Told What to Think

fah-q said:
Why is any exhibition of white pride so maligned and attacked? [/COLOR]

I don't know fah q but some white pride needs to be attacked...some white pride is goofy as hell...I'm pro white, but I'm no skin head.
 
My Man Mahmoud said:
On the other hand, if we encourage and nuture thought, people might look at white-history.com and think, "Wow, a bunch of underconfident losers desperately trying to justify their place in the cosmos with pseudo-scientific gibberish." And I suppose we wouldn't want that.

You know, some people might think it is a 'pseudo science', but the question is, what do they consider a ‘real science’? That there is no differences in the races? That the genetic laws of inheritance apply to plants and animals but not humans? Franz Boaz little racial equality nonsense? I’m sorry, but ALL of the founders of anthropology and evolution believed in racial differences and most would probably agree with Arthur Kemp.
 
Patrick R. said:
Holy hell, I'm shocked, you are anti Racist and you like Coons 'the races of Europe'?

I'm against racism. I have no problem with an ethnic group wanting to remain itself.

Ethnicism: Germany for Germans!

Racism: Germans are better than the three-eyed, webbed-toed, half-Negro French
 
Norsemaiden said:
Religions are not the result of divine revelation, but are ideologies that are cynically concocted by people who wish to excercise control over the thoughts and actions of a group.

Most people need to be told what to think. They need values to be set for them. Only conscious nihilists can have freedom from this kind of manipulation - or would even want to. Even secular societies have dogmatic belief systems that are imposed upon the crowd to make them conform to the wishes of the ruling elite.

Do you agree that most people should be told what to think? And do they (you?) accept it because it makes life easier to not have to figure things out, or is it because they know they couldn't figure it out if they even tried? Or some other reason?

You are telling people what to think by stating the view as fact that religions are composed of people seeking power or control over others, when this may not be true.

I think it suits some people and not others. Some people like having their life organised by others in virtually all ways, so if it works for them then fair enough, but not everyone is similarly satisfied.
 
People do ask questions when they desire to learn more about their past/present/future surroundings. People who accept everything that is in front of them for the absolute truth do not "need" to ask as many questions. At the age of 5 a child will ask more questions in a day then the average middle aged person in a week. They are like a sponge soaking up every bit of information and creating their world. Is there a point in a child's development that turns them into either...

A) an information seeker their entire life
B) a "conformed" being who doesn't need to ask questions because everything is already answered.
 
That's a good question Bringer. Could it be that at some point people begin to feel that the answers to questions might make them feel uncomfortable? Do they try to maintain a cosy existence and don't want to feel that things may not be as they seem? Are we all like that to some extent? Even those of us who like to criticise others for their conformity? I think so, but there are quite large differences in how much people are curious and questioning about life. The older people get, the more they prefer things to be stable and fit into a routine. But some people cling to routines and need them, others feel "stuck in a rut" and decide to introduce a little uncertainty and new excitement into their lives. The Vikings were more like the latter - with an adventurous spirit. Everyone can't be like that.

It wouldn't matter that people prefer to conform to society if we could be sure that no malign influence had the power to tell people how to think in a way that was killing them. Unfortunately this would appear to have happened. Christianity being forced onto pagans did this, and we have secular orthodoxies now that are at least as bad.
 
Norsemaiden said:
That's a good question Bringer. Could it be that at some point people begin to feel that the answers to questions might make them feel uncomfortable? Do they try to maintain a cosy existence and don't want to feel that things may not be as they seem? Are we all like that to some extent? Even those of us who like to criticise others for there conformity? I think so, but there are quite large differences in how much people are curious and questioning about life. The older people get, the more they prefer things to be stable and fit into a routine. But some people cling to routines and need them, others feel "stuck in a rut" and decide to introduce a little uncertainty and new excitement into their lives. The Vikings were more like the latter - with an adventurous spirit. Everyone can't be like that.

It wouldn't matter that people prefer to conform to society if we could be sure that no malign influence had the power to tell people how to think in a way that was killing them. Unfortunately this would appear to have happened. Christianity being forced onto pagans did this, and we have secular orthodoxies now that are at least as bad.

With domestic contentment, it seems for many an intellectual laziness or semi-hibernation(if indeed one ever possessed such qualities) sets in - the more comfortable one becomes, the less they seem to "think" about, or question anything of consequence outside the scope of protecting and maintaining that comfort zone. Whether this is predetermined by childhood development as The Bringer asks, I certainly cannot say.
I have though watched this phenomenon in action again and again, as most of my friends, siblings etc. are well beyond their youthful days of 'exploration' and soul-searching or the like. Thus a condition not unlike that Norsemaiden describes above, wherein the deeper, broader more complex questions that bring the risk of exposure to answers that may upset this delicate, if rather artifical balance (or comfort if you will) are seemingly avoided at all cost.(This phenomenon appears to be magnified if a spiritual component is also involved.)
And indeed, this may not really be a 'bad' thing in and of itself...except that one is then completely vulnerable to destructive influences or orthodoxies(again, as Norsemaiden noted above) that may well destroy their little utopias...and odds are, they will never see it coming. Then again, if they have shut-down intellectually, and never questioned the why's and wherefore's of their world, perhaps they have passively brought this fate upon themselves.
 
Norsemaiden said:
It seems that in order to have a truly rebellious and independent spirit one needs a combination of primitive wildness and high intelligence.

Domestication results in human skull shapes becoming rounder, and where you find rounder skull shapes you find more docile, conformist mentalities. The Alpine sub-race is a sub-set of domesticated humanity. Here are some observations on their attitudes:



.

The East Baltic type is also


http://www.white-history.com/earlson/hfk/reoehchap3.htm

These can only be generalisations, but I do think that this kind of character has more to do with genes than with experience.

First, does culture determine behavior?

Second, does race have any influence in this determination? Especially as race has been shown to have almost no impact other than physical on ones genetic makeup?

Third, is behavior handed down genetically? This I know is an argument picking up steam in Socio-biology.
 
speed said:
Especially as race has been shown to have almost no impact other than physical on ones genetic makeup?

Even as an avowed anti-Racist, I can't agree with that. We don't win over racism by attempting to discredit race or national characteristics, because that annoys people who have seen otherwise. The mind is part of the body and if physical traits are passed on genetically, so are mental ones.
 
Norsemaiden said:
That's a good question Bringer. Could it be that at some point people begin to feel that the answers to questions might make them feel uncomfortable? Do they try to maintain a cosy existence and don't want to feel that things may not be as they seem? Are we all like that to some extent? Even those of us who like to criticise others for their conformity? I think so, but there are quite large differences in how much people are curious and questioning about life. The older people get, the more they prefer things to be stable and fit into a routine. But some people cling to routines and need them, others feel "stuck in a rut" and decide to introduce a little uncertainty and new excitement into their lives. The Vikings were more like the latter - with an adventurous spirit. Everyone can't be like that.

It wouldn't matter that people prefer to conform to society if we could be sure that no malign influence had the power to tell people how to think in a way that was killing them. Unfortunately this would appear to have happened. Christianity being forced onto pagans did this, and we have secular orthodoxies now that are at least as bad.

I think it is very subconscious. People don't know it but they are afraid of answers to questions they may not even know they have. When asked on the spot, "Have you ever wondered about *so on and so forth*?" They might reply "No, I would like to know the answer." Plain and simple I am sure that it is a very natural response to a subject they know nothing about. When they are faced with the answer it could force fear into their minds because the answer was not what they thought it would be or even worse, what they didn't want it to be.

I think in a way people who choose to criticise others for their conformity are conformed to their own desire. They are in such a way that there is still the freedom for them to explore, watch and evaluate those around them while still being able to control their own lives as to not go into complete chaos. Those who are "stuck in a rut" may either: not like the lives they are living in now and want something different (usually another term for their desire of having something "better") or are truly "free-thinkers" who don't want to be "conformed" for any number of reasons.

In all honesty there has to be a balance between conformed people and unconformed. There need to be those who can carry society and the economy through work so others can contribute to society in other means.
 
That post makes a lot of sense.
Those who are "stuck in a rut" may either: not like the lives they are living in now and want something different (usually another term for their desire of having something "better") or are truly "free-thinkers" who don't want to be "conformed" for any number of reasons.
Yes it is important to make a distinction between the kind of screwed up people who are never satisfied and always think the grass is greener on the other side of the fence, (I am familiar with the type!) and people who seek to stop themselves from becoming mere automatons who always do the same things and never consider all the possibilities. One can be happy and satisfied with what one has, but at the same time able to see other possibilities. It reminds me of Nietzsche's idea that one should be adventurous and not afraid of taking a calculated risk, because that's how you can really live life. "Build your cities on the edge of Vesuvius" was one thing he said, but there are bound to be better quotations than that.
(Any people who literally chose to build their cities on the edge of Vesuvius would be idiots though! Like the fools who build towns at the bottom of a forested slope, then deforest it and get smothered in a mudlslide).
 
I believe one can consciously conform as opposed to blindly following the proverbial herd or worse, feeling that they MUST conform and meekly doing so. The issue for me is when it becomes a purely intellectual conformity; when one simply cannot or will not entertain thoughts or ideas outside the accepted(socially-demanded) orthodoxies or dogmas of the time.
(In keeping with the racial theme)This is especially distressing when the ideals seem to run counter to the well-being or longer-term survival of a group or individual...yet the majority simply go along with the tide, lest they be branded 'intolerant' etc. Casually gambling with the very future of your people, your progeny, is fairly radical to me...yet this is the spoken 'norm' in the west. Those who do no not conform to this utopian ideal effectively commit professional and social suicide for their heretical words, ideas or acts. This we consider progressive - noble. To me it is simply unnatural.
 
Norsemaiden said:
That post makes a lot of sense.

Yes it is important to make a distinction between the kind of screwed up people who are never satisfied and always think the grass is greener on the other side of the fence, (I am familiar with the type!) and people who seek to stop themselves from becoming mere automatons who always do the same things and never consider all the possibilities. One can be happy and satisfied with what one has, but at the same time able to see other possibilities. It reminds me of Nietzsche's idea that one should be adventurous and not afraid of taking a calculated risk, because that's how you can really live life. "Build your cities on the edge of Vesuvius" was one thing he said, but there are bound to be better quotations than that.
(Any people who literally chose to build their cities on the edge of Vesuvius would be idiots though! Like the fools who build towns at the bottom of a forested slope, then deforest it and get smothered in a mudlslide).

Thank you for the replies!

I think that if people are less motivated to really "live life" then the human race will stop progressing. We will eventually stop discovering the mysteries and secrets of the world. Well taken most people believe everything already has been discovered and now anything new discovered its really a discovery more than it is a news headline. The world moves so fast in modern days that people don't stop to understand exactly how powerful or important these discoveries are made.

On a personal note. I don't work full-time. Right now I am studying Finnish at a adult school. It is part time Monday to Friday. I'm hoping to be accepted into the University of Helsinki this year and begin my studies of English Philology. I totally dread getting back into the conformity of a 9-5 job. It was my slaving in Canada. In the months before moving to Finland I was working 3 jobs about 80 hours a week and I still couldn't afford to move out from my parents. Without a 9-5 job I can indulge in my readings, writings and creating music. I can spend my time doing my part in bettering man then just bettering my bank account.