Equality is ultimately just discrimination reversed: South Africa

[Austin]

pFj0HdW2iDs

How can anybody stand for the mundane notion of equality when this video clearly shows that whoever is in power numerically speaking is going to benefit as is human nature?

How can a person be for equality if they are white without being completely naive as to how humanity functions and always will function?

[Lulletje Rozewater]

pFj0HdW2iDs

How can anybody stand for the mundane notion of equality when this video clearly shows that whoever is in power numerically speaking is going to benefit as is human nature?

How can a person be for equality if they are white without being completely naive as to how humanity functions and always will function?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qw3MKgqbT4g&feature=related


We have now a public servant strike of teachers-nurses-etc.
It is so bad that these damned kaffirs stop emergency services entering hospitals(six died)and pupils being sjambokked for coming to school.
Thanks to the fokking West 16 years ago, we are governed by scum at all levels of public services.
Then we still have whites and jews blaming Apartheid.
Do not tell me about the sick liberal West(CNN,SKY NEWS,BBC),they keeps their god damned trap shut or even show the severity of kaffirs on the rampage.
The concept of Apartheid was not wrong,it were the laws which did the community harm.
Would it made a difference.????
NO.
Example is Rhodesia,betrayed partly by Britain and what is that same British filthy government doing about Mugabe?????????

[Debaser11]

Yeah, it's terrible. I think I commented on that video. A bunch of dumb blacks fired right back at me that it was "their turn now" or some such nonsense. I felt despair just watching this video and I live in a clean, reasonably safe, white neighborhood. I really wish we'd have concern for these people (who have done nothing to deserve this) on the same level we have for Africans and Haitians who willfully screw their lives up.

[Wyn]

White South Africans have sort of been forgotten by the world, and when thought of are generally perceived as being cruel racists and such. I bet if you were to tell people in England about white SAs being abused by the SA system, a lot of people would have a "well, they treated the blacks badly..." attitude to it. You can only feel sorry for them. Especially for youngsters. I would hate to have a child going through school surrounded by that hostile social climate.

[Grumpy Cat]

So, are you going to help these people or just post YouTube videos about it on a forum?

[Debaser11]

So, are you going to help these people or just post YouTube videos about it on a forum?

You miss the point. I can argue about whether someone or something is wrong without having to be proactive about remedying the situation. Haven't we had this discussion before, AcadianDriftwood? Not everyone is a utilitarian either, which is a philosophical sensibility you're appealing to with a comment like this. And I while I'm thinking about it, I think arguing is part of helping in some small way. Posting on a public site does get the view out that this abuse should not be tolerated, especially when a bunch of dumb niggers are laughing about it.

By your logic, you shouldn't be posting on Apricity AT all while there is some form of injustice out there that you can be devoting yourself to help remedy.

[Grumpy Cat]

You miss the point. I can argue about whether someone or something is wrong without being nonsensical or resorting to hypocrisy. Haven't we had this discussion before, AcadianDriftwood? Not everyone is a utilitarian either which is what you're appealing to with a comment like this. And I while I'm thinking about it, I think arguing is part of helping in some small way. Posting on a public site does get the view out that this abuse should not be tolerated especially when a bunch of dumb niggers are laughing about it.

Yes, we've had this discussion before. However, I have a feeling that the plight of poor white South Africans is being used merely as a propaganda tool for the (mainly American) far-right, but if a white South African were crawling towards them gasping for air and dying of thirst, they wouldn't even give the poor guy a glass of water.

I see parallels with other ethnic groups:

Muslim extremists -> Palestinians

Quebec separatists -> Acadians

And pretty much anybody with a political agenda -> Tibetans

Oh well, pimpin' ain't easy.

[Austin]

So, are you going to help these people or just post YouTube videos about it on a forum?

As a respectable white male I further my racial views all the time in ways that I'm sure would infuriate you and many progressive-minded individuals on here to no end =)

I've learned that respectability and being civil in real life situations allow you to be racist and to spread racism without easily being pinned down for doing so. I hold a job, drive a nice car, stay fit and because of this when a Mexican or black enters my social sphere I have an easier time subtly nuking them socially and or professionally because I appeal in character to the weak pathetic progressive minded individuals who really only care about how one upholds themselves.

[Grumpy Cat]

respectable white male

:lol: I almost choked on a pretzel. Maybe I should change my nick to George W. Bush.

If you think I'm some sort of Marxist like you accuse everyone who disagrees with you of being, then you have me pegged all wrong, too. I'm a preservationalist and yeah, I guess somewhat racist too because I do think my culture is superior to yours. :) But the difference between me and you is that I actually do stuff to help my people, I don't sit on my computer and talk shit about other races all day. I'm just calling it like I see it.

[Debaser11]

Yes, we've had this discussion before. However, I have a feeling that the plight of poor white South Africans is being used merely as a propaganda tool for the (mainly American) far-right, but if a white South African were crawling towards them gasping for air and dying of thirst, they wouldn't even give the poor guy a glass of water.

I see parallels with other ethnic groups:

Muslim extremists -> Palestinians

Quebec separatists -> Acadians

And pretty much anybody with a political agenda -> Tibetans

Oh well, pimpin' ain't easy.

Except what you wrote before was a clear dig at me (as I was the poster that mentioned commenting on youtube), not whatever far right people you imagine to be using the Boers. (You still haven't shown any evidence to accompany your charge that these far-right groups don't genuinely care about the Boers. And yes, people can care without necessarily giving money.) I actually bet the people from these far-right groups would give them a glass of water. Just like I think you would. I give people the benefit of the doubt unless I have evidence not to (on such hypothetical matters). Smearing people you politically disagree with is not exactly the best way to spend YOUR time (to turn that one around on you).

I won't deny the exploitation you alluded to takes place, but why are you turning this thread into one about the big white boogeyman who exploits the poor Boers? Clearly it's not THEM (whoever THEM is) that are the main ones exploiting these poor people.

[Grumpy Cat]

Except what you wrote before was a clear dig at me (as I was the poster that mentioned commenting on youtube)

What? You're paranoid. I had no idea you commented. :lol: No, it was a dig at Austin. I'll be clear here, I don't like the guy. OK, I'll be honest and up front I've said this to people in private but the whole forum might as well hear it from me too: I don't like Austin because he reminds me of me when I was his age. And I didn't quite like myself back then.


I actually bet the people from these far-right groups would give them a glass of water. Just like I think you would.

I'm not saying none of them would, but when I surf some far-right sites I often see graphic pictures of the farm murders, which I think is sick that they are parading a picture of a human being's dead body all over the Internet. It's disrespectful and not indicative of a person who cares, and it pisses me off. How would you like it if someone posted a picture of a dead family member of yours all over the Internet?

I have also had a similar experience with my ethnic group and Quebecois extremists, they use our issues in their propaganda but the Acadian community doesn't see a red cent from them... we went from being in abject poverty to now there are even Acadian millionaires and we did that on our own! I am relatively well off, so I give back to my community.

I see parallels here too.

OK, maybe I am taking it too personal.

[Debaser11]

What? You're paranoid.

I had a feeling this was coming. I don't think that's fair considering what I wrote before you and what you wrote a post or two below mine. Furthermore, even if you weren't addressing me personally, that doesn't change my argument one bit.


I had no idea you commented. :lol: No, it was a dig at Austin. I'll be clear here, I don't like the guy. OK, I'll be honest and up front I've said this to people in private but the whole forum might as well hear it from me too: I don't like Austin because he reminds me of me when I was his age. And I didn't quite like myself back then.

Fair enough. For the record, I have nothing against either one of you. I like to argue.



I'm not saying none of them would, but when I surf some far-right sites I often see graphic pictures of the farm murders, which I think is sick that they are parading a picture of a human being's dead body all over the Internet. It's disrespectful and not indicative of a person who cares, and it pisses me off.

It may be disrespectful. But that doesn't mean their intent was to be disrespectful. A lot of pro-lifers post terrible pictures of aborted fetuses that I think are disgusting to look at, but that doesn't mean that I doubt their sincerity.


How would you like it if someone posted a picture of a dead family member of yours all over the Internet?

I'd not be too fond of such pictures being posted online. But you seem to be unfairly interpreting their motives in the worst possible light without any evidence to back up whatever hunch it is you have for why they post such photos.


I have also had a similar experience with my ethnic group and Quebecois extremists, they use our issues in their propaganda but the Acadian community doesn't see a red cent from them... we went from being in abject poverty to now there are even Acadian millionaires and we did that on our own! I am relatively well off, so I give back to my community.

I understand.




I see parallels here too.

OK, maybe I am taking it too personal.

My goal is not to upset anyone. I know I do tend to do that though because I like to argue about controversial issues. It's interesting. But I can't control how people react when they enter a thread that is bound to be controversial.

[Grumpy Cat]

I had a feeling this was coming. I don't think that's fair considering what I wrote before you and what you wrote a post or two below mine. Furthermore, even if you weren't addressing me personally, that doesn't change my argument one bit.

I didn't read your post, honestly. I read the OP and responded. I had no idea. I'm sorry if I offended you. You seem like a cool guy. I disagree with a lot of thing you say but the world would be pretty boring if everybody agreed on everything.


It may be disrespectful. But that doesn't mean their intent was to be disrespectful. A lot of pro-lifers post terrible pictures of aborted fetuses that I think are disgusting to look at, but that doesn't mean that I doubt their sincerity.

I'm not talking about disgusting to look at, I'll watch a disgusting gory movie and think nothing of it, I also love CSI and that can get quite gross, but it's not real, it's entertainment. A real dead body is disrespect, even if they don't really mean it, they should show some tact. It's pretty much universal in every culture on earth to put a sheet over a dead body, it's an act of respect towards the person who died. Aborted fetuses, while disgusting, don't really count because abortions are usually performed in the first trimester so they are not living conscious humans yet.

I could bring up a dead guy, a white South African, Eugene Terreblanche, he was killed by two black farm aids... the farm aids didn't just get charged with the murder, but they also got a second charge because they stripped him naked, so they were charged with showing disrespect to a dead body (or whatever that is called in legal terms). Well, posting a picture is no different. I disagreed with that guy's political views (well, I think Boers have a right to preserve their culture and to exist, but he took a more confrontational and extreme way, that even respectful Afrikaner preservationalists like the folks who founded Orania condemn) but he did not deserve to be disrespected in death like that (or to be murdered in the first place, really). He was a human being.

[Austin]

Debaser I wouldn't argue with it, it is in the category of "other" racially anyways hence the leftist dribble it espouses.

[Grumpy Cat]

^^^ Haha... Oh really?

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/hs030.ash2/34857_10150227514325402_613675401_13765066_757629_ n.jpg

100% European ancestry, DNA test results to prove it.

I just don't call myself "white" because I don't believe it's an ethnicity. I'm Acadian and can proudly stand up and say that, while you are a deracinated Anglo (who oddly enough, thinks he's German) with nothing but material goods, vapid pop culture, and a false identity of "whiteness" to cling to. Thing is, Texas has a vibrant culture that deserves to be preserved. I love Texas. Why don't you embrace that? Get to your real roots. Texan is definitely more interesting than generic WASP. Britney Spears and Black Friday is not culture, the Alamo and traditions around it is.

[Debaser11]

No, you didn't offend. And I know on some level it seems self-absorbed to think you were responding to me in particular. But given the context, it seemed highly likely. You didn't really offend me, either. Please don't think I feel that way about this exchange.

The photos the pro-lifers showed (at least in the particular instance I'm thinking of) were not first trimester. They were late term (and maybe even partial-birth). Obviously those have much greater shock value. And I don't think it's fair to say that first trimester photos don't count. To some people who have strong convictions about the issue, they very much do count. (This gets us into a debate about abortion (which we should probably avoid in this thread), but the feelings many pro-lifers have about early life seem very legitimate.) You're sort of pulling a bait and switch. You're claiming the right to be morally outraged by some photos of corpses you think are obscene but then in the same breath you're claiming that pro-lifers' grievances "don't count."

I'm familiar with the Eugene Terreblanche murder and really don't fault anything he did. I would certainly act the same way if you threw me into his horrid environment. I think that African jurisprudence is also so backwards that their priorities concerning how to charge the murderers hardly represent a standard any serious moral thinker would deem sensible. But I do agree with you that the example does show the generally universal feelings that people have about displaying dead corpses. You're absolutely right to point out that it's distasteful. My guess is that the people that show these pics are trying to be utilitarian about the situation. They are measuring good/bad, pleasure/pain scenarios (which is why I don't like their arguments a lot of time).

"If I show these terrible pictures, then maybe it will wake people up enough so that this nonsense doesn't happen anymore."

I have little doubt that's how their thought process works. Anti-war protestors throughout the latter half of the 20th century have shown similar photos in name of a greater cause--stopping wars.

Showing such photos of human suffering and death (whether to demean Germans or to demean women who get an abortion) is still in bad taste in my view. We're on the same page there, I think. But that doesn't mean the motivations of the people showing the photos wasn't noble.

[Debaser11]

"I just don't call myself "white" because I don't believe it's an ethnicity."

In all fairness, Austin and I are Americans (and Texans as well it seems). You claim Acadian ancestry which is good and well. I'm proud to be Texan but I feel like you're speaking out of your depth when you demean whiteness the same way I would be out of my depth to comment about Acadians who self-identify in that manner. Even our left-leaning U.S. government recognizes that there is something to the label "white" both politically and culturally. I often hear people say in a demeaning manner "oh, that's so white." Certainly the fact that they identify something in that manner has meaning for all practical purposes.

It's a racial category on the census and on job applications. We share a similar background and have similar political interests even according to our own government. People identify by race. That's just a fact of life. Latinos hang around Latinos. Blacks around blacks. Whites around whites. Even the blacks that do hang around whites still identify themselves as "black." Yet, it's only whites whose group niches/group identification is deemed not legitimate.

I do realize that this label does get a bit lost in translation due to geography. But at the same time I feel like it's disingenuous to pretend it has no meaning. If "white" has no meaning, then "Asian" or even "East Asian" has no meaning.

[Austin]

lol AD you attacked me I attack you, ya are feisty though! I hail from a nonchalant attitude towards what constitutes intellectualism and niceties, I care not what people deem acceptable in large measure.

[Murphy]

I think this debate needs a Catholic voice.

[Debaser11]

I think this debate needs a Catholic voice.

Okay, Thomas Aquinas. The floor is yours.

[Murphy]

Okay, Thomas Aquinas. The floor is yours.

Quia non proprie dicitur substantia, ut infra, 8 distinct., dicetur. Creditur et intelligitur. Ista ordinantur secundum quod acquiritur fides in credente. Primum enim est praedicatorum verbum, sicut dicitur, Roman. 10, 14: quomodo credent ei quem non audierunt? Secundum est assensus fidei in ipso credente; et ultimo per fidem devenitur in intellectum, Isa. 7, 9: nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. Purgatis mentibus; sed diversimode. Ad hoc enim quod videatur naturali cognitione, oportet mentem purgari a sensibilibus et phantasmatibus; ad hoc autem quod per fidem cernatur, oportet mentem purgari ab erroribus et naturalibus rationibus; ad hoc autem quod videatur per essentiam, oportet mentem purgari ab omni culpa et miseria. In tam excellenti luce. Loquitur de intuitu mentis, ad similitudinem visus corporalis; sicut enim non possumus defigere oculum in excellens luminosum, ita etiam mens nostra non figitur in excellentia divinae lucis, ut aliquid determinate cognoscat, nisi per fidem. Unde etiam philosophi in diversos errores prolapsi sunt; et ideo dicit philosophus: sicut se habet oculus noctuae ad lucem solis, ita se habet intellectus noster ad manifestissima naturae. Per justitiam fidei. Justitia hic sumitur pro justitia generali, quae est rectitudo animae in comparatione ad Deum et ad proximum et unius potentiae ad aliam; et dicitur justitia fidei, quia in justificatione primus motus est fidei, sicut dicitur Hebr. 11, 6: accedentem ad Deum oportet credere. Non approbo quod in oratione dixi: Deus qui nonnisi mundos verum scire voluisti. Ista notula affigitur ad excludendum falsum intellectum qui posset de praedictis haberi, scilicet quod Deus nullo modo a peccatoribus cognosci posset. Nec periculosius alicubi erratur. Hoc enim est fundamentum totius fidei; quo destructo, totum aedificium subruit. Unde etiam dicit philosophus, quod parvus error in principio, maximus est in fine. Nec fructuosius aliquid invenitur. Cognitio enim Trinitatis in unitate est fructus et finis totius vitae nostrae. Ubi dixi de patre. Ista notula apponitur ad corrigendum hoc quod posuit in littera hoc verbum sum, es, est, singulariter praedicari de tribus personis; et ratio fuit, quia significat substantiam, quae est una trium personarum. Sed postea retractavit; quia quamvis significet substantiam, tamen significat eam per modum actus, et actus numerantur secundum supposita; unde debet pluraliter praedicari de tribus personis. Primo ipsa legis exordia occurrant: ubi scilicet primo legis praecepta poni incipiunt, Exod. 20 et Deut. 6. Deus enim, ut ait Ambrosius, nomen est naturae, dominus vero nomen est potestatis. Videtur quod Deus non sit nomen naturae per derivationes hujus nominis Theos, quas Damascenus ponit. Dicit enim, quod Theos quod est Deus, dicitur ab ethim, quod est ardere, quia Deus noster, ignis consumens est, Deuter. 4, 24. Dicitur etiam a theaste, quod est considerare vel videre, quia omnia videt: vel a thein, quod est currere, vel fovere, quia per omnia vadit, omnia salvans et continens: quae omnia operationem important. Ergo et cetera. Item dominus secundum esse suum est relativum. Ergo non significat potestatem, sed relationem. Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod hoc nomen Deus potest considerari dupliciter. Vel quantum ad id a quo nomen imponitur, quod est quasi qualitas nominis; et sic est nomen operationis, secundum Damascenum. Vel quantum ad id cui imponitur, quod est substantia significata per nomen; et sic est nomen naturae, quia ad significandum divinam naturam est impositum. Ad secundum dicendum, quod relationes fundantur super aliquid quod est causa ipsarum in subjecto, sicut aequalitas supra quantitatem, et dominium supra potestatem. Unde dicit Boetius, quod dominium est potestas coercendi subditos; et Dionysius dicit, quod dominium est non pejorum, idest subditorum, excessus tantum, sed bonorum et pulchriorum omnimoda et perfecta possessio; vera et non cadere valens fortitudo. Ad hoc enim quod aliquis sit dominus requiruntur divitiae et potentia, et super haec duo fundatur relatio dominii. Personarum quoque pluralitatem et naturae unitatem simul ostendit dominus in Genesi. Sciendum, quod Augustinus et Hilarius ex hac auctoritate: faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram, nituntur ostendere unitatem essentiae et personarum pluralitatem ex verbis ibi positis, sed differenter. Quia Augustinus considerat tantum consignificationem numeri in eis; unde per haec duo, faciamus, et nostram, ostendit Trinitatem; per haec vero duo imaginem, et similitudinem, unitatem essentiae. Hilarius autem ex quolibet horum quatuor intendit ostendere utrumque, hoc modo. Similitudo enim significat relationem causatam ex unitate qualitatis, quae relatio requirit distincta supposita; est enim similitudo rerum differentium eadem qualitas; unde ratione ejus quod causat similitudinem ostendit unitatem essentiae, quae est eadem bonitas et sapientia, vel quidquid aliud per modum qualitatis significatur. Nec potest ibi esse diversitas bonitatis secundum numerum, ut probatum est; sed ex parte relationis designatur suppositorum distinctio. Et eadem est ratio de hoc nomen imago, quae dicit imitationem unius ad alterum, secundum aliquid unum; et hoc tangitur ubi dicit: Hilarius quoque (...) dicit, his verbis significari, quod in Trinitate nec diversitas est nec singularitas, vel solitudo; sed similitudo et pluralitas. Similiter etiam ex parte harum duarum dictionum, faciamus et nostram, accipit utrumque: pluralitatem quidem personarum ratione pluralis numeri, sed unitatem essentiae ratione consortii, quod designatur in utroque. Consortium enim oportet quod sit in aliquo uno: et quia non potest esse in divinis unum in specie et diversum in numero, oportet quod sit unum numero; et hoc tangit ibi: item idem in 4 Lib. absolutius voluit intelligi, significationem hanc non ad se esse referendam tantum. Differunt etiam quantum ad aliud; quia Augustinus videtur accipere similitudinem et imaginem tantum hominis ad Deum; sed Hilarius accipit similitudinem et imaginem unius personae ad aliam, et quod homo accedat ad illam similitudinem quantum potest. Diversitas, propter divisionem essentiae. Singularitas, propter incommunicabilitatem divinae naturae. Solitudo, ne removeatur societas personarum, quae est per unionem amoris. Similitudo, contra diversitatem. Pluralitas, contra singularitatem. Distinctio, contra solitudinem. Significatio efficientis, quantum ad hoc quod dicit, faciamus. Operatio constituta, in ipsum operatum. Maximus propheta, quantum ad modum revelationis, quae est per intellectualem visionem, et quantum ad privilegium promissi seminis. Dominus possedit me. Loquitur de filio, inquantum appropriatur sibi sapientia. Dicitur autem Deus possidere sapientiam, quia ipse solus eam perfecte habet. Possidetur enim quod ad nutum habetur; unde philosophus dicit, quod divina scientia est possessio divina, non humana. Viarum, idest creaturarum, per quas in ipsum itur. Ordinata, secundum ordinem naturae, qui est filii ad patrem, et secundum ordinem causae, qui est ideae ad ideatum. Concepta. Dicitur concipi, quia clauditur in unitate essentiae patris. Parturiebar, inquantum exit a patre per distinctionem personarum. Cardines, idest extremitates terrae, secundum Isidorum, vel causae in quibus terrae, et ea quae in terris, quasi volvuntur et conservantur. Delectabar, consors paternae gloriae. Per singulos dies, quantum ad rationes creaturarum quae in Deo sunt lux, quamvis creaturae in seipsis sint tenebrae. Ludens, propter otium contemplationis sapientiae. Sicut enim operationes ludi non appetuntur propter aliud, sed in seipsis habent delectationem, ita et contemplatio sapientiae. In medio duorum animalium. Hoc sumitur de Habacuc 3, secundum aliam litteram; et per duo animalia significantur duo testamenta. Forcipem de altari. Hoc dicitur Isaiae 6, et per forcipem, qui habet duo brachia, significantur duo testamenta, et per calculum veritas sacrae Scripturae. Unde in Psalm. 118, 140 dicitur: ignitum eloquium tuum vehementer.

[Debaser11]

That wasn't very Catholic of you.

[Murphy]

That wasn't very Catholic of you.

How dae ye com' 'ae 'at conclusion?

[Debaser11]

I see you're not a Vatican II guy. I understand. I'm just lost.:(

[Austin]

Quia non proprie dicitur substantia, ut infra, 8 distinct., dicetur. Creditur et intelligitur. Ista ordinantur secundum quod acquiritur fides in credente. Primum enim est praedicatorum verbum, sicut dicitur, Roman. 10, 14: quomodo credent ei quem non audierunt? Secundum est assensus fidei in ipso credente; et ultimo per fidem devenitur in intellectum, Isa. 7, 9: nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. Purgatis mentibus; sed diversimode. Ad hoc enim quod videatur naturali cognitione, oportet mentem purgari a sensibilibus et phantasmatibus; ad hoc autem quod per fidem cernatur, oportet mentem purgari ab erroribus et naturalibus rationibus; ad hoc autem quod videatur per essentiam, oportet mentem purgari ab omni culpa et miseria. In tam excellenti luce. Loquitur de intuitu mentis, ad similitudinem visus corporalis; sicut enim non possumus defigere oculum in excellens luminosum, ita etiam mens nostra non figitur in excellentia divinae lucis, ut aliquid determinate cognoscat, nisi per fidem. Unde etiam philosophi in diversos errores prolapsi sunt; et ideo dicit philosophus: sicut se habet oculus noctuae ad lucem solis, ita se habet intellectus noster ad manifestissima naturae. Per justitiam fidei. Justitia hic sumitur pro justitia generali, quae est rectitudo animae in comparatione ad Deum et ad proximum et unius potentiae ad aliam; et dicitur justitia fidei, quia in justificatione primus motus est fidei, sicut dicitur Hebr. 11, 6: accedentem ad Deum oportet credere. Non approbo quod in oratione dixi: Deus qui nonnisi mundos verum scire voluisti. Ista notula affigitur ad excludendum falsum intellectum qui posset de praedictis haberi, scilicet quod Deus nullo modo a peccatoribus cognosci posset. Nec periculosius alicubi erratur. Hoc enim est fundamentum totius fidei; quo destructo, totum aedificium subruit. Unde etiam dicit philosophus, quod parvus error in principio, maximus est in fine. Nec fructuosius aliquid invenitur. Cognitio enim Trinitatis in unitate est fructus et finis totius vitae nostrae. Ubi dixi de patre. Ista notula apponitur ad corrigendum hoc quod posuit in littera hoc verbum sum, es, est, singulariter praedicari de tribus personis; et ratio fuit, quia significat substantiam, quae est una trium personarum. Sed postea retractavit; quia quamvis significet substantiam, tamen significat eam per modum actus, et actus numerantur secundum supposita; unde debet pluraliter praedicari de tribus personis. Primo ipsa legis exordia occurrant: ubi scilicet primo legis praecepta poni incipiunt, Exod. 20 et Deut. 6. Deus enim, ut ait Ambrosius, nomen est naturae, dominus vero nomen est potestatis. Videtur quod Deus non sit nomen naturae per derivationes hujus nominis Theos, quas Damascenus ponit. Dicit enim, quod Theos quod est Deus, dicitur ab ethim, quod est ardere, quia Deus noster, ignis consumens est, Deuter. 4, 24. Dicitur etiam a theaste, quod est considerare vel videre, quia omnia videt: vel a thein, quod est currere, vel fovere, quia per omnia vadit, omnia salvans et continens: quae omnia operationem important. Ergo et cetera. Item dominus secundum esse suum est relativum. Ergo non significat potestatem, sed relationem. Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod hoc nomen Deus potest considerari dupliciter. Vel quantum ad id a quo nomen imponitur, quod est quasi qualitas nominis; et sic est nomen operationis, secundum Damascenum. Vel quantum ad id cui imponitur, quod est substantia significata per nomen; et sic est nomen naturae, quia ad significandum divinam naturam est impositum. Ad secundum dicendum, quod relationes fundantur super aliquid quod est causa ipsarum in subjecto, sicut aequalitas supra quantitatem, et dominium supra potestatem. Unde dicit Boetius, quod dominium est potestas coercendi subditos; et Dionysius dicit, quod dominium est non pejorum, idest subditorum, excessus tantum, sed bonorum et pulchriorum omnimoda et perfecta possessio; vera et non cadere valens fortitudo. Ad hoc enim quod aliquis sit dominus requiruntur divitiae et potentia, et super haec duo fundatur relatio dominii. Personarum quoque pluralitatem et naturae unitatem simul ostendit dominus in Genesi. Sciendum, quod Augustinus et Hilarius ex hac auctoritate: faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram, nituntur ostendere unitatem essentiae et personarum pluralitatem ex verbis ibi positis, sed differenter. Quia Augustinus considerat tantum consignificationem numeri in eis; unde per haec duo, faciamus, et nostram, ostendit Trinitatem; per haec vero duo imaginem, et similitudinem, unitatem essentiae. Hilarius autem ex quolibet horum quatuor intendit ostendere utrumque, hoc modo. Similitudo enim significat relationem causatam ex unitate qualitatis, quae relatio requirit distincta supposita; est enim similitudo rerum differentium eadem qualitas; unde ratione ejus quod causat similitudinem ostendit unitatem essentiae, quae est eadem bonitas et sapientia, vel quidquid aliud per modum qualitatis significatur. Nec potest ibi esse diversitas bonitatis secundum numerum, ut probatum est; sed ex parte relationis designatur suppositorum distinctio. Et eadem est ratio de hoc nomen imago, quae dicit imitationem unius ad alterum, secundum aliquid unum; et hoc tangitur ubi dicit: Hilarius quoque (...) dicit, his verbis significari, quod in Trinitate nec diversitas est nec singularitas, vel solitudo; sed similitudo et pluralitas. Similiter etiam ex parte harum duarum dictionum, faciamus et nostram, accipit utrumque: pluralitatem quidem personarum ratione pluralis numeri, sed unitatem essentiae ratione consortii, quod designatur in utroque. Consortium enim oportet quod sit in aliquo uno: et quia non potest esse in divinis unum in specie et diversum in numero, oportet quod sit unum numero; et hoc tangit ibi: item idem in 4 Lib. absolutius voluit intelligi, significationem hanc non ad se esse referendam tantum. Differunt etiam quantum ad aliud; quia Augustinus videtur accipere similitudinem et imaginem tantum hominis ad Deum; sed Hilarius accipit similitudinem et imaginem unius personae ad aliam, et quod homo accedat ad illam similitudinem quantum potest. Diversitas, propter divisionem essentiae. Singularitas, propter incommunicabilitatem divinae naturae. Solitudo, ne removeatur societas personarum, quae est per unionem amoris. Similitudo, contra diversitatem. Pluralitas, contra singularitatem. Distinctio, contra solitudinem. Significatio efficientis, quantum ad hoc quod dicit, faciamus. Operatio constituta, in ipsum operatum. Maximus propheta, quantum ad modum revelationis, quae est per intellectualem visionem, et quantum ad privilegium promissi seminis. Dominus possedit me. Loquitur de filio, inquantum appropriatur sibi sapientia. Dicitur autem Deus possidere sapientiam, quia ipse solus eam perfecte habet. Possidetur enim quod ad nutum habetur; unde philosophus dicit, quod divina scientia est possessio divina, non humana. Viarum, idest creaturarum, per quas in ipsum itur. Ordinata, secundum ordinem naturae, qui est filii ad patrem, et secundum ordinem causae, qui est ideae ad ideatum. Concepta. Dicitur concipi, quia clauditur in unitate essentiae patris. Parturiebar, inquantum exit a patre per distinctionem personarum. Cardines, idest extremitates terrae, secundum Isidorum, vel causae in quibus terrae, et ea quae in terris, quasi volvuntur et conservantur. Delectabar, consors paternae gloriae. Per singulos dies, quantum ad rationes creaturarum quae in Deo sunt lux, quamvis creaturae in seipsis sint tenebrae. Ludens, propter otium contemplationis sapientiae. Sicut enim operationes ludi non appetuntur propter aliud, sed in seipsis habent delectationem, ita et contemplatio sapientiae. In medio duorum animalium. Hoc sumitur de Habacuc 3, secundum aliam litteram; et per duo animalia significantur duo testamenta. Forcipem de altari. Hoc dicitur Isaiae 6, et per forcipem, qui habet duo brachia, significantur duo testamenta, et per calculum veritas sacrae Scripturae. Unde in Psalm. 118, 140 dicitur: ignitum eloquium tuum vehementer.

tsk tsk tsk getting all upset about Catholic equality nonsense again eh

[Debaser11]

He's pro-Latin and old school it seems. So it's very likely he's not one of them "let all the Mexicans in" Catholics.

[Murphy]

He's pro-Latin and old school it seems.

Traditional Latin Mass all the way for me ;)!


So it's very likely he's not one of them "let all the Mexicans in" Catholics.

Correct. I do not oppose immigration but I staunchly oppose mass-immigration, which is just a modern slave economy. I also don't have any respect for illegals who slip into America, breaking the laws of the lands.

[Debaser11]

I have some friends who know a good amount of Latin and Greek. I'm jealous. But I have my hands full with German at the moment.

[Murphy]

I have some friends who know a good amount of Latin and Greek. I'm jealous. But I have my hands full with German at the moment.

I am jealous my self.. my Latin is poor enough :D! But you don't need to understand Latin to appreciate the traditional Mass :).

[Debaser11]

Agreed! Gregorian chants are beautiful!

[Grumpy Cat]

"I just don't call myself "white" because I don't believe it's an ethnicity."

In all fairness, Austin and I are Americans (and Texans as well it seems). You claim Acadian ancestry which is good and well. I'm proud to be Texan but I feel like you're speaking out of your depth when you demean whiteness the same way I would be out of my depth to comment about Acadians who self-identify in that manner. Even our left-leaning U.S. government recognizes that there is something to the label "white" both politically and culturally. I often hear people say in a demeaning manner "oh, that's so white." Certainly the fact that they identify something in that manner has meaning for all practical purposes.

It's a racial category on the census and on job applications. We share a similar background and have similar political interests even according to our own government. People identify by race. That's just a fact of life. Latinos hang around Latinos. Blacks around blacks. Whites around whites. Even the blacks that do hang around whites still identify themselves as "black." Yet, it's only whites whose group niches/group identification is deemed not legitimate.

I do realize that this label does get a bit lost in translation due to geography. But at the same time I feel like it's disingenuous to pretend it has no meaning. If "white" has no meaning, then "Asian" or even "East Asian" has no meaning.

This view is not shared by all cultures. In all fairness I think "black" is not an ethnicity, either, it's a look. I have no double-standard here. There are many cultures that are black, many that are white, many that are East Asian and so on and so forth. A Swede is not Dutch, an Yoruba is not Xhosa, and a Japanese is not Chinese, all those cultures are unique. Race != ethnicity. Yes I will describe a person as white or black, or whatever, I will describe myself as white, too, but when I say I'm white I'm talking about what I look like. To that, being white is the same as being tall. My ethnicity is Acadian, my whiteness is a result of genetics, just the same as my being tall (well, 5'7" is above average for women of my ethnicity, anyways). Yes, certain ethnicities belong to a certain race but that's because of the geography and climate of the lands their ancestors came from. People of European extraction are white simply because Europe has low radiation from the sun and light skin allows for more efficient vitamin D synthesis.

This is why I prefer this forum which is about European ethnic preservation (and offshoot cultures) and not some "white nationalist" site.

[RoyBatty]

Example is Rhodesia,betrayed partly by Britain and what is that same British filthy government doing about Mugabe?????????

Mugabe is Britain's man. The only reason he's getting bad press in the Corporate / Zionist media and complaints from UK politicians is that he became a bit too independent for their liking.

The way the USA, French, British etc like to run their little respective Bananastans is to put a chief in charge who answers to THEM, who allows THEM to plunder whatever is worth taking and to obey THEIR diktats.

People like Mugabe, Saddam and numerous others fell out of favour with their erstwhile backers from the West due to them not "playing ball" anymore.

These *Westerners are more despicable than the dictators and their brutal regimes. The unfortunate citizens who happen to be living in these brutalised societies and countries pay the price to enrich these Westerners and to provide them with a "moral" platform from which to pontificate about "human rights", "freedom" and "democracy".


*In this post the term "Westerners" refers mostly to the Zionists, Royalty and other moneyed elites who are based in the West.

[Debaser11]

This view is not shared by all cultures. In all fairness I think "black" is not an ethnicity, either, it's a look.

That shows consistency on your part but it also ignores the world we live in. I do acknowledge that there are many different types of blacks, myself. Eastern Africans are not southwest African negros. Likewise, I acknowledge that there are many different types of whites. Germans are not Serbs. Just as Cambodians are not Koreans. But none of this invalidates the umbrella terms that are used. The blacks are more closely related to the other blacks and the whites are more closely related to the other whites. That's just the way the chips fall.



I have no double-standard here. There are many cultures that are black, many that are white, many that are East Asian and so on and so forth. A Swede is not Dutch, an Yoruba is not Xhosa, and a Japanese is not Chinese, all those cultures are unique.

Yes, I agree. And I think that's the main disconnect which has led to this race/ethnicity discussion between us. Many people seem to think that when individuals use the label "white," they are ignoring the fact that there are many types of whites. I tend to think they're not. The same way I think a Chinese using the term "Asian" is not ignoring or diminishing the fact that he's Chinese.


Race != ethnicity.

With all due respect, no! The anthropology section on this forum should be enough proof that such thought is misguided.



Yes I will describe a person as white or black, or whatever, I will describe myself as white, too,

And that description you give yourself is not arbitrary!


but when I say I'm white I'm talking about what I look like.

Exactly. You tend to look more similar to the people you're more closely related to. Like or not, that's other white people. Not blacks, Indians, or Arabs.



To that, being white is the same as being tall.

No, it's not. What is "tall" anyways? (I'm American so forgive me here.) 162cm? 172cm? 182cm? My brother is over six feet tall. I am not. By your logic, the fact that we are of the same race/skin color/ethnicity is as circumstance as our height differentials. Clearly, that's not the case.


My ethnicity is Acadian, my whiteness is a result of genetics, just the same as my being tall (well, 5'7" is above average for women of my ethnicity, anyways).

This is a logical fallacy (if I am reading you correctly). The fact that both your height and your race are both determined by genetics does not mean that each are of equal consideration in determining your identity.



Yes, certain ethnicities belong to a certain race but that's because of the geography and climate of the lands their ancestors came from.

Well, fine. The cause of what brought about different races was never a point of contention. I agree to a certain extent, in fact. But it's also folly to diminish the effect that thousands of years of separate biological evolution could have had on various populations. Physical and mental differences among the races corroborate this sentiment.


People of European extraction are white simply because Europe has low radiation from the sun and light skin allows for more efficient vitamin D synthesis.

You make it sound as if Europeans are under tanned. There is a specific mutation that gives Europeans their light skin which is quite distinct from the light-skinned mutation certain Northeast Asians acquired. Furthermore, racial differences between Europeans and non-Europeans are beyond skin deep. It's an ugly truth. But being indignant about mother nature's non-egalitarian processes won't phase her one bit.


This is why I prefer this forum which is about European ethnic preservation (and offshoot cultures) and not some "white nationalist" site.

Being adamant about one without acknowledging the other is a bit contradictory. Race is inextricably linked to ethnicity.


And I don't mean to be terse here, but why is it that it seems as if the women on this forum are less likely to acknowledge racial differences on a real level? I'm thinking about starting a thread on the issue of racial differences to air this out some more, but I don't want to be accused of being the second coming of Heinrick Himmler.

[Austin]

On your last part Debaser, I think it is because women naturally try to socialize and normalize a situation so it makes sense that they would be less likely to support a crude yet accurate racial system seeing as it goes against a woman's very nature to begin with.

If you offer a woman a strong/radical position or a compromising/moderate position she will almost always choose the later as it is her nature to do so. I do not blame women for this it is a reality and a strength but it just happens to hurt in some instances such as race where unification and compromise are not good things.

Arguably many men have adopted the naturally female tendencies to compromise and normalize any given situation which is why I would argue the West is on a racial/cultural decline.

I must say it is pathetic that they bicker about the term white so much isn't it? This is the very problem the West has in general in defending it's culture and people. You have individuals bickering over mannerisms and terms while they are being eaten alive, similar to a ship sinking and all they can worry about is why the mannerisms of the general crew have deteriorated.

[Psychonaut]

This view is not shared by all cultures. In all fairness I think "black" is not an ethnicity, either, it's a look. I have no double-standard here. There are many cultures that are black, many that are white, many that are East Asian and so on and so forth. A Swede is not Dutch, an Yoruba is not Xhosa, and a Japanese is not Chinese, all those cultures are unique. Race != ethnicity. Yes I will describe a person as white or black, or whatever, I will describe myself as white, too, but when I say I'm white I'm talking about what I look like. To that, being white is the same as being tall. My ethnicity is Acadian, my whiteness is a result of genetics, just the same as my being tall (well, 5'7" is above average for women of my ethnicity, anyways). Yes, certain ethnicities belong to a certain race but that's because of the geography and climate of the lands their ancestors came from. People of European extraction are white simply because Europe has low radiation from the sun and light skin allows for more efficient vitamin D synthesis.

This is why I prefer this forum which is about European ethnic preservation (and offshoot cultures) and not some "white nationalist" site.

You touch on a very important point, and it's one of the reasons that American White Nationalism has been a complete and abject failure. WN effectively denigrates and attempts to erase ethnicity by replacing it with some kind of pan-Caucasoid unity. They end up taking a single, biological component of ethnicity and touting it as if it were so important that they preservation of and pride in the others (language, culture, religion, art, etc.) mattered not. Whence comes the utter hollowness of WN "culture" and "art." There is none, because they have attempted to build their castle on a hollow foundation. A movement based simply on racial similarity, that tells me that I, an Acadian, are the same as some dude from Bulgaria—with whom I share not a single linguistic or cultural similarity—is full of shit. Culture matters just as much as race. Race is not what Leonidas, Arminius or Martel fought for—it was the holistic notion of ones Folk that mattered to our ancestors, and to lose that in a faulty biological definition of identity is to lose touch with that ancestral continuity.

[Loki]

It's horrible that there are many of my countrymen who live in such poverty, without any help whatsoever from the state. Certainly moving.

However this video perpetuates some erroneous stereotypes that I want to address:

Afrikaners are not industrious outside of government help, etc.

Complete bullshit. The vast majority of Afrikaners have done very well after the fall of apartheid, exactly because they are so industrious and know how to look after themselves. But, as with most ethnicities, there is a class divide. The people in this video are not normally the types you hang out with anyway, whether they have a job or not. It is misleading to portray them as somehow representative of Afrikaners (although perhaps good in the sense that it would accumulate sympathy for the Afrikaner/white cause in SA abroad).

It's almost like gathering a bunch of Jerry Springer Americans, and portray them as your average American white person.

The vast majority of scientists, intellectuals and academics in SA are Afrikaners, not English-speaking whites.

Having said all this, the government official in the end is a prick and I would cut his balls off if I ever meet him face to face.

[Psychonaut]

It's almost like gathering a bunch of Jerry Springer Americans, and portray them as your average American white person.

Exactly. Which is why it's so funny/sad/infuriating that so many of the pedophiles leaders in the White Nationalist movement do seem like Jerry Springer guests. Should we respect those racial kin whose deeds and behaviors give us no reasons to respect them? It's another part/whole problem. The WN says to us, that we must preserve the white race, but so often the one saying this is not one I'd ever consider as worth preserving. Egalitarianism is not beneficial when treating intra-ethnic nor inter-ethnic matters.

[Murphy]

Psycho has said everything that needs to be said.

[Curtis24]

I agree with what Psychonaut said, American racial ideology doesn't work because Americans are culturally diverse. Class consciousness is strong in America and subsuquently a vast chasm exists between whites based on level of education and professional vs. "blue-collar" jobs. White liberals are just as divided from white conservatives as they are blacks, and vice-versa.

At the same time, there is no doubt of a whte identity in America. despite decades of attempts at integration, America is still a racially segregated country. Just the truth. Whites and blacks may shop in the same stores, and pass each other on the street. But for the most part, whites have white social circles, do not marry blacks(miscegenation rates in America are typically grossly exaggerated by Internet posters), live in white neighborhoods, go to white schools.

Now, to what extent this has happened because of race vs. culture is debatable. However, if the racialists are right, its a moot question, because *causes* culture.

[Grumpy Cat]

Well, fine. The cause of what brought about different races was never a point of contention. I agree to a certain extent, in fact. But it's also folly to diminish the effect that thousands of years of separate biological evolution could have had on various populations. Physical and mental differences among the races corroborate this sentiment.



You make it sound as if Europeans are under tanned. There is a specific mutation that gives Europeans their light skin which is quite distinct from the light-skinned mutation certain Northeast Asians acquired. Furthermore, racial differences between Europeans and non-Europeans are beyond skin deep. It's an ugly truth. But being indignant about mother nature's non-egalitarian processes won't phase her one bit.

I acknowledge racial differences, however, racial differences are due to climate and human adaptation surrounding that. Races are best adapted to their environment, same with races of animals, that's how natural selection works. Yeah, sure, anyone of any race can survive anywhere now, because of technology, but back in the days when humans were still crawling around in caves and using rudimentary stone tools, that was not the case.

Even the mental differences can be chalked up to environment. The claims have been made that Europeans and Asians have higher IQs than Africans, but this is not entirely the case. IQ tests measure logical intelligence, which Eurasian people tend to be stronger in. People of African extraction, though, tend to have higher spatial intelligence. There is a reason for this: the wildlife in Eurasia is easily domesticable which allowed for agriculture and husbandry, which requires logical intelligence. The wildlife in Africa, not so much, so Africans had to rely on hunting which requires spatial intelligence.

This difference can be seen in the ancient writing systems of Eurasian and African cultures, while the former use scripts, alphabets, or abjads which take logic to interperit, the latter use glyphs.

I actually wonder if there are any statistics out there on race an car accidents, because driving a car takes spatial intelligence as well. Would be interesting.


I'm thinking about starting a thread on the issue of racial differences to air this out some more, but I don't want to be accused of being the second coming of Heinrick Himmler.

Start it, I won't accuse you of that. It would be an interesting thread.

I should also point out, though, that ancient Europeans did not have a concept of "whiteness". They saw themselves as whatever tribe they were in, and other people, even those who looked like them, as foreigners. The concept of "whiteness" only dates back to the 18th century or so. Not that old.

[Debaser11]

I acknowledge racial differences, however, racial differences are due to climate and human adaptation surrounding that. Races are best adapted to their environment, same with races of animals, that's how natural selection works. Yeah, sure, anyone of any race can survive anywhere now, because of technology, but back in the days when humans were still crawling around in caves and using rudimentary stone tools, that was not the case.

Many of them, yes. Some mutations just happen that are selected independently of whether or not they necessarily affect survival in a particular environment. Not every phenotype is an environmental tool.


Even the mental differences can be chalked up to environment.

To a certain degree, yes. But I absolutely reject the idea that intelligence is not heritable. For example, if Einstein grew up in Papua New Guniea (and had his exact genes of course), he still would have been a very smart cookie. It's almost certain that he would have been the smartest person around his neck of the woods. Yet, it's very likely he would not have formulated his theory of relativity because of his environment. Yes, the environment helps intelligence but you have to have a baseline biological intelligence to work in Einstein's field to begin with. I could never be Einstein even if I had the best education in the world.

And I think there are more Europeans and Asians that demonstrate this higher level thinking than Africans (especially sub-Saharan negroes). Anthropological findings, while not conclusive, do give hints as to why this is the case (gray matter in the brain, cranial capacity, etc.) People accept other biological claims with less evidence than what some psychologists and anthropologists have uncovered about race. No one wants to be a "racist."


The claims have been made that Europeans and Asians have higher IQs than Africans, but this is not entirely the case.

Except that decades of research have shown that such is the case. Consistently. Over time and space. On what grounds do you so readily dismiss their findings? Even Dr. James Flynn and Dr. John Naisbitt (two of the most prominent figures that have debated racial IQ with the likes Dr. Philippe Rushton and Dr. Arthur Jensen) seem anemic, outmatched, and not as well-versed on the subject.


IQ tests measure logical intelligence, which Eurasian people tend to be stronger in. People of African extraction, though, tend to have higher spatial intelligence.

IQ tests are also the largest predictor (out of any test) of socio-economic standing. They'd be a lot more in vogue if it weren't for the uncomfortable clustering of results by race. They are tests that measure important levels of thinking. I know at some levels the U.S. government, when it comes right down to hiring for important positions, will test for IQ. Don't hold me to this, but in the U.S., I think the FBI and the Marines both issue some sort of IQ test.

People of African extraction have higher spatial intelligence?! Every scholar I've read that's written specifically on the subject of spatial intelligence has written that it's East Asians who score the highest on spatial reasoning. I have never run across one claim (even from people like Flynn) that Africans score HIGHER on such an intelligence test. Caucasians (especially Ashkenazi Jews) tend to beat the East Asians pretty soundly on verbal tests, though (which are obviously a bit more "culturally biased"). Again, I HAVE NEVER seen anyone claim that Africans (especially negroes) exhibit better spatial intelligence. They always cluster at the bottom near Aborigines.


There is a reason for this: the wildlife in Eurasia is easily domesticable which allowed for agriculture and husbandry, which requires logical intelligence. The wildlife in Africa, not so much, so Africans had to rely on hunting which requires spatial intelligence.

Did you read Guns, Germs, and Steel? That's what this argument sounds like.
Are you claiming here that it was both higher "logical" intelligence and a friendlier environment that lead to modern European society?
There are many criticisms of Jared Diamond's book, which makes a huge deal about environmental impacts in the interest of downplaying racial mental differences. (And Diamond clearly had an agenda; he actually stated in the film based on his book that Papua New Guineans are "AT LEAST" as intelligent as Europeans....right...)

I think the part of your claim in bold underplays how difficult it was for the Eurasians to domesticate animals that we take for granted now while it overplays the difficulty involved with domesticating African animals. No one was stopping Africans from domesticating Zebras the way Eurasians domesticated horses, for example. Even the farming techniques in sub-Saharan Africa were primitive by Eurasian standards.

And yes, I have heard the claim that Africans have better vision. I have heard Dr. William Shockley allude to such studies which show that African negroes have better sight. That is not "spatial intelligence," though. Intelligence should not be in any way confused with better sight. And yes, it's very likely that the negroes with good vision were selected for due to the dangerous predators in Africa and the demand that hunting in the savanna would have had for sharp vision.


This difference can be seen in the ancient writing systems of Eurasian and African cultures, while the former use scripts, alphabets, or abjads which take logic to interperit, the latter use glyphs.

Don't conflate all African cultures. Egyptian and even Nubian culture are miles away from negro culture (which had no written language).


I actually wonder if there are any statistics out there on race an car accidents, because driving a car takes spatial intelligence as well. Would be interesting.

That's not all it takes to avoid accidents. You also need intelligence and prudence to avoid such accidents. I have little doubt blacks have a higher accident rate. I don't know this for certain. But I doubt their better vision (assuming that it is true and substantial) really makes much of a difference when many of them lack so many other important traits necessary to function successfully in a developed world.



I should also point out, though, that ancient Europeans did not have a concept of "whiteness". They saw themselves as whatever tribe they were in, and other people, even those who looked like them, as foreigners. The concept of "whiteness" only dates back to the 18th century or so. Not that old.

I understand. But again, I don't think that makes the term meaningless. And I think anyone writing about how Acadians are not Bulgarians is really missing the point. Years ago, Aztecs and Mayans had no concept of what a "Latino" was. They embrace the term today but still retain their own cultures within that umbrella term. Furthermore, I don't think it's fair to associate people who use the term "white" with the worst elements of white nationalism. Not every person that gravitates toward that term is a cultural vandal like I've seen implied in some of these posts.

[Psychonaut]

IQ tests are also the largest predictor (out of any test) of socio-economic standing. They'd be a lot more in vogue if it weren't for the uncomfortable clustering of results by race. They are tests that measure important levels of thinking. I know at some levels the U.S. government, when it comes right down to hiring for important positions, will test for IQ. Don't hold me to this, but in the U.S., I think the FBI and the Marines both issue some sort of IQ test.

I can't speak for the FBI, but before you can join the military (any branch), you have to take the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASVAB) which tests both general intelligence (the GT portion) and a range of specific intelligences. Different jobs require different types of scores, with the more intellectually demanding ones requiring a high GT. As I'm sure you've guessed, this means there's a stark demographic divide between my branch (which requires the highest GT), Military Intelligence, and truck drivers (which require the lowest).

[Curtis24]

Anyway, the problem with racial ideology is that its not necessary to prevent miscegenation, since modern day races self-segregate; and its totally unable to stop racial immigration or declining white birthrates, since the causes of both phenomena are deeply rooted in human nature, and are not caused(contrary to popular belief) by Leftist social engineering; nor can they be changed through education or any kind of mass movement.

So what's the point? The white race will preserve itself, albeit in much smaller numbers. European culture will be preserved in the areas that whites live in. Mass amounts of Third World immigrants will move into Europe and America, albeit they will live segregated from Europeans with their own cultures.

No amount of proselytizing will change these outcomes...

[Psychonaut]

No amount of proselytizing will change these outcomes...

I tend to agree with this, but perhaps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oswald_Spengler) for (http://books.google.com/books?id=jYjYLoGSsQgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=spenglerian+pessimism&source=bl&ots=0FjVIZyjAs&sig=dysJ9V29H0GLuBEDcc23kitXuv0&hl=en&ei=DZdxTNSxDoP6lwfugs33Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CC4Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=spenglerian%20pessimism&f=false) different (http://home.alphalink.com.au/~radnat/tomsunic/sunic4.html) reasons (http://www.jstor.org/pss/20097262). Our decline can no more be prevented than can old age in any other type of organism. Athanasia is fiction.

[Debaser11]

Anyway, the problem with racial ideology is that its not necessary to prevent miscegenation, since modern day races self-segregate; and its totally unable to stop racial immigration or declining white birthrates, since the causes of both phenomena are deeply rooted in human nature, and are not caused(contrary to popular belief) by Leftist social engineering; nor can they be changed through education or any kind of mass movement.

So what's the point? The white race will preserve itself, albeit in much smaller numbers. European culture will be preserved in the areas that whites live in. Mass amounts of Third World immigrants will move into Europe and America, albeit they will live segregated from Europeans with their own cultures.

No amount of proselytizing will change these outcomes...

I'm pretty damned fatalist, but I'm not that fatalist.

Speaking for myself, I come off as more a racial ideologist than I am. Outside the forum, it occupies little of my time. For example, I'm bad at phenotype recognition and I have quite a racially diverse circle of friends--probably more so than the average person. (It goes without saying that these discussions do not really come up among most of these friends but some of the nonwhites are surprisingly more realistic about this stuff than you'd expect given how defensive about the subject Europeans are.) I actually think living in a diverse society has contributed a bit towards making me racially/culturally conscious. Though I have diverse friends, I don't buy the propaganda that the media shoves down my throat and I think my country has lost something precious from its past by following this model and hyping it as our greatest strength at almost religious levels. And contrary to what I you wrote, I don't think this was necessarily inevitable.


I also just don't like people downplaying race and then pulling a bait and switch and arguing in favor of racial quotas, affirmative action, and tax programs that disproportionately favor nonwhites. So if I come off as a racial ideologist here, it's because race has real consequences in the world we live in. For example, side-stepping the issue of race and then wondering why we have so many prisons is a bit disingenuous when you look at minority crime rates and then continue to import more and more of them into your country.

I believe race is at the nexus of a great deal of other political problems that need to be solved. Will a race war happen? I honestly have no idea. It doesn't seem likely but I wouldn't rule it out on some level. It may be framed differently. Not that I think they will lead us to a war, but look at the Tea Party crowd. They are the most angry group of people in the U.S. and they happen to be overwhelmingly white. That's not a coincidence but at the same time whatever struggle that emerges and perhaps breaks the U.S. apart may not be framed around race explicitly but it could be understood to be implicitly. It's too early to know.

Will race ever be talked about the way it should be? Again, not likely. Will the white race die out completely? Again, I don't know but it is constantly giving up ground in the U.S. and the longer it ignores racial reality, the less it will have if things do reach a critical mass as there become less and less areas to flee to in order to self-segregate. Like it or not, a large part of why the world is the way it is (in a good way) is due to white influence. It's hard for me to just be ambivalent about its decline. I love Western culture but I see little evidence that it can be sustained by nonwhites. It may be a losing battle, but I don't like to sit back quietly as you do and watch Europe and the U.S. change on the whole for the worst.

[Austin]

Anyway, the problem with racial ideology is that its not necessary to prevent miscegenation, since modern day races self-segregate; and its totally unable to stop racial immigration or declining white birthrates, since the causes of both phenomena are deeply rooted in human nature, and are not caused(contrary to popular belief) by Leftist social engineering; nor can they be changed through education or any kind of mass movement.

So what's the point? The white race will preserve itself, albeit in much smaller numbers. European culture will be preserved in the areas that whites live in. Mass amounts of Third World immigrants will move into Europe and America, albeit they will live segregated from Europeans with their own cultures.

No amount of proselytizing will change these outcomes...

I wouldn't say that. If things get bad economically then anything is possible, especially in terms of what before was supposedly impossible.

[Curtis24]

I agree, but for things to get economically bad enough that white Americans/Europeans would eject racial minorities from their countries, it would have to be a second Great Depression. That won't happen. Western economies are fundamentally strong because of geographic and cultural reasons that won't change within the next century. Even a small culturally Western minority can prop up a country economically, as South Africa shows...

Debaser: I'll respond to your post in more detail later, but first a different tangent...

I believe that Europe and America will become "multicultural", in other words different ethnic groups - including Western whites - will be allowed to practice their own cultures in different spheres within a single country. But for multiculturalism to really work, you need an authoritarian government, since in a democracy the majority will try to enforce their beliefs on everyone. I concede that WEstern governments, both in America and Europe, will become increasingly authoritarian precisely because of the need to manage racial minorities with non-Western attitudes. this point is worthy of its own thread really, but basically majority rule will be scrapped in favor of a system where the rights and culture of Westerners(not just whites, since I think many of the more prosperous minorities will become WEsternized) is maintained. Muslims and Mexicans can do what they want in their own neighborhoods, but they won't be able to democratically impose their beliefs on the white minority.

[Debaser11]

Yes, perhaps we need another thread with the topic more specifically geared toward where you'd like to take this discussion. I'd love to participate.

I'll just say, if I thought the races really worked the way a show like Law & Order had me believe they did, I'd be less fretful about the race situation. For a long time, I did swallow that media BS, too.

I share your view about democracy. My realization about democracy's defects hastened my transition from liberal (in the contemporary sense) political persuasions among other things.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

It's horrible that there are many of my countrymen who live in such poverty, without any help whatsoever from the state. Certainly moving.

However this video perpetuates some erroneous stereotypes that I want to address:

Afrikaners are not industrious outside of government help, etc.

Complete bullshit. The vast majority of Afrikaners have done very well after the fall of apartheid, exactly because they are so industrious and know how to look after themselves. But, as with most ethnicities, there is a class divide. The people in this video are not normally the types you hang out with anyway, whether they have a job or not. It is misleading to portray them as somehow representative of Afrikaners (although perhaps good in the sense that it would accumulate sympathy for the Afrikaner/white cause in SA abroad).

It's almost like gathering a bunch of Jerry Springer Americans, and portray them as your average American white person.

The vast majority of scientists, intellectuals and academics in SA are Afrikaners, not English-speaking whites.

Having said all this, the government official in the end is a prick and I would cut his balls off if I ever meet him face to face.

I was involved in obtaining social grants for the poor whites.
It is soooo difficult to bypass some frigging public official,who in all cases of females,walk around with a stupid wig just to look more European,but can not see beyond the plight of the white.
To me they have not changed in the 16 years they tried to run this country, from the time they came down the trees.

There is even discrimination by the majority of whites towards the poor whites.
Worst of all are the educated white kids adopting the kaffir behaviour of indiscipline,drugs,sex and shunning advice of their elders.
The English kids are the worst.

[Grumpy Cat]

There is even discrimination by the majority of whites towards the poor whites.
Worst of all are the educated white kids adopting the kaffir behaviour of indiscipline,drugs,sex and shunning advice of their elders.
The English kids are the worst.

That's not just in South Africa. You pretty much described Canada to a tee. Especially bolded.