Racial tragedy?

[Anthropos]

I actually do not think that there is such a thing as a 'racial tragedy'. People who want to mix with people who are pretty different from themselves do so out of their own free will mostly, and that's not in any way tragic, unless you think that free will is tragic. It could never account for the degeneration of a civilisation, since free will is on the contrary what makes it possible for human interactions to be civilised. (I wanted to post this thread in a forum dedicated to civilisational topics, and this one - 'politics & ideology' seemed to fare best.)

Haven't you ever thought about it like that? How do you think about it?

Off topic: A forum of its own named 'The Racial Tragedy' in the current affairs section always struck me as rather misplaced, and for long I didn't want to register here for that reason. I thought that this would not be an interesting setting for me anyway, since crass materialism is not my bag. But then again, I noticed that the forum had some variety of opinions, and that my disagreement with this one thing would not necessarily be a problem.

[Loki]

The forum:



The Racial Tragedy
Discussions regarding the race issue in Europe. Covering articles on racism and immigration - and discussing possible solutions to this dilemma.


There is no doubt that race is a contentious issue in modern Europe, doesn't matter which way you look at it. It is a current affair, and a societal problem in most Western and Northern European cities (not so much in the countryside).

Articles about the matter appear in virtually every newspaper one can pick up in the morning. Court cases and employment tribunals happen on a regular basis, regarding the race issue. It is therefore quite relevant and necessary to discuss in any forum which looks honestly at contemporary Europe and its problems.

[Beorn]

You have one more thread to create till you use up your 24 hour allocated allowance.

I suggest you make it a good one.

[Nodens]

People who want to mix with people who are pretty different from themselves do so out of their own free will mostly, and that's not in any way tragic, unless you think that free will is tragic.

You're effectively stating that any exercise of 'free will' is by definition 'non-tragic'. You are therefore bound to hold that were I to choose the genocide of the entire population of Eurasia (assuming I had the capability), it would not constitute a 'tragedy', or (to make a more personal case) that if every individual made the choice to reject Abrahamic thought/religion and instead chose to deify Richard Dawkins while destroying all material evidence of all forms of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, it would similarly not constitute a 'tragedy'.


It could never account for the degeneration of a civilisation, since free will is on the contrary what makes it possible for human interactions to be civilised.

You have a strong belief in/regard for 'free will' while largely denying any form of biological determinism. A basic philosophical distinction that renders this debate premature at best.


Haven't you ever thought about it like that? How do you think about it?

You argue from deeply Humanistic convictions, and therefore only speak to those similarly inclined.

[Poltergeist]

Of course there is no such thing as "racial tragedy".

Humanity is not going to become "all-brown", as some allarmists want to frighten us. People will mostly stick together with those who are phenotypically and culturally similar to them. Both cultural habits and many physical and material obstacles (geography, finances etc) will prevent people from racially mixing too much.

More or less the same that I said for humanity as whole applies to Europe as well, due to above mentioned reasons. Sure, there will be race mixing at levels unprecedented in history, but unlikely enough for the entire continent to turn "brown". Not even for single countries.

But even if that were to happen, I fail to see what would be so tragic about that. Race is just superficial phenotype and doesn't determine human being in any profound sense. Surely, racial traits can assume some cultural symbolic roles within nations and communities, because phenotypes can influence aesthetic criteria for human appearance in a given milieu, which can be of some importance in the shaping of interhuman relations. But then again, these changes are not mechanically dependent on "race", but the direction and shape these changes will take depend on many intricate factors within a given society and cannot be predicted with certainty.

Race is anyway a too vague categorization to be taken too seriously. Its approximative and arbitrary nature must be kept in mind every time it is discussed.

[Anthropos]

You're effectively stating that any exercise of 'free will' is by definition 'non-tragic'.

No. Only that race-mixing usually occurs by free will, and that therefore I don't consider it to be tragic by any necessity. Of course, this goes hand in hand with my view that people should be allowed to mix with whomever they want to mix with, which is part of a fundamental respect for the human condition, free will being more or less what defines it.

[Anthropos]

There is no doubt that race is a contentious issue in modern Europe, doesn't matter which way you look at it. It is a current affair, and a societal problem in most Western and Northern European cities (not so much in the countryside).

Articles about the matter appear in virtually every newspaper one can pick up in the morning. Court cases and employment tribunals happen on a regular basis, regarding the race issue. It is therefore quite relevant and necessary to discuss in any forum which looks honestly at contemporary Europe and its problems.

I have no problem with these discussions. But I think that what is actually being discussed is usually not race, but rather who's entitled to what and why, and things that really boil down to civilisational questions in the end. The position that it is all about race in the end seems to me to be a pretty limited perspective. Just because I don't share it, it doesn't mean that I would support mass immigration. In fact, I have often noticed that I am much more against that than are many of the most hardcore racialists.

[Inese]

People wo can not see a racial tragedy in Europe with all the mixing and immigration are blind in the mind :coffee:

[Anthropos]

Race, after all, is just a biological abstraction of recent date. Our civilisation did just fine without it for most of its existence.

I can see some degeneration - plenty of it - but can I see a 'racial tragedy'? What is it that makes a civilisation worth preserving, is it race and nothing more; is there nothing more essential to it than that? Does each race generate a civilisation after its kind? I don't think so. And by the way, did this race-mixing just strike out of the blue against our civilisation? Um, no. This race-mixing, is it the cause of chaos, or is it more like one out of many symptoms of it? This is not a hen or the egg question, in my opinion, very far from it.

[Agrippa]

I actually do not think that there is such a thing as a 'racial tragedy'. People who want to mix with people who are pretty different from themselves do so out of their own free will mostly, and that's not in any way tragic, unless you think that free will is tragic. It could never account for the degeneration of a civilisation, since free will is on the contrary what makes it possible for human interactions to be civilised. (I wanted to post this thread in a forum dedicated to civilisational topics, and this one - 'politics & ideology' seemed to fare best.)

Haven't you ever thought about it like that? How do you think about it?

Off topic: A forum of its own named 'The Racial Tragedy' in the current affairs section always struck me as rather misplaced, and for long I didn't want to register here for that reason. I thought that this would not be an interesting setting for me anyway, since crass materialism is not my bag. But then again, I noticed that the forum had some variety of opinions, and that my disagreement with this one thing would not necessarily be a problem.

Thats like saying that there is no tragic death, you are just bleeding until you are dead because you had a car accident with alcohol in your blood - but of course, its all free will and you never thought about the consequences until you lie in your own puddle of blood.

If a person stumbles and falls down an abyss, without the people around doing anything, it was its "Free Will" to look down the abyss probably, but it has been unable to see the danger right in that moment and if others would have helped, it would have survived - many children don't see such dangers for example.

There are good and bad decisions and people can be manipulated to do bad decisions to their own disadvantage or in a confusing situation. Its like it is with fraud too, the fraudster is the criminal, the people have to be protected and illuminated - sometimes they dont see the criminal character of the fraudster instantly and might even believe "he's just a good man", but if you care for other people, you try to prevent the disaster you see coming.

In another socio-cultural context people wouldnt mix as much, if the masses of foreign immigrants wouldnt have been transferred and welcomed in Europe, there wouldnt be this panmixture.

So this "Free Will" thing doesnt exist in the sense Liberals want to see it, neither if its about migration nor if its about economy. The parameters and conditions for individual decisions being made, made by a system, structures and more powerful individuals. This means that the "same Free Will" would decide very differently under different circumstances, so this is no argument or justification for anything, only results can be the base of a rational evaluation.

If there is a progress for the individuals and group, mankind and its development, than the process is good, "Free Will" or not, if the conditions are deteriorating objectively, if considering the bigger picture and long term developments, then its a bad thing, "Free Will" or not.

The racial tragedy in Europe is a tragedy for mankind, because valuable human ressources for the further development of our species being eliminated by low birth rates, contraselection and mixture with lower level immigrants.

So if looking at it from the human perspective even, or a general Eugenic one, the condition in which Europe is now is a problem in any case, no matter how you look at it. Already now, but even more so on the longer run. There are too many negative and too few to none positive consequences of the mass immigration of non-integrable foreigners and large scale mixture of the autochthonous population with them.

It doesn serve Europe or the Europeans, it doesnt serve mankind, it doesnt even solve the problems for the respective homecountries of the immigrants, which often suffer from the irresponsible and criminal economic system the Plutocratic Oligarchy imposed on them.

So all lose, but the Plutocratic Oligarchy and their criminal helpers.

Rootless immigrants and mixed ones en masse dont solve anything but just deteriorate an already deteriorated situation in Europe and the rest of the World. No solution to anything, but the root of many problems...

[BlasphemousDeception]

I actually do not think that there is such a thing as a 'racial tragedy'. People who want to mix with people who are pretty different from themselves do so out of their own free will mostly, and that's not in any way tragic, unless you think that free will is tragic. It could never account for the degeneration of a civilisation, since free will is on the contrary what makes it possible for human interactions to be civilised. (I wanted to post this thread in a forum dedicated to civilisational topics, and this one - 'politics & ideology' seemed to fare best.)

Haven't you ever thought about it like that? How do you think about it?

Off topic: A forum of its own named 'The Racial Tragedy' in the current affairs section always struck me as rather misplaced, and for long I didn't want to register here for that reason. I thought that this would not be an interesting setting for me anyway, since crass materialism is not my bag. But then again, I noticed that the forum had some variety of opinions, and that my disagreement with this one thing would not necessarily be a problem.

I wonder how much Pericles thought of "free will" in relation to slave labour when he was on his building kick in ancient Athens?

[Anthropos]

That like saying that there is no tragic death, you are just bleeding until you are dead because you had a car accident with alcohol in your blood - but of course, its all free will and you never thought about the consequences until you lie in your own puddle of blood.

If a person stumbles and falls down an abyss, without the people around doing anything, it was its "Free Will" to do look down the abyss probably, but have been unable to see the danger right in that moment and if others have helped, it would have survived - many children don't see such dangers for example.

There are good and bad decisions and people can be manipulated to do bad decisions to their own disadvantage or in a confusing situation. Its like it is with fraud too, the fraudster is the criminal, the people have to be protected and illuminated - sometimes they dont see the criminal character of the fraudster instantly and might even believe "he's just a good man", but if you care for other people, you try to prevent the disaster you see coming.

In another socio-cultural context people wouldnt mix as much, if the masses of foreign immigrants wouldnt have been transferred and welcomed in Europe, there wouldnt be this panmixture.

So this "Free Will" thing doesnt exist in the sense Liberals want to see it, neither if its about migration nor if its about economy. The parameters and conditions for individual decisions being made, made by a system, structures and more powerful individuals. This means that the "same Free Will" would decide very differently under different circumstances, so this is no argument or justification for anything, only result can be the base of a rational evaluation.

If there is a progress for the individuals and group, mankind and its development, than the process is good, "Free Will" or not, if the conditions are deteriorating objectively if considering the bigger picture and long term developments, then its a bad thing, "Free Will" or not.

The racial tragedy in Europe is a tragedy for mankind, because valuable human ressources for the further development of our species being eliminated by low birth rates, contraselection and mixture with lower level immigrants.

So if looking at it from the human perspective even, or a general Eugenic one, the conditions in which Europe is now are a problem in any case, no matter how you look at it. Already now but even more so on the longer run, there are too many negative and too few to none positive consequences of the mass immigration of non-integrable foreigners and large scale mixture of the autochthonous population with them.

It doesn serve Europe or the Europeans, it doesnt serve mankind, it doesnt even solve the problems for the respective homecountries, which often suffer from the irresponsible and criminal economic system the Plutocratic Oligarchy imposed on them.

So all lose, but the Plutocratic Oligarchy and their criminal helpers.

Rootless immigrants and mixed ones en masse dont solve anything but just deteriorate an already deteriorated situation in Europe and the rest of the World. No solution to anything, but the root of many problems...

All your posts about race are a good example of an extremely biologistic approach that you take to be absolutely crucial to civilisation, and your solutions are a more or less forced eugenics (even if you prefer to say that you want it to be as non-invasive as possible, it always boils down to something of a quite different nature in the end), and you rely on simplistic notions of progress, which in your opinion are just biologically factual, but the question always remains whether these ways of seeing things can account for human civilisations, and it's clear that they can't.

Then you blend in some economical and political conspiracies to somehow balance what would otherwise be a completely unrealistic account, but it just stays unrealistic because those additions are so arbitrary. There may be something to those conspiracies, but they stand out from your biologistic model as if they were completely irrational, and that's why, in that context, they really deserve to be called conspiracy theories. You seem to be somehow aware that the biologistic outlook can not explain everything, but unfortunately there is no common ground where the two sides of your world view can meet.

Finally you bring up mass immigration. I have already explained where I stand on that in this thread, but I might as well repeat that I have found that I am more against it than are many of the most extreme racialists. The racialist sword cuts both ways: It excludes people based on race, oftentimes by way of forced eugenics or something like that, and it includes people based on race, for example by way of mass immigration, in the name of progress combined with race.

[Agrippa]

and you rely on simplistic notions of progress, which in your opinion are just biologically factual

Rather not. Biological and cultural factors are often, yet not always, intertwined. For example without the genetically determined brain structures, you have no human personality and capability.

You need a cultural tradition, which is in the end a tool from a biological point of view, but also an individual and group able to use it effectively. If you read Shakespeare or Plato to an ape or moron for that matter, it won't have any significant effect at all and the possible joy and lessons the cultural products of Shakespear and Plato might be able to offer, will be wasted and never come into existence in such a case - at least never in the same way as for an intelligent, educated human being.


the question always remains whether these ways of seeing things can account for human civilisations, and it's clear that they can't.

So you think Homo erectus with its smaller and less developed brain, with a rather stagnant culture for almost one million years, would have been able to build up the same civilisations as the prime of Homo sapiens?

Rather not. The biological aspect is quite often just the precondition, but take it away and there is nothing left for a higher civilisation of any sort.


Then you blend in some economical and political conspiracies to somehow balance what would otherwise be a completely unrealistic account, but it just stays unrealistic because those additions are so arbitrary.

Its no conspiracy necessary, because we are talking about facts. Even some of these player involved in the plot spoke about it at times and the facts speak for itself. Probably it was somewhat more of a conspiracy some decades ago, but now they speak quite frankly about their way of thinking and acting...


There may be something to those conspiracies, but they stand out from your biologistic model

Rather not, because mass immigration means:
- cheaper labour, pressure on the labour market
- lower standards at work, for social security and wages because of pressure from the inside (mass immigration) and the outside ("globalisation" = i.e. controlled destruction of national protective measures and prevention of new international standards)
- destroyed or at least weakened and fractionised societies, which have a lower collective spirit and moral, are easier to corrupt and individualise, than a homogenous group of people
- new "multicultural standards" are also helpful to weaken general moral standards, promote "relative standards" of an individualised character, with a new religion of "political correctness", competition for superficial popularity and profit orientation.

etc., etc.

So the political-economic players have a great interest in mass immigration and weakened European societies and nations, which lose their collective spirit and higher moral, so they are easy prey one by one, in an superficially individualised, but in truth a mass society with mass manipulation, corruption, control and surveillance.

Even the terrorism and higher criminal and violence rates with more immigrants will make asocial reforms easier, because the autochthonous dont identify with the immigrants, which are more dependent on welfare on average, as much as with their kin and are less likely to support even greater welfare costs in a deteriorating socio-economic system. They will also agree more often to cut down the individual freedom and rights, because they dont think about themselves becoming victims of the same asocial and totalitarian reforms, which just profit the Oligarchy.

So they destroy their own social security, free choice - become even more dependent from the big money, their solidarity with other people will shrink, yet will pay even more taxes and energy than past generations for the interest rates and structural defects, the money and political system we have, produces already and will produce in the future - without something of value in return, like a healthier group and community, more social security, choices in life and better health for themselves and their relatives etc.

Its a large scale fraud and the manipulated masses being influenced by the large scale immigration directly and indirectly in many ways too, as by other deficits of the system.

Even those nations from which the immigrants come are, because they dont try to solve their own regional problems as hard, dont oppose the unfair and corrupt world system as much as they should, but rather try to "travel to the West", to make more money and probably send it back to their relatives at home and beg plutocratic money for valuable ressources, will stay behind and just plutocratic colonies in fact.

Its interconnected in so many ways...


The racialist sword cuts both ways: It excludes people based on race, oftentimes by way of forced eugenics or something like that, and it includes people based on race, for example by way of mass immigration, in the name of progress combined with race.

Its about interests, in economy as well as biology. Your interests are save if your people stay alive or expand, your interests being threatened if your people are threatened, lose potential for the future survival, as they are your close biological kin, survival and base of your culture at the same time.

The dominance of the Plutocratic Oligarchy and Mass Immigration of non-integrable elements into Europe is against both, Europeans economic as well as biological interests. Thats why every reasonable European should be against non-European, non-integrable mass immigration.

Other than that, migrations always happened, the real racial tragedy in Europe is that the immigrants just exploit a political-spiritual weakness of the moment, a failed system of young age, while being in no way superior if its about the hard facts and general biological or cultural traits.

The Europeans still have such a great potential, yet they dont use it to protect themselves. Thats something completely different to people which weren't able to do so anyway, didnt made a significant progress in thousands of years and show significant deficits in comparison to the newcomers - not just young and superficial, but deeply rooted and old ones.

If the Tasmanids being lost to mankind, well, probably not nice, but won't hurt too much. Additionally a high civilisation with much more people on a higher biological and cultural level lives on Tasmania now.

To transfer people from the Congo or elsewhere, probably even lower elements in their own country, to Europe, just means to substitute highly adaptive and well adapted (for the European environment) people with a fitting culture, with people of a lower level, adapted to a very different environment and a non-fitting culture.

What kind of progress is this? But for the plutocrats and THEIR INTERESTS alone, like outlined in parts above - this small corrupted group of people shouldnt determine the fate of the European people, culture and mankinds future.

[Anthropos]

Rather not, because mass immigration means:
- cheaper labour, pressure on the labour market
- lower standards at work, for social security and wages because of pressure from the inside (mass immigration) and the outside ("globalisation" = i.e. controlled destruction of national protective measures and prevention of new international standards)
- destroyed or at least weakened and fractionised societies, which have a lower collective spirit and moral, are easier to corrupt and individualise, than a homogenous group of people
- new "multicultural standards" are also helpful to weaken general moral standards, promote "relative standards" of an individualised character, with a new religion of "political correctness", competition for superficial popularity and profit orientation.

Okay, so this was posted in an attempt to reconcile the idea of that 'plutocratic oligarchy' with the biologistic model. Those two aren't connected unless one wants them very badly to be so. I see it as an article of some kind of 'faith'.

Let us look at the facts: There are plenty of examples of similar developments throughout Europe: A 'homogenous' nation creates a society of high 'standards of work', 'social security' and rather good wages = those things that you deem so positive. Then, in no time, appear all those things that you deem negative directly from that supposedly positive state of things: a society which is 'easier to corrupt and individualise', 'mass immigration', 'political correctness' etc, all of which refutes your idea that a 'homogenous' and prosperous 'collective' is the best foundation for society.

Mass immigration, along with those things that it does bring in its train, are not causes of the generally degenerate state of our civilisation. These are merely superficial symptoms. Far worse are those things that can truly be said to be closer to the root of degeneration.

Among those things that are at the root, there are


an inflated human dignity, which is caused to a great extent of that 'collective spirit' you mentioned, whereby a human being is reduced to a means for 'progress'.
an obsession with that 'progress', and with 'standards' for everything, something that might work out during shorter intervals of economical progression, while, in the long run, such things are bound to smother local initiative and the natural capacity to overcome everchanging obstacles.
Another direct consequence of such modernistic reforms is that a naturally diverse society, that evolved to meet challenges that are no less diverse, is simplified and qualitatively reduced - is this not exactly what is implied by 'standardisation'? The intricate organisation of the nation is disrupted and disintegrated.
When that is 'achieved' - when 'progress' has come that far - society is already more or less 'destroyed or at least weakened and fragmented', as you put it. This was usually the way that mass immigration and other symptoms of degeneration came about.

In short, what you did in your analysis was to turn the process upside down: to mistake effect for cause.

[Fred]

I wonder how much Pericles thought of "free will" in relation to slave labour when he was on his building kick in ancient Athens?n. (http://www.answers.com/antinomianism)

Theology. The doctrine or belief that the Gospel frees Christians from required obedience to any law, whether scriptural, civil, or moral, and that salvation is attained solely through faith and the gift of divine grace. (http://www.answers.com/antinomianism)
The belief that moral laws are relative in meaning and application as opposed to fixed or universal. (http://www.answers.com/antinomianism)
The Sixties (http://www.theapricity.com/topic/1960s-1) are truly over, New York Times columnist David Brooks (http://www.theapricity.com/topic/david-brooks) notes with sober relief. Goodbye, antinomian (http://www.theapricity.com/topic/antinomianism) rebels; hello, bourgeois (http://www.theapricity.com/topic/bourgeois) conformists:

"Today, parents don't seek to liberate their children; they supervise, coach and instruct every element of their lives. Today, there really is no antinomian counterculture (http://www.theapricity.com/topic/counterculture) — even the artists and rock stars are bourgeois strivers. Today, communes (http://www.theapricity.com/topic/commune-8) and utopian (http://www.theapricity.com/topic/utopia) schemes are out of favor."
Link: Human Nature Redux - New York Times (http://select.nytimes.com/2007/02/18/opinion/18brooks.html?hp).

The belief held by various sects, but particularly by radical protestant movements of the 16th and 17th centuries, that certain chosen Christians are by faith or by predestination unable to sin, and are hence set free from the requirement to obey any moral law. Antinomianism is frequently associated with unconventional life styles and sexual practices.

antinomianism (ăntĭnō'mēənĭzəm) [Gr.,=against the law], the belief that Christians are not bound by the moral law, particularly that of the Old Testament. The idea was strong among the Gnostics, especially Marcion (http://www.theapricity.com/topic/marcion). Certain heretical sects in the Middle Ages practiced sexual license as an expression of Christian freedom. In the Protestant Reformation theoretical antinomian views were maintained by the Anabaptists and Johann Agricola, and in the 17th cent. Anne Hutchinson was persecuted for supposed antinomianism. Rom. 6 is the usual refutation for antinomianism.

As you can see below, there is a diversity of opinion on the matter:OnxkfLe4G74
There are those who think that life
Has nothing left to chance
With a host of holy horrors
To direct our aimless dance

A planet of playthings
We dance on the strings
Of powers we cannot perceive
The stars aren’t aligned ---
Or the gods are malign
Blame is better to give than receive

You can choose a ready guide
In some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide
You still have made a choice

You can choose from phantom fears
And kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that’s clear
I will choose free will

There are those who think that they’ve been dealt a losing hand
The cards were stacked against them ---
They weren’t born in lotus-land

All preordained
A prisoner in chains
A victim of venomous fate
Kicked in the face
You can’t pray for a place
In heaven’s unearthly estate

Each of us
A cell of awareness
Imperfect and incomplete
Genetic blends
With uncertain ends
On a fortune hunt
That’s far too fleet...

[Agrippa]

Okay, so this was posted in an attempt to reconcile the idea of that 'plutocratic oligarchy' with the biologistic model. Those two aren't connected unless one wants them very badly to be so. I see it as an article of some kind of 'faith'.

Rather not, because plutocratic institutions, lobbies and mass media push the mass immigration, multiculturalism, "political correctness" and all that crap forward. They are directly involved, they took their stand as the currently most powerful group of people in the world.


Let us look at the facts: There are plenty of examples of similar developments throughout Europe: A 'homogenous' nation creates a society of high 'standards of work', 'social security' and rather good wages = those things that you deem so positive. Then, in no time, appear all those things that you deem negative directly from that supposedly positive state of things: a society which is 'easier to corrupt and individualise', 'mass immigration', 'political correctness' etc, all of which refutes your idea that a 'homogenous' and prosperous 'collective' is the best foundation for society.

Look, first there was World War 2, in this time all other alternatives but Liberalism and Marxism were utterly crushed with brute force by an overwhelming mass of ressources the Liberterian and Marxist elements had.

After that, the Plutocratic Oligarchy had a problem, namely the conflict with Communism. Fashism and other alternatives were destroyed or under control, yet Communism seemed to be very active and dangerous to their power. They supported it abroad, but they surely didnt want it to expand if they dont need to - like in the fight against Germany.

Now they had to make a good compromise for the people. A peaceful and prosperous society in which certain standards of the society, also social, health, working etc. standards were introduced, or kept alive, simply to corrupt the mass, to communicate the false idea, that their system and power is good for them as individuals.

This was, however, just a propaganda and control mean from their point of view and when the last serious opponent, Communism, fell down, they didnt need it any more. So they began to destroy all kind of protective measures and developed standards, GATT and GATS being used among many other treaty systems and political interventions.

The Plutocratic Oligarchy feels secure now, thats why they can do such thinks like in the banking sector, say such things via the mass media, manipulate the people in the mass media in even more absurd ways - if they would have did so when Fascistoid movements were strong or Communism, generally collective moral and spirits, even Christian Catholic ones f.e., many decades ago now, they would have had a short living time for sure and they knew it.

Mass immigration began earlier, yet was introduced as a mean of manipulation and transitions to the new fractionised mass society they want especially from the 1990's on, when they put forward a new ideological frame with the "political correctness" propaganda.



an inflated human dignity, which is caused to a great extent of that 'collective spirit' you mentioned, whereby a human being is reduced to a means for 'progress'.

Inflated in another way, because individual interests, asylum or individual life plans, being used as an argument for the "human rights" and more immigration, the "integration" of foreigners which are not integrable. If they would look at the case from a rather utilitarian and collective point of view, no way things would look the same!

The new progress of "Cultural Marxism" and its "politically correct practical appraoch" inside the Neoliberal Scheme is just the path to more individualised structures, destroyed family and other social structures, elimination of a truly masculine and collective spirit in society, with a dominance of a soft, individualised approach under which measures against individuals based on traits being neglected and an "individual freedom of choice" being proclaimed which leads directly into the manipulation and exploitation of a now helpless mass without collective orientation.


an obsession with that 'progress', and with 'standards' for everything, something that might work out during shorter intervals of economical progression, while, in the long run, such things are bound to smother local initiative and the natural capacity to overcome everchanging obstacles.

Everything is "in progress" and changes, yet it depends on the goals you want to reach, the targets a society officially recognises.


Another direct consequence of such modernistic reforms is that a naturally diverse society, that evolved to meet challenges that are no less diverse, is simplified and qualitatively reduced - is this not exactly what is implied by 'standardisation'? The intricate organisation of the nation is disrupted and disintegrated.

Standardised are only those fields in which its against the interests of the individuals and group if there are no good standards active. The rest being free to dynamic processes, which always take place.


When that is 'achieved' - when 'progress' has come that far - society is already more or less 'destroyed or at least weakened and fragmented', as you put it. This was usually the way that mass immigration and other symptoms of degeneration came about.

Rather not. The people were and are in their large majority against mass immigration, that was done against their will, by the corrupted politicians under the influence of the economy in general and Plutocratic Oligarchy in particular.

Because the people were still satisfied first and immigration began rather controlled, with certain, often faked, "arguments", the resistance was not strong enough - now they already indoctrinise people early on, try to destroy collective tendencies of resistance against exploitation and foreign influences, which are just a natural human phenomenon, especially in homogenous society.

The will is broken and the people are afraid of a drastic change, they are afraid to lose the pace, the more or less decent life and the stable environment - they still have too many advantages from this deteriorating society, at least they believe so, because they are being manipulated and indoctrinised.

Again, this wouldnt have been possible without the massive anti-collective propaganda and the corruption in a prosperous society with social standards, which were just made up to keep the mass quiet.

As I said, when the alternatives, the Fascist or Communist threat went down the drain, things changed drastically and the Capitalist System of the Plutocratic Oligarchy showed its true face with totalitarian surveillance and propaganda manipulation ("political correctness"), pressure on laws and freedom of expression, destroyed social and collective standards, weak individualised moral, mass immigration without any substantive advantage or argument for the masses but abused "human rights", etc., etc.

[Anthropos]

Rather not, because plutocratic institutions, lobbies and mass media push the mass immigration, multiculturalism, "political correctness" and all that crap forward. They are directly involved, they took their stand as the currently most powerful group of people in the world.'They' - not pretending to know who you think they are, but it doesn't matter anyway - were also directly involved in creating the kind of society that you prefer. You're getting nowhere with this.




Look, first there was World War 2, in this time all other alternatives but Liberalism and Marxism were utterly crushed with brute force by an overwhelming mass of ressources the Liberterian and Marxist elements had.No. The precursory processes that I described point by point were already more or less in effect by that time in Germany: the reduction of the human being to a means for 'progress', and so on:


Mass immigration, along with those things that it does bring in its train, are not causes of the generally degenerate state of our civilisation. These are merely superficial symptoms. Far worse are those things that can truly be said to be closer to the root of degeneration.

Among those things that are at the root, there are


an inflated human dignity, which is caused to a great extent of that 'collective spirit' you mentioned, whereby a human being is reduced to a means for 'progress'.
an obsession with that 'progress', and with 'standards' for everything, something that might work out during shorter intervals of economical progression, while, in the long run, such things are bound to smother local initiative and the natural capacity to overcome everchanging obstacles.
Another direct consequence of such modernistic reforms is that a naturally diverse society, that evolved to meet challenges that are no less diverse, is simplified and qualitatively reduced - is this not exactly what is implied by 'standardisation'? The intricate organisation of the nation is disrupted and disintegrated.
When that is 'achieved' - when 'progress' has come that far - society is already more or less 'destroyed or at least weakened and fragmented', as you put it. This was usually the way that mass immigration and other symptoms of degeneration came about.

In short, what you did in your analysis was to turn the process upside down: to mistake effect for cause.

I know it quite well enough, since already before modernistic collectivists rose to power in Sweden, elements of collectivistic thought and policy was imported from Germany, and Swedish politicians often followed in the tracks of their German rolemodels. Focusing too much on later developments opens up for arbitrary interpretations, because the chronological unfolding of events is thus overlooked.

[Agrippa]

No. The precursory processes that I described point by point were already more or less in effect by that time in Germany: the reduction of the human being to a means for 'progress', and so on:

Well, since there weren't those negative aspects I described above present at that time, neither in Germany nor in most other European countries, your "precursory processes" are irrelevant for the issue. Now you could say they made the way free, but thats not true, that was the result of the Liberal agenda and the plutocratic interventions.

Not even the Communist East had that much of a problem with the negative effects of immigration, contraselection, Cultural Marxism - great irony but true, since its a Wester inventions, made up by subjects like of the Frankfurt school and even more perverted by later generations.


'They' - not pretending to know who you think they are

"They" refers to the Plutocratic Oligarchy, the most important families which control the money and financial system to a large degree. Clans like the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, etc.

Just look at what the Rockefellers did, its a clear thing.

They largely intermarry among each other, forming a large Euro-Christian, mostly Calvinist group on the one and a large Jewish on the other hand. These plutocrats are closely allied with certain Christian sect leaders in the USA and the radical Zionists and Jewish organisations.

Talking about the civil rights movement and the way it developed, the Rockefellers were an important element in the manipulation of the black movement and the indoctrination of the white people, to prevent a "national collective" solution and impose multiculturalism-multiracialism in an individualised-Capitalist manner, with the moral foundation we can find in degenerated Neo-Christians and Cultural Marxists, the ideological supporters of the "politically correct" social rules, which undermine every important opposition to their crimes and manipulation to a large degree, cripples the nations and people, makes them less likely if not unable to react, to protect their interests.

The collective approach is the natural human one, its present in most if not all traditional societies and was still dominant, just somewhat weakened, in Christian Europe. The reformation and Calvinism in particular were the next step, but the real important one was Liberalism, the Western disease.

From England and after longer fights, also the USA, which resistance was broken, they spread the poison to other people around the globe, and still do so.

Ad this:

'They' - not pretending to know who you think they are, but it doesn't matter anyway - were also directly involved in creating the kind of society that you prefer. You're getting nowhere with this.
as I said, they just used certain movements, political situations and even social standards as a mean for their longer term profits and power. This is now very, very obvious.

They obviously dont care whether their is a fair system, social welfare or health care, whether there are healthy or sick societies and communities to deal with from a more objective point of view. There are just profits and power, and if there is just a potential threat, like homogenous and collective oriented nations, which are not as easy to manipulate, threaten and exploit, they look at those as enemies.

Thats the point, their long time strategy was always directed against the interests of the people, nations, races and even mankind in a way, yet they agreed on compromises or "fair solutions" if they had an advantage from that for a certain time - f.e. aspects of the "New Deal" in the USA, with "their president" Roosevelt, support of Germany for a certain time, support of Marxism and Bolshevism for a certain time, support for a social and health care in Western states after the 2nd World War to prevent unrest or even revolutions.

Yet they want to break the national and people's resistance totally, form the totalitarian surveillance state of the worst kind, controlled by those corrupted subjects and therefore they try to keep the people busy, busy with nonsense, busy with stupid jobs, busy doing things they tell them or give them as options, so they can't act otherwise - stop thinking more critically.

You can also observe this in the universities, the new curricula - just preparations for "jobs" and social adaption, Cultural Marxist and Liberal (depends on the topic in detail what they prefer) indoctrination, little to know classic education for the masses, little to know truly critical and open debates etc.

Really, I can see how the niveau went down even in the last decade in education, on the job market, if its about social consciousness, group orientation etc., not talking about the longer term perspective.

Its like our nations organism being infected and virus is the Plutocratic Oligarchy which uses its helpers and institutions to spread the plague.

[Poltergeist]

Not even the Communist East had that much of a problem with the negative effects of immigration, contraselection, Cultural Marxism

Yes, it had! I mean, the latter two, not the immigration. Consequences are still acutely felt. Usually exacerbated even more by the input of the post-Communist neo-liberal Western cultural (neo)-Marxism.

[Agrippa]

Yes, it had! I mean, the latter two, not the immigration. Consequences are still acutely felt. Usually exacerbated even more by the input of the post-Communist neo-liberal Western cultural (neo)-Marxism.

Yes it had too, never said they had a good system. But at certain times they even considered Eugenic measures and in a direct comparison of Western and Eastern Germany, higher level couples got more often children in the East, than in the West.

For the Cultural Marxism its very, very important to stress that this came largely from the West to the East! F.e. the Eugenic ideas and national interests which had still more space in the East than in the West, were largely stopped and came under massive attack because of the criticism of Western Leftists!

The Eastern Marxists had no such kind of manipulated moral standards like the West after World War two.

You can also observe the same trend in parts of the anthropological literature and studies, which were much more open minded even though the Marxist indoctrination was present. This just shows how far away from older European standards the current Neoliberal West is! Since the Communist countries were degenerated in many ways and indoctrinated, yet they were in many respects less so than the Western countries!

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Anthropos
Race, after all, is just a biological abstraction of recent date. Our civilisation did just fine without it for most of its existence.

I have to laugh when I read statements like that, race has been recognised in many cultures through out history back to the Greeks, Egyptians, Indians, Chinese….claiming race is a modern construct (let alone a singularly European one) is just arrant nonsense.

People confuse the reality of race (personally I would consider you in leave of your senses to deny the existence of race) with the importance of race.

The later is quite simple, you consider it important or you do not.

Humans have the unique ability to override our instincts and inherent behaviours, and there is good evidence to suggest that “racism” “xenophobia” in other words in-group loyalty/out-group hostility are inherent instincts and not learned behaviours. Of course we can override those instincts, whether we should……

For me race is important, I’m a preservationist by nature, I would consider it tragic if any race became extinct. The diversity of the earth’s life is an amazing phenomenon and (for all we know) unique in our universe.

Despite the 24/7 multiracial propaganda machine in the UK Trevor Phillips (now head of the “Equality and Human Rights Commission” former head of the now defunct “Commission for Racial Equality”) recently admitted that multiculturalism wasn’t working and that, given the choice, birds of a feather flocked together, people in Britain of different races are living “parallel lives” as he called it. The USA probably remains as segregated as ever, certainly according to one study the second most segregated state outside of South Africa (post-apartheid). Race seems to matter to most, even if only at a sub-conscious level.

I also see culture as bound up within race, certainly race isn’t the only influence but it is an influence. To pretend otherwise would be to ask me to believe if I went back in time and magiced away the Greeks and replaced them with people of Han Chinese race I would still expect to see Plato, Aristotle, Aeschylus etc trotting along that I could expect to see the birth of democracy and of science. I don’t find that a convincing argument. The essence of a culture is it’s world view, shaped by environment sure, by circumstance, certainly, but also by genes. Jared Diamond is a reasonable scholar…he’s just not a very brave one; he’s also a “reverse racist” as it were.

If, let’s say a hundred years from now, “England” is majority non-white country (which is the path we are headed) can I expect (I may well still be alive an old man but still) to live in a “European society”?

Race isn’t the be all and end all but it is important and denying it leads to more problems than it solves.

[Anthropos]

Race isn’t the be all and end all but it is important and denying it leads to more problems than it solves.

I don't 'deny race'. Race is a biological abstraction, and that's not a reason to 'deny' it.

[Westfalen]

I see lots of tragedies after race-mixing.
How many times have I heard stories of white women that went with an Arab and after divorce or something the Arab took (kidnap) the children and went to his homeland, leaving the mother alone with a broken heart missing her children.
It's a common thing in the Netherlands :mad:

How many times have I heard of a single with mother with a black child, the negro father left them on their own after the child was born and the fun was off.

I've heard of Dutch girls that dated Indonesian man here, and couldn't get rid of them after they separated, even his family was stalking her.

How many times have I heard stories of people I know who adopted Sri-Lankan, African or other non-white children, and these children had dozens or problems, couldn't apply in the Dutch society.
Some people say it's culture not race, well I can tell you that RACE DOES MATTER.

[Anthropos]

I see lots of tragedies after race-mixing.
How many times have I heard stories of white women that went with an Arab and after divorce or something the Arab took (kidnap) the children and went to his homeland, leaving the mother alone with a broken heart missing her children.
It's a common thing in the Netherlands :mad:

How many times have I heard of a single with mother with a black child, the negro father left them on their own after the child was born and the fun was off.

I've heard of Dutch girls that dated Indonesian man here, and couldn't get rid of them after they separated, even his family was stalking her.

How many times have I heard stories of people I know who adopted Sri-Lankan, African or other non-white children, and these children had dozens or problems, couldn't apply in the Dutch society.
Some people say it's culture not race, well I can tell you that RACE DOES MATTER.

These are individual tragedies. The idea of racial tragedy, as it is pictured by racialists, is usually that race-mixing is the cause of civilisational degeneration. Do you agree with this, yes or no?

[Agrippa]

These are individual tragedies. The idea of racial tragedy, as it is pictured by racialists, is usually that race-mixing is the cause of civilisational degeneration. Do you agree with this, yes or no?

If you see it like Dawkins, you could say that if your kin gets lost with low birthrates and mixture with very different elements of a lower level, this is a serious blow for your individual genetic interests and future. Your bloodline, which would flourish in a healthy and probably even expanding group, will be crippled, reduced and finally going extinct even - substituted by those elements you let in and you let yourself and kin make slaves, exploited subjects.

Race mixing in general is neither good nor bad, it always depends on the area in which it takes place, the dominant group which expands over another - because they always have to meet somewhere and finally the qualities of both and whether there are positive selective mechanisms at work individually and collectively.

Its also about numbers and many more aspects to be considered.

To say it in short and blunt, obviously from the point of view of a "quality control", to mix a Nordid with a Sinid or Nordindid is never the same as with a Bambutid - the individual result might be quite good actually in the first two cases.

But there are many biological and socio-cultural as well as economic factors to be considered and finally its about YOUR interests as an individual, of your bloodline, group, race and mankind - thats a hierarchy and all levels are important, whats more important depends on the situation.

Considering all facts, the mass immigration and mixture in Europe like it takes place now is horrible. There might have been other events of large scale mixture which produced rather positive results, as did the expansion of people in the past at times.

There is no general rule on that, yet things are clear from the European and general human perspective if looking at whats happening in Europe now.

[Westfalen]

These are individual tragedies. The idea of racial tragedy, as it is pictured by racialists, is usually that race-mixing is the cause of civilisational degeneration. Do you agree with this, yes or no?

Mulatto's can never identify themselves with a tribe/ethnicity.
You'll always see that people of a similar race/ethnicity get more easy together, and that means progress. Look at universities in the U.S.

Pure races are more dedicated to the progress of their tribe, they are doing it for their own folk. That thinking has brought the western world to what it was before mass-immigration.
Mixed families always get cultural collisions. How many holidays has a mixed christian-muslim family?
If a negro from Amsterdam gets to London and see's another negro, they smile to each other and easily start talking, they are of the same tribe. In dark Africa the same.

A mixed-race/mulatto is never "home". He's mostly a stranger, not one of them or them. Wherever he comes people will stare at him/her, what are you?
He can't live the live one of their parents lived, what grandfather will he identify with?

[Anthropos]

Pure races are more dedicated to the progress of their tribe, they are doing it for their own folk. That thinking has brought the western world to what it was before mass-immigration.

This is one of the things that I have contested with arguments in this thread. You might want to read the whole of it.

What you are saying is illogical. Mass-immigration wouldn't have happened if it were true, and the truth is that the Western world had very little social cohesion prior to mass immigration.

[Sarmata]

These are individual tragedies. The idea of racial tragedy, as it is pictured by racialists, is usually that race-mixing is the cause of civilisational degeneration. Do you agree with this, yes or no?


I'm afraid that it isn't matter of degeneration but just end of our civilisation, ageing of European populance/relucrance to have children and fast growing of non-European people means change of European populance to another(in near or far future it depends on country ofcourse...). As racialist;) or just logically thinking man I doubt that those new populance(I mean descendants of non-European people and mixed people too) could and just want to keep European civilisation and culture.

[Agrippa]

This is one of the things that I have contested with arguments in this thread. You might want to read the whole of it.

What you are saying is illogical. Mass-immigration wouldn't have happened if it were true, and the truth is that the Western world had very little social cohesion prior to mass immigration.

It had a corrupted leadership which wanted less cohesive people as subjects, a leadership corrupted by the plutocratic oligarchy.

As I said, the opinion of the general public, if being asked this issue alone, was clear, very clear - in the past and now too. Just substract the mass media and indoctrination in school and job - also made up by the government and companies, and you get a picture of how much negative feelings towards these trends the vast majority from their social and cultural background would have had and still have.

[Poltergeist]

I see lots of tragedies after race-mixing.
How many times have I heard stories of white women that went with an Arab and after divorce or something the Arab took (kidnap) the children and went to his homeland, leaving the mother alone with a broken heart missing her children.
It's a common thing in the Netherlands :mad:

How many times have I heard of a single with mother with a black child, the negro father left them on their own after the child was born and the fun was off.

I've heard of Dutch girls that dated Indonesian man here, and couldn't get rid of them after they separated, even his family was stalking her.

How many times have I heard stories of people I know who adopted Sri-Lankan, African or other non-white children, and these children had dozens or problems, couldn't apply in the Dutch society.
Some people say it's culture not race, well I can tell you that RACE DOES MATTER.

All of what you said is precisely about culture. I don't see what's "racial" about that.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Anthropos
Race is a biological abstraction

I’m sure, rather I hope, you’re confused.

Race is very much a biological fact.

[Psychonaut]

I’m sure, rather I hope, you’re confused.

Race is very much a biological fact.

There is so much confusion out there nowadays. I remember being taught in my Cultural Anthropology class that the Boasian "race does not exist" predominated amongst anthropologists. But then, when I went to Physical Anthropology the next year, we learned about the ins-and-outs of how forensic anthropologists could determine the race of a skeleton. Frans Boas did have a profound and pervasive effect in attempting to remove the concept of race from anthropology, but the utility of the idea is great enough that police departments use forensic anthropologists to determine the race of skeletons they encounter.

[lei.talk]

Franz Boas did have a profound and pervasive effect in attempting to remove the concept of race from anthropology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Boas#Physical_anthropology),
but...
*

[Anthropos]

I’m sure, rather I hope, you’re confused.

Race is very much a biological fact.

I'm fine thanks. You should be more worried about yourself.

Tell me when exactly in the unfolding of events was the White race, or Caucasoids, or Europids, created?

Can you tell me that it is not an abstraction? Do you seriously believe that race is something in its own right?

Abstraction is what you get when you look away from some things and make a list of criteria. For race these criteria may be genetic, phenotypic etc, but they will never capture the human beings that fit these criteria in their essence, nor in all of what they are. It's an abstraction, and a biological abstraction. This I have told you before. You reply by saying that I must somehow be out of my mind. I believe it is you who is confused.

[Fred]

The problem here, is that race only represents the predominant factors, while those which do not measure up are ignored because the characteristics are "uncharacteristic" and do not fit the stereotype.

Classification and taxonomy threads at forums like this are in evidence for that.

So...race is indeed both biological and cultural.

[Westfalen]

and the truth is that the Western world had very little social cohesion prior to mass immigration.

I don't know when your mass-immigration started, but after WW2 western-Europe "lay in ruins". Germany had suffered the most from it, Netherlands and other had also big damage. The population of Western-Europe was the most homogeneous just after the war. And they rebuilt their countries to worlds-leading economies in "no-time", without immigrants. Would that have been happened in multicultural-Europe?

Ow yes, I forgot our mixed-race project in Suriname. Germanics, Indians, Hindu, Creool, Negro, Libanese, Indonesians, Chinese, Arabs, Jews and more. Lots of natural resources, excellent location for trade, oil, gold, good weather and people of what ever race they could mix. Check the result.


All of what you said is precisely about culture. I don't see what's "racial" about that.
How long does a 1 year old adopted Negro from Mali keep his African culture with him in his white adoption-family?

[Kadu]

I’m sure, rather I hope, you’re confused.

Race is very much a biological fact.

The spectra are differentiated yes, but no one has yet set the boundaries which establish such separation.

I'll leave leave you this quote from one of Cavalli Sforza works


Race is a more elusive concept than that of species.

A species may be divided into races if the differences between the populations so defined are of some significance, but the level of differences used as a threshold is entirely arbitrary. When differences are striking, the classification is easy; but even then the taxonomical work may be made difficult by the existence of gradual transitions between the groups so defined. In most cases, separate races will be defined only if the groups differ in several significant traits. However, in most cases, these traits vary independently of one another in the transitional populations between the races. Thus, boundaries between the races drawn on the basis of one trait will not coincide with boundaries drawn on the basis of another trait. These are precisely the problems faced by the taxonomist who attempts to classify the human species into races. It is not difficult to see why there is nearly complete continuity in the distribution of almost every single trait, as revealed by maps of their geographical distributions.

Source:http://www.goodrumj.com/CavalliS.html

[Electronic God-Man]

Yes, I think that the name of that sub-forum should be changed! :mad:

The Population Group Tragedy - Discussions regarding the population group issue in Europe. Covering articles on population-group-ism and immigration - and discussing possible solutions to this dilemma.

[Anthropos]

Yes, I think that the name of that sub-forum should be changed! :mad:

I didn't post it in the suggestions forum. It's not a complaint. It's a discussion.

[Electronic God-Man]

I didn't post it in the suggestions forum. It's not a complaint. It's a discussion.

I don't care what you think. I'm complaining! :mad:

[Anthropos]

I don't care what you think. I'm complaining! :mad:

Alright, have fun! :icon_lol:

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Anthropos
It's an abstraction, and a biological abstraction.

An “abstraction” used in such wide fields as forensic science and medicine.


This I have told you before.

I don't care how many times you "tell me" I use facts, not whatever nonsense you seem to be using.....

Let me provide you with an example.

Have you heard of a system known as CODIS?

No?

CODIS is the Combined DNA Index System, it is employed by, amongst others, the FBI. CODIS is an interesting system because from just one hundred SNP markers enough AIM (Ancestry Informative Markers) can be collected to determine racial background i.e. whether a suspect is of Negroid, Caucasoid, Mongoloid or Native American origin. Not bad for an “abstraction”! It’s pretty much 100% accurate and even useful in determining the percentage of admixture in mixed race individuals.

You may want to read Race (The Reality of Human Difference) by Vincent Sarich and Frank Miele.

Interesting as well that in recent years researchers have begun to study “race targeted” medicines:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4275695.stm

A case that turns up regularly:

http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/080501/met_6870358.html
http://www.bloodbook.com/world-abo.html


You reply by saying that I must somehow be out of my mind. I believe it is you who is confused.

I base my argument on facts you base yours on what?

If you’re seriously going to tell me that race has no biological foundation, when scientific evidence convincingly proves you wrong then what assumption should I make about your stance?


Originally Posted by Kadu
but no one has yet set the boundaries which establish such separation.

My issue is with the nonsensical view that race has no biological foundation when scientific evidence suggests quite clearly it does……that change is clinal is not disputed but it is also obvious that recognised population patters emerge when studied (interestingly they often correlate to accepted traditional racial categories).

Thus, boundaries between the races drawn on the basis of one trait will not coincide with boundaries drawn on the basis of another trait.

This depends entirely on the traits selected. Rushton took issue with Jared Diamond’s 1994 article in Discovery attempting to disprove race by commenting that Diamond’s criteria had no predictive value and also confused the scientific meaning of race i.e. a “distinguishable geographic population”.

Neil Risch is a geneticist at the University of California, San Francisco. In 2002 he undertook a study (along with Marcus Feldman of Stanford University) studying 377 sites throughout the genome. They used 1000 people from 52 different populations around the world. They discovered that the samples fell within five clusters marked in the study as Africa, Western Eurasia, East Asia, Oceania and the Americas.

[Anthropos]

Noone said that an abstraction must be entirely useless.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Anthropos
Noone said that an abstraction must be entirely useless.

I’m assuming you are using abstraction in a physical sense as a lack of material existence? I see no other logical use for the word when referring to a physical science such as genetics.

If this is the case then, as I have shown, racial variation is very much a biological fact, personally I have never seen one serious peer reviewed study that has attempted to deny it’s very existence, I have seen studies that call into question it’s importance and use, but that’s a different matter to the one at hand.

Denying something as important isn’t the same as denying it’s existence, if the former is your point, fair enough, we could argue for and against on that matter and both have reasonable arguments to make, but I would be personally astonished and have to question the motive of someone who categorically denied the existence of racial variation when scientific evidence shows otherwise.

[Anthropos]

Liffrea,

You attack a view of race that is altogether compatible with the evidence that you referred to. You might as well admit it: Race is a biological abstraction. As for what I think about the conception of 'racial tragedy', read the thread.

[Poltergeist]

How long does a 1 year old adopted Negro from Mali keep his African culture with him in his white adoption-family?

There are cases where an adopted Negro child adapts well. Yours is a too great generalization.

[Fred]

There are cases where an adopted Negro child adapts well. Yours is a too great generalization.We don't need to be rich liberal white celebrities adopting them though...:rolleyes:

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Anthropos
You attack a view of race that is altogether compatible with the evidence that you referred to. You might as well admit it: Race is a biological abstraction. As for what I think about the conception of 'racial tragedy', read the thread.

LOL, alright Anthropos if you're not going to play the game honestly we'll leave it there.:coffee:

[Anthropos]

LOL, alright Anthropos if you're not going to play the game honestly we'll leave it there.:coffee:

What?

If you want to be lazy, then DON'T read the thread, but it's not very long, and please spare me your trolling and off-topic junk, please. This is not one out of thousands of already existing 'Genetic evidence shows that ...' thread.

[Poltergeist]

Anyway, almost all discussions on race are booooring as hell. On both sides of the barricade. Racialism is boring, so is anti-racialism or non-racialism.

[Anthropos]

Anyway, almost all discussions on race are booooring as hell. On both sides of the barricade. Racialism is boring, so is anti-racialism or non-racialism.

Yes, indeed.

Discussion on race in context seems almost impossible here on The Apricity, since all you get is knee-jerking accusations as soon as you put an article of the racialist faith into question. If you are not a racialist, it is immediately assumed that you are anti-racist, 'politically correct' etc.

[Westfalen]

There are cases where an adopted Negro child adapts well. Yours is a too great generalization.

Yeah maybe when living in Amsterdam-West or another place with lots of other negro's. But in totally white community he will always be "different".
And I know, family and people I know have adopted non-whites and whites, the whites can identify themselves with the father or mother but the colored ones not and always have personal problems.

Most wars and riots are about different ethnicities or cultures living next to each other. Like Yugoslavia, Hutsi's vs. Tutsi's, Sjiiets vs. Soenniets, Amsterdam-West riots, Copenhagen-Rosengard riots, England, and dozens others.
There is "always" trouble in a region were ethnicities and cultures are living mixed. Off course some who is a communist wearing purple glasses and being high on mirahuana won't notice such things.

[MarcvSS]

There are cases where an adopted Negro child adapts well. Yours is a too great generalization.

True...

There are even niggers with Swasticas tattooed on 'm... Now if that isn't addeptment, I dont know what is.:rolleyes:

Adapting white wealth they also have no problem with...

[Matritensis]

I have said this before here but I'll say it again:nobody(not even the Jews,surprise surprise!) can decide who you get kids with.Therefore,if you want white kids,you choose a white mate.If you don't care much about the colour and your priorities or circumstances are different,you choose whoever you choose.It's an individual choice,and a sacred one at that.Everybody is alone at that point,so there's no discussion possible about the matter.

[Agrippa]

I have said this before here but I'll say it again:nobody(not even the Jews,surprise surprise!) can decide who you get kids with.Therefore,if you want white kids,you choose a white mate.If you don't care much about the colour and your priorities or circumstances are different,you choose whoever you choose.It's an individual choice,and a sacred one at that.Everybody is alone at that point,so there's no discussion possible about the matter.

Thats a possible position you can argue for, surely it is, yet its a Liberal-Individualist approach and its moral implication in no way absolute, but just one look at "the problem" from a certain ideological point of view.

Most other human societies at all times before the Western late-phase would have looked at it differently, insofar as the choice for a mate is not just an individual decision, at it determines the future of the bloodline, clan and whole tribe probably.

I'm not saying they were always right or that was better in any case, yet it just shows to you how relative your position, which is much less long term and group oriented, is in comparison.

If a person decides while being drunk to have sex with a black gangsta rappa just because he's been shown as cool in the mass media and looked at by her friends, I can hardly see the sacred in the toilet room they "do it".

In my opinion, the real sacred things are those which lead to good results, to a higher being and order, save values and produce new ones.

Individual decisions of destructive character are never good, yet anything sacred, and if being done because of the manipulation of the mass and a weak, degenerated society and environment in which the individual lives, its everything but "sacred" of course - in some drastic examples even more than others.

If your ancestors could answer you on that and what they considered "sacred"...

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Agrippa
Individual decisions of destructive character are never good, yet anything sacred, and if being done because of the manipulation of the mass and a weak, degenerated society and environment in which the individual lives, its everything but "sacred" of course - in some drastic examples even more than others.

I think a lot of what you have wrote is true but the emphasis is on the ability of the individual to understand their own mind, not be swayed by others, and live with the consequences of their actions…..personally I can’t think of a greater defining characteristic of the northern European people’s, it’s pretty much the central ethic of all Heathen lore for a start, which has a depth of individuality rarely found outside of European literature.

Unfortunately we live in an age where most people attain their “values” and “lifestyle” choices from soap stars and football players, rather than from family and tradition. People blame “liberalism” and “individuality” personally I think there is far less of both (in real terms) today than perhaps ever before, the prevailing ethic we have is neither “liberal” nor “individual” (the words are used of course but that’s an exercise in Orwellian double speak) it is social engineering to an “acceptable” standard couched in terms of “tolerance” and “diversity”. Yet fact is, at least from my experience, most people can’t justify their beliefs or behaviour they act and think solely on outside pressure and influence, that’s a world away from any sense of individuality I understand. Perhaps the influence of the “chattering class” in society has never been as pervasive now.

We’re probably not that far away from wearing blue overalls……

[Allenson]

Anyway, almost all discussions on race are booooring as hell.

Perhaps for you. Many of us, myself inluded, find the topic quite facinating. For me, this interest ranges from the inherent, genetic level all the way to the social abstraction we call culture or society. :cool:

[Agrippa]

Dont confuse pre-Christian Indoeuropean and Germanic mentality with the Christian one, because a certain Individualism of the kind we know it in the West, with all GOOD AND BAD effects, it was no one way, was not present before Christianity, at best only small beginnings were, mostly in the classic philosophy rather than any tribal groups.

As for the rest of what you said, I largely agree with you, as its primarily about the feeling and impression of "individuality", no real one, nor any real freedom of choice IN THE IMPORTANT MATTERS at all.

I wrote about it before, so I just repeat some small aspects of the problem, namely that we deal with "ideological Individualism", which is rather some kind of pseudo-Individualism, in which the personal individuality being largely artificially produced by some kind of "consumer kits" of which every individual can chose from. Because there are so many possible recombinations which the industry offers us in so many colors, everbody can feel "individual" even if everything he defines as individual being largely industrial products, like his opinion even, which he has chosen from what the school, mass media and peers told him.

That way, the mass of today is not more "individual" than the past ones were, yet they feel so and being backed with this feeling and impression by the mass media etc. Its like a circulus vitiosus or circular reasoning, just that participating in it is largely no individual decision neither, or false reasoning, but a huge apparatus, largely under the control of the Plutocratic Oligarchy and their helpers, which makes the mass an industrial product which just feels more individual than past generations itself.

Yet it doesnt matter, like with Pseudo-Individualism, what ideological impetus being a possible justification, just the produced reality matters most and this reality wouldnt have been possible without the protection of the flanks by classic Liberalism and Individualism with all its fallacies.

Because that the mass is a mass, individualised subjects easy to control, is one of its results, as is the tremendous ascension of the Plutocratic Oligarchy without any other legitimation but their wealth and control over the financial system - finally ressources and means of control and manipulation.

So Liberalism and Individualism can in no way be a mean AGAINST them, even though the social reality we have now is a PERVERTED AND ABUSED form of it.

By the way, I very much prefer individual freedom and freedom of choice, as a certain individual approach to all human beings in many ways, thats my personality as well, BUT NOT if such an appraoch, in concrete situations, means a bad result for many people, many individuals and the group as a whole. Thats a question of priorities.

[Anthropos]

Perhaps for you. Many of us, myself inluded, find the topic quite facinating. For me, this interest ranges from the inherent, genetic level all the way to the social abstraction we call culture or society. :cool:

The genetic level is in any case much more of an abstraction. Genes do not float around in a social vacuum.

[Agrippa]

The genetic level is in any case much more of an abstraction. Genes do not float around in a social vacuum.

True, but their influence can be estimated and is sometimes the only decisive factor. But thats a rather scientific question, a scientific challenge for every phenotypical trait we can observe.

[Westfalen]

Dont confuse pre-Christian Indoeuropean and Germanic mentality with the Christian one, because a certain Individualism of the kind we know it in the West, with all GOOD AND BAD effects, it was no one way, was not present before Christianity, at best only small beginnings were, mostly in the classic philosophy rather than any tribal groups.

Absolutely right.
Also, before Christianity was forced upon us Germanics, people didn't live with "shame" and "(god)fear" like in christianity. The christians teached us that pride was a shame and that we should fear god all the time.

For example. The heathen Saxons had their first democratic Saxon Empire (far before 800AD), it was in fact a union of many tribes, and every tribe had their equal representatives, not elitairs like today, but wise-men from every class of people, no matter how rich or poor someone was, he was chosen by his people to represent them, and the people really supported these leaders.

[Agrippa]

Absolutely right.
Also, before Christianity was forced upon us Germanics, people didn't live with "shame" and "(god)fear" like in christianity. The christians teached us that pride was a shame and that we should fear god all the time.

For example. The heathen Saxons had their first democratic Saxon Empire (far before 800AD), it was in fact a union of many tribes, and every tribe had their equal representatives, not elitairs like today, but wise-men from every class of people, no matter how rich or poor someone was, he was chosen by his people to represent them, and the people really supported these leaders.

Exactly. What you mention also shows why Christianity was often introduced as well, because with that kind of mentality, how healthy it might be, you have a problem if you want to form a state, a reign.

Actually all Indoeuropeans were similar on that, yet today you find similar patterns primarily among people most look at as "backward" today like tribal groups and clans in Afghanistan, India or Albania.

Obviously they are not as good to control, every independent unit has their own character and leader, doesnt want to be dominated. They also are easier to corrupt, especially by nepotism and a preference of the clan before the law and state, yet they are also less materialistic, not as easy to form by Capitalism and more modern economic structures in general, because they follow older and more profound rules of blood and honour.

Now here we see why Christianity and Feudalism was both, a curse and a blessing for the West, since much of the progress wouldnt have possible, all the social discipline and individual determinations almost unthinkable without, yet it made us dependent on a functioning structure, state and leadership.

If you take that away from the Westerner, he is just a helpless individual, with a false trust in the law and discipline, but without deeper knowledge and values, without a working alternative, like all tribal and clan groups have it.

This makes up an effective state, but also helpless people, so if the state is controlled by the wrong subjects, you have a huge, huge problem.

That problem we are facing now. The bad effects of our European "Seperate Path" were never eliminated or even touched in modernity and Liberalism and Marxism were secular ideologies on a Christian cultural base which further enlarged the problems and now our state and society being taken, under the control of the Plutocratic Oligarchy and what we see is exactly what our Path made out of us, a helpless mass in an effective state system which acts no longer to our own advantage...

[Anthropos]

Absolutely right.
Also, before Christianity was forced upon us Germanics, people didn't live with "shame" and "(god)fear" like in christianity. The christians teached us that pride was a shame and that we should fear god all the time.

For example. The heathen Saxons had their first democratic Saxon Empire (far before 800AD), it was in fact a union of many tribes, and every tribe had their equal representatives, not elitairs like today, but wise-men from every class of people, no matter how rich or poor someone was, he was chosen by his people to represent them, and the people really supported these leaders.

There is apparently NO ONE TOPIC in which you shameless scoundrels will not make cheap, retarded shots at Christianity, or rather, at your false idea of what it is Christianity.

Now, for your information, my area was Christianised peacefully as half of Sweden was. Your revisionist zeropean crap is worth nothing.

[Brännvin]

Anyway, almost all discussions on race are booooring as hell. On both sides of the barricade. Racialism is boring, so is anti-racialism or non-racialism.

So get out! Are you a sadomasochist posting here?

[Brännvin]

I actually do not think that there is such a thing as a 'racial tragedy'.

:loco:

Racial tragedy?

Politics: Traditional Civilisation

Vincit omnia Veritas

(it means Truth conquers all).

Fail, fail and fail.
This is a tragedy for Sweden;
http://i48.tinypic.com/7134li.jpg

:eek:

[Westfalen]

There is apparently NO ONE TOPIC in which you shameless scoundrels will not make cheap, retarded shots at Christianity, or rather, at your false idea of what it is Christianity.

Now, for your information, my area was Christianised peacefully as half of Sweden was. Your revisionist zeropean crap is worth nothing.

Your people in Sweden didn't get Charlemagnes holy army FORCING you to become christian. And the Saxons and Frisians were christianized with brutal force by Europe's biggest empire, Charlemagne
The Saxon-wars dured more than 20 years before Charles the Great overruled them, and they killed and deported hundred-thousands of Saxons.
When in 782AD Charles let 4.500 Saxon nobles killed in the Massacre of Verden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_court_of_Verden), the Saxon leader Widukind then made a pact with Charles, he and many other Saxon nobles become royalties, he became Herzog Widukind of Hamaland.
The Saxon leader was baptized and a big part of his people followed, but resistance existed always after that.
Many of the Saxons who's wife and children were murdered by this "holy army" fled to Scandinavia to join the Vikings to take revenge. Then the Viking era started 790AD.

It took your "peacefull" baptizers 400 years to christianize Scandinavia till about 1200 AD.

I don't blame christians, but the Church. Those churches that were built on the ruins of our holy temples.
Too bad for the church that still heathenry is remaining everywhere, they never could get the heathen out of the Germanic.

[Lurker]

Talking about the civil rights movement and the way it developed, the Rockefellers were an important element in the manipulation of the black movement and the indoctrination of the white people, to prevent a "national collective" solution and impose multiculturalism-multiracialism in an individualised-Capitalist manner, with the moral foundation we can find in degenerated Neo-Christians and Cultural Marxists, the ideological supporters of the "politically correct" social rules, which undermine every important opposition to their crimes and manipulation to a large degree, cripples the nations and people, makes them less likely if not unable to react, to protect their interests.

Hello Mr. Agrippa,

What do you mean by "a national collective solution"? Separatism between races in the US? Do you think that would have been a better solution to the civil rights movement?



The collective approach is the natural human one, its present in most if not all traditional societies and was still dominant, just somewhat weakened, in Christian Europe. The reformation and Calvinism in particular were the next step, but the real important one was Liberalism, the Western disease.

From England and after longer fights, also the USA, which resistance was broken, they spread the poison to other people around the globe, and still do so.

So, do you think Europe was better before Protestantism? Do you think Europeans would be better if they returned to a unified church with the same mores and practices of pre-Reform Catholicism/Orthodoxy?

And regarding your idea of "progressive collectivism", should a society that adopts it be necessarily racist, in the sense that it should recognize races, the difference between them and strive to be racially homogeneous? Would the form of government be a democracy? Would the economic system be capitalist or would the state own the capital (means of production) and decide what to do with it and the profits? Is "progresside collectivism" more attuned to a religion, and, if so, what is it? And finally, could a "progressive collectivist" society arise, for example, in Africa or China? Why or why not?

[Agrippa]

What do you mean by "a national collective solution"? Separatism between races in the US? Do you think that would have been a better solution to the civil rights movement?

Yes, definitely. A fair solution of that kind would have been better for the Euro- and the Afro-Americans, there can be no doubt about it.


So, do you think Europe was better before Protestantism? Do you think Europeans would be better if they returned to a unified church with the same mores and practices of pre-Reform Catholicism/Orthodoxy?

Christianity in general and Catholicism had many faults, yet Protestantism made little better on the long run, though there were two basic movements in Protestantism, among which Lutheranism was much more rational and better for the group than Calvinisn, especially the Anglo-Calvinist churches. Sadly the latter won - not just from the religious perspective, but also if its about their influence on the secular world.

Otherwise we can't and shouldnt try to go back to the past, thats no option, things went wrong in the past, now its about making it better for the future. We just have to aknowledge the facts and trends which made us so vulnerable and developing in the wrong direction. Thats why its important to speak about that and to point out that certain Christian sects in particular are poison for the people, which the faults of Christianity in general always kept in mind.


And regarding your idea of "progressive collectivism", should a society that adopts it be necessarily racist, in the sense that it should recognize races, the difference between them and strive to be racially homogeneous?

Well, in a way it has to be racialist, but not necessarily in a strict sense, nor in every possible form. I prefer a racialist form, but you could work with a non-racialist either. The programs you would use however, would produce a rather homogenous racial population (in the important traits) and culture, because THATS necessary in any case.

Since we have very well developed communities, ethnic groups, nations and national cultures, as well as a European homogeneity in many important fields and good standard - not forgetting the rule of relatedness, extended kinship (!), the only rational starting point would be from what is already there and related to me/us, everything else would be irrational.

But if you consider a situation (in the far future f.e.) in which such a homogenous base is no longer present, you could build up a society with the same principles by uniting and forming what is present in your political area to a homogenous society, group of people. Actually most ethnic groups, even most racial units, were once formed by different kind of people. I just see these formations, if the results are good, as some kind of "achievement" from which you can start much more effectively - and again remember the principle of genetic survival of your kin - extended kinship too - than from a wild bunch of unrelated people of very different niveau, culture, interests, appearance etc.


Would the form of government be a democracy?

I see it from the eyes of those which try to achieve the goals presented in my group organisation. They have to do what they have to do and use all means necessary to complete the mission. If this is possible in a Democracy and the democracy seems to be even more reasonable and effective for the basic principles proposed, then they will use a Democratic form of organisation - though one thing is for sure, it can't be a Liberal Democracy of the kind the West uses it now - if not, they have to adapt.

Actually the leaders of a revolutionary group I propose should be similar to genetic survival - transfer the code and complete the mission of survival and success, yet using every mean and form necessary in the most effective way.


Would the economic system be capitalist or would the state own the capital (means of production) and decide what to do with it and the profits?

The financial system would be controlled by the state, that must be the case, all experiences we made so far make this essential for a future state formation. Yet talking about companies, private enterprises, they can have their place in what I would call a "guided Market". So the state interferes, like with the individuals in general, only if higher values and goods being endangered.


Is "progresside collectivism" more attuned to a religion, and, if so, what is it?

Well, thats hard to answer, but there were and are religious belief systems which are more and others less attuned to it. F.e. Lutheran Protestantism in Central-Northern Europe before the 2nd World War was more suitable than the current Lutheran Protestantism, yet that has a lot to do with the changes in society, though Lutheran Protestantism became something even worse than the rest in various ways, namely a Left-Liberal religion, which was not the case to the same extend before.


And finally, could a "progressive collectivist" society arise, for example, in Africa or China? Why or why not?

Africa is a large continent, so the question is hard to answer. For China its easy, yes it could. If that would be the case at a time in which China has sufficient ressources, I'm absolutely sure China would rule the world.

[Jarl]

Absolutely right.
Also, before Christianity was forced upon us Germanics, people didn't live with "shame" and "(god)fear" like in christianity. The christians teached us that pride was a shame and that we should fear god all the time.


This is a bizzare statement. For instance, I find that Britons who are strongly Christian tend to be much more traditional and aware of their history and heritage. I totally do not see any Christianity-induced sense of shame in them. And Christianity was a natural, inevitable step towards a civilised feudal society. I do not quite understand how you imagine the alternative? By sticking to heathenism and tribal era? Well, some Slavs and Balts tried to do it... and got all wiped out as a result. Their primitive tribal organisation, factionalism and "peoples leaders" proved to be no match for the centralised feudal states, in the long run.

[Westfalen]

And Christianity was a natural, inevitable step towards a civilised feudal society. I do not quite understand how you imagine the alternative? By sticking to heathenism and tribal era? Well, some Slavs and Balts tried to do it... and got all wiped out as a result. Their primitive tribal organisation, factionalism and "peoples leaders" proved to be no match for the centralised feudal states, in the long run.

You call christianizing a "natural" step? There is nothing Natural about christianity. In fact it's a religion that stands far away from nature.
How you explain the Christian Sicilians that are fighting each other for 1000's of years. How many wars have we had where both sides or one side was Christian.

And do you expect the heathen's to stick in their "tribal era" forever?
Did they have some believe that all their inventions and reformations should stop?
If there is one religion that has kept our development backwards in especially the middle-ages, it was Christianity. The Church didn't want invention and development. If someone would have invented electricity or whatever, they would have seen it as witchcraft and burned them.

And what about the Vikings, how could they expand so fast and overrule many other "christian" nations as heathens?

[Anthropos]

It took your "peacefull" baptizers 400 years to christianize Scandinavia till about 1200 AD.

No, that's crap, and stick to your own country's history if you want to tell lies. What I said was that HALF OF SWEDEN WAS CHRISTIANISED PEACEFULLY. That half in turn subdued the other half, and likely this was not uncalled for. It is not difficult to imagine that heathens had a greater taste for pillage and plunder than Christians did.

[Westfalen]

No, that's crap, and stick to your own country's history if you want to tell lies. What I said was that HALF OF SWEDEN WAS CHRISTIANISED PEACEFULLY. That half in turn subdued the other half, and likely this was not uncalled for. It is not difficult to imagine that heathens had a greater taste for pillage and plunder than Christians did.

Sure....
So you only read the history-books written by christian Monks!
Haha "And keep praying for forgiveness for the criminal deeds of your forfathers, and got to church every sunday twice and maybe you will not go to hell like your brutal Viking-forfathers " :D

And I never said that Sweden or any other Scandinavian countries were christianized by brutal force, but my Saxon people were! And maybe you have made up your own history-tale of mainland Europe's christianizing and suggest that I am telling lies.



It is not difficult to imagine that heathens had a greater taste for pillage and plunder than Christians did.

Not difficult to imagine??! Haha, imagining more than 1000 years ago, your people's Viking-age started just after Holy Charlemagne had crusaded half of Europe in the name of the lord for decades and forced heathen tribes to become Christian, you can find that in the history books! Their Saxon neighbours, their King was the son-in-law of the Danish King. All the holy places in Saxony, Frisia and even Helgoland were destroyed by Christians, the Irminsul, the holy oaks. For what?! :mad:

And what about all the other Christian crusades to the middle-east. Pillage and plunder? What did they do in south-America to the Inca's.

Who cares about the Vikings plundering rich monasteries in England, how did those monasteries get that rich and the hardworking obeying citizens around it so poor? The Christian churches have used Taxes for more than a thousand years to silence plunder the people. That's why my christianized forfathers killed the Dutch bishop and it's large army in 1227, they refused to pay taxes to such a distant bishop for nothing.

Your country became christian due the missionaries around the year 1000, 50 years after the Danish and the Danish some 150 years after the Saxons, and some 500 years of the Franks. After becoming Christian international relations could be re-established and they could share in the Holy Crusades to the south.

The Viking ancestors were "cursed" by these missionaries churches and still you Scandinavians are being indoctrinated "to be ashamed" of your Viking roots. Have you seen that movie Pathfinder, haha what a joke, were they like that in your imagination? Try the 13th Warrior, it's way more realistic.
And it took the missionaries to 1200-1300 to become christian. The Sami to the 18th century!

[Jarl]

got to church every sunday twice and maybe you will not go to hell like your brutal Viking-forfathers " :D

;) Haha! How are you so certain they will go to hell? Leave that to the Judge.

[Anthropos]

Sure....
So you only read the history-books written by christian Monks!
Haha "And keep praying for forgiveness for the criminal deeds of your forfathers, and got to church every sunday twice and maybe you will not go to hell like your brutal Viking-forfathers " :D

And I never said that Sweden or any other Scandinavian countries were christianized by brutal force, but my Saxon people were! And maybe you have made up your own history-tale of mainland Europe's christianizing and suggest that I am telling lies.




Not difficult to imagine??! Haha, imagining more than 1000 years ago, your people's Viking-age started just after Holy Charlemagne had crusaded half of Europe in the name of the lord for decades and forced heathen tribes to become Christian, you can find that in the history books! Their Saxon neighbours, their King was the son-in-law of the Danish King. All the holy places in Saxony, Frisia and even Helgoland were destroyed by Christians, the Irminsul, the holy oaks. For what?! :mad:

And what about all the other Christian crusades to the middle-east. Pillage and plunder? What did they do in south-America to the Inca's.

Who cares about the Vikings plundering rich monasteries in England, how did those monasteries get that rich and the hardworking obeying citizens around it so poor? The Christian churches have used Taxes for more than a thousand years to silence plunder the people. That's why my christianized forfathers killed the Dutch bishop and it's large army in 1227, they refused to pay taxes to such a distant bishop for nothing.

Your country became christian due the missionaries around the year 1000, 50 years after the Danish and the Danish some 150 years after the Saxons, and some 500 years of the Franks. After becoming Christian international relations could be re-established and they could share in the Holy Crusades to the south.

The Viking ancestors were "cursed" by these missionaries churches and still you Scandinavians are being indoctrinated "to be ashamed" of your Viking roots. Have you seen that movie Pathfinder, haha what a joke, were they like that in your imagination? Try the 13th Warrior, it's way more realistic.
And it took the missionaries to 1200-1300 to become christian. The Sami to the 18th century!

Mmmmm I am Dutch Viking, I know my history..... ehhh Christianity is the cause of every evil..... And ummm while I am at it I'll try to divert this discussion in every direction possible, all in one post! :thumbs up

[Lulletje Rozewater]

No, that's crap, and stick to your own country's history if you want to tell lies. What I said was that HALF OF SWEDEN WAS CHRISTIANISED PEACEFULLY. That half in turn subdued the other half, and likely this was not uncalled for. It is not difficult to imagine that heathens had a greater taste for pillage and plunder than Christians did.

Wow a bold statement.
See the history of the 1st Crusade.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

Free will. Is there such an animal????
I am white and wish to marry a black(both are brought up in private schools)= free will of a sort
I want white children,my wife wants black children, see likes the corn hair I do not.
The shit is hitting the fan. No more free will,and decisions are made by the strongest will and best culture.
Racial tragedy creeps in when the children are born neither black nor white.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_by_country

[Anthropos]

Wow a bold statement.
See the history of the 1st Crusade.People who oppose Christianity often suffer from this inability to distinguish one historical event from another, making sweeping judgments on the whole of it. I just hope that you will be able to get over it some day. This is very off-topic, but I might as well mention very briefly that the crusade was not completely uncalled for, seeing as the Fatimid ruler had expelled the native Christian population in 1099. Also, before Arab rule over Jerusalem, the city had been in Roman and then in Christian possession for a very long time.
Free will. Is there such an animal????
I am white and wish to marry a black(both are brought up in private schools)= free will of a sort
I want white children,my wife wants black children, see likes the corn hair I do not.
The shit is hitting the fan. No more free will,and decisions are made by the strongest will and best culture.
Racial tragedy creeps in when the children are born neither black nor white.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_by_country

It seems that you don't even understand what free will is. Did you say that free will inevitably leads the individual to a mixed union? In your dreams, I suppose. And how can you praise 'the strongest will' if you don't believe in a positive aspect of free will? I didn't expect the racialist mindset to be logical, mind you, I know it is not very well thought out, but this was a somewhat unexpected excursion into alogical wonderland.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

People who oppose Christianity often suffer from this inability to distinguish one historical event from another, making sweeping judgments on the whole of it. I just hope that you will be able to get over it some day. This is very off-topic, but I might as well mention very briefly that the crusade was not completely uncalled for, seeing as the Fatimid ruler had expelled the native Christian population in 1099. Also, before Arab rule over Jerusalem, the city had been in Roman and then in Christian possession for a very long time.
I was referring to mass slaughter,which is not just a pagan mentality,after all if you destroy a city,kill ALL inhabitants(women and children included)
Once inside the city, as was standard military practice at the time,<sup id="cite_ref-18" class="reference"></sup> the Crusaders massacred the Muslim inhabitants, destroyed mosques and pillaged the city.Local Christians assassinated Yaghisiyan, former ruler of the city.
I do not oppose Xians I oppose half truths.
Is there any difference between the Muslim atrocities and that of the Christian ones.
Damn I am so sorry there is a difference....the Muslim are brownish and the Christians are whitish:D:D:lightbul:


It seems that you don't even understand what free will is. Did you say that free will inevitably leads the individual to a mixed union? In your dreams, I suppose. And how can you praise 'the strongest will' if you don't believe in a positive aspect of free will? I didn't expect the racialist mindset to be logical, mind you, I know it is not very well thought out, but this was a somewhat unexpected excursion into alogical wonderland.

IU said there is no such animal as Free Will.
Do not "ass-u-me",that is a bad habit.
Free means unrestricted.
Free will means the ability to act at one's own discretion.(Which differs from person to person)
The strongest will is never free will and there is no positive aspect of free will.
You show me just one example of a free will.
my quote: I am white and wish to marry a black(both are brought up in private schools)= free will of ' a sort' etc etc

And yes, I am a racialist,not because of a free will,but because of my genes,history,culture and colour. I became a racialist after I left the Catholic Church and the teachings of the Jesuits,who by the way did not believe in Free Will.
To be more precise Xianity has no problem to race mixing.
For your ears only:Those who venture in a mixed marriage or a relationship do so for lack of better options and lack of understanding the children they
create.

[Lurker]

The financial system would be controlled by the state, that must be the case, all experiences we made so far make this essential for a future state formation. Yet talking about companies, private enterprises, they can have their place in what I would call a "guided Market". So the state interferes, like with the individuals in general, only if higher values and goods being endangered.


Thanks for your answers.

But you do know that the financial system is probably one of the most important parts of any economy, right? By transferring excess savings from some families/individuals to other families/individuals/companies' investment projects it leads to greater effiency of the economy. The invention of the banking system was one of the great advancements that happened in human history.

Anyway, my doubt is if a state-controlled financial system could work as well in doing what it should do (financing investments and giving return to people with excess savings, specially so they can enjoy their life after retirement) if it was all controlled by the state. How would prices (i.e. interest rates, remuneration of people who work in these companies, etc) be set? And would politics interfere in the decisions regarding where the money was to be invested? Would the fact that it's state owned (and therefore never will be broke) make it give credit to investments that aren't that sound or wouldn't perform well? Lots of state-owned banks end going bankrupt and needing government aid (as much as the private banks of today seem to do). But in the end economies that have private financial systems (the capitalist ones) were much more efficient at providing the people with what they needed than those that had state-controlled financial systems (communists).

[Agrippa]

Obviously banks and loans etc. are necessary, thats not the issue, we are talking about people getting too much power in the banking system and the system as a whole being corrupted and inefficient for the people, which means it has to be reformed or substituted, not eliminated without having an alternative which works as good and fulfils the role of private central banks.

There can be private banks in my opinion, but their power and tools must be limited to a reasonable degree.


Anyway, my doubt is if a state-controlled financial system could work as well in doing what it should do (financing investments and giving return to people with excess savings, specially so they can enjoy their life after retirement) if it was all controlled by the state.

If you think the current system "works well", there is no foundation of any further discussion, because nothing could be further away from the truth!


How would prices (i.e. interest rates, remuneration of people who work in these companies, etc) be set? And would politics interfere in the decisions regarding where the money was to be invested?

First depends on the whole economic situation, last: Definitely yes. I would allow private banks for the financing the rest, but obviously I wouldnt finance things which are not favourable for our people. Economy and the financial system, including banks, are just tools for serving the state, communities and people, not vice versa!


Would the fact that it's state owned (and therefore never will be broke) make it give credit to investments that aren't that sound or wouldn't perform well?

Obviously there must be measurements which limit the amount of failed investments. But again, if comparing with the current situation, more than now? That would be difficult actually...

I know so many hard working people and companies which DON'T get cheap credits from the banks, yet huge amounts of money being lost in absurd speculations, corrupted structures and failed investments which just sound good on the paper for the current financial employees, but not in reality!


Lots of state-owned banks end going bankrupt and needing government aid (as much as the private banks of today seem to do).

Yes? They are just banks which work like private banks with more smaller scale corruption. But thats because the whole financial system and current politicians are crap, not because state owned must be inferiour to private banks! They are just part of the system and dont work for the people like they should, like all those banks which were originally founded by workers, small businessmen, farmers etc. for their needs of just financing their business and saving their money. They are not financial institutes with the sames defects of the whole financial system, so if at all, blame the dominance of the financial oligarchy and their private-deregulated banking system for the conditions!


But in the end economies that have private financial systems (the capitalist ones) were much more efficient at providing the people with what they needed than those that had state-controlled financial systems (communists).

You probably know that the Bolshevists worked with international banks? The Marxists never fully attacked or reformed the banking system, they simply didnt!

Furthermore they were ideologically driven and did many things the people and economy, which weren't reasonable at all, just from their ideological or megalomanic perspective. Individual creativity and potential should be used, with more relative freedom, in any society.

We are not talking about free companies and businessmen, we are talking about the financial and banking system, as well as the huge corporations controled by them!

In fact, this system limited the individual potential in many spheres already to a degree, which is not healthy any more neither. So the freedom we have is just the freedom of the bankers!

I might recommend this video for you, among others, to give you an impression:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2550156453790090544#

[Lurker]

Obviously banks and loans etc. are necessary, thats not the issue, we are talking about people getting too much power in the banking system and the system as a whole being corrupted and inefficient for the people, which means it has to be reformed or substituted, not eliminated without having an alternative which works as good and fulfils the role of private central banks.

There can be private banks in my opinion, but their power and tools must be limited to a reasonable degree.

So, would you be OK if the finantial system was more regulated or fractured than it is now, with better anti-trust laws? I think these are better solutions than the state owning them. I'm just very wary about this kind of thing.

[Agrippa]

So, would you be OK if the finantial system was more regulated or fractured than it is now, with better anti-trust laws? I think these are better solutions than the state owning them. I'm just very wary about this kind of thing.

Then let me be blunt: Are you wary about what the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Morgans & Co. did or not?

I want a state free from the influence and dominance of such people and you will never get that, without controlling the banks, because the banks control the mass media, the corporations, the people, the whole economy in the end. They can blackmail and manipulate you all the time.

Of course, if you give the bank to the state and its politicians we have now, nothing would change, because they would use it like being said or sell it two years later to the very same people again, but if having a good, community & people oriented leadership and state, with reasonable and capable people running the national bank - thats the best solution!

Private banks are ok, but not with the fractional reserve system like we have it now and not with the powers they have, nor without any state owned alternative for good people and their needs to finance productive and positive things for themselves and the group.

Americans hate the state and tend to Liberalism, but in the end, this attitude will make them slaves of a Plutocratic Oligarchy which actually owns the state, they dont cared enough for. That will be the end of the story, because they dont understand that the state and politics is a tool, nothing else, it all depends on the people using it and if being so indifferent and reluctant to state issues, you just get the worst systems of all, a corrupted state structure in the hand of private bankers. The influence and responsibilities of the state being only limited in those areas, where it is good for the Plutocrats, and the mass media and false propaganda sells this to the people as a "victory of Liberty", though they being just exploited and much more important things being done by the state against their liberty.

Its just so absurd, but I know many people can't get out of that way of thinking, its so typically Anglo-American/White American...

There are many things for which the single individual can't care, nor can he fix it, in a wrong system, so the system, the state and society must be looked at and Liberalism is no solution, but just the beginning of European's downfall, everywhere, because it opened the doors, to the unlimited wealth and power of the Plutocratic Oligarchy - probably not always immediately, but on the long run always.

[Osweo]

Liberalism is no solution, but just the beginning of European's downfall, everywhere, because it opened the doors, to the unlimited wealth and power of the Plutocratic Oligarchy - probably not always immediately, but on the long run always.



If by "democracy"
we mean the form which the Third Estate as such wishes
to impart to public life as a whole, it must be concluded
that democracy and plutocracy are the same thing under
the two aspects of wish and actuality, theory and practice,
knowing and doing. It is the tragic comedy of the 'world-
improvers' and freedom-teachers' desperate fight against
money that they arc ipso facto assisting money to be
effective. Respect for the big number expressed in the
principles of equality for all, natural rights, and universal
suffrage...are ideals, but in actuality the freedom of public
opinion involves the preparation of public opinion, which
costs money; and the freedom of the press brings with it
the question of possession of the press, which again is a
matter of money; and with the franchise comes
electioneering, in which he who pays the piper calls the
tune. The representatives of the ideas look at one side
only, while the representatives of money operate with the
other. The concepts of Liberalism and Socialism are set in
effective motion only by money.

Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West, vol. I, 402.
Trans. C F Atkinson
:thumbs up

[Troll's Puzzle]

People who want to mix with people who are pretty different from themselves do so out of their own free will mostly, and that's not in any way tragic, unless you think that free will is tragic.

I don't think free will is tragic, because it doesn't exist


It could never account for the degeneration of a civilisation, since free will is on the contrary what makes it possible for human interactions to be civilised.

apparently, civilised human interactions have never existed, because free will doesn't exist


Haven't you ever thought about it like that?

No


How do you think about it?

by not having a place for make-belive and logically impossible 'human free will'

but let's pretend it does exist and spin it another way. What's wrong with this picture?


I actually do not think that there is such a thing as a 'tragic murder'. People who want to murder other people who are pretty different from themselves do so out of their own free will sometimes, and that's not in any way tragic, unless you think that free will is tragic. It could never account for the degeneration of a civilisation, since free will is on the contrary what makes it possible for human interactions to be civilised.

Haven't you ever thought about it like that? How do you think about it?

hmm, good one. a puzzle indeed



It could never account for the degeneration of a civilisation, since free will is on the contrary what makes it possible for human interactions to be civilised. Just look at Ghengis Khan, who raped, pillaged and looted like noone else in history, all of his own free will - thus becoming the greatest civilised interactor of all time!

yes, I see him in a different light now too! Ghegis is an icon of civilisation indeed.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

'
yes, I see him in a different light now too! Ghegis is an icon of civilisation indeed.

Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset;"> It could never account for the degeneration of a civilisation, since free will is on the contrary what makes it possible for human interactions to be civilised. Just look at Ghengis Khan, who raped, pillaged and looted like noone else in history, all of his own free will - thus becoming the greatest civilised interactor of all time! </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
Ghengis Khan was a good man.:lightbul: for the Mongols and he was civilized,hey you can not argue with a dictator.:tongue
It must be said that a virgin in his empire could walk the width and length in his empire unharmed.Providing she was a Mongolian.:coffee:
Give the Mongolian a break please,to them all European were Albinos and a bit of Mongolian color would enhance the European race.:D

Question:
What was so special about Vienna???
He was stopped there and twice the Turks were stopped there.

[Anthropos]

Now let's see here, 'Troll's Puzzle', I believe you must be a troll, that you intentionally misquoted me (what I think is no less than an evil thing to do, especially in such an intentionally offensive and altogether unwarranted manner) and that engaging in any kind of further conversation with you and the likes of you is a waste of time.

[Rachel]

[QUOTE=Anthropos;143621]I actually do not think that there is such a thing as a 'racial tragedy'. People who want to mix with people who are pretty different from themselves do so out of their own free will mostly, and that's not in any way tragic, unless you think that free will is tragic. It could never account for the degeneration of a civilisation, since free will is on the contrary what makes it possible for human interactions to be civilised. (I wanted to post this thread in a forum dedicated to civilisational topics, and this one - 'politics & ideology' seemed to fare best
[QUOTE]

I think that the tragedy is that when people are mixing with other cultures they are not giving thought to their culture and therefore have no pride in their ways or there ancestors and it seems to me that this would be a way of making up for a cultural pride in ones own life that is lacking and thatto me is a really sad racial tragedy.

Just my 0.02 cents.

[Westfalen]

Now let's see here, 'Troll's Puzzle', I believe you must be a troll, that you intentionally misquoted me (what I think is no less than an evil thing to do, especially in such an intentionally offensive and altogether unwarranted manner) and that engaging in any kind of further conversation with you and the likes of you is a waste of time.


No, that's crap, and stick to your own country's history if you want to tell lies. What I said was that HALF OF SWEDEN WAS CHRISTIANISED PEACEFULLY. That half in turn subdued the other half, and likely this was not uncalled for. It is not difficult to imagine that heathens had a greater taste for pillage and plunder than Christians did.


Mmmmm I am Dutch Viking, I know my history..... ehhh Christianity is the cause of every evil..... And ummm while I am at it I'll try to divert this discussion in every direction possible, all in one post! :thumbs up

So this how you "discuss", by playing it personal, by not coming with arguments on the other's post, but just overreacting, making statements look true by saying "it's not difficult to imagine" adressing on peoples imagination created by Hollywood movies, paintings and government school, not quoting the parts you don't agree with, but just blaming the other for lying/misquoting/being offensive/offtopic and so avoiding the subject and try to make the other look absurd. No you never do anything of those, it's those cursed heathen bastards that just won't agree with you ;)

Man, you should become a politician: :thumbs up
http://bestuff.com/images/images_of_stuff/64x64crop/jan-peter-balkenende-51633.jpg

[Anthropos]

I think that the tragedy is that when people are mixing with other cultures they are not giving thought to their culture and therefore have no pride in their ways or there ancestors and it seems to me that this would be a way of making up for a cultural pride in ones own life that is lacking and thatto me is a really sad racial tragedy.

Just my 0.02 cents.What then do you think about people who don't mix but who have zero appreciation for their culture and nation and whose only goal is to have maximum comfort in life, even at the expense of culture and nation (as well as their fellow man)? Many such people are the first to spit on anyone who believes in anything, and many such people work actively to destroy their culture. So do also many people who see race as the most important thing, by the way; being completely unable to appreciate anything beyond it, they insist that their own culture prior to the modern era was primitive. And so on... Do you get my point?

[Lulletje Rozewater]

So this how you "discuss", by playing it personal, by not coming with arguments on the other's post, but just overreacting, making statements look true by saying "it's not difficult to imagine" adressing on peoples imagination created by Hollywood movies, paintings and government school, not quoting the parts you don't agree with, but just blaming the other for lying/misquoting/being offensive/offtopic and so avoiding the subject and try to make the other look absurd. No you never do anything of those, it's those cursed heathen bastards that just won't agree with you ;)

Man, you should become a politician: :thumbs up
http://bestuff.com/images/images_of_stuff/64x64crop/jan-peter-balkenende-51633.jpg

hheheehe,his website is fok.nl and his nick is :Fok me Charlie

[Lulletje Rozewater]

What then do you think about people who don't mix but who have zero appreciation for their culture and nation and whose only goal is to have maximum comfort in life, even at the expense of culture and nation (as well as their fellow man)? Many such people are the first to spit on anyone who believes in anything, and many such people work actively to destroy their culture. So do also many people who see race as the most important thing, by the way; being completely unable to appreciate anything beyond it, they insist that their own culture prior to the modern era was primitive. And so on... Do you get my point?

The cultural potato.
The variety is wide and each with their own culture and color
How do you perceive a Sweet potato-woman from Holland mixing with an eikel potato form Morocco.:eek::eek:

http://i48.tinypic.com/xqf5mt.jpg

[Anthropos]

The cultural potato.
The variety is wide and each with their own culture and color
How do you perceive a Sweet potato-woman from Holland mixing with an eikel potato form Morocco.:eek::eek:

http://i48.tinypic.com/xqf5mt.jpg
It's an individual choice and none of my business whatever what people decide to do with their lives on that level. Furthermore, if it wasn't for cultural degradation, nothing bad would even have to come out of it on a cultural and civilisational level.

[Crux]

Hmmm let me start by saying that in Slovenia the main ''tragedy'' or problem are immigrants from the balkans (mainly Serbians, Bosnians, Albanians etc), which usually come here to do low wage work (construction workers etc, females are usually cleaning ladys). This is good to some extent, but their children are a real pest. They don't feel alright in our culture, so they usually band together in groups, acting like they are on top of the world, stealing cellphones, playing their folk music loudly which irritates people to no end. Their sub-culture is comparable with the ''chav'' sub-culture in England, actually it's exactly like that. They even wear the same clothing/tracksuits, hairgel etc.

Not everyone is like that though, don't be mistaken, but a lot of them are. But what makes this really a problem, is that they are dangerous, if it was ''just'' a loud obnoxious subcultre I could act like the better man and try to ignore it but it's not, it is dangerous as fuck. If you walk out of a vinema and you hear annoying Serbian folk music you know you are gonna get mugged. My point is that race matters only little, people are all born the same, pure, it's their enviroment/family that destroys them and makes them degenerate bastards most likely though I can not say that for sure.

[Brännvin]

It's an individual choice and none of my business whatever what people decide to do with their lives on that level. Furthermore, if it wasn't for cultural degradation, nothing bad would even have to come out of it on a cultural and civilisational level.

For the type of policy that you stand* it sounds strange. Extreme individualism is a post-modern concept of post-industrial Western societies...

*traditional civilization

[antonio]

Hmmm let me start by saying that in Slovenia the main ''tragedy'' or problem are immigrants from the balkans (mainly Serbians, Bosnians, Albanians etc), which usually come here to do low wage work (construction workers etc, females are usually cleaning ladys). This is good to some extent, but their children are a real pest. They don't feel alright in our culture, so they usually band together in groups, acting like they are on top of the world, stealing cellphones, playing their folk music loudly which irritates people to no end. Their sub-culture is comparable with the ''chav'' sub-culture in England, actually it's exactly like that. They even wear the same clothing/tracksuits, hairgel etc.

Not everyone is like that though, don't be mistaken, but a lot of them are. But what makes this really a problem, is that they are dangerous, if it was ''just'' a loud obnoxious subcultre I could act like the better man and try to ignore it but it's not, it is dangerous as fuck. If you walk out of a vinema and you hear annoying Serbian folk music you know you are gonna get mugged. My point is that race matters only little, people are all born the same, pure, it's their enviroment/family that destroys them and makes them degenerate bastards most likely though I can not say that for sure.

Unfortunatelly there's no money in UE to promote the pacific convivency of those Europeans peoples in the same land...because their are wasting these money converting illegal 3th World undesired inmigrants into new Europeans for millions, unrespecting our European ancestors, unique source of our European condition and identity. And, the worse is that in a BNP thread, there are people defending the opposite thesis...many should have a lot to learn from Persian Gulf Monarchies inmigration policy.

[Anthropos]

Extreme individualism is a post-modern concept of post-industrial Western societies...
Good point, because the bringing down of everything to race (as well as to other so-called 'rational' abstractions and constructs) is typical of the (post-)modern mindset. The modern notion of the individual, the significance of which is the opposite of what it was traditionally, should indeed come to mind here. After the fashion of this modern idea of the individual, individual choices are seen as an instance of the most profound aspect of existence. The idea of a 'racial tragedy' is irremediably restricted to that level, and it even has the potential of going even lower, into such notions as the 'gene pool'. Whereas traditionally the individual was seen as connected with the personality and carrying potentialities toward the higher, the modern individual is a reduction of man to the most depersonalised and subhuman, abstract 'units' of his existence imaginable.

[December]

The idea of a 'racial tragedy' is irremediably restricted to that level, and it even has the potential of going even lower, into such notions as the 'gene pool'.

Did you copy paste that one from msn by will alone or did he told you to write that down? :)

Send greetings to Zagreb for telling that December once coined the word "genepool" and for indoctrinating you how to insert it in your speech in an attempt to subtly debase me. The only potential of going lower is that.

You know what's a comic tragedy? People thinking they have reached the summit of wisdom. But I'll tell you what's the problem with philosophers and alchemists: Nejebica. (your mentor will tell you what it is)

[Anthropos]

Did you copy paste that one from msn by will alone or did he told you to write that down? :)

Send greetings to Zagreb for telling that December once coined the word "genepool" and for indoctrinating you how to insert it in your speech in an attempt to subtly debase me. The only potential of going lower is that.

You know what's a comic tragedy? People thinking they have reached the summit of wisdom. But I'll tell you what's the problem with philosophers and alchemists: Nejebica. (your mentor will tell you what it is)

LOL WTF?? 'December' (who??) coined the expression 'gene pool'?

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=126&pictureid=981
I are racial cat. Please you step into my office now.

[SuuT]

The spectra are differentiated yes, but no one has yet set the boundaries which establish such separation.

As far as it has come, Genetics is in its relative infancy; and even with that said, Liffrea has posted some links already to what we currently know about Race at the genetic level, and Psychonaut about how this phenotypical expression of genetic certainties (i.e., 'Race') is utilised objectively. Agrippa goes on to superbly elucidate the Cultural Anthropology of Race. So, whilst one cannot (yet) create hard-and-fast tables and categories that are not capricious, it does not mean that the boundaries that have established themselves relative to what we do, in fact, know are arbitrary.


I'll leave leave you this quote from one of Cavalli Sforza works



Source:http://www.goodrumj.com/CavalliS.html

This 'lack of determinate intermediate exemplars' is the exact same stuff that people use to deny evolution. And just as it is with evolution, when applied to Race it is a fundamental misunderstanding about what Race is.

Race is synonymous to subspecies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies). Nothing more, nothing less - from a zoological perspective.


The genetic level is in any case much more of an abstraction.

And the Atomic? Sub-Atomic?...There is nothing, whatsoever, abstract about genes in themselves.


Genes do not float around in a social vacuum.

They do, however, "float about" in a social continuum.

[December]

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=126&pictureid=981
I are racial cat. Please you step into my office now.

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3668&stc=1&d=1264092312

[Lurker]

Then let me be blunt: Are you wary about what the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Morgans & Co. did or not?

I want a state free from the influence and dominance of such people and you will never get that, without controlling the banks, because the banks control the mass media, the corporations, the people, the whole economy in the end. They can blackmail and manipulate you all the time.

All tose families you named became that powerful because they controlled a huge chunk of the financial system. But have you ever heard about the owner of the Second State Bank of Minnesota doing anything to influence national or international politics? I don't think so.

Small fractured business don't lobby as hard as big business do. They simply don't have the power or money to do so. Also, when facing bankrupticy, they don't get bail-outs from the government, because they're too insignificant to get these.

To get a state free from the influence of "such people" all you need to do is divide them. Make there be thousands and thousands of banks of approximately equal size.

Obama seems to be taking steps to doing some parts of this plan. Pray to God he's successful for the future of the West depends on it.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

The future of the West depend on Common sense and a choosy heat-seeking moisture missile.:p