|
|
|
What is Racism? Why is it bad? Like breathing, being racist isn’t considered very important until one stops doing it. Then the people who never paid any attention to being racist but figured it would take care of itself, suddenly find themselves choking to death and on the edge of extinction. The need for explicit, conscious racism instead of implicit, subconscious racism is more dire than ever before, due to the breakdown of impersonal natural forces keeping the races apart. Our people are having an asthma attack, the natural working of the lungs has failed, and only explicit, conscious, reasoned racism can be the inhaler that rescues them. The impersonal barriers of separation are gone. It is time for personal barriers to be thrown up, and thus the time for Racism the ideology, the reasoning process of this survival mechanism, to emerge. Which brings me to the second point that until recently, it was hard to know if racism was true, or truly necessary, or just an outdated prejudice due to ignorance. If everyone were truly the same if raised in the same way, then racism would have no meaning. If everyone were just as related to each other as everyone else, then racism would have no meaning. There was a brief period of time where it was intellectually feasible to reject racism as a primitive prejudice born of ignorance instead of knowledge. These people were objecting to the inborn racism built into everyone not used to seeing foreigners or differences, they assumed time and education would erase all the observed differences and the age of aquarius would roll in. However, the exact opposite occured. Science proved the exact opposite point, and every single study only showed how vital, how intransigent, how unchangeable our genetic differences were. Ethnic Genetic Interests by Frank Salter. And a variety of different racial research that shows clear, distinct, genetic, real and irrevocable differences between the races, has made racism not prejudiced or ignorant, but knowledgable post-judice, that only prejudice and ignorance can avoid admitting is true. It may be that eventually genetic engineering will erase all the differences between people and we really will all be essentially the same. For now, however, race is real, the consequences of mixing races are really disastrous, and the evidence of this disaster is well documented and proven and observable all around the world. Research into the human genome and the influences of each gene and its unequal distribution among the various races will only continue to show how vastly different humans are, how some are far superior to others, and how imbecilic treating them as equal or expecting equal results from them is. What is truly amazing is there is no longer any debate in academic circles that IQ is genetic and varies between the races. There is no questioning the correlations between IQ and criminality, productivity, great accomplishments, morality, stability, and so on. And thus there is no questioning that the high IQ races are better by any measure than the low IQ ones. But racism, inherent in this position, is the most derided belief of all. How can a well agreed upon, utterly proven, irrevocably established factual knowledge of reality be the worst possible belief on earth? Or, to go back to my title, why is racism bad? The truth is, racism is commonly defined as: “Hatred and malicious intent towards a race, or any belief that might possibly justify hatred and malicious intent towards a race, or any belief that might justify any position that has any negative impact on a race.” Of course, this definition leaves out whites who, due to our presumably happy situation and circumstances in the world, don’t deserve any protection from racism and indeed deserve to be taken down a few notches to, presumably, a more ‘fair’ spot on the totem pole. By expanding the fishing net to include tertiary and secondary causes of the primary fear, hatred and malicious intent towards a race, a vast haul of racists is brought in to trial. Anything that could promote hatred for or harming of a racial group, is in this case just as bad as directly hating and wishing harm to said group. People who protest they take no sadistic glee in butchering darker skinned people are still racist by this definition, because their views, if enacted, would still do vast harm to said dark skinned people, and that is good enough. Imagine if a sensible racist goal were enacted, for instance, immigration were not permitted to any white controlled territory. For the vast dark skinned masses, this is irreparable harm to their ethnic genetic interests. They could use all of that land and all those resources to house billions more of their people, but we refuse to let them and use it to house, feed, and clothe our own instead. This is inhumanly cruel to them and a vast harm to their folk. Thus, it is racist. Or consider another sensible racist goal, restricting the technological advances we invent to benefit only our own people. This would give us a competitive advantage in productive capacity and thus the other races would shrink and shrink as a proportion of the gene pool. This is irreparable harm as the dark skinned races of course wish to grow their numbers and become the vast majority of the gene pool. Without these new technologies they couldn’t support all the extra people necessary for their race to thrive, and thus it is racist to not give it to them. Or another racist goal, to colonize a new planet in space with only whites, allowing no other race on board. What enormous harm we have done to them! Now an entire planet won’t be available to them, billions of their people will not be born or be rich, and all because of our racism that discriminates against them. Thus ANY sensible measure, any benefit whites ever do by themselves for themselves, falls under the rubric of malicious hatred of everyone else. It does not matter whether sadism was our motivating force or just love of our own and preference for the objectively Good and noble, because the result is the same. Any belief that might lead to a negative impact on the well being of other races, is racist, and must be stopped at any cost. Everything must be shared equally and everyone must benefit equally from whatever we do, lest any race be left behind or become worse off. Any sensible belief, like blacks are idiots and thugs, is the same as hatred and malicious intent towards a race, because those who believe such things are more likely to have hatred and malicious intent. It is like how drinking and drug use are themselves illegal, in large part because they lead to criminal behavior once used. Not everyone who drinks or everyone who uses drugs then goes out and does a crime, but the risk factor is so increased that society has deemed it wise to forbid it and thus forestall the likely consequences. A belief that blacks are idiots and thugs, won’t 100% lead to a new holocaust, but it raises the risk factor of the believer initiating such an action and thus is forbidden from the start to forestall such a consequence. With logic like this, the facts themselves can become forbidden, truth becomes criminal, and reality is legislated away. “Racism is bad because it leads to the Holocaust.” To these people, it does not matter whether racism is technically true or not. What matters is it ups the chances of inter-racial conflict and thus it must be stopped. An anti-racist is less likely to enslave, genocide, rape, or eat members of another race than a racist. This is all that need be known. Clearly, racism is thus bad. This is like people who view radiation as bad because it harms living tissue even while a cancer patient is in the emergency room on the brink of death. Or that knocking someone down is bad because it hurts even if it’s to stop him from getting hit by a car. Yes, racism is dangerous. Yes, racism ups the risks for inter-racial conflict (at least in the short term, in the long term it actually decreases conflict by keeping races separate and thus depriving them of opportunity to conflict about anything). Yes, racism can justify genocide, slavery, rape, or anything else. But what is the alternative? Without racism the world is doomed. It cannot be simpler than this. For every bad consequence racism could produce, the consequences of not being racist are all around us and infinitely worse. It is like worrying about whether you turned the light off while the house is on fire. Yes, keeping the light on will slightly raise your electric bill at the end of the month, and all things being equal it’s best to turn off your lights as you leave the room, but given the fact that the house is BURNING DOWN and you will DIE if you don’t leave, it may be appropriate to consider ignoring the lights and just going. Here is what will happen if racism and its attendant actions are not implemented: The white race, currently 10% of the world, will dwindle to 1% by the end of the century. Birth rates, immigration, miscegenation, and anti-white legislation will all take its toll, and our day will be done, even if gas chambers don’t round up and exterminate our pilfering remainder. It will effectively cease to exist, without the ability to influence society or make any impact on the future. Don’t complain to me about this prediction, take it up with the UN. These are their population forecasts not mine. With it will die the most creative, smartest, highest achieving, most moral people on earth. The rest of humanity’s future will be that much inferior to what it should have been. As almost all history is simply the progress of the white race across time, it is possible that with us will die all progress entirely, and that furthermore all races will regress to the point in time before they met us and relied on us to provide them with the advancements we made. Jews are set to die out as a population even sooner than whites, their birth rates and miscegenation are just as disastrous as ours, and they are far fewer to begin with. No reliance can be made on them. East Asians though more numerous have an even lower birth rate than ours, and historically speaking no confidence can be placed in their politics, science, art, or human decency. If they do inherit the earth, it will most likely be with an iron fist, lives will be stratified, impoverished, meagre and strict. Conformity will be required and change banned. Such is the way of eastern despotism. Supposing East Asians also commit mass racial suicide, Islam will rule the world by the end of the century. There has seldom been a more stultified, totalitarian, ridiculous and evil belief system as theirs. The race of its practictioners are the most violent, terrible, civilization wreckers to ever walk the earth, and after they destroy all the temples of their opponents and slowly choke to death all their minorities that live underneath them, their inherent stupidity as a race makes sure nothing will replace whatever they just destroyed. Jihad has claimed something like 500 million lives already. No doubt if Islam did conquer the world, it would claim billions more. Without whites or E. Asians to oppose them, nothing could stop them from rolling over all remaining peoples of the earth. From there they would impose their draconian policies that forbid all ‘innovation’ as a sin against Allah. There would be no reason to believe that the resultant dark age would ever be escaped. Supposing Islam didn’t succeed we could instead have a future of ‘Greater Mexico’ or ‘Greater Brazil.’ Countries where lawlessness and corruption are king, no advancements in science or the arts ever occur, and the economy never improves since robber baron after robber baron bankrupts any money as soon as it’s made. Taking whites out of the picture of Mexico and South America, all of its virtues and productivity would leave with it, and all the vices would redouble now totally unrestrained. It would be a banana republic where anything goes and nothing gets done—only writ across the whole world. Or perhaps, just for completion’s sake, sub-saharan Africa will inherit the earth. Do I even have to portray the comedy of Africa writ large? Murder and rape everywhere, starvation and disease everywhere, mutilation and black magic everywhere, shacks and cardboard considered the height of architecture, Big Men with their 100 mistresses and 1,000 kids walking around bedecked in bling and surrounded by ak-47 toting skinny mean looking guards chanting ‘kill x, kill y’, whoever the rival of the day is. South Asians, do to their passivity and stupidity, I assure you could never conquer the world because across all history they have never conquered anything and been conquered over a dozen times. Forget about them, whoever rules the world, they will all find it quite easy to wipe out the Indians. Muslims in India are already making a fine work of it, having purged all hindus out of Pakistan and Bangladesh while still continuing to grow as a proportion of mainland India’s population. Anyone else could do the same. These are our choices folk. Who do we pass the baton to? Who do you trust with the future of life and all things noble and good? If not whites, who? The obvious B-team is Japan, Korea, and China but Human Accomplishment already tells us what to expect from them. Is this really what we want to make of our only chance at life? Is there any guarantee the East Asians won’t die out just like us as shown by their birthrate removing 40% of their whole population each generation? Forget about them. Relying on them so that we can lazily avoid the responsibility ourselves is mere childishness. Gambling the future of the whole universe on such inadequate successors is mere nihilism. If we value anything, we must forestall the end of the white race. We are the key to every good outcome. We always have been, we are currently, and there is a 99% chance that only we ever will be. The risk is too great to simply lay down and die. But, we are told, a far less important risk, a danger of a much lesser magnitude, which is purely theoretical and NOT, in fact, happening all over the world like the death of the white race is—that racism will lead to a new holocaust, or harm dark skinned people in some way—means we must lay down and die. Means the white race must perish. The risk, you see, is simply too high. If we don’t lay down and die, someone might get hurt. Just imagine the horrible future where africans are no longer butchering, raping, mutilating and infecting each other because evil white racists got rid of them! Just imagine how many fewer drug wars, gang wars, and bankruptices South America would have if evil white racists succeeded in getting rid of hispanics! Just imagine how many fewer slum cities, rat worshippers, and medidative trancers India would hold if whites were to replace them! Just imagine how many fewer beheadings, burqas, and terrorist bombings would occur if we were to so cruelly wipe out the muslims! And then think of all that rich diverse food we could no longer eat! Yes, racism is bad, you see, because in one case an inferior race might get harmed, whereas right now we are only sure that the superior race, with superior accomplishments, superior civilization, superior wealth, superior technology, superior looks, superior traditions and superior thinking is only sure to die. Better to not take the risk! We don’t want to rock the boat after all! And so it goes. And all this simply from the viewpoint of objective racism, never mind the love and happiness and pride one can take in his people subjectively, and what a tragedy it would be to be surrounded by aliens completely unlike you, who don’t look like you, think like you, talk like you, or love you—who most likely hate you when push comes to shove. Supposing you were the last survivor of the white race wandering around a country of darker skins, the alienation and loneliness and misery would be nearly the same as the last inhabitant on earth. A fugitive in our own historic homeland, everything we made overturned, every graveyard vandalized, every church bombed, every book burned. No, it is sickening to even think about how defenseless our minority status will make us be, how the efforts of all our ancestors will be vilified, expropriated, and smashed, how all hope for our children will be gone before they’re even born, never given a chance by the supremacist hateful dark skins all around them. Most likely, like when the turks or arabs had the ascendancy over Europe, sold as harem slaves for their beautiful exotic faces—boy or girl. This is our future without racism. So if with racism, gasp, conflict might occur, people might be killed, or even enslaved, or whatever the horror story is, to this I say: BETTER HIM THAN ME. BETTER THEM THAN US. Comments:2
Posted by apollonian on Fri, 16 Jan 2009 04:54 | # Racial Issue Goes To Basic Problem Of “Good-Evil” And Truth Vs. Lies Racism is virtue of pride and loyalty—ck any dictionary. Racism is no less than 5th of original Ten Commandments, “Honor thy race” (parentage). Comrade Diamed, u really should keep ur paragraphs no more than 5 or 6 lines of text to make them more readable for broad public—otherwise they tend to intimidate psychologically, and won’t get read. Note the real cultural problem is not racism but rather a matter of reason vs. anti-reason—or, subjectivism (mysticism) in guise of Pharisaism-moralism and Pelagian heresy (“good-evil” fallacy/delusion). Thus, note Jews sponsor this Pelagian heresy—hence anti-racism utter balderdash—to cover their various frauds and especially the culturally dominant fraud of fractional-reserve money and banking like US Federal Reserve Bank (Fed)—see RealityZone.com for expo/ref. For Jews are Talmudists by definition, hence subjectivists, liars, frauds, murderers, etc.—see RevisionistHistory.org, TruthTellers.org, and Come-and-hear.com for best Talmudic expo. CONCLUSION: Thus cultural solution is Christian TRUTH (as Gosp. JOHN 8:32, 14:6, and 18:37) vs. Jew lies (JOHN 8:44). At present moment in hist., as Jews mass-murder Palestinians in Gaza, people pretty much know “It’s Jews, stupid.” But people still don’t understand too well the full cultural analysis as I give above and in other places—as in earlier blogs, this site. But ck NewNation.org under “commentary.” Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian 3
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 16 Jan 2009 15:23 | # The Framers of the Constitution( * ) were concerned about race-replacement. Just one piece of proof among hundreds if not thousands: the author of the American Declaration of Independence, evidently concerned about race-replacement in his home state, wrote this law into that state’s statutes three years later:
( http://www.occidentaldissent.com/american-racial-history-timeline/ ) Let us therefore be inspired by our fathers’ example to do the right thing before the threat of race-replacement today as they did before that same threat then. We don’t have to use the exact methods they used. But we do have to accomplish the same goal they accomplished. ( * I’ve come to strictly avoid the term “The Founding Fathers” to refer to these men, as the “Founding,” which took place at Plymouth Rock and Jamestown, not Philadelphia, was racial, not “propositional” as the Jews want everyone to think, and in no way took place with the ratification of the Constitution, an agreement in any case never meant by those who wrote it, or understood by those who signed it, to entail the extinguishing of the Founding Race, then or since.) 4
Posted by Metalhead on Fri, 16 Jan 2009 17:33 | # Sometimes words of value can be found in the oddest of places, like this paragraph from the song “Culling the Herd” by the metal band Exodus: When will everyone realize \m/ 5
Posted by John on Fri, 16 Jan 2009 23:37 | # The word is a virtually completely connotative Frankfurt School smear term . In the lexicon of the ersatz religion of Communism/Globalism, it roughly corresponds to “sin”. To the extent that it has any denotative value at all, it is dysphemistic and pathologizes normal thought and behavior. I suspect we have a malign encourager among us. 6
Posted by J Richards on Sat, 17 Jan 2009 02:20 | # Diamed’s Bad Argument about Racism
Edge of extinction? Still hundreds of millions of whites around. Edge of extinction would be a number on the order of a few thousand.
The higher IQ races are better when higher IQ is relevant/important, but the important issue is that racism IS NOT inherent in this position. Racism is defined as a specific form of prejudice. If you look up the definition of prejudice then it is a negative opinion with no basis in facts. When the facts show racial differences in IQ, then its acknowledgment cannot be described as racist. Now you might say that some people will still call it racist nevertheless, but a closer examination of their reasoning reveals an idiosyncratic definition of racism that is meaningless for debate; see examples below. 1. Whites ban miscegenation = racist; Jews ban marriage to non-Jews in Israel = fine. 2. Noel Ignatiev (Jew) calls for abolition of the white race = academic exercising right to free speech; patriots calling for the expulsion of Jews = supremacists, racists, anti-Semites. 3. Point out media control by Jews = racist, anti-Semite; Israel bans media ownership by non-Jews = fine. 4. Make all whites natural citizens of the U.S. just for being white = racist; Jews everywhere are natural citizens of Israel = fine. There are many such examples. Racism as used by a lot of people is meaningless. Matt Nuenke has addressed this in some detail http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/adl.htm Nuenke’s argument is worth a read; Diamed’s isn’t.
Just your idiosyncratic notion.
How is this sensible? The sensible belief is that low IQs and petty criminality (mugging, assault, etc.) are more common among blacks.
Who are these people? When it comes to the people who define racism and talk about its horrors, I see names such as Franz Boas, Stephen J. Gould, Steven Rose, Leonard Kamin, Richard Lewontin and other members of the tribe.
This is very bad phrasing. The main issue is the meaning of racism. As Nuenke shows, the word racism is meaningless in a large number of scenarios where it’s used, and since such scenarios are the majority of instances where racism is invoked, care must be taken to clarify what one means by racism, and in your case the meaning is reality and the consequences of ignoring reality, but what is real is not a prejudicial belief by definition and shouldn’t be classified as such.
Of little relevance when the absolute numbers are in the hundreds of millions.
If only this were true! Jews cannot marry non-Jews in Israel, and most of them elsewhere marry Jews.
You surely haven’t read the Talmud and other Jewish texts.
I’d like to see evidence showing Muslims (not a race by the way) perpetrating the World Wars, the 1990s attack on Serbia, the current Iraq war, the starvation deaths in Ukraine, the communist killings around the globe, etc. and I’d also like to know why the wise men of history have been portraying, for millennia, Jews as born nation wreckers but not Muslims even though Islam has been around for 1600 years.
If you’re talking about the U.S., better take a look at the tribe responsible for flooding the U.S. with tens of millions of non-whites since 1965. You’re ragging on the dark skins, but they couldn’t have come to the U.S. without being let in at the gates. Turn your attention to the gatekeepers. 7
Posted by Collapse of Multicult Utopia of California on Sat, 17 Jan 2009 02:44 | # No more welfare for the Hispanics - California will be burning soon: “California controller to suspend tax refunds, welfare checks” - http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/01/california-no-tax-refund-for-you.html And so it begins. 8
Posted by Diamed on Sat, 17 Jan 2009 04:12 | # From the standpoint of a race which has been around for 40,000 years, a projection stating we only have 100 more years left to live is, in fact, on the edge of extinction. The remaining portion of our existence is a mere 1/400th of the time we’ve already lived. It doesn’t matter to me if we have hundreds of millions of sheeple heading towards their death, or 1,000; so long as they are heading towards their deaths we are going to go extinct. I understand your strategy is to deny that this, that, or the other is racist and deny you or your thinking is racist. This to me is unacceptable, because it puts people on the defensive. Suddenly we spend all our time trying to prove we aren’t racists, instead of trying to prove we are right. I would prefer to simply accept any label they apply and then throw it back in their face, “So, what’s wrong with it?” Thus the ‘why is it bad?’ We can point out double standards until we’re blue in the face but you know why those don’t work? Because no two situations are exactly the same. You may think it’s a double standard, but the person you’re arguing with doesn’t see it that way. He sees it like this: a) Whites ban miscegenation = racist. Jews ban miscegenation = fine. The difference here is numbers. Like you said, there are hundreds of millions of whites but only a few million jews. Thus there is no double standard. Jews risk losing their identity if even a few jews miscegenate, whites don’t. We can afford it, thus we’re being churlish when we don’t allow it. Furthermore, jews have a distinct culture and religion worth preserving, whites have no culture and so they lose nothing by marrying out. In fact, whites are enriched with ‘ethnics’ who still have cultures unlike us. Jews, being an ‘ethnic,’ have their own enriching culture which has to be preserved. No double standard here. b) Whites call for the deportation of all jews = racist. Jews call for the abolishment of the white race = fine. The difference is they believe race is a social construct. To abolish a social construct is to simply abolish the term as a meaningful indicator about a person. In his utopian future, ‘white’ has no meaning and no white thinks of himself as ‘white,’ thus the ‘white race’ is abolished as a term. They do not call for any physical liquidation of white people. Whites, meanwhile, are speaking of literal, physical actions that do believe jews are inherently jews, it is not a social construct, thus no jew can escape his fate. From a white racist standpoint, there is no such thing as a ‘good jew’ and thus we are racist. Jews are quite willing to speak of ‘good whites’ who have abandoned their ‘whiteness,’ and thus they are arguing against a voluntary ideology not a person’s inherent physical nature. No double standard here. c) Whites point out media control by jews = racist. Jews control their own media in Israel = fine. There are plenty of differences, for one Israel was founded as a jewish state and thus has a right to protect its identity, but America was founded as a ‘nation of immigrants’ and included jews from the start. Therefore we have no right to complain about other people controlling America. America has no identity, we simply exist as a place where ethnics and jews can come and prosper. As the Statue of Liberty says: “give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to be free.” Israel doesn’t have that epitaph on their port of entry, they simply say “give us your jews, the rest of you can keep sailing.” It isn’t for Israel because they never made any such pretense, the purpose of Israel’s existence is to shelter jews from the vicious, unfair, anti-semitic predations of outsiders. That purpose can’t be achieved without control of their media, jews are only acting in self-defense. It would be racist for whites, however, because whites are not threatened by anyone. What right do they have to be given additional powers—no doubt so they can oppress and genocide yet more innocents with? d) Give citizenship to all whites worldwide = racist. Give citizenship to all jews worldwide = fine. Whites are persecutors who enslave and genocide innocent people. Jews are victims who have just gone through the Holocaust and need a safe haven to flee to. All of the founders of Israel talked about how the holocaust would have never happened if only Jews had a homeland. Giving all jews on earth citizenship to Israel is to protect a prosecuted minority in the world, it has nothing to do with racism, it is simply benevolence towards a persecuted victim group—no different than giving refuge to refugees. If whites were to do the same, from their position of power, it would have some different, sinister motive, probably to all get together and plan to genocide the world. No double standard here. Point out any double standard, and I’ll show you why the two circumstances are not similar. Whether it be population size, political power, the history of the two different people’s, the enrichingness of their culture, or the relative poverty of one side, you will never, ever create a perfect parallel. Thus no double standards can ever be proven. It just sounds like whining. Anyone who thinks for instance ‘poor whites’ should be given affirmative action alongside ‘poor blacks’ is neglecting the history of oppression of blacks in America, the culture of violence that white racism has caused in black neighborhoods, the white racism that keeps blacks down throughout their lives but not poor whites, etc. You will never, ever prove a double standard, you will just look unsophisticated for not understanding the obvious differences in people’s situations. Instead of whining about wanting to just be treated fairly like everyone else and arguing for equal rights for all, I think we should act like our ancestors and simply take what we want because we feel we deserve it. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson never went around begging the Indians to stop using double standards, they simply enforced their own standards and God help who got in the way. Stressing the superiority of whites and thus their superior rights cuts the gordian knot. If you want evidence for Islamic malfeasance as the greatest scourge to ever assail the earth, read this: http://www.politicalislam.com/tears/pages/tears-of-jihad/ All told 270 million murdered, and more every day. Not only a body count, everywhere Islam goes it guts the previous culture and turns it into a slavish oppressive backwater. A band from morocco to indonesia is poor, unfree, illiterate, uneducated, low-lifespan, barbarians. This didn’t used to be the case, Persia for instance, as well as Babylon, Egypt, and Pakistan (historically part of India) were all once great civilizations with many claims to fame and net contributors to the world’s culture and goods. Now all they export is terrorism and scroungers who immigrate into your country, take welfare, and riot over everything ‘non-islamic’ in their host countries. Comparing the world wars, the bombing of serbia, etc to the scourge of Islam is absurd. Within five years of both world wars Europe had economically recovered and continued producing great accomplishments —after Islam takes over your nation simply falls off the map and never recovers again. 9
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 17 Jan 2009 06:01 | # On the double standard in politics
James Kalb commented on this theme this morning. A Turnabout commenter had posted this:
to which Kalb replied:
10
Posted by J Richards on Sat, 17 Jan 2009 13:11 | # Diamed’s bad racism argument part 2
Which is pure nonsense! Barring major natural global catastrophes or killer viruses/microbes, 100 years hence there will be hundreds of millions of whites. Besides, if you met the most direct ancestors of whites from 35,000 years ago, you’d scarcely recognize them as belonging to the same race as modern whites.
I’m only acknowledging that my thinking is racist if my opponent shows that it isn’t based on facts but prejudice.
They don’t have to be exactly similar for double standards to apply.
Not quite. Israel takes very few non-Jewish immigrants. By allowing Jews to marry non-Jews in Israel, it doesn’t face elimination of its Jewish base. In the U.S., on the other hand, whereas whites are many times the number of Jews in Israel, we are also getting millions of immigrants per year and there’s a theoretical possibility of a sharp decline in white numbers under widespread miscegenation. Setting aside the likelihood of widespread miscegenation (which I believe to be unlikely), many whites will want a ban on miscegenation in the U.S. just to be extra safe, but every single Jewish organization will describe this as racist. Clear double standard, not to mention all the race mixing among whites promoted by Jews.
Pure nonsense. Whites lack a culture only within a deracinated public school education system. White culture cannot be maintained by the masses of immigrants flooding the U.S. and is worth preserving. As to Jews having a distinct culture and religion worth preserving, I sincerely hope they preserve their culture far from humans.
You think the Jews believe the nonsense they would have others believe? Noel Ignatiev has never said anything about the disproportionate concentration of wealth and privilege among Jews and has never urged for the abolition of Jewishness based on these very things that prompt him to urge the abolition of whiteness. Besides, Deportation of Jews = loss of many privileges they enjoy. In both cases the privileges are heavily overlapping. So there’s a clear double standard. Ignatiev’s abolition of whiteness would turn the U.S. into a Third World nation, equivalent to robbing white wealth and deporting whites to live among a Third World majority. Clear double standard.
Nation of immigrants? The immigrants to America were whites and as far as they were concerned they were going to build a white nation, displacing the Indians to the margins of society or reservations. This white nation was to be an Anglo nation and there was to be no Jewish character to it. Many were opposed to Jewish immigration, but sadly they didn’t prevail. Most Jews in Israel are Ashkenazi and therefore immigrants. These creatures have no claim to Palestine.
The founders had intended to and gave the nation the identity of the Anglo man, a Northern European-settled nation where the non-Anglos were to become modified Englishmen, which they did. All it would take was a race of born nation wreckers aka the criminal Jewish community to destroy it.
Are you in Disneyland? Whites are not threatened by anyone? Millions of Third Worlders are flooding in and the mainstream media people don’t tell the public what these aliens are doing to their quality of life. Why? Because the people in charge of the media are from the criminal Jewish community; they have wanted this to happen, and they opened the floodgates to Third World immigration in 1965. The notion of whites having control of the media in the U.S. has nothing to do with “so they can oppress and genocide yet more innocents with,” but with maintaining their culture, society and quality of life.
When it comes to genocide, Jews are unsurpassed by any other group. If you look at the black slave trade, it was overwhelmingly dominated by Jews and most slave owners were Jews: http://blacksandjews.com/Welcome.html (note that the citations in the book are almost completely sourced from Jewish authorities)
Whoops! Turns out that the Holocaust is a Holohoax, and it’s funny that you have extensively acknowledged this here:
Very strange comment from someone who’s been posting that blacks are intrinsically more criminal and doomed to be downtrodden because of their naturally low IQs. To quote you, ‘Any sensible belief, like blacks are idiots and thugs,...’
The link you gave claimed 80 million Hindus killed by Muslims. This is bull. How could they kill so many with swords and other primitive weapons within the span of a few hundred years? Since the Hindus would also have had swords and other similar weapons, the Muslims would have suffered heavy losses too. At most you are looking at Muslim armies in the tens of thousands moving in. There was a group of Muslims that moved in for good somewhere in the 1400s and one of the Muslim kings became India’s greatest King ever, known as Akbar. Akbar controlled most of the territory of India, took Hindu wives, and attempted to combine the best of Hindu and Islamic religions to unite the people. Today you have a billion-plus Muslims and less than 15 million Jews. So Jews have no competition when it comes to being the greatest scourge on a per capita basis.
If you look at the brown Muslims in the U.S., they are not welfare leeches, rioters and petty thieves whereas the ones in Europe are abusing welfare and causing lots of riots. So Muslims per se are not a problem with respect to riots and other abuses. The difference has to do with Europe mostly taking in the lower class Muslims, whereas the U.S. has mostly taken Muslims from the middle and upper classes. Since you mentioned riots, Svigor mentioned a while back that some Jews were funding the development of Mosques in Denmark. Then the Jews published Mohammed cartoons in Denmark. Local Muslims protested, but it was no big deal. So a short while later, Jews in many major print publications in Denmark and some other nations published Mohammed cartoons in a coordinated fashion, which made the Muslim world note it, and then the riots started. So at first you have Jews make it more comfortable for the Muslims. Then they pit Muslims against whites, being the congenitally treacherous people they are. As to terrorism, all major incidents in recent years (July 7 London bombings, Madrid train bombings, 9/11) were Jew jobs.
I’m not comparing. I gave you a list of massive carnage and asked for evidence that Muslims were behind it, which you can’t come up with because they were all Jew jobs. 11
Posted by Diamed on Sat, 17 Jan 2009 13:51 | # ::laughs:: J Richards, you didn’t read what I said correctly at all!
I didn’t mean to say I’m the person you’re arguing with. Presumably we’re on the same side. We together are arguing against the liberals of the world. My entire ‘refutation’ of your double standards was from a liberal’s perspective, I agree that we’re treated unfairly! It’s not very nice to link my holocaust post, I was looking forward to posting it here where it would get more fanfare and discussion. Well, no matter, I’ll still post it later in a proper thread. Suffice to say I know the holocaust is a hoax! As to whether swords can kill 80 million people or not, I don’t think the murder weapon really matters. Once the enemy is disarmed and helpless, you can kill as many of them as you want, using whatever weapons you want. Who can individually stand against an organized army? As to jews being a larger per capita menace to the world than muslims, I can certainly agree with you there. 12
Posted by J Richards on Sat, 17 Jan 2009 14:20 | #
A Jew’s perspective, not a liberal’s perspective. Something isn’t right. If you had to list a liberal’s perspective then you should have provided the refutation also since you portray yourself as vehemently against liberals. Don’t be wasting our time like this. Don’t bother with posting your notes on the Holohoax as a much better argument is at http://wiki.majorityrights.com/holocaust You should, however, go to this article where you repeatedly argued that the Holocaust tale is true, and leave an explanation that you stand corrected and why you changed your mind: http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/david_duke_kosher_nazi/ 13
Posted by John on Sat, 17 Jan 2009 17:44 | #
I “deny” that I am a “racist” exactly the same way that, as an atheist, I “deny” that I’m a “sinner”. “Deny”, “racist” and “sinner” are religious terms. I belong to neither religion. 14
Posted by batista on Sat, 17 Jan 2009 18:51 | # What a strange disquisition. A web of semanticism , arguing over split hairs. No wonder we are in such a hopeless position and being constantly and persistently shafted. 15
Posted by John on Sun, 18 Jan 2009 09:51 | # Suggesting that we avoid intentionally vituperative communist smear terms or the other side’s obfuscating and dysphemistic characterization of us goes beyond mere semantics (think: PR). That I should have to make such an obvious suggestion is the problem and a serious one imo. 16
Posted by John on Sun, 18 Jan 2009 10:06 | # “What is a pinko and why is it bad to be one?” is not too topical among multi-cultis. I wonder why this topic should even being discussed here? 17
Posted by Lola on Tue, 20 Jan 2009 07:30 | # It should be stopped Racism is not a healthy topic to write about. It’s sick to the stomach seeing people hating others for stupid reasons. Why is it evnen dicussed here in the first place!!!!! I never allow racism in my house. At home, we treat every one with respect and kindness.Even if they are different. Why can’t people do that these days !!!!!! It’s sickening to even think about racism. Everyone is the same even if we look diffeent am I right!!!! 18
Posted by Diamed on Tue, 20 Jan 2009 08:47 | # Lola, you seem to have stumbled upon this website and been traumatized, poor thing. To answer your question:
People have never done that, not these days, and not any days in all history. Evolution encourages hatred of those not related to you and love for those related to you, because it helps pass on and prosper your genes. No one else is being nice to whites or our genetic interests, they are here taking our land, our money, raping our women, voting themselves our tax dollars, demonizing us on TV, villifying our history and ancestors in our schools, demanding we miscegenate away our unique genetic heritage, and using unfair affirmative action to out-compete us for jobs. We would be fools to treat everyone with respect and kindness when we are so universally treated with violence and contempt. Respect begets respect, kindness begets kindness. It’s up to the aggressors in this world picture to start the process of healing, not the victims. A raped woman should not be told that the rapist deserves more respect and kindness, it is the rapist who did not show her the respect and kindness she deserved.
No, see, that’s just a mistake. At one point we thought everyone was the same, but scholarly studies and the science of the human genome has revealed we have dramatic genetic differences that make the various races starkly and irrevocably different from one another. I suggest you read Ethnic Genetic Interests, the Bell Curve, Human Accomplishment, IQ and Global Inequality, Race, Evolution, and Behavior, or any of the fine books that document the differences between the races and show their genetic origin. Due to these racial differences, we certainly cannot live under the same cultural, legal, economic, and aesthetic environment. Everyone prefers their own way of doing things and follows their own instinctual personality and behavior, the races are too different for a single nation to accommodate all of them. A shame, but that’s how these things go. It’s a shame there’s no santa claus either, but we have to accept the world as it comes. 19
Posted by Duncan on Tue, 20 Jan 2009 12:28 | # Dear Diamed Two questions for you, or any other blogger: “Due to these racial differences, we certainly cannot live under the same cultural, legal, economic, and aesthetic environment.” Please explain, logically and scientifically, your basis for the above comments. I fail to see any link between genetic traits and the legal or economic environment. “...demanding we miscegenate away our unique genetic heritage”. How does anyone demand or force miscegination? 20
Posted by Diamed on Tue, 20 Jan 2009 15:09 | #
Some races are more criminal than others. Blacks for instance have ten times the crime rate as whites, who in turn are four times as criminal as asians. If we are tough on crime, blacks are basically wiped out as a race, as practically all of them would have to go to jail. Even black women are as likely to be criminals as white males. If we are lenient on crime like blacks prefer, they create such dangerous urban jungles that all whites are driven out of their own cities, which wipes out the white race via habitat loss (the most common cause of species going extinct). This has occurred in Detroit, DC, LA, and New Orleans for example. So what legal system should we use? It favors one race or the other, but cannot be suitable for both. Nor does it make sense for some races who could live in peace and quiet all their days, to be forced to live alongside other races three, or ten times as criminal as themselves. What benefit do we gain from such a criminal underclass? Black and hispanic crime makes living around them impossible, there is no moral reason why people must surround themselves with inferiors instead of their equals and peers who they would thrive around and be happy with. You wouldn’t ask for a wife to stay with an abusive husband would you? The white race just wants domestic peace with her husband, and has the right to leave when such a basic right is violated. As for economics, racial differences in IQ and personality (for instance impulsiveness, single motherhood, criminality) make some races less productive than others. Blacks especially, but also hispanics or any low IQ groups, cannot pull their economic weight, they cost society more than they make. Whites should not live in an economic environment where their production goes to feeding other race’s consumption, this is a violation of their rights and the law of evolution, which states that the fit should survive due to their superior abilities, not subsidize the unfit to multiply endlessly. Furthermore, third worlders are comfortable with a lower standard of living than whites, and thus are fine with the crowding, pollution, noise, work hours, low wages, job insecurity, etc that whites have spent centuries progressing out of. With the influx of third worlders and their third world economic standards, whites who expect a high standard of living cannot compete economically. The same economic system cannot accomodate the interests of both races—the usual result is white couples refuse to have children, delay having children, or have only one token child that they then invest all their parenting and wealth into, in the hopes they’ll have a decent standard of living. A high standard of living in an all-white society would be a basic right, easily achievable, but in a world where much of our wealth goes to charity to non-whites instead of whites, that kind of luxury is more difficult. Combine this with the ‘arms race to the bottom’ of workers willing to stack 5 people to a room, work 18 hour shifts, work for under minimum wage, pollute the environment, and brave bad working conditions, and the only way to get a job would be to somehow accept even worse and lower lifestyles than the third world to become an attractive hire to businesses. Whites should not have to live in such an economic environment, and we will not. As you can see, we’d rather go extinct than go back to that 1800’s type charles dickens hell. Therefore we must separate and live by our own first world standards where children become affordable and jobs high paying again.
How does a child demand a cookie? By stridently insisting he gets his way and throwing tantrums until he gets it. How does God insist “thou shalt not kill”? By stating its a moral necessity and we are bound by our moral code/moral sense to follow it. How does society demand women stay virgins until their wedding night? By ostracizing and shaming anyone who doesn’t to the point of utter misery, and making them into fallen women who no boy would pursue ever after. There are plenty of ways to demand and force people to do things, it doesn’t have to be so direct as a law requiring whites intermarry with non-whites. Just create a social atmosphere that rewards the deed monetarily (your mixed race black children will get affirmative action for instance), socially (everyone will hype how wonderful you and your children are), and morally (you, unlike the unwashed masses, have transcended race and are thus an enlightened one who can lord it over all the racists around you), and the actual deed will follow. A recent article from the UK displays how swiftly this process works: http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2009/01/revealed_the_ri.php
This of course spells the death knell of the white race, and is thus just one more assault among many upon our kind. 21
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 20 Jan 2009 15:30 | # Duncan says,
Esthetic: If Euros prefer the way they look to the way Negroes look they’ll naturally want to see what they prefer — namely, Euros — in films, the theater, on TV, in magazine ads, and so on, but this makes Negroes unhappy. A clash results, which always gets exploited by the Jews to the detriment of Euros. The result is the Jews make sure we see Negroes everywhere we’d rather be seeing Euros. Now the Jews and Negroes are happy but the Euros aren’t. So it doesn’t work out. Economic: If Negroes can’t perform cognitively as well as Euros they fall behind and occupy a lower socio-economic level, which breeds resentment that always gets exploited by the Jews who become instrumental in getting racial quotas against Euros implemented, leaving Jews and Negroes happy but Euros feeling cheated. And similarly for the other aspects: open your eyes please, Duncan, and fill in the blanks yourself.
By brainwashing starting in the schools and continuing through all aspects of life — you saw the French Jew, Julien Dray, explicitly call for governmental pro-miscegenation brainwashing at all levels and in all facets of French society (I translated his typical Jewish genocide advocacy in another thread: do a site search under Julien Dray) — combined with flooding the place with non-whites and letting natural biological drives play out first with one segment of the population, the effects eventually percolating through the others until you have Egypt and Brazil where England, Holland, and pre-1970 America once stood. “But no one’s forcing anyone to miscegenate who doesn’t want to.” No, not any more than withholding all but questionable food and water forces anyone to consume what’s questionable. Thirst and hunger will force them to consume what’s questionable. But who withheld that which they’d have preferred? 22
Posted by Dasein on Tue, 20 Jan 2009 15:39 | # Duncan, On the subject of genetic traits and economic environment: 23
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 20 Jan 2009 16:16 | # Duncan, here are Julien Dray’s comments: http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/m_le_pen_has_a_new_spokesperson/#c66613 24
Posted by John on Wed, 21 Jan 2009 13:15 | #
What’s all that got to with “racism”? Are you trying to rehabilitate the word? To what end? Are you aware that it has chief use has always been vilify and smear people with a certain pov and that it has never had much (if any) denotative meaning? I seriously question your motives in promoting that word in relation to us as well as the obfuscating and dysphemistic “white supremacist”. Seriously, how do you think calling ourselves “white supremacists” and “racists” is going to help us?! 25
Posted by Diamed on Wed, 21 Jan 2009 15:20 | # There is no grand strategy John. I call it like I see it. The Founding Fathers of America were white supremacists, and look what it got them. An entire continent of beautiful brilliant white children, the richest and most powerful country on earth, with a host of scientific and artistic advancements to adorn the world with. 26
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 21 Jan 2009 15:51 | # I’m not at all indisposed to Diamed’s argument. European peoples must discard the notions that currently torpedo our sense of being. White racial supremacy on certain significant measures is simply a fact, and the present, ridiculous shrinking from simple fact leads directly to unnecessary self-abasement, self-estrangement, and political and cultural impotence. Let us acknowledge our nature, and tell those who wag their finger at us where, precisely, to put it. 27
Posted by John on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 14:16 | # By importing slaves themselves and/or allowing slaves to be imported, the “Founding Fathers” sowed some pretty dreadful seeds. The plants are in full bloom now. “Supremacy” means essentially in its chief definition, “rulership over all that’s inferior”. As an example of that chief definition, the US Supreme Court doesn’t purport to be “better” than the lower courts. It looks from where I sit that we are being ruled over instead by supremacists—and the screws are getting tighter. A less obfucating term would be “superiority”. There’s still problems with that one, though. The only spatial metaphors I like to use when referring to race are “in” and “out”. Calling ourselves “White Supremacists” or “racists” (the latter coined by our adversary) is a monumentally stupid strategy, imo. Using either of these terms to refer to ourselves is the equivalent, if we were a prizefighter, of leading with the chin. GW, do you really think it’s a good idea that we should call ourselves “racists”? Should we not rule over ourselves and leave others to do the same, if and to the extent that’s possible. If yes, then “supremacy”, for clarity’s sake, is not the word you want to use. 28
Posted by Diamed on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 23:52 | # Perhaps you’re right. We should substitute all occurrences of ‘racist’ with ‘pro-white’ and and ‘white supremacy’ with ‘white superiority.’ It all amounts to the same thing. 29
Posted by Duncan on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 11:35 | # Fred Your comments seem not to be based on facts or made logically - they all start with “IF”. “If Euros prefer the way they look to the way Negroes look they’ll naturally want to see what they prefer” “If Negroes can’t perform cognitively as well as Euros they fall behind and occupy a lower socio-economic level” On what do you base these assumptions - something other than rhetoric? 30
Posted by Dasein on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 12:00 | # Duncan, If you’re going to be a smart ass, do better to make sure you are not exposing yourself as a cretin in the process. As regards the second point, consult the following: http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf If you have disposable income, then consider purchasing any of the following: The Bell Curve (Herrnstein and Murray) Race Differences in Intelligence (Lynn) IQ and Global Inequality (Lynn and Vanhanen) The g Factor (Jensen) 31
Posted by Duncan on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 14:07 | # Dasein Do you have any of your own thoughts, or do you just post links to other people’s? Nothing I have seen so far gives me any reason to believe that you, Fred and the other posters are basing your cretinous prejudice on anything other than your own paranoid delusions. Enough with the false arguments - where is the proof? If you think you have any, stand up for your beliefs and produce it! 32
Posted by Dasein on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 14:29 | # So you don’t have any cash to buy those books. Doesn’t that tell you something about the correlation between socio-economic level and IQ? But I did give you a link to a free PDF. Maybe you don’t know how to read, and your presence here is made possible by your mommy’s transcription. I don’t do psychometric research. I read the results of those who do. If you are too stupid or lazy to do the same, that’s your problem. 33
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:02 | # Duncan, if you’re interested, why don’t you proceed by doing your own internet searches of this material. (I take it, by the way, you like the way Negroes look better than the way whites look. That’s fine: there’s no disputing taste. I have no quarrel with that.) Beyond that, you’re a nonce case, Duncan, and it’s just a waste of time bandying words with nonce cases, so I choose not to take time posting long replies to you every time you pipe up with your nonce drivel. 34
Posted by duncan on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 18:18 | # OK, Fred and Dasein, you carry on getting other people to argue your case for you. Way to go. Dasein, where does socio-economic standing link with (a) the wish to buy books of dubious value and (b) IQ? If the author’s arguments are based on such non-connections as these, I’m clearly missing nothing. Shaky logic there. Fred, I think you’ve lost the plot a bit - where did people’s appearance come into the discussion? Anyway, to get to the real point - there is no substantive link between genetic traits and social traits. Same as there is no link between blue eyes and intelligence, or blonde hair and honesty, there is no link between skin colour and behavioural or social traits. if your issue is cultural rather than genetic which I suspect it might be having read the rather garbled arguments posted here, then your argument still doesn’t stand - there is no link between genes and culture either. 35
Posted by Darren on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 18:36 | #
That is how research and argumentation works. Have you ever attended any kind of secondary or college institution? Academics is built upon layers of past knowledge and discovery.
So please tell us why people with genius level IQ are a rarity in society, despite the fact that many more people try really hard but fail to achieve the same level of result. Please tell us why a dog, cat, fish, etc. cannot exhibit similar traits of intelligence as humans. Since you have taken genetics out of the picture, I would be amused at your reply.
Actually, a recent study did, in fact, reveal that blue-eyed people, as a group, have higher average IQ. Not because of their eye color, but because of certain genetic traits associated with people that have blue eyes. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-476244/Why-blue-eyed-boys-girls-brilliant.html 36
Posted by duncan on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 19:21 | # Dear Darren My point is not about the link between genes and IQ, as you seem to be arguing, but between genes and cultural or social behaviour such as honesty. I don’t think that your response addresses this issue. Obviously dogs, cats, fish etc do not display similar traits as humans because they do not have human genes… well, duh. Am currently completing my PhD, so I do understand the process of academic thought - I just haven’t seen any here. For that same reason, I don’t rely on tabloid newspaper articles for scientific info. As you are doubtless aware, from your keen understanding of the topic, academics do often dissent and disagree with one another, so an academic article is not regarded in academic circles as adequate proof of fact, it is merely an opinion which is sometimes based on an interpretation of data, sometimes bsed only on a synthesis of other opinions.
37
Posted by Darren on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 19:49 | # Duncan,
The exact relation between genes and cultural behavior is definitely abstract and I realize that you are likely to attack this murkiness, however, there are several routes we can take on this issue - It can be shown that, for example, blacks are more aggressive than whites and less socially cohesive than whites. There are racial differences in average testosterone level. The ancestral environment for white people was a cold and harsh one that selected for traits of IQ and altruism, which could be argued to have influnced this. It is well known in psychology that altruism is an innate human trait that exists across all cultures, so clearly it is genetic, rather than a purely cultural construct.
If you do, then you shouldn’t react so bitterly towards people who link you to other people’s work.
Of course, claims must be evaluated rather than accepted on the face.
I know what a bell curve is, thanks. I was establishing the point that IQ is genetic and that, ultimately, is limited by genetics. I was not, despite what you seem to think, discussing the social ramificatons of being special for having a high IQ. Geddit?
Go right ahead. I am very confident about my IQ and my ability to debate you. I am not sure why you chose to attack me personally, but if you want to go down that road, shoot for it! 38
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 20:45 | # * Blue-eyed people “better strategic thinkers” 39
Posted by Desmond jones on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 20:52 | # Am currently completing my PhD, so I do understand the process of academic thought There is no PhD for wisdom, which is obvious in this case. 40
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 20:54 | # Dear Dear Duncan, You have a number of more or less distinctive bits of writing (as distinguished from recent comments at this blog) that are like that of “Sarah”, who graced us by “her” presence on a thread dealing with the genocide of Afrikaners; such as: addressing your interlocutor as “Dear” in your greeting; responding with a condescending “well duh” when conceding a point only to point out its triviality; and your generally vapid tone of non-engagement. Are you “Sarah”? Whoever you are, you say: “Obviously dogs, cats, fish etc do not display similar traits as humans because they do not have human genes…” But they do have genes in common with humans, no? They do possess suites of traits that can be objectively quantified that lend themselves to our ability to call them “dogs”, “fish”, and “cats” with some measure of consistency, yes? And all of this is the product of evolution? Well duh. So what of it? Different human groups ALSO have genes in common, but there is ALSO genetic distinction BETWEEN human groups that ACCOUNTS for there being different human groups. Not a startling point I think, I’m almost tempted to follow it with another “well duh”, but I’ll restrain myself. Okay, now here is the important part, and I hope your PhD level intellect can follow along: it is precisely these suites of traits - the objective, measurable criteria by which we assign a thing to a category - that were selected for in divergent geographic locations/ climates under varying selective pressures (i.e., the divergent geographic locations) that provided a reproductive fitness boost: fair skin to absorb more sunlight in the cloudy North, higher intellect to cope with the more demanding environment in which food was more scarce, etc. Fair skin is correlated with higher average group intelligence, not the cause of it, because BOTH traits, part of a suite of traits, proved adaptive in the environment of evolution of European Man. “As you are doubtless aware, from your keen understanding of the topic, academics do often dissent and disagree with one another, so an academic article is not regarded in academic circles as adequate proof of fact, it is merely an opinion which is sometimes based on an interpretation of data, sometimes bsed only on a synthesis of other opinions.” You make the pursuits of the Academy sound all so pointless, as it presently stands, I wholeheartedly concur. “While IQ obviously has genetic links, behaviour and social traits are not genetically determined to my knowledge.” Do you not feel disingenuous or a moron for spouting such drivel? To the degree that traits are genetically determined they are genetically determined, but of course. The question: to what degree are particular traits genetically determined? To find the answer to this question we consult the scientific evidence, to which you were provided link, to which you respond with your characterization of the murky, damned near impossible task that academics have with arriving at the truth (really your refusal to look at and respond to the evidence provided because the irresistible conclusions thereof clash with your ideology and, I suspect, your genetic interests), and then a “to my knowledge” bit of rank speculation. Obfuscation? Sophistry? Well duh. 41
Posted by Dasein on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 20:58 | #
This was an insult, based on reference to previous posts, telling you that I think you are stupid. Apparently you still don’t understand, so let me be clear: Duncan, you are stupid.
Well, I could point you to twin studies that put the lie to your dumb assertion. But what’s the point? You will dismiss it as mere opinion. Ok, Duncan, get back to your PhD studies. Be careful not to confuse tabloids with peer-reviewed journals. Remember that as long as a dissenting paper exists, no matter how shoddy, no matter how overwhelming the supporting evidence, any theory can be dismissed as mere opinion (this will also save you lots of time preparing for you defense). 42
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:30 | # Blue eyes are increasingly rare in America About half of Americans born at the turn of the 20th century had blue eyes, according to a 2002 Loyola University study in Chicago. By mid-century that number had dropped to a third. Today only about one 1 of every 6 Americans has blue eyes, said Mark Grant, the epidemiologist who conducted the study. http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/10/18/news/web.1018eyes.php 43
Posted by Ryan Beenerton on Sun, 20 Mar 2011 07:31 | # Okay guys lets be easy on this one. After all down syndrome is a very bad mental disorder.
P.S. 44
Posted by critique on Fri, 01 Jul 2011 16:12 | # anybody went through these? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations#Criticism any argument is incomplete without giving a chance to both sides. Although I personally doubt the veracity of the provided statistics, even if they are true, they simply ignore too many facts to be taken that seriously. small data sets, inaccurate assumptions (especially flynn effect corrections-which have been subsequently changed), generalizations where there cannot be one(many countries are very genetically/racially diverse), environmental variances that may affect performances or even IQ(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_testing_environmental_variances), even diets may be important, many people in the poorer nations end up with a stunted growth because of lack of nutrition and its quite unfair to compare their iq with well-nourished people from elsewhere(differences in IQ may even be 20 points—http://www.healingwithnutrition.com/adisease/add-adhd/harrellstudy.html), tests compare only one “type” of intelligence. multiple intelligences are ignored. cultural factors are important in most studies even in people with the same or similar languages. The words in common usage at a place may be unheard of elsewhere without at all affecting normal life. Context. other factors, but probably taken care of are age related differences. there may be many more factors which are not known yet or are known, but I couldnt find. Self perception and similar factors have been shown to play an important role too. If the common perception is that skin colour defines supremacy, it is bound to lead to a vicious cycle. other helpful articles: http://www.thrivenet.com/articles/iqidiocy.shtml anyways….in near future any racial debate will be rendered a waste of time as technologies like genetic engineering start getting commercialised. 45
Posted by Mike on Sun, 18 Dec 2011 19:41 | # This article makes some very intesting point. To me though, the big vast unknown in all this, as far as human intellgence goes, is the very medium on which I am looking at this website. Namely the internet. Vast sums of scientific and technical knowledge now exist on the internet via online digtial databases. If the intelligence of the human race continues to lower, especially with whites degrading the intelligence of the thier offspring via miscagination with mixing with blacks, then who will be in the best postion hundreds of years from now to comprehend this vast and complicated amount of data. As for the flooding of the western world with non whites there is in fact NO DOUBT AT ALL that left wing Jews are mainly responsible for it. Exactly what their desired end game is in this only they may really know. However, the circumstantial evidence is strong that the eventaully goal IS white extermination. There are of course right wing Jews and centrist Jews. However, they seem to be vastly outnumbered, at least here in America, by the ones on the left. How they think they will benefit here from having an unruly and savage bunch of blacks under their rule who could possibly some day turn on them with even savagery thatn whites ever have is truly mystifying to me! Post a comment:
Next entry: The power of Zionism in the public imagination a spent force?
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by Joe on Fri, 16 Jan 2009 04:18 | #
Why are there so many White lawyers in America, screwing the White Race?
Objective Purpose of the writing: to describe my experience of being sued for everything that I own, the total of my life’s honest work, in a story for the purpose of entertaining, enlightening, and perhaps even recovering some of the expenses related to telling it. We try not to compare it with the unfortunate Koreans who had $300 thousand in legal bills to defend themselves for over five years having been sued for $67 million as compensation for misplacing one pair of a Judges pants for one week; or the 15 month nightmare of the three Duke University lacrosse players whose families spent a combined total of $4.5 MILLION to defend against false rape charges with a potential for life in prison, but to show a pattern.
Forward: After being the meat in a lawsuit for seven full years, promulgated by my insane half brother who had to kill my mother in order to gain “standing” to pursue the suit, I have some observations about the American justice system that many people will simply refuse to believe at their peril.
Every normal decent person who works at a job or has a small business, and who tries to obey the laws and pay the taxes is a fat target for the most insane group of miscreants the world has ever known. This is not to say that all lawyers are evil but so many of them are that your chances of finding a good one when your turn comes is about 5%.
It is hoped that a normal, sapient person will learn some of what it is like to be sued for everything they own. That after reading they will be in a better position to make good judgments when their turn comes, as surely it will. The authors hope, that their effort will cause the good and decent people of America to demand and get a structural change in the operation of lawsuits.
Cast of characters:
defendant - an innocent man whose only crime is that he made some honest money (meat for the court system)
plaintiff - a sad person of no accomplishment, practicing alcoholic or dope addict, the key to getting the suit started. He/she/it never pays even one penny in any costs otherwise the suit would end. Has a free ride for unlimited perjury.
Lawyer - 95% are unemployed bill collectors, they have no morals nor any qualms about killing you and your mother
Defendant’s lawyer - the cat bird seat holder, gets paid twice, first by naïve defendant, second after throwing the case the plaintiffs lawyer kicks back 25% of the winnings
Plaintiffs lawyer - has a harder time because the plaintiff has no money but his friend the defendants lawyer looses a few things to cause the defendant to pay him some money
Judge - an ambiguous person who is in a really weird place. Must listen to lawyers quibble about nothing all day long while they screw their employers out of house and home. Generally runs for election unopposed to keep the campaign costs down. He/she likes the $150,000 per year salary and all the perks. If the local lawyers take any umbrage over certain rulings like dismissing frivolous lawsuits he/she can expect to have a challenger at the next election.
Jury: civil jury - six unemployable persons that never made more than $10/ hr or filled out a US tax return; scientifically selected for their ignorance and abject stupidity.
Ch 1 - being served with the notice YOU HAVE BEEN SUED - give me everything that you own.
Ch 2 - responding to the notice, your first real mistake in life and something you will never recover from.
ch3 - Mom is killed to prevent her testimony
ch 4 - Partial summary judgment, but not FINAL JUDGEMENT, its all theater for you sucker.
ch 4.1 Dad is killed to get the show into probate court
ch 5 Summary judgment - ask the same question again, pay $4000
ch 6 depositions - hour upon hour @ $300 per
ch 7 mediation - give him everything that you own, pay the mediator $2000 for his services.
ch 8 phony hearings about contested insurance proceeds
ch 9 pleadings ; how your (defendant’s) lawyer tries to kill you; don’t you want the jury to decide who owns your business?
Trial by jury - the joke is on you - two weeks of everybody who hates your guts goddamning you like you cannot now imagine. No holds barred. They cuss you for hours on end. Jury believes every thing they say. You get to say nothing except: yes, no, I do not recall.
Defendants lawyer closing; one hour of milk toast: defendant is not a real nice guy has some issues but was trying to survive as best he could in his own simple way.
Plaintiffs lawyers closing: 1 hour of you are the god damndest bastard that ever lived. You are a robber, murderer, forger and you even stuck a loaded gun inside you own mothers mouth and threatened to kill her in order to force her to sign a deed. Screams at the dumb animals: YOU HAVE SEEN THOSE ROBBERS AND MURDERS ON TV BEFORE… THIS IS YOUR ONE CHANCE TO MAKE THE WORLD A BETTER PLACE AND GET EVEN WITH CRIMINAL LIKE THE DEFENDANT. TAKE AWAY HIS ILL GOTTEN PROPERTY TAKE IT AWAY TAKE IT AWAY.
The jury charge - bang you are dead. All new stuff you never heard of and guess what? its the only thing that counts. This is where the technical part comes in. The pleadings do not matter, no partial summary judgement matters - the only thing that counts is the jury charge.
Jury verdict - you lose everything and why not, after all you are a bad person.
Post trial motions - the judge will not rule on demonstrable perjury, says the appeals court will decide (two - three years later) Meanwhile your lawyer agrees to $55,000 in post trial interest for you to pay.
Posting the bond or declare bankruptcy?
Appeal - your (defendant’s) lawyer tries to kill your appeal, he gets paid a second time only when you lose, he helps them lie about everything some more, charges you way too much to discourage appealing
The trail testimony transcript - it costs you ELEVEN THOUSAND DOLLARS AND CHANGE and uh ooh they took out all the bad things they said about you and most of the perjury so the appeals court cannot reverse on overreaching… hmmm
The appeals court: do you have a chance?
Who is that old guy trespassing in the $61,750 Lexus 2006 SUV with a Level 3 security clearance that prevents even the Sheriff from discovering his identity? Did he send the two unmarked secret police agents to scare you into giving up your property or was he letting you know that he did not appreciate your filing a police report on his trespassing?
Remember: they killed your mother in order to sue you.
The appeals court verdict: they give you one third of your property back and cite the perjury as truth, the Plaintiff’s testimony is really yours they say…
Appeal to the appeals court for a rehearing: pay $4,000 if you are lucky… They say no.
On to the Supreme Court: remember the old guy in the $62500 Lexus? He is friends with the justices on the Supreme Court. If they hear your case they will have to find in your favor and the Lexus man will get nothing. So they opt out and say the appeals court ruling stands. This creates new law which will be used to screw the honest population out of house and home. When a big boy loses on this the Supreme Court will reverse the appeals court decision returning to the status quo.
America was doomed by a US Supreme Court decision in 1820 that goes like this: a wrongfully sued defendant has no recourse against a frivolous plaintiff because to allow such would tend to deny a poor man his day in court.
Now when the winnings are finally divided the lawyers get the first bite. The contingency fees for the second amended petition, the depositions, the discovery, the phone calls, the faxes, the meetings, the hearings, the mediations, the motions, the extraordinary counsel, and of course the trial all add up. Is it no surprise that there is nothing left for The Plaintiff?
This is why there are so many lawyers in America.