinco de Mayo festival, but even if they live in California or Texas how many Americans know that it commemorates a Mexican military victory against the French?
Immigrants do not teach us about Cervantes or Borges or Lady Murasaki and it would be silly to think they did. Chinese stowaways do not arrive with a curator's knowledge of Ming ceramics and copies of the Tao-te Ching in their pockets. The one cultural artifact immigrants bring with them is their language -- which increasingly becomes an Americanized farrago that would astonish their countrymen -- but the so-called "culture" of immigrant settlements is a tangle of peasant folkways, Coca-Cola, food stamps, T-shirts with writing on them, and truculence.
High culture and world history cross borders by themselves. Who in America first learned of Tchaikovsky or the Mayans from an immigrant? Nearly every good-sized American city has an opera company but it wasn't established by Italians.
PhantoMPhones
owning your ass since '03
- Jul 19, 2008
- 83
- 0
- 6
What, in the way of authentic culture have Miami's dwindling non-Hispanic whites gained from the fact that the city is now nearly 70 percent Hispanic? Are the art galleries, concerts, museums, and literature of Los Angeles improved by the fact that its population is now nearly half Hispanic? How has the culture of Washington, D.C. or Detroit been enriched by majority-black populations? If immigration and diversity bring cultural enrichment, why is that the places being the most intensively enriched are the places where whites least want to live? Like the trade argument, the "cultural enrichment" argument collapses with a pinprick.
It is true that since 1965 more American school children have begun to study Spanish, but fewer now study French, German, or Latin. How is this an improvement? People can, of course, study any language they want without filling the country with immigrants. Virtually all Norwegians speak excellent English, but the country is not swarming with Englishmen.
Any discussion of the real advantages of ethnic diversity usually manages to establish only one benefit people really care about: good ethnic restaurants. Probably not even William Clinton would claim that getting an authentic Thai restaurant in every city is a major national objective.
Public Services
At a different level, it is now taken for granted that public services like fire and police departments should employ people of different races. The theory is that it is better to have black or Hispanic officers patrolling black or Hispanic neighborhoods. Here do we not have an example of one of diversity's benefits?
On the contrary, this is merely the first proof that diversity is a horrible burden. If all across America it has been demonstrated that whites cannot police non-whites or put out their fires it only shows how divisive diversity really is. The racial mix of a police force -- touted as one of the wonders of diversity -- becomes necessary only because officers of one race and citizens of another are unable to work together. The diversity that is claimed as a triumph is necessary only because diversity does not work.
The same is true of every other effort to diversify public services. If Hispanic judges and prosecutors must be recruited for the justice system it means whites are incapable of dispassionate justice. If non-white teachers are necessary "role models" for non-white children it means that inspiration cannot cross racial lines. If newspapers must hire non-white reporters in order to satisfy non-white readers it means people cannot write acceptable news for people of other races. If blacks demand black television newscasters and weathermen, it means they want to get information from their own people. If majority-minority voting districts must be set up so that non-whites can elect representatives of their own race, it means that elections are nothing more than a racial headcount. All such efforts at diversity are not expressions of the inherent strength of multiracialism; they are admissions that it is a debilitating source of tension, hostility, and weakness.
Just as the advantages of diversity disappear upon examination, its disadvantages are many and obvious. Once a fire department or police force has been diversified to match the surrounding community, does it work better? Not if we are to judge from the never-ending racial wrangles over promotions, class-action bias law suits, reverse discrimination cases, acrimony over quotas and affirmative action, and the proliferation of racially exclusive professional organizations. Every good-sized police department in the country has a black officers' association devoted to explicit, racially competitive objectives. In large cities, there are associations for Asian, Hispanic, and even white officers.
Many government agencies and private companies hire professional "diversity managers" to help handle mixed work forces. This is a new profession, which did not exist before the idea that diversity is a strength. Most of it boils down to trying to bridge the gaps between people who do not understand each other, but since it concerns subjects about which management is afraid to ask too many questions, some of it is pure snake oil.
Maria Riefler has trained Nestle, Walt Disney, Chrysler and Chevron. She likes to divide employees into groups that represent the body and the "triune brain." This is supposed to help them understand how "stereotypes are hidden deep within the primitive part of ourselves."
It is a very peculiar "strength" that requires the constant attention of experts and other bumcombe artists. Like hiring black police officers to patrol black neighborhoods, "diversity training" is an admission that a mixed work force is a liability.
This is the merest common sense; it is hard to get dissimilar people to work together. Indeed, a large-scale survey called the National Study of the Changing Work force found that more than half of all workers said they preferred to work with people who were not only the same race as themselves, but were the same sex and had the same level of education. Even more probably felt that way but were afraid to say so.
These days there is much chirping about how diversity is going to improve profits. American companies are hard-headed about profits. A great deal of research, much of it quantitative, goes into decisions about product lines, new markets, establishing joint ventures, issuing stock or moving the head office. If there has been any serious research showing that "diversity" improves profits it would have been first-page news long ago. Not even the most desperate data massage seems to have produced a study that can make such a claim.
Just how big a headache diversity actually is for companies is clear from the endless stream of news stories about corporate racial discrimination. In just one month -- November, 1996 -- "diversity" made quite a lot of news. Texaco agreed to spend $176 million on black victims of company "racism," and lawyers for the firm that sued Texaco were getting about ten calls a day from people asking how to file for discrimination settlements. Just a few days later, 22 former employees of the nation's largest printing company, R.R. Donnelley and Sons, sued over what they claimed was $500 million worth of racism.
In the same month, both the U.S. State Department and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms settled multi-million dollar class action discrimination suits brought by blacks. Likewise in November, three blacks brought a class action suit against an Avis Rent-A-Car franchise with outlets in North and South Carolina, claiming they had been turned away because of race. Within the month, the owner of Avis said it would break its contract with the franchisee, and hired a law firm to check up on other Avis operators. Every one of these cases, which are expensive, time-consuming, and emotionally damaging, is a consequence of racial diversity -- and these were just the cases that made the news.
It would be edifying to count the number of public and private organizations that exist in the United States only because of its diverse population, and that are not needed in places like Japan or Norway. The U.S. Civil Rights Commission, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Office of Federal Contract Compliance, the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, and every state and local equivalents of these offices exist only because of racial diversity. Every government office, every university, every large corporation, and every military installation has employees working full-time on affirmative action, discrimination claims, and other "diversity" issues.
Countless outreach programs, reconciliation commissions, blue-ribbon panels, and mayoral commissions fret professionally about race every day. Not one of these would be necessary in a nation of a single race. There must be tens of thousands of Americans consuming hundreds of millions of dollars every year enforcing, adjusting, tuning, regulating, and talking pure nonsense about the racial diversity that is supposed to be our strength.
Indeed, Tom McClintock, a former candidate for controller of the state of California estimated that before the 1996 state ballot initiative was approved to abolish racial preferences, the annual cost just to administer California's affirmative action programs was from $343 million to $677 million. This figure did not include the cost of private preference programs or the cost of state and local anti-discrimination machinery, none of which was affected by the 1996 measure.
If diversity were a strength people would practice it spontaneously. It wouldn't require constant cheer-leading or expensive lawsuits. If diversity were enriching, people would seek it out. It is in private gatherings not governed by some kind of "civil-rights" law that Americans show just how much strength and enrichment they find in diversity. Such gatherings are usually the very opposite of diverse.
Other Races
Generally speaking, whatever timid opposition to diversity that ever arises is characterized as the whining of resentful, ignorant whites. Non-whites are thought to have a better appreciation of the importance of inclusiveness. This is just so much more nonsense. Now that immigration has added Hispanics and Asians to the traditional black-white racial mix, fault lines are forming in all directions.
Though we are told over and over that it is ignorance and lack of contact that cause antipathy, it is groups that have the most contact that most dislike each other. This is why "outreach" and "bridge building" do not work, as even the New York Times unintentionally revealed in a June 18, 1990 headline: "Ethnic Feuding Divides Parade for Harmony."
The idea that hostility is cured through contact is now enshrined as part of the diversity myth. George Orwell touched on this in his essay "England Your England": "During the war of 1914-1918 the English working class were in contact with foreigners to an extent that is rarely possible. The sole result was that they brought back a hatred of all Europeans, except the Germans, whose courage they admired."
In America one need not go overseas to have contact with foreigners. What has been the result? In Chicago, Los Angeles, Detroit, and New York City, blacks have tried to drive Korean merchants out of their neighborhoods. They firebomb stores, assault shop keepers, and mount boycotts against "people who don't look like us." In Los Angeles, relations were so bad that in 1986 a Black-Korean Alliance was formed to reduce tensions. It staggered on uselessly until late 1992, when it was dissolved in mutual recrimination and accusations. The more blacks and Koreans talked to each other the angrier they got.
There are now schools and school districts completely dominated by blacks and Hispanics, which have race wars involving no whites at all. Some examples? Locke High School in Los Angeles is almost exactly half-black and half-Hispanic. In February, 1996, 50 police officers had to be called in to break up a pitched battle involving hundreds of students. After order was finally restored and school dismissed, police in riot gear had to keep students from rejoining battle in the streets. What touched off the battle? Hispanics were annoyed -- certainly not "enriched" -- by the February observances of Black History Month.
A similar incident took place at Los Angeles' North Hollywood High School, when it took police in riot gear to calm a melee that started when an estimated 200 to 700 black and Hispanic students pitched into each other. The spark was reportedly a clash over what kind of music to play at the homecoming dance, neither side having felt particularly "inclusive."
Norman Thomas High School is located at Park Avenue and 33rd Street in Manhattan. In 1992, tension between blacks and Hispanics erupted into a free-for-all involving both boys and girls. "The only thing people cared about was skin color," explained one 16-year-old. The New York City Board of Education has "rapid mobilization guards" for just such emergencies.
Farragut High School in Chicago is two-thirds Hispanic and one third black. Recently, racial tension built up to what the principal called "total polarization," and it became dangerous to let students mix without police supervision. At the height of the tension, extracurricular activities were canceled for 30 days and the school's homecoming football game had to be played without a single student in the stands, for fear they would attack each other.
In Huntsville, Texas, Hispanic students say they need to arm themselves against violent blacks. In Dallas, Hispanic parents say their children are afraid to go to school for fear of attacks by blacks. Tensions of this kind are usually reported only in local newspapers, and are probably quite widespread.
There is the same racial animosity in jails. Guards keep some cell blocks in a near-constant state of lock-down because blacks and Hispanics kill each other if they are allowed to mingle. Life in prison is more intensely integrated than anywhere else in the country. If diversity is such a good thing why is racial segregation always one of the top demands when prisoners list their grievances?
Of course, high-school fistfights and jailhouse brawls are nothing compared to what can happen when diversity really goes wrong. In the summer of 1967, 83 people were killed and nearly 2,000 injured when blacks rioted all across the country. The national guard had to be called out to stop violence in Tampa, Cincinnati, Atlanta, Newark, northern New Jersey, and Detroit.
Nor are race riots a relic from the 1960s. The single worst outbreak in the nation's history was in Los Angeles in 1992, when rioters killed 58 people and injured more than 2,300. They also burned 5,300 buildings, causing nearly a billion dollars in damage. There was smaller-scale violence -- all of it directed at whites -- in Atlanta, Las Vegas, New York City, and Richmond and San Jose, California.
The Los Angeles riots showed that Hispanics can behave as badly as blacks. Although the grievance was ostensibly about a miscarriage of justice for the black criminal, Rodney King, more than half of the 15,000 people arrested for looting were Hispanic.
"Diversity" can pit one set of Hispanics against another. Puerto Ricans in Miami have rioted, claiming to have been excluded by the city's Cuban power structure. "Cubans get everything; we get nothing," explained one rioter. The greater the diversity, the more varied the possibilities for disaffection and violence.
There has been a Sahara of hot air about why blacks riot, with the official pronouncement on reasons dating back to the Kerner Commission Report of 1968: "[T]he most fundamental is the racial attitude and behavior of white Americans toward black Americans." Whatever one may think of this finding, there is one conclusion no one can deny: Race riots cannot happen without racial diversity.
An occasional glance at a newspaper is all it takes to learn that diversity of the kind that is supposed to benefit the United States is a problem wherever it is found. Every large-scale and intractable blood-letting, be it in the Middle East, Ireland, Burundi, or the former Yugoslavia is due to "diversity," that is to say, people who differ from each other trying to live in the same territory.
Most of the time, the reasons for discord are not even as salient as race. They can be religion, language, or ethnicity. From time to time, Americans have fought each other for these reasons, but race is the deepest, most constant source of antipathy. Unlike language or religion, race cannot change. Differences between men that are written deep into their bodies will always be a source of friction.
The Diversity Double Standard
Diversity, of course, is only for whites. Wherever only whites gather charges of "racism" cannot be long in coming. On the other hand, it would be tedious to list the racially exclusive non-white gatherings the country takes for granted. Shule Mandela Academy in East Palo Alto, California is only a little more outspoken than most when its students meet every morning and pledge to "think black, act black, speak black, buy black, pray black, love black, and live black."
The same racial double standard is found in national policies. It is only white nations -- Canada, the United States, and Australia -- that permit large-scale immigration. Non-white nations are careful to maintain racial and cultural homogeneity and most permit essentially no immigration at all.
Some nations, of course, could attract no immigrants even if they wanted to; there is not much pressure on the borders of Bolivia or Uganda. However, as soon as Third World countries become even only a little bit more prosperous than their neighbors they quickly become keen to keep strangers out. Malaysia, for example, recently announced that in the case of repeat offenders, it will flog illegal aliens, their employers, and anyone who smuggles them into the country. The Ivory Coast, which is better-run and more successful than its West African neighbors, has launched an Ivoirite (Ivorian-ness) campaign to expel all residents who cannot prove that their grand parents were born within the national territory.
Even nations that are unattractive to immigrants sometimes display their feelings about diversity by expelling what few aliens arrived in the past. Idi Amin became ruler of Uganda in 1971. The very next year, his government expelled the 70,000 to 80,000 Indians and Pakistanis whom the British had brought in to be merchants. Black Ugandans, who did not like dealing with people unlike themselves, were delighted.
Hundreds of thousands of poor Mexicans sneak into the United States every year, but even Mexico is attractive to some Central Americans, whose countries are poorer still. Mexico guards its southern border with military troops, and is ruthless about expelling illegals. Not even United States citizens have an easy time moving to Mexico, which has no intention of diluting its national culture in the name of diversity.
Only whites babble about the advantages of diversity. One of the alleged advantages is so nutty, it is hard to believe it can be proposed by people capable of human speech, but since we are shooting fish in a barrel why not fire a final round? We are told that since whites are a minority of the world population (they are about 15 percent of the total), they should happily reconcile themselves to minority status in America, that such a status will be good training for life on an ever-shrinking planet.
Of course, in a world-wide context, every human group is a minority. There are many more of everyone else than there are Hispanics or Africans, for example. Does this mean that Mexicans and Nigerians, too, should strive to become minorities in Mexico and Nigeria? Like so much that is said about race or immigration, this idea falls to pieces as soon as it is applied to anyone but whites.
It is only whites who have ever attempted to believe that race is a trivial matter, so it is only whites who think it may be "racist" to preserve their people and culture. Having decided to deny the findings of biology, the traditions of their ancestors, and the evidence of their senses, they have denied to themselves any moral basis for keeping out aliens. They have set in motion forces that will eventually destroy them.
E. Raymond Hall, professor of biology at the University of Kansas, is the author of the definitive work on American wildlife, Mammals of North America. He states as a biological law that, "two subspecies of the same species do not occur in the same geographic area." (emphasis in the original.) Human races are biological subspecies, and Prof. Hall writes specifically that this law applies to humans just as it does to other mammals: "To imagine one subspecies of man living together on equal terms for long with another subspecies is but wishful thinking and leads only to disaster and oblivion for one or the other."
Human nature is part of animal nature. Racial diversity, which only whites promote -- and always at their own expense -- is nothing more than unilateral disarmament in a dangerous world. If current population movements continue, and if the thinking of whites remains unchanged, there will be little doubt as to which group's fate will be the "disaster and oblivion" Prof. Hall so confidently predicts.
It is true that since 1965 more American school children have begun to study Spanish, but fewer now study French, German, or Latin. How is this an improvement? People can, of course, study any language they want without filling the country with immigrants. Virtually all Norwegians speak excellent English, but the country is not swarming with Englishmen.
Any discussion of the real advantages of ethnic diversity usually manages to establish only one benefit people really care about: good ethnic restaurants. Probably not even William Clinton would claim that getting an authentic Thai restaurant in every city is a major national objective.
Public Services
At a different level, it is now taken for granted that public services like fire and police departments should employ people of different races. The theory is that it is better to have black or Hispanic officers patrolling black or Hispanic neighborhoods. Here do we not have an example of one of diversity's benefits?
On the contrary, this is merely the first proof that diversity is a horrible burden. If all across America it has been demonstrated that whites cannot police non-whites or put out their fires it only shows how divisive diversity really is. The racial mix of a police force -- touted as one of the wonders of diversity -- becomes necessary only because officers of one race and citizens of another are unable to work together. The diversity that is claimed as a triumph is necessary only because diversity does not work.
The same is true of every other effort to diversify public services. If Hispanic judges and prosecutors must be recruited for the justice system it means whites are incapable of dispassionate justice. If non-white teachers are necessary "role models" for non-white children it means that inspiration cannot cross racial lines. If newspapers must hire non-white reporters in order to satisfy non-white readers it means people cannot write acceptable news for people of other races. If blacks demand black television newscasters and weathermen, it means they want to get information from their own people. If majority-minority voting districts must be set up so that non-whites can elect representatives of their own race, it means that elections are nothing more than a racial headcount. All such efforts at diversity are not expressions of the inherent strength of multiracialism; they are admissions that it is a debilitating source of tension, hostility, and weakness.
Just as the advantages of diversity disappear upon examination, its disadvantages are many and obvious. Once a fire department or police force has been diversified to match the surrounding community, does it work better? Not if we are to judge from the never-ending racial wrangles over promotions, class-action bias law suits, reverse discrimination cases, acrimony over quotas and affirmative action, and the proliferation of racially exclusive professional organizations. Every good-sized police department in the country has a black officers' association devoted to explicit, racially competitive objectives. In large cities, there are associations for Asian, Hispanic, and even white officers.
Many government agencies and private companies hire professional "diversity managers" to help handle mixed work forces. This is a new profession, which did not exist before the idea that diversity is a strength. Most of it boils down to trying to bridge the gaps between people who do not understand each other, but since it concerns subjects about which management is afraid to ask too many questions, some of it is pure snake oil.
Maria Riefler has trained Nestle, Walt Disney, Chrysler and Chevron. She likes to divide employees into groups that represent the body and the "triune brain." This is supposed to help them understand how "stereotypes are hidden deep within the primitive part of ourselves."
It is a very peculiar "strength" that requires the constant attention of experts and other bumcombe artists. Like hiring black police officers to patrol black neighborhoods, "diversity training" is an admission that a mixed work force is a liability.
This is the merest common sense; it is hard to get dissimilar people to work together. Indeed, a large-scale survey called the National Study of the Changing Work force found that more than half of all workers said they preferred to work with people who were not only the same race as themselves, but were the same sex and had the same level of education. Even more probably felt that way but were afraid to say so.
These days there is much chirping about how diversity is going to improve profits. American companies are hard-headed about profits. A great deal of research, much of it quantitative, goes into decisions about product lines, new markets, establishing joint ventures, issuing stock or moving the head office. If there has been any serious research showing that "diversity" improves profits it would have been first-page news long ago. Not even the most desperate data massage seems to have produced a study that can make such a claim.
Just how big a headache diversity actually is for companies is clear from the endless stream of news stories about corporate racial discrimination. In just one month -- November, 1996 -- "diversity" made quite a lot of news. Texaco agreed to spend $176 million on black victims of company "racism," and lawyers for the firm that sued Texaco were getting about ten calls a day from people asking how to file for discrimination settlements. Just a few days later, 22 former employees of the nation's largest printing company, R.R. Donnelley and Sons, sued over what they claimed was $500 million worth of racism.
In the same month, both the U.S. State Department and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms settled multi-million dollar class action discrimination suits brought by blacks. Likewise in November, three blacks brought a class action suit against an Avis Rent-A-Car franchise with outlets in North and South Carolina, claiming they had been turned away because of race. Within the month, the owner of Avis said it would break its contract with the franchisee, and hired a law firm to check up on other Avis operators. Every one of these cases, which are expensive, time-consuming, and emotionally damaging, is a consequence of racial diversity -- and these were just the cases that made the news.
It would be edifying to count the number of public and private organizations that exist in the United States only because of its diverse population, and that are not needed in places like Japan or Norway. The U.S. Civil Rights Commission, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Office of Federal Contract Compliance, the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, and every state and local equivalents of these offices exist only because of racial diversity. Every government office, every university, every large corporation, and every military installation has employees working full-time on affirmative action, discrimination claims, and other "diversity" issues.
Countless outreach programs, reconciliation commissions, blue-ribbon panels, and mayoral commissions fret professionally about race every day. Not one of these would be necessary in a nation of a single race. There must be tens of thousands of Americans consuming hundreds of millions of dollars every year enforcing, adjusting, tuning, regulating, and talking pure nonsense about the racial diversity that is supposed to be our strength.
Indeed, Tom McClintock, a former candidate for controller of the state of California estimated that before the 1996 state ballot initiative was approved to abolish racial preferences, the annual cost just to administer California's affirmative action programs was from $343 million to $677 million. This figure did not include the cost of private preference programs or the cost of state and local anti-discrimination machinery, none of which was affected by the 1996 measure.
If diversity were a strength people would practice it spontaneously. It wouldn't require constant cheer-leading or expensive lawsuits. If diversity were enriching, people would seek it out. It is in private gatherings not governed by some kind of "civil-rights" law that Americans show just how much strength and enrichment they find in diversity. Such gatherings are usually the very opposite of diverse.
Other Races
Generally speaking, whatever timid opposition to diversity that ever arises is characterized as the whining of resentful, ignorant whites. Non-whites are thought to have a better appreciation of the importance of inclusiveness. This is just so much more nonsense. Now that immigration has added Hispanics and Asians to the traditional black-white racial mix, fault lines are forming in all directions.
Though we are told over and over that it is ignorance and lack of contact that cause antipathy, it is groups that have the most contact that most dislike each other. This is why "outreach" and "bridge building" do not work, as even the New York Times unintentionally revealed in a June 18, 1990 headline: "Ethnic Feuding Divides Parade for Harmony."
The idea that hostility is cured through contact is now enshrined as part of the diversity myth. George Orwell touched on this in his essay "England Your England": "During the war of 1914-1918 the English working class were in contact with foreigners to an extent that is rarely possible. The sole result was that they brought back a hatred of all Europeans, except the Germans, whose courage they admired."
In America one need not go overseas to have contact with foreigners. What has been the result? In Chicago, Los Angeles, Detroit, and New York City, blacks have tried to drive Korean merchants out of their neighborhoods. They firebomb stores, assault shop keepers, and mount boycotts against "people who don't look like us." In Los Angeles, relations were so bad that in 1986 a Black-Korean Alliance was formed to reduce tensions. It staggered on uselessly until late 1992, when it was dissolved in mutual recrimination and accusations. The more blacks and Koreans talked to each other the angrier they got.
There are now schools and school districts completely dominated by blacks and Hispanics, which have race wars involving no whites at all. Some examples? Locke High School in Los Angeles is almost exactly half-black and half-Hispanic. In February, 1996, 50 police officers had to be called in to break up a pitched battle involving hundreds of students. After order was finally restored and school dismissed, police in riot gear had to keep students from rejoining battle in the streets. What touched off the battle? Hispanics were annoyed -- certainly not "enriched" -- by the February observances of Black History Month.
A similar incident took place at Los Angeles' North Hollywood High School, when it took police in riot gear to calm a melee that started when an estimated 200 to 700 black and Hispanic students pitched into each other. The spark was reportedly a clash over what kind of music to play at the homecoming dance, neither side having felt particularly "inclusive."
Norman Thomas High School is located at Park Avenue and 33rd Street in Manhattan. In 1992, tension between blacks and Hispanics erupted into a free-for-all involving both boys and girls. "The only thing people cared about was skin color," explained one 16-year-old. The New York City Board of Education has "rapid mobilization guards" for just such emergencies.
Farragut High School in Chicago is two-thirds Hispanic and one third black. Recently, racial tension built up to what the principal called "total polarization," and it became dangerous to let students mix without police supervision. At the height of the tension, extracurricular activities were canceled for 30 days and the school's homecoming football game had to be played without a single student in the stands, for fear they would attack each other.
In Huntsville, Texas, Hispanic students say they need to arm themselves against violent blacks. In Dallas, Hispanic parents say their children are afraid to go to school for fear of attacks by blacks. Tensions of this kind are usually reported only in local newspapers, and are probably quite widespread.
There is the same racial animosity in jails. Guards keep some cell blocks in a near-constant state of lock-down because blacks and Hispanics kill each other if they are allowed to mingle. Life in prison is more intensely integrated than anywhere else in the country. If diversity is such a good thing why is racial segregation always one of the top demands when prisoners list their grievances?
Of course, high-school fistfights and jailhouse brawls are nothing compared to what can happen when diversity really goes wrong. In the summer of 1967, 83 people were killed and nearly 2,000 injured when blacks rioted all across the country. The national guard had to be called out to stop violence in Tampa, Cincinnati, Atlanta, Newark, northern New Jersey, and Detroit.
Nor are race riots a relic from the 1960s. The single worst outbreak in the nation's history was in Los Angeles in 1992, when rioters killed 58 people and injured more than 2,300. They also burned 5,300 buildings, causing nearly a billion dollars in damage. There was smaller-scale violence -- all of it directed at whites -- in Atlanta, Las Vegas, New York City, and Richmond and San Jose, California.
The Los Angeles riots showed that Hispanics can behave as badly as blacks. Although the grievance was ostensibly about a miscarriage of justice for the black criminal, Rodney King, more than half of the 15,000 people arrested for looting were Hispanic.
"Diversity" can pit one set of Hispanics against another. Puerto Ricans in Miami have rioted, claiming to have been excluded by the city's Cuban power structure. "Cubans get everything; we get nothing," explained one rioter. The greater the diversity, the more varied the possibilities for disaffection and violence.
There has been a Sahara of hot air about why blacks riot, with the official pronouncement on reasons dating back to the Kerner Commission Report of 1968: "[T]he most fundamental is the racial attitude and behavior of white Americans toward black Americans." Whatever one may think of this finding, there is one conclusion no one can deny: Race riots cannot happen without racial diversity.
An occasional glance at a newspaper is all it takes to learn that diversity of the kind that is supposed to benefit the United States is a problem wherever it is found. Every large-scale and intractable blood-letting, be it in the Middle East, Ireland, Burundi, or the former Yugoslavia is due to "diversity," that is to say, people who differ from each other trying to live in the same territory.
Most of the time, the reasons for discord are not even as salient as race. They can be religion, language, or ethnicity. From time to time, Americans have fought each other for these reasons, but race is the deepest, most constant source of antipathy. Unlike language or religion, race cannot change. Differences between men that are written deep into their bodies will always be a source of friction.
The Diversity Double Standard
Diversity, of course, is only for whites. Wherever only whites gather charges of "racism" cannot be long in coming. On the other hand, it would be tedious to list the racially exclusive non-white gatherings the country takes for granted. Shule Mandela Academy in East Palo Alto, California is only a little more outspoken than most when its students meet every morning and pledge to "think black, act black, speak black, buy black, pray black, love black, and live black."
The same racial double standard is found in national policies. It is only white nations -- Canada, the United States, and Australia -- that permit large-scale immigration. Non-white nations are careful to maintain racial and cultural homogeneity and most permit essentially no immigration at all.
Some nations, of course, could attract no immigrants even if they wanted to; there is not much pressure on the borders of Bolivia or Uganda. However, as soon as Third World countries become even only a little bit more prosperous than their neighbors they quickly become keen to keep strangers out. Malaysia, for example, recently announced that in the case of repeat offenders, it will flog illegal aliens, their employers, and anyone who smuggles them into the country. The Ivory Coast, which is better-run and more successful than its West African neighbors, has launched an Ivoirite (Ivorian-ness) campaign to expel all residents who cannot prove that their grand parents were born within the national territory.
Even nations that are unattractive to immigrants sometimes display their feelings about diversity by expelling what few aliens arrived in the past. Idi Amin became ruler of Uganda in 1971. The very next year, his government expelled the 70,000 to 80,000 Indians and Pakistanis whom the British had brought in to be merchants. Black Ugandans, who did not like dealing with people unlike themselves, were delighted.
Hundreds of thousands of poor Mexicans sneak into the United States every year, but even Mexico is attractive to some Central Americans, whose countries are poorer still. Mexico guards its southern border with military troops, and is ruthless about expelling illegals. Not even United States citizens have an easy time moving to Mexico, which has no intention of diluting its national culture in the name of diversity.
Only whites babble about the advantages of diversity. One of the alleged advantages is so nutty, it is hard to believe it can be proposed by people capable of human speech, but since we are shooting fish in a barrel why not fire a final round? We are told that since whites are a minority of the world population (they are about 15 percent of the total), they should happily reconcile themselves to minority status in America, that such a status will be good training for life on an ever-shrinking planet.
Of course, in a world-wide context, every human group is a minority. There are many more of everyone else than there are Hispanics or Africans, for example. Does this mean that Mexicans and Nigerians, too, should strive to become minorities in Mexico and Nigeria? Like so much that is said about race or immigration, this idea falls to pieces as soon as it is applied to anyone but whites.
It is only whites who have ever attempted to believe that race is a trivial matter, so it is only whites who think it may be "racist" to preserve their people and culture. Having decided to deny the findings of biology, the traditions of their ancestors, and the evidence of their senses, they have denied to themselves any moral basis for keeping out aliens. They have set in motion forces that will eventually destroy them.
E. Raymond Hall, professor of biology at the University of Kansas, is the author of the definitive work on American wildlife, Mammals of North America. He states as a biological law that, "two subspecies of the same species do not occur in the same geographic area." (emphasis in the original.) Human races are biological subspecies, and Prof. Hall writes specifically that this law applies to humans just as it does to other mammals: "To imagine one subspecies of man living together on equal terms for long with another subspecies is but wishful thinking and leads only to disaster and oblivion for one or the other."
Human nature is part of animal nature. Racial diversity, which only whites promote -- and always at their own expense -- is nothing more than unilateral disarmament in a dangerous world. If current population movements continue, and if the thinking of whites remains unchanged, there will be little doubt as to which group's fate will be the "disaster and oblivion" Prof. Hall so confidently predicts.
Caladan
Member
- Sep 9, 2008
- 259
- 0
- 16
^^^^
Very true, but let's not just point the finger at the obvious ones. Let's go even deeper: Original immigrants to the USA: English migrants v Irish, British v Dutch, English v Italian, English v German. Of course we can't mention the indegenious people since what happened to them was "acceptable". Multiculturalism is NOT just based on your definition of race, things have kicked off in the US with each new wave of immigrants, strange that they aren't mentioned in this "interesting" article.
Very true, but let's not just point the finger at the obvious ones. Let's go even deeper: Original immigrants to the USA: English migrants v Irish, British v Dutch, English v Italian, English v German. Of course we can't mention the indegenious people since what happened to them was "acceptable". Multiculturalism is NOT just based on your definition of race, things have kicked off in the US with each new wave of immigrants, strange that they aren't mentioned in this "interesting" article.
PhantoMPhones
owning your ass since '03
- Jul 19, 2008
- 83
- 0
- 6
Well if you want to go that route and be anal about it we can go further than that, and talk about the so called 'indigenous' people who originally came to North America via the Bering Strait. And then we could talk about the fact that the 'indigenous' people for a large part, gave up their land blah blah blah, we could even throw in a conquering type scenario if you want. In which case, they should be happy they still exist. Point being there must be a line drawn at some point in time. Considering the europeans were the first to actually colonize the land and create the lasting, dominant civilization itself that remains in modern time, and because the issue of native americans has been 'dealt with' (not that I'm saying its a permanent or adequate solution) we must fall to that point. The thing with the so called 'indigenous' people is that it has passed into an internal problem, as history has made natives of both indigenous (which were immigrants) and whites (also immigrants)... Precisely why there is ALWAYS a disctintion between African Americans and 'Pure' Africans/Jamaicans etc etc etc. If you want to go in depth with that we could look at the genetics of the majority of African Americans (as in bloodlines of the original africans brought to america during the slave trade) and we can even see that a majority of them are partially caucasoid (pardon the spelling can't remember the spelling of the term) as well as negroid (not to be confused with congoloid)... Which we could in turn use as evidence concerning IQ and Africans vs American Africans, which would once again create a case for genetics, and sort of derail the whole culture argument, considering many tests were based on things that can be equally tested in all humans that have no bearing on education and the weak 'opportunity' excuse. For example reaction times... but lets not go there lest someones panties get in a twist.
The whole point is that a line has to be drawn where immigrants become 'nationals' or 'natives' if you wish to use the term. In the past and EVEN IN THE PRESENT this is usually determined by the number of generations of the bloodline in that country (normally 3).
Nice try though. And as for your definition of race, we are not talking irish vs english etc etc that is absurd... If you didn't know there are main genetic groupings. congoloid, negroid, caucasiod (sp) etc. Ethnicity is a much different story. Half breeds within our own race or not, we (whites) are all caucasian or a genetic mix thereabouts including caucasian, (again with the distinction even to the genetic level between african americans by descent, and 'pure' africans) Eg. I condemn my race FAR more for WW2 (european theatre) than for the black slave trade.
The whole point is that a line has to be drawn where immigrants become 'nationals' or 'natives' if you wish to use the term. In the past and EVEN IN THE PRESENT this is usually determined by the number of generations of the bloodline in that country (normally 3).
Nice try though. And as for your definition of race, we are not talking irish vs english etc etc that is absurd... If you didn't know there are main genetic groupings. congoloid, negroid, caucasiod (sp) etc. Ethnicity is a much different story. Half breeds within our own race or not, we (whites) are all caucasian or a genetic mix thereabouts including caucasian, (again with the distinction even to the genetic level between african americans by descent, and 'pure' africans) Eg. I condemn my race FAR more for WW2 (european theatre) than for the black slave trade.
Caladan
Member
- Sep 9, 2008
- 259
- 0
- 16
See Phantom, here's my issue with a lot of your argument. You want to draw the line. Why should YOU be the one to draw the line? If a situation is unfair, then let it be unfair in ALL situations, not only when it suits you. If you object to cultural invasion, by all means feel free to do so, but be fair about it, and object to it in ALL it's manifestations.
Regarding Race, it is simply a concept. Yes, I agree, we can draw distinctions between Africans, African Americans and the people of the Caribbean (quick correction here - be aware that the Caribbean Islanders are on average far more mixed race than African Americans are. Possibly because they are fewer, and have a far greater incidence of racial mixing with south indians, native americans, south americans and that sort.) If we are going to compare these IQ levels, then make the environments culturally similar. And I still disagree about these IQ tests measuring things that can equally be tested. Nah.
Regarding your negroid/caucasoid argument, I remember reading that the gene that produces light skin in middle and north-eastern Asia tends to be different from the one that produces light skin in europeans. This was in one of the links you posted by the way. How then, are you, with your deep research into this topic, still holding tight to such an obsolete form of classification? Your article also says, regarding genetic differences, that 85% of genetic differences occur within a population, and only 15% varies from population to population. So what you're talking about, dear friend, isn't race, it's appearance. And the genes that affect appearance are less than 1% of human DNA. See, I sincerely don't care too much what YOU consider to be race. I simply analyze your argument, and see how far we can take it. You see all white people as one race, I see them as different and distinct peoples, all having genetic and structural variations. You're the one who's so interested in preserving culture, so why do you want to erase boundaris within separate white culture yet preserve all other cultures? Where's the wisdom in that??
Well, the generations and immigration policy is really not a big deal to me. If that's what you feel is better, then fair enough. I wonder what the native americans (yes, again. It's a great counter-argument) feel. Maybe they'll prefer a thousand years, or say 15 generations. (By the way, some countries say 5 years, some (including the USA say 7 years, I'm not sure what Canada says). I haven't however heard of any country saying that it takes three generations to become a national, perhaps I've misunderstood you.
Regarding Race, it is simply a concept. Yes, I agree, we can draw distinctions between Africans, African Americans and the people of the Caribbean (quick correction here - be aware that the Caribbean Islanders are on average far more mixed race than African Americans are. Possibly because they are fewer, and have a far greater incidence of racial mixing with south indians, native americans, south americans and that sort.) If we are going to compare these IQ levels, then make the environments culturally similar. And I still disagree about these IQ tests measuring things that can equally be tested. Nah.
Regarding your negroid/caucasoid argument, I remember reading that the gene that produces light skin in middle and north-eastern Asia tends to be different from the one that produces light skin in europeans. This was in one of the links you posted by the way. How then, are you, with your deep research into this topic, still holding tight to such an obsolete form of classification? Your article also says, regarding genetic differences, that 85% of genetic differences occur within a population, and only 15% varies from population to population. So what you're talking about, dear friend, isn't race, it's appearance. And the genes that affect appearance are less than 1% of human DNA. See, I sincerely don't care too much what YOU consider to be race. I simply analyze your argument, and see how far we can take it. You see all white people as one race, I see them as different and distinct peoples, all having genetic and structural variations. You're the one who's so interested in preserving culture, so why do you want to erase boundaris within separate white culture yet preserve all other cultures? Where's the wisdom in that??
Well, the generations and immigration policy is really not a big deal to me. If that's what you feel is better, then fair enough. I wonder what the native americans (yes, again. It's a great counter-argument) feel. Maybe they'll prefer a thousand years, or say 15 generations. (By the way, some countries say 5 years, some (including the USA say 7 years, I'm not sure what Canada says). I haven't however heard of any country saying that it takes three generations to become a national, perhaps I've misunderstood you.
PhantoMPhones
owning your ass since '03
- Jul 19, 2008
- 83
- 0
- 6
If thats what you think then you've seriously misread some of the lines in my posts. I may pass my personal opinion which I usually make it clear that it is just that.
Let me clarify. Tests OTHER than IQ tests are also used to test mental capacities etc, which is why I gave an example of reaction times. Which by the way can tell us alot.
You have missed the argument altogether... You are trying to equate ethnicity with race. Yes, there are differences in ethnicities, but you have obviously missed the portion of genetics that determine what parent group these variances are from, hence mongoloid, negroid etc etc. You are also making the mistake of somehow quantizing 1% as being insignificant. That is grossly erroneous. We are the same SPECIES after all. But we are different SUB-species. You should read up on the what happens when more than one sub-species of any species (not domesticated) tries to occupy the same geographical area as another sub-species. Or rather, why it doesn't occur as a general rule in nature.
Caladan
Member
- Sep 9, 2008
- 259
- 0
- 16
Oh please. First show me anywhere in nature where two species of similar genetic closeness as mandkind share the same geographical area. Then you will see that they have all interbred, and the minor detail (which you of course consider all important) no longer exist.
And you keep yelling about these tests. Where I ask did these tests take place? What is the breakdown of the backgrounds that the "tested" in these tests came from. Silence. I do not believe your test. I do not believe the efficiency of these tests, or of the subjects (Reaction time!!?)
Not sure what you're implying here - Are you saying all white people are the same race and from the same background? COME ON!!!
Oh sure there are similarities (the main being skin colour, etc) but they are NOT the same race. Sure things have sort of spread out over the years due to centuries of gene sharing (which you abhor). But for you to claim that The germanic people, the gallic and the slavs are the same race is utterly ridiculous. So is your beleif that all "negroids" are the same race. May I ask, I wonder, is it okay for a white person to marry a Jew, or does your objection to interracial relationships permit the hamitic peoples into the picture? I ask you my friend, where do you draw the line? As my partner often tells me, when her grandparents immigrated to the USA, they were spat on, beaten and discriminated against by the mainstream "Anglo Saxon" Americans. They were italians. You're merely following a old trend. There were several movements into western europe, and there is little evidence to show that all these movements were made by people of the same race.
You my friend have embarked on a strange journey, and I wonder where it'll lead you. I worry for you - in your logic I see the same arguments that led earlier generations of white folk to lynch, batter and intimidate black folks as recently as 50 years ago. You claiming this logic is not racist is really strange.
And you keep yelling about these tests. Where I ask did these tests take place? What is the breakdown of the backgrounds that the "tested" in these tests came from. Silence. I do not believe your test. I do not believe the efficiency of these tests, or of the subjects (Reaction time!!?)
Not sure what you're implying here - Are you saying all white people are the same race and from the same background? COME ON!!!
Oh sure there are similarities (the main being skin colour, etc) but they are NOT the same race. Sure things have sort of spread out over the years due to centuries of gene sharing (which you abhor). But for you to claim that The germanic people, the gallic and the slavs are the same race is utterly ridiculous. So is your beleif that all "negroids" are the same race. May I ask, I wonder, is it okay for a white person to marry a Jew, or does your objection to interracial relationships permit the hamitic peoples into the picture? I ask you my friend, where do you draw the line? As my partner often tells me, when her grandparents immigrated to the USA, they were spat on, beaten and discriminated against by the mainstream "Anglo Saxon" Americans. They were italians. You're merely following a old trend. There were several movements into western europe, and there is little evidence to show that all these movements were made by people of the same race.
You my friend have embarked on a strange journey, and I wonder where it'll lead you. I worry for you - in your logic I see the same arguments that led earlier generations of white folk to lynch, batter and intimidate black folks as recently as 50 years ago. You claiming this logic is not racist is really strange.
The entire race issue is fucking dumb already.
Treat others as you would like to be treated. That's a virtuous principle to live by, I think.
Treat others as you would like to be treated. That's a virtuous principle to live by, I think.
monoxide_child
New Metal Member
- Jul 30, 2008
- 6,210
- 4
- 0
PhantoMPhones
owning your ass since '03
- Jul 19, 2008
- 83
- 0
- 6
Look man, I was just going to leave this alone for now, but I figured I'd check it out and see if there were any new developments. Im getting pretty damned bored of your 'i dont believe you approach'... guess what... it is seriously effing flawed... You can't just dismiss something in a scientific debate because 'i don't believe it'. TAKE the bloody time to take a look at the tests for yourself you might get to be a little educated on the subject which it is clear YOU ARE NOT (that or you are just pretending to be completely ignorant of the whole thing).... yeah REACTION TIME!?!?!!! YES YES YES... Do you even know what measuring reaction times shows? Do you know WHY they do it? Do you know WHY it is considered an accurate (and mind you its only one of the many tests) way of determining development of the brain itself? NO you don't.. you just sit there and say 'i dont believe you i dont believe you'.
Talking about me on a strange journey?!?! You can't even accept scientific proof. ACCREDITED SCIENTIFIC FACT. Your 'i dont believe you' approach is absolutely creditless and downright baseless if I may add. Based in the absolutely erroneous assumption that 'we are all equal'... You have a serious case of denial. You never intended to argue this objectively as has been apparent from your very first post. I have conceded many points of my argument to the 'i dont believe you' theory you have going on, and everytime you have blurted out that utter bullshit, I have taken a different approach and provided yet MORE proof. It appears that you haven't even done any research on your own for fucks sake. Comparing chickens to mice in the field of genetics, are you kidding me? Race means ehnicity? Are you off your rocker?
Look man, I think you're probably a great guy, intelligent at that. But this approach of ignoring all data because you think its all biased, tainted, worth nothing (omg the white man strikes again) is ludicrous. Things that get published in accredited scientific and medical journals (which granted not ALL of my information has come from, but a GREAT deal of it has, not to mention the unpublished studies) are accepted as valid studies, valid statistics, valid findings. 'I dont believe you, its biased' does not cut it in the scientific community.
It is quite clear at this point that you won't accept any kind of evidence unless it supports your claim. But you have failed miserably to provide any such proof. Oh I forgot you 'dont have to provide proof'. Please man. Before you go judging what kind of path I am on, look to yourself. Who is biased? I may be biased on the side of science, and if you really wanted to attack me you could even try and say I'm biased on the side of race, but irregardless you are biased on the side of your own unwillingness to hear the facts as we far as can be provided to this date. I can back up my bias... can you? Just the simple fact that you don't know why mice are so important to human genetics, and that you don't know what OBJECTIVE UNBIASED testing such as reaction times means in terms of intelligence and development, and that you consider that 1% difference in humans to be negligible, really proves my point for me. I'm not trying to insult you man, I just think you are really out on a limb here. "I don't believe you" may be enough for you, but its not enough to change the facts, the statistics and the studies. Its not enough to discredit them. It's not enough to matter. At all.
cheers
Caladan
Member
- Sep 9, 2008
- 259
- 0
- 16
Not true. I have not disproved the tests (of which you are unable to explain how they work, but claim they work. Unless of course they work because you said so). I have asked, time and time again, show me the spread of this data, you have been unable to. I suggested a controlled environment, you went on a tangent about how a controlled environment would negate the observations. Dude, you either believe mankind is equal or you do not.
You claim that you're interested in preserving cultural identity, yet you are ready to dismiss cultural differences within a race. Most of my arguments have been based on questioning SCIENTIFIC procedures which are seriously lacking in most of the evidence you turn with. You who were so quick to condemn my chicken argument as half baked, yet continually provide half baked theories here.
You see, I wonder whether you even listen to yourself. Yes, I find 1% difference (which incidentally is in the junk DNA part of our genes) to be mostly negligible. I asked you several questions about cultural differences, about interracial relationships, you have been unable to answer, you simply go on a tangent with an oblique rant.
Friend, here's the truth now - practically all your arguments have been towards separating the races. That my friend, is a RACIST argument. And before you start on your "whiteman" rant, I assure you that nowadays there many black fundamentalists who thave the same argument, and dig out articles to support their arguments. Racism is not a white thing.
Mice are mammals, that is there importance. Dogs are closer to human beings, and monkeys are even closer. Now let me educate you. The reason why mice are used more is because they live shorter lives, so more cycles of development and behaviour can be observed within a shorter span of time.
This is what you can do - get a degree in genetics, or at least take some courses in university. Then you and I can sitdown and have a conversation. The links you show me via wiki are ridiculously simplistic and mostly outdated. When you're truly ready and able to discuss genetics in any reasonable depth, then come and talk to me. For now I am leaving this pointless thread and argument.
By the way - I assure you that my rocker is well and in excellent shape. Ask the students I teach, and the bodies I've contributed to, they will inform you. Don't keep spewing racist ideologies as fact, and then complaining if I refuse to consider them.
You claim that you're interested in preserving cultural identity, yet you are ready to dismiss cultural differences within a race. Most of my arguments have been based on questioning SCIENTIFIC procedures which are seriously lacking in most of the evidence you turn with. You who were so quick to condemn my chicken argument as half baked, yet continually provide half baked theories here.
You see, I wonder whether you even listen to yourself. Yes, I find 1% difference (which incidentally is in the junk DNA part of our genes) to be mostly negligible. I asked you several questions about cultural differences, about interracial relationships, you have been unable to answer, you simply go on a tangent with an oblique rant.
Friend, here's the truth now - practically all your arguments have been towards separating the races. That my friend, is a RACIST argument. And before you start on your "whiteman" rant, I assure you that nowadays there many black fundamentalists who thave the same argument, and dig out articles to support their arguments. Racism is not a white thing.
Mice are mammals, that is there importance. Dogs are closer to human beings, and monkeys are even closer. Now let me educate you. The reason why mice are used more is because they live shorter lives, so more cycles of development and behaviour can be observed within a shorter span of time.
This is what you can do - get a degree in genetics, or at least take some courses in university. Then you and I can sitdown and have a conversation. The links you show me via wiki are ridiculously simplistic and mostly outdated. When you're truly ready and able to discuss genetics in any reasonable depth, then come and talk to me. For now I am leaving this pointless thread and argument.
By the way - I assure you that my rocker is well and in excellent shape. Ask the students I teach, and the bodies I've contributed to, they will inform you. Don't keep spewing racist ideologies as fact, and then complaining if I refuse to consider them.
PhantoMPhones
owning your ass since '03
- Jul 19, 2008
- 83
- 0
- 6
point one out.
find it for yourself. dont sit there and rely on me to spoon feed you everything all just so you can say 'nope i dont believe it'. I've provided a lot of information, which you summarily dismiss because 'i dont believe it'. jesus christ. Go find the rest for yourself. If you really wanted to know, you'd do some research for yourself. Instead you rely on opinion to prove that humans are equal. preposterous.
ROFL @ your so called controlled environment.. I pointed out very clearly why your experiment wouldn't work. You even conceded as much. It is flawed to the point of laughter. It doesn't add up in the slightest sense.. You would likely end up with a generation of sociopaths.
look man you can think that 1% is negligible, but you would be DEAD WRONG... your so called 'junk dna' term is dated beyond belief. You should really go do some research about what that 1% actually entails. Junk dna is DNA sequences we have yet to determine the reason for them being there. even so called dormant sequences in this DNA are providing us with information we never had.
Interracial relationships? what does that have to do with what we are talking about? I told you my stance on interracial breeding and that is that. it is a completely subjective subject (AS I FUCKING EXPLAINED) that has no bearing in this debate about SCIENCE.. you are just trying to drag me into a tangent to which you can accuse me of things. I think its wrong, I think its disgusting, I think it will be the downfall of our cultures as they are today. Anything beyond that matters not. Its personal opinion. THATS ALL.
ROFL again... way to wikipedia.... your orignal argument with the chickens showed how much you actually know about what you were talking about regarding this. which was NOTHING... you've obviously just done a google search and found that information... WHICH IS USELESS... the fact that monkeys or dogs are closer to humans is moot, its useless in the argument. the point was that we are determining things about our genes and through the use of mice. Your original argument about chickens is still erroneous and still creditless. Educate me? Please. Go lay some eggs.
Really...? And who are you MR. genetics? You have proven time and time again here that you clearly do not know anything about genetics. By the way, I DO HAVE A MEDICAL BACKGROUND. And I am back in a post secondary institute (top one in the province actually) studying a biological and environmental program. Whats your medical and scientific background?.. You want to compare credentials? Give 'er. Nice try at the superiority complex... Too bad its quite transparent. And if you are reducing my information down to wiki, then you've obviously ignored all the other information I've given you. Proving to me you have no wish to get the facts straight. You just ignore what you dont like. Get real man....You're coming off as just 'one of the masses'. Like morons who watch Zeitgeist and think its the end all be all of explaining everything, and then think they are experts on religion and conspiracies.
Humans are not equal. Period. Prove me wrong. History, science, and observing reality proves me completely right. Even within our OH SO PC society, we still have a class system, we still give benefits to people over other people, we still have hundreds of laws that have to deal with equality, we still have WAR, because left to its own, humanity does not subscribe to equality... PROVE ME WRONG
Dolly Despair
Well hello there ;D <3
In Swansea the Asian/Black men look upon white girls as prostitutes. That's not right, but if someone did say something we'd be deemed as racist... I don't think anyone can really escape these people anymore, they're everywhere 
