Preservationism vs Racialism [Archive] - The Apricity Forum: A European Cultural Community

Lahtari

08-25-2009, 04:27 PM

"I'm not a preservationist, I'm not interested in saving the culutral and genetic heritage of human populations other than my own and related, and I think there's drastic, innate differences between groups of people which in some cases makes equal competition impossible."

Sure, preserving everything as it is might sound like a noble and just cause, but it's a futile one. The stone age is over. If some people want to live in a stone age culture that needs huge amounts of hunting grounds per person and with a stone age technology level, sooner or later there WILL be someone kicking their arse and taking their land to build cities, mines, oil refineries and missile silos in it. And there's nothing we can do, expect to pressure our own governments away from doing so and letting a competing power do it instead.

And at least for now I'm not particularly interested in preserving other peoples than European and those of European origin, primarily my own. And culture has to be dynamic, it can't be preserved if it has lost the basis of existence and the people don't want to upkeep it. And how am I going to tell for example an East Asian who wants to live in a western(ized) culture (in his own country) that "no, you can't do that, stop listening to rock immediately and listen to your own pentatonic screeching instead"? :p

Lahtari

08-25-2009, 04:35 PM

As to Africans not doing as well as whites, no of course they won't they are competing in a white system that we set up for us.

Then how come that Asians and Jews are doing at least as good as whites in that same "White System(tm)"? (A trademark of Pepsodent Corp., 2009 :D)

IQ?

I'm simply a nationalist. Skin pigmentation worship aka rac(ial)ism is incompatible with traditional nationalism.

I can definitely understand people who want to distance themselves from certain forms of globalist, thuggish racism. But incompatible? That's a bit like saying "paganism and nationalism are incompatible". Rather, they simply have nothing to do with each other.

Æmeric

08-25-2009, 04:36 PM

I voted for the first option. In my humble opinion, every race, including my own has an innate right to survival. I do think that certain cultures are more advanced than others, but that's it.

Some of those races need assistance to survive. Like the Australian Aboriginals. Amerindians. The reservation system saved them from extinction in the US & Canada. Negroes. Without Europid oversight they descend into some hell-on-earth like Haiti or Sudan.

Lahtari

08-25-2009, 04:36 PM

The result(profit) of the automatic translator is not terrible sorry

Yes it is. :D :eek:

Loki

08-25-2009, 04:37 PM

Some of those races need assistance to survive. Like the Australian Aboriginals. Amerindians. The reservation system saved them from extinction in the US & Canada. Negroes. Without Europid oversight they descend into some hell-on-earth like Haiti or Sudan.

They seemed to survive fine and well on their own before Europeans took their lands, though.

Ariets

08-25-2009, 04:44 PM

As far as Im a rationalist and therefore libertarian Im more close to perservationists, so I voted for a first option.

But Im not like some hardcore perservationist as some people here appear to be, although I consider "native culture's" of their "native populations" to be kind of important as part of "natural order".

As for a "racial issue", I think that there is some kind of individual "superiority" (psychically, physically or intelectually) that vary between the "races" (as you may call it) with diffrent frequencies. Therefore you can find "superior" extremes all around, nevermind to their race or ethnicity.

Saying something like "all white people are better or superior to eg. blacks" is good for primitive idiots and morons...

Ps. As for people who voted for a second option:
http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/9007/fourteenwords.jpg

Groenewolf

08-25-2009, 04:49 PM

Then how come that Asians and Jews are doing at least as good as whites in that same "White System(tm)"? (A trademark of Pepsodent Corp., 2009 :D)

This requires a small correction. East-Asians are about equal to us in intelligence with both of us have different strenghts on the area. Jews are a different case, since from the studies I read it mostly the american diaspora that seems to score very well. Can be explained by that the Jewish conginitve elite had moved to the USA. But the same thing could be achieved be establising somewhere a colony of European mensa-members and let them inbreed for the most part. And then use them as evidence for European superior intelligence.

Their homeland it self scores at about the same level as European former communist countries.

Some of those races need assistance to survive. Like the Australian Aboriginals. Amerindians.

Actualy they where well adapeted for a stone-age or bronze age civilasation. if we had ignored there living places they would still be able to survive without aid.

Æmeric

08-25-2009, 04:51 PM

They seemed to survive fine and well on their own before Europeans took their lands, though.

:lame:

Not really. They were busy killing off each other before the Europeans arrived. They didn't respect the land rights of weaker tribes. When the Europeans arrived they were confronted by a superior foe. And if the Europeans hadn't arrived in America/Australia/Southern Africa, the Chinese or Japanese or Indians would have. Hell, the Capoid peoples of Southern Africa were in the process of being driven into extinction by the Bantus, the arrival of the Dutch is the only reason there are any left alive.

Lutiferre

08-25-2009, 05:01 PM

Cato

08-25-2009, 06:38 PM

Having met and interacted with non-whites who act distinctly superior, morally and intellectually, and having met and interacted with whites who act distinctly subhuman, I can say that superiority/inferiority is non-existent.

Liffrea

08-25-2009, 07:33 PM

Originally Posted by Lutiferre
I've always found the term "preservationism" rather perverse. As if we are speaking of some kind of dead archaeological sample, whose stiffness we are trying to preserve, so that it doesn't turn to dust.

It’s an applicable term I feel, take this quote from Enoch Powell:

From this continuous life of a united people in its island home spring, as from the soil of England, all that is peculiar in the gifts and the achievements of the English nation. All its impact on the outer world in earlier colonies, in the later Pax Britannica, in government and lawgiving, in commerce and in thought has flowed from impulses generated here. And this continuing life of England is symbolised and expressed, as by nothing else, by the English kingship. English it is, for all the leeks and thistles grafted upon it here and elsewhere. The stock that received all these grafts is English, the sap that rises through it to the extremities rises from roots in English earth, the earth of England’s history. We in our day ought well to guard, as highly to honour, the parent stem of England, and its royal talisman; for we know not what branches yet that wonderful tree will have the power to put forth.

The danger is not always violence and force; them we have withstood before and can again.
The peril can also be indifference and humbug, which might squander the accumulated wealth of tradition and devalue our sacred symbolism to achieve some cheap compromise or some evanescent purpose.

Preservation doesn’t mean necessarily something in situ or in stasis it can mean preserving the material from which new growth is generated, without preserving the organism that is the nation you don’t have the capability to change, to develop or to grow.

Cello

08-25-2009, 09:49 PM

I am no racist in fact I dislike racists, because they give us a bad name.

Brännvin

08-25-2009, 10:31 PM

I am no racist in fact I dislike racists, because they give us a bad name.

By who? The left?

The ironic and contradictory that it is same left argues that race does not exist in humans but loves to call anyone a racist, who does not buy their ideas ;)

Poltergeist

08-25-2009, 10:32 PM

What is your opinion about theories of racial differences in intelligence, based on IQ tests? Theory supported most notably by Richard Lynn, but also by some other racially leaning sociologists.

Lutiferre

08-25-2009, 10:39 PM

What is your opinion about theories of racial differences in intelligence, based on IQ tests? Theory supported most notably by Richard Lynn, but also by some other racially leaning sociologists.
What are you, an IQ nationalist?

Poltergeist

08-25-2009, 10:40 PM

What are you, an IQ nationalist?

no, just asking

Rondos

08-25-2009, 10:43 PM

Obviously there are certain racial predispositions. Its evident in sports. But Im rather asking about a strong belief that some races or ethnicities are inherently inferior to others. Rather biologically, genetically, than culturally.

Doesn’t the first sentence answer the last? Penguins are racially superiors in some ways; they can survive where other land creatures can not. Superiority is relative. Bacteria are the most superior organisms on the planet because it can and probably will survive the longest. Not a complex structure, still superior.

Poltergeist

08-25-2009, 11:01 PM

One example if IQ fetishism:

http://forum.stirpes.net/politics/23886-race-differences-immigration-twilight-european-peoples.html

Psychonaut

08-25-2009, 11:40 PM

Im surprised too. I suspected there would be many more racialists here. My position is simple. Obviously distrubution of genes/traits is uneven among populations. Thus certain beneficial combinations might arise in some of them more often than in the others. Just as some peoples are taller than other, some might be more predisposed towards mathemathical thinking etc. Though in every population foe every trait you always get a bell-shaped curve and the vast majority of grey in-betweeners. However, I do not think there is any universally and inherently inferior human race or ethnicity.

I can agree with this. Differentiation is a simple biological fact which no amount of political pandering can ever cover up. When I think about the extremes of human variation, I'm always reminded of a quote from Coon's The Origin of Races. Following photos of an Australoid and a North Sinid side-by-side, he says:

The Alpha and Omega of Homo sapiens: An Australian aboriginal woman with a cranial capacity of under 1,000 cc. (Topsy, a Tiwi); and a Chinese sage with a brain nearly twice that size (Dr. Li Chi, the renowned archaeologist and director of Academia Sinica).

Human populations are differentiated in nearly every respect, but I agree with you that questions of "overall superiority" are culturally biased value judgments that have no direct scientific basis. We can certainly discuss the particular points of divergence and discuss with group has the largest brain, which group can run the fastest, which group can withstand the coldest temperatures, etc., but questions like, "are whites better than blacks" are not things that can be answered by science.

Cello

08-26-2009, 09:54 AM

By who? The left?

The ironic and contradictory that it is same left argues that race does not exist in humans but loves to call anyone a racist, who does not buy their ideas ;)
I don't care what the left thinks. I care what the apolitical populace does. Racism turns normal people away. That's the problem. The numbers of people who support preservation of European culture is reduced because everyone is afraid to associate with racists.

What is your opinion about theories of racial differences in intelligence, based on IQ tests? Theory supported most notably by Richard Lynn, but also by some other racially leaning sociologists.
I don't think they are so relevant, unless racially different people are the majority in countries. That's not in Austria. Some aren't qualified to vote anyway. The majority of white people vote left despite IQ.

Jarl

08-26-2009, 10:01 AM

Doesn’t the first sentence answer the last? Penguins are racially superiors in some ways; they can survive where other land creatures can not. Superiority is relative. Bacteria are the most superior organisms on the planet because it can and probably will survive the longest. Not a complex structure, still superior.

Indeed it partly does. Just like you and Psychonaut, I can see specialisation. I can't see how we can prove an overall superiority of one race over another. I understand that most people who talk of superiority/inferiority, usually mean innate mental capability. However, its a slippery ground... Particularly with psychological traits and intelligence, its very difficult to say whats enivronmental (friends, family, culture, language etc.), and whats genetic. So Im asking, if there is anyone who thinks ethnicities/races are genetically inferior and superior, and why, on what grounds?

Jarl

08-26-2009, 10:43 AM

"I'm not a preservationist, I'm not interested in saving the culutral and genetic heritage of human populations other than my own and related,

So you are a preservationist, just not global ;)

and I think there's drastic, innate differences between groups of people which in some cases makes equal competition impossible."

Sure, preserving everything as it is might sound like a noble and just cause, but it's a futile one. The stone age is over. If some people want to live in a stone age culture that needs huge amounts of hunting grounds per person and with a stone age technology level, sooner or later there WILL be someone kicking their arse and taking their land to build cities, mines, oil refineries and missile silos in it. And there's nothing we can do, expect to pressure our own governments away from doing so and letting a competing power do it instead. ]And at least for now I'm not particularly interested in preserving other peoples than European and those of European origin, primarily my own. And culture has to be dynamic, it can't be preserved if it has lost the basis of existence and the people don't want to upkeep it. And how am I going to tell for example an East Asian who wants to live in a western(ized) culture (in his own country) that "no, you can't do that, stop listening to rock immediately and listen to your own pentatonic screeching instead"? :p

Now you are talking of cultural preservation. I see no contradiction here. Its not about keeping Idians in the reserves, and about sticking exclusively to the inventions/products of one's own culture, but about saving as much as possible from it. Obviously culture is dynamic. Yet its precisely about the way in which it should develop and progress - uniformly and globally, blending everyone into a shapeless mass, or individually. And besides, its like you said - every ethnicity should first care about their own preservation. You can't care for other people if you don't care for yourself. I fully agree with you on this. Thats preservationism concenrs mostly you, then your family, your friends, then your region, then your nation etc.

Liffrea

08-26-2009, 10:53 AM

I think it’s largely meaningless to argue about superiority or inferiority, no such concept exists in evolution, which is simply adaptation, to argue over superiority is subjective but it has no real basis in scientific study as I see it.

Equinox

08-26-2009, 11:42 AM

Can you elaborate a bit on that supposed Western science, which would, according to you, scientifically prove something so utterly abstract like "superiority"?

A basic knowledge of Western science, in this case ecology, can be the source of many proofs of inequality. Equality is a theory, albeit on which has become the social norm in all European lands.

When one accepts that there is such a thing as inequality, it becomes evident that there must be, in every conceivable instance, something which is superior to the other competitors. This is easily digested as a fact - I am sure many of you have been told that there will always be someone above you and others below you, no matter what. To believe that there is no such thing as superiority is to essentially defy and subvert the natural hierarchy.

When one considers race, it is through eugenics and strong social customs that a population or culture may gain superiority over another.

There is always the desire for one to breed with physically attractive members of the opposite sex (asexuals etc aside). Physical attraction, from my understanding, stems from a belief that procreation with the individual in question will result in healthy, strong offspring.

Recent times has seen a perversion of the natural way of things. Christianity has encouraged weakness and mediocrity. Political correctness has urged us to go against some of our most basic instincts and intuitions. The result is a European population which has elevated the weak over the fit and able and through socialist and welfare state policies enabled the weak to be the fastest and most numerous to pass on their genes to yet another generation.

To not believe or strive for the superiority of one's own race is ridiculous and subversive to any European preservationist cause.

Loki

08-26-2009, 11:59 AM

The result is a European population which has elevated the weak over the fit and able and through socialist and welfare state policies enabled the weak to be the fastest and most numerous to pass on their genes to yet another generation.

European socialist policies are not the cause of rapid growth of non-white populations. In fact, studies have shown that generations of non-European migrants actually have fewer kids than they do in their native countries. When people's living standards improve, their birth rate decreases. This is a FACT.

Equinox

08-26-2009, 12:24 PM

European socialist policies are not the cause of rapid growth of non-white populations. In fact, studies have shown that generations of non-European migrants actually have fewer kids than they do in their native countries. When people's living standards improve, their birth rate decreases. This is a FACT.

Multiculturalism and multiracialism was an issue I was not addressing. You simply assumed that I was alluring to non-European populations in European societies. What I was attempting to establish was the correlation between European socialist policies and the breeding of weaker European individuals.

In jumping the gun you might have, through your assumption, implicated yourself as being a racist, Loki. Obviously this cannot be true though, as I note you voted for the first option in this poll as opposed to the second ;)

Brännvin

08-26-2009, 02:32 PM

I don't care what the left thinks. I care what the apolitical populace does. Racism turns normal people away. That's the problem. The numbers of people who support preservation of European culture is reduced because everyone is afraid to associate with racists.

Well, I do care to what the native left thinks in anyway. As Jarl pointed out here (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=81427&postcount=6). Why couldn't they be preservationists, aren't they indigenous also?

SwordoftheVistula

08-27-2009, 10:58 AM

Obviously there are certain racial predispositions. Its evident in sports. But Im rather asking about a strong belief that some races or ethnicities are inherently inferior to others. Rather biologically, genetically, than culturally.

Having met and interacted with non-whites who act distinctly superior, morally and intellectually, and having met and interacted with whites who act distinctly subhuman, I can say that superiority/inferiority is non-existent.

Not so much sports, but in IQ, predisposition to crime and impetuous violence, we can say that some groups in general tend to produce individuals more or less suited to what we would consider 'modern civilized society'

In comparison, I know some individuals who can drive quite well while drunk or high, and I encounter many presumably non-intoxicated individuals who drive terribly, yet in general most people would say that sober drivers are superior drivers to drunk and high people.

European socialist policies are not the cause of rapid growth of non-white populations. In fact, studies have shown that generations of non-European migrants actually have fewer kids than they do in their native countries.

One point brought up by many on this thread is that there are many white individuals who are not by any stretch of the imagination 'superior' to anything, and in fact are equal or inferior to a large portion of the nonwhite population. Having a society that caters to these individuals can't possibly be good, in addition to benefiting lower-IQ races (most non-European ones) at the expense of higher-IQ ones. In every European country where studies have been conducted, the native population pays a higher rate of tax and the 'migrant' population collects benefits at a higher rate.

Lahtari

08-27-2009, 12:35 PM

Not so much sports, but in IQ, predisposition to crime and impetuous violence, we can say that some groups in general tend to produce individuals more or less suited to what we would consider 'modern civilized society'

"Superiority" and "inferiority" are fully relative concepts, true. But like someone mentioned penguins to be superior in their icy environment, couldn't we in just a similar fashion conclude that some groups of people are superior in the environment of modern society? Another groups probably are superior in a different environment, like in a jungle, but it's also about what we value: the future of mankind is not in a jungle ...or at least I hope it isn't. :p

Heimmacht

08-27-2009, 01:10 PM

Racialism admits that there is a difference between races, not that one is more superior then the other... So I'm against the second statement.

Lutiferre

08-27-2009, 01:17 PM

Racialism admits that there is a difference between races, not that one is more superior then the other... So I'm against the second statement.
Wouldn't that be an understatement? After all, one could "admit" to a difference between races and disagree widely about the importance and extent of this difference. Some would hold it to make a huge difference which their whole ideology should be based on (racial supremacism), some would hold there to be differences but consider them irrelevant to the true cause of his own people, and some would maybe go on to have some black children out of indifference.

Grumpy Cat

08-27-2009, 10:42 PM

Lutiferre

10-24-2009, 12:27 AM

I don't believe that any race is superior/inferior to others, but I do believe that some cultures are superior to others. For example, Western cultures and East Asian cultures in general are vastly superior to Arab culture however white people or Asians are not superior to Arabs by genetics or anything like that.

I have my ways of judging cultures:

Scientific advances
Rate of crime/violence
Methods of punishment for crime (and yes, I am against the death penalty and the presence of it in a culture bumps it down a notch on my personal superiority/inferiority meter)
Treatment of women
Arab culture is inferior on grounds of the parameters you mentioned? I don't think so. You could say some parts of the Islamic world are, but not the Arabs, surely, not to mention the Muslim Persians.

Scientific advances: next to European intellectual traditions of Byzantine science and Latin Scholasticism, nothing has been more contributive for laying the foundation for scientific culture than Arabic and Persian Muslim thinkers, scientists and philosophers.

Crime/violence - have you ever visited Saudi Arabia? My old teacher did, and he said you could leave a sports car with the keys in it in the middle of the city, go out shopping, go back and find it there.

Methods of punishment for crime - these methods work in fighting off crime and evils, and in reducing to a minimum the amount of crimes that force the enactment of the punishment. Read this article, The Not-so-cruel Iran (http://samsonblinded.org/blog/not-so-cruel-iran.htm) (Iranians are Persian, but it's about the methods of punishment which are the same as with Arabs).

Treatment of women - the original system was surely meant to elicit the protection and dignity of women, rather than the model of modern Europe, in which girls down to 12 years live in a culture and behaviour mode which makes it so that they are practically envisioned of by their male counterparts as a piece of meat to get to, rather than something more like a diamond.

SwordoftheVistula

10-24-2009, 12:43 AM

Arab culture is inferior on grounds of the parameters you mentioned? I don't think so. You could say some parts of the Islamic world are, but not the Arabs, surely.

Scientific advances: next to European intellectual traditions of Byzantine science and Latin Scholasticism, nothing has been more contributive for laying the foundation for scientific culture than Arabic thinkers, scientists and philosophers.

Crime/violence - have you ever visited Saudi Arabia? My old teacher did, and he said you could leave a sports car with the keys in it in the middle of the city, go out shopping, go back and find it there.

Methods of punishment for crime - these methods work in fighting off crime and evils, and in reducing to a minimum the amount of crimes that force the enactment of the punishment. Read this article, The Not-so-cruel Iran (http://samsonblinded.org/blog/not-so-cruel-iran.htm).

Treatment of women - the original system was surely meant to elicit the protection and dignity of women, rather than the model of modern Europe, in which girls down to 12 years live in a culture and behaviour mode which makes it so that they are practically envisioned of by their male counterparts as a piece of meat to get to, rather than something more like a diamond.

This is precisely why I picked option #2. Arabs seem more innately prone to violence, rape, etc thus their societies have been forced to develop and maintain stricter behavioral codes and enforce them in a tougher manner, because they are less able to rely on individual self-restraint. Thus, when such people are instead placed in a society where the rules were developed for a racial group more innately inclined towards individual self-restraint, they cause all sorts of mayhem.

Lutiferre

10-24-2009, 12:47 AM

This is precisely why I picked option #2. Arabs seem more innately prone to violence, rape, etc thus their societies have been forced to develop and maintain stricter behavioral codes and enforce them in a tougher manner, because they are less able to rely on individual self-restraint. Thus, when such people are instead placed in a society where the rules were developed for a racial group more innately inclined towards individual self-restraint, they cause all sorts of mayhem.
I don't agree. I think people are just as motivated to commit evil in our societies. The difference is that we tolerate them.

Barreldriver

10-24-2009, 02:57 AM

I voted option 1: "I'm a preservationist, interested in saving the culutral and genetic heritage of human populations, and I don't believe in racial supremacy."

The reasoning behind my vote is first I believe in preserving my culture and my genetic heritage, and second I do not believe that I need to go out of my way to interfere in someone else's affairs just because they are of a different race than myself, if they interfere in my affairs I will defend myself, but I will not be the aggressor against an innocent bystander, racial supremacists (from what I have observed) advocate the harassment anyone who is of a different race regardless if they are innocent or not.

I am curious how many can talk about curb stomping someone they've never met or interacted with, they want to harm just because of a clinal difference. I'd rather just stick to my own and defend what is mine, I do not see the point in going out of my way to reek havoc.

SwordoftheVistula

10-24-2009, 03:02 AM

I don't agree. I think people are just as motivated to commit evil in our societies. The difference is that we tolerate them.

Then why do arabs have much higher crime rates in western societies than the native population?

Lutiferre

10-24-2009, 03:05 AM

Then why do arabs have much higher crime rates in western societies than the native population?
Because they are used to that lower toleration, and meet a higher toleration and laxness in our societies.

The same cannot be said of natives, who are used to the higher toleration.

SwordoftheVistula

10-24-2009, 06:25 AM

Because they are used to that lower toleration, and meet a higher toleration and laxness in our societies.

The same cannot be said of natives, who are used to the higher toleration.

Errr...wouldn't the natives then also be 'used to' (consistently been in the past) committing more crimes then? Assuming both groups of people are equal in internal nature, the same set of stimuli (laws) should generate an equal response (crime rates).

Tony

10-24-2009, 08:04 AM

I'm a preservationist , but Im also a racialist and I believe in superiority/inferiority of certain ethnicities/races over others , races aren't a social construct but they have evolved from hundreds of thousands of years throu environmental selection , as we are different regards the phenotypes we're also as regards to the inner cerebral functions.
It could happens that a well mannered and educated black do better than say a white lazy trash but if you take a white guy , educate him , teach him about white history i.e. give him the pride to be better every day so he won't waste his potential well...
there's absolutely ain't no match.
blacks just survive
yellows just copy
only whites invent
to summarize my thought.

Loxias

10-24-2009, 08:15 AM

I am not a racialist. I don't believe whites/europeans are inherently superior. There are some non-white cultures that I hold in very high regard, I believe they couldn't have come from inferior people, only very different outlooks on life and things.
However I wish for Europe to represent the seat of its own cultures and people, respected by others, and respecting others, to continue its own history, borrowing sometimes from other cultures, but not on equal (or lower) grounds with them on its own territory.

Hussar

10-24-2009, 09:53 AM

I am not a racialist. I don't believe whites/europeans are inherently superior. There are some non-white cultures that I hold in very high regard, I believe they couldn't have come from inferior people, only very different outlooks on life and things.

I guess you mean far eastern Asian civilizations (Chinese, Japanese etc) right ?

I have to agree. It's difficult to believe to racialist reasonments if you look at the historical development of many Asian nations up to these days.

Apart that...........i'm happy of the existence of this thread. It clarifies to everyone the real soul of this board, without equivokations. It's NOT white nationalist trash (even in its softer version caled"racialism"), but on the other hand it isn't an "interracial" board.

I voted the first optin anyway. To believe in some sort of superiority....damages the preservationist efforts much more than non-europeans.
Many peoples don't understand this fact.

Loxias

10-24-2009, 10:00 AM

I guess you mean far eastern Asian civilizations (Chinese, Japanese etc) right ?

I have to agree. It's difficult to believe to racialist reasonments if you look at the historical development of many Asian nations up to these days.

Indeed.
How can one say "Yellows only copy"?
They came up with a completely original and efficient writing system (while we got all ours from the Semites).
They made incredible achievments in the fields of architecture, arts, and fighting that are not derived from anywhere else.

Yes, East Asia has adapted heaps of western inventions and innovations during the XXth century, but they also adapted it in ways no one out of Asia would have come up with, and have used it to come up with original new creations.

Lutiferre

10-24-2009, 12:56 PM

Errr...wouldn't the natives then also be 'used to' (consistently been in the past) committing more crimes then? Assuming both groups of people are equal in internal nature, the same set of stimuli (laws) should generate an equal response (crime rates).
No. The natives would exactly be used to a higher toleration, which was the constant condition of crime, and which is bad enough for someone who does not know anything else.

But someone who comes from the outside would be used to another condition of crime and bad behaviour, and when he then meets a laxer condition, the conditions of crime become more attractive than they were before. Not so for the native.

In other words, it is relative to the person or communitys constant experience of the society and the condition of crime. When you do not know anything more strict, you don't notice laxness, nor do you take advantage of it to commit more crimes, because there is no difference in the condition from what is normal, and therefore no point of reference to notice laxness exists. That is not the case for immigrants.

Liffrea

10-24-2009, 03:51 PM

Originally Posted by Hussar
Many peoples don't understand this fact.

I would argue it’s rather irrelevant to the point.

To hold a belief in “superiority” is a value judgement rather than objective fact anyway dependent on the criteria of the person making it.

However it is not harmful to preservation unless one makes the mistake of believing they are one and the same thing.

Tony

10-24-2009, 04:01 PM

Indeed.
How can one say "Yellows only copy"?
They came up with a completely original and efficient writing system (while we got all ours from the Semites).

Are you serious?
efficient?the writing system of the Chinese is efficient?:wink
one of the main reason Chinese civilization hasn't developed massively like our Western one is properly because of their "secret" and complicated system of transmitting the information , it's comprised of tens of thousands symbols difficult to memorize and whose complete intelligibilty is (was)available only to mandarins.
Memorize 10.000 ideograms instead of just 26 phonemes is not what I (and the dictionary too) call efficient lol.

They made incredible achievments in the fields of architecture, arts, and fighting that are not derived from anywhere else.

Incredible of low quality if compared to western counterparts and also by taking in account the demographic factor who would have had to favour them.
If you look at a chinese painting of 1700s and compare it to one painted 1000 years earlier there's almost no difference or improvement , European art is really another world , a superior one, and that goes not only for the arts but also for Laws , military and science , in the end for everything.

Loxias

10-24-2009, 04:27 PM

East-Asia has high litteracy rates, so it's an efficient system.
It was the same in Europe for a long time, people couldn't read except for a few.

As of art, East Asian art focused more on capturing and reproducing the essence of things through the use of the less strokes possible, rather than representing them purely. The attention to textures, vitality and resonances ; the subtle interplay between the void and the full. Those are all things that were unique to this art. And of high value to anyone who can recognise them.
Let's take a work from around 1800 in Japan, notice the level of energy and expressivity that you couldn't find anywhere else.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Carp_leaping_up_a_cascade.jpg

Now, from the 1000s in China. Uncomparable, but again, the mastery at capturing the essence of a place, the gravity...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/Chinesischer_Maler_des_11._Jahrhunderts_(I)_001.jp g

If you can't see any progression in style, I can come up with plenty other exemples if you want.

As of architecture I can only invite you to go and see it by yourself. Be it the Imperial City, the numerous shrines of Japan, mountain monasteries. Their architecture is based on different principles, it usually seeks the sublime through the harmony of shadows and the interplay of void and full in an abstraction of nature. While western architecture gets its genius from its design around the human form and as a projection of the human mind onto the world. Very different approaches, both with amazing results.

As of fighting, East Asian martial arts are a great exemple of a different yet very efficient approach to fighting.

I don't know much about military history, so I won't go into that.

Tony

10-24-2009, 04:51 PM

Loxias I'm not saying East Asian are primitives or idiots , I'm claiming that their accomplishments are overall if compared to ours of a lower quality , inferior.
Not to mention the "achievments" of Africans.
About the writing system , the Chinese one is nowadays pretty simplified , they no longer require pupils to memorize all symbols , only the most used ones , the Korean use a syllabic phonetic systems (hence not a "Chinese" ideographic one) and the Japanise a half ideographic half phonetic system.
For years the Chinese academics have been trying to give up their old system (right because it's unefficient) with a modern phonetic one (called pidgin) but they have chosen in the end not to adopt because it would have teared the Chinese several regions down since the Chinese spoken in the North is pretty different from that of the South or the West.

Loxias

10-24-2009, 04:55 PM

The chinese phonetic system is pinyin. :P
And that's the thing, I don't believe they are inferior. I am very often amazed and impressed by stuff they did. Some of their art or litterature just captures me very strongly, just like some European classics do. And that requires big talent. :)

Psychonaut

10-24-2009, 05:27 PM

...one of the main reason Chinese civilization hasn't developed massively like our Western one...

The Chinese civilization has risen and fallen several times already. Much like the Indians, the state they are currently in is not indicative of their peak, by any means.

About the writing system , the Chinese one is nowadays pretty simplified , they no longer require pupils to memorize all symbols , only the most used ones

That's not really what Simplified Chinese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplified_chinese) means. The same number of characters is needed for comprehension as were 100 years ago. The only difference is that the internal stroke count and composition is now "simplified."

For years the Chinese academics have been trying to give up their old system (right because it's unefficient)

Learn Chinese and speak with some Chinese professors before saying this. ;)

Not one of my Chinese (yes, all of them were either born and educated in China or Taiwan) teachers ever expressed a desire to rid their language of characters. I hate the character system with a passion. It is difficult for Westerners to master. However, after leaning Chinese, I can't imagine the language existing without them. With Chinese, there are such a limited number of syllabic options, that many of their words sound the same. For example, the shi phoneme has over 50 meanings attached to it. Vocal inflections make deciphering the language much easier, but reading Pinyin is fucking tough, even for a trained linguist. Too much meaning is lost for Pinyin to ever be an effective tool for communicating anything other than a character's pronunciation.

Hussar

10-24-2009, 05:41 PM

Indeed.
How can one say "Yellows only copy"?
They came up with a completely original and efficient writing system (while we got all ours from the Semites).
They made incredible achievments in the fields of architecture, arts, and fighting that are not derived from anywhere else.
Yes, East Asia has adapted heaps of western inventions and innovations during the XXth century, but they also adapted it in ways no one out of Asia would have come up with, and have used it to come up with original new creations.

Considering specifically east asian civilizations we can point out the succesfull development of three ethnicities : Japanese, Chinese and Koreans.

Each of them (but primarly CHINA and JAPAN) has created a unique and distinguishable, flourishing and dynamic culture. In the Chinese case....a national unity dating back to centuries B.C.

Japan is the first of course : from a state of complete isolation in the middle of 19th century.....to the level of a medium European power in 40 yrs. ; ready to be an international colonial power in 50 yrs. ; and powerfull enough to create an Empire and to engage a total war against U.S.A. after 90 yrs.

Chinese development in the last decades is eloquent enough.

and as you've pointed out.......the ADAPTED the western technology to their intimate soul. Not the opposite.

Groenewolf

10-26-2009, 08:12 AM

It could happens that a well mannered and educated black do better than say a white lazy trash but if you take a white guy , educate him , teach him about white history i.e. give him the pride to be better every day so he won't waste his potential well...

Could be done, or maybe not. It is also possible that your white lazy trash example is in such a situation because his natural mental capacity is not of the necessary quality to become well educated.

Tabiti

10-26-2009, 09:29 AM

I'm both, however I don't think all other races/nations are inferior. With some we just don't have a base of comparison. Can't call primitive races and societies inferior, because everyone has different meaning of what civilization is. I can call inferior races only the parasite living ethnic minorities (gypsies for example), who used to live centuries among others and still have their malicious nature.

Comte Arnau

10-26-2009, 03:43 PM

I favour 'preservation' (I'd rather call it continuation) of ethnic groups in their traditional homelands. I don't know if that makes me an ethnicist, if such a word exists, or if it's just that I support the preservation of human cultural diversity.

I don't care that much about racial preservation. Advances in genetic manipulation will make this whole thing kind of senseless in a not so distant future.

I don't consider any racial or ethnic group to be superior/inferior to any other. Obviously I have my own cultural preferences.

Tony

10-26-2009, 05:29 PM

It is difficult for Westerners to master.
I think it's much easier for a chinese kid to learn our alphabet than for a western kid theirs.
It's not only me who claim ideographic writing systems being exoteric to an extent , if compared to our phonetic systems...
moreover even the Tibetans who's been living next to the Chinese or the Mongols didn't adopt their system but an alphabetic one , that rises questions :coffee:

http://faculty.ed.umuc.edu/~jmatthew/articles/opaqueread.html

Phonological reading has other advantages and some disadvantages as the basis for literacy. These effect its use by various cultures. Its main disadvantages is that it ties the capacity to read a text to the capacity to understand the spoken form of its words. For some societies, for instance China, with many mutually unintelligible dialects and languages (Jensen, 1970:179; Sampson, 1985:170) this would bar readers in one region reading something written by writers in another. Chinese of different dialects may mutually not be able to understand each other's speech but may read, because it is lexical, each other's writing. A further problem is that phonological reading is only effective with language not dominated by homophones (words sounding alike such as burry and berry). Sixty-nine Chinese words are pronounced /i/, the average word shares the same pronunciation (including tone) with ten others (Diringer, 1968:64). This is one reason for the retention of non- phonological writing in both China and Japan (Diringer, 1968:64; Sampson, 1985: 178-9). The advantages of phonological reading relate to learning it. First, as noted, it involves a minimal investment to gain the ability to read a wide vocabulary of written words. For instance, both Japanese and Chinese children learn phonological (hiragana and katakana) and logographic scripts (kanji). Reading the phonological one occurs within or before the first year of school (Sakamoto & Makita, 1973: 446- 448). That of the logographic one takes many years to acquire - indeed many of its rarer logographs might not be fully learnt (Unger, 1987:92-93). Second, once phonological reading is learnt nearly every word in a text becomes readable - the exceptions are words absent from the reader's spoken vocabulary - for instance the names in foreign novels. Even a rare word seldom pronounced can be read. The size of the "mental dictionary" used to recognise words is their spoken one.

Chinese system is textbook opaque :fponder:

Transparent and opaque literacy

Several factors can make a text opaque. (a) Visual opacity - certain styles of cursive writing require extensive experience reading them to recognise the words they contain. An example of this is the Japanese grass-style of handwriting (Sampson, 1985:192-193). (b) Lexical opacity - the words in a text though familiar when spoken may not be readily connected by the reader with their written form (several examples are given below). Opaque texts affect not just word recognition but text comprehension. Not being able to read words in a text makes it hard to comprehend or even unreadable. In spite of containing understandable ideas and arguments an opaque text makes them inaccessible for an otherwise competent reader. In contrast, transparent text enables a reader to understand a text's contents as easily as if they were spoken.
...
Another source of text opaqueness is writing itself. The nature of logographic writing biases it strongly towards creating opaque texts. This is because a logograph has to be already familiar to a reader to be identified. If this is not the case readers might find themselves trying to read a text whose words they know in their spoken form but not in their written one. The situation does not exist for phonological transparent writing. Phonological recognition, for these texts, enables a reader to identify its words provided they are in the readers spoken vocabulary. The contrasting effects of these two forms of writing can be seen in Japanese where both kinds of scripts coexist. (a) Before postwar Kanji reforms (which reduced their number from roughly 7-8000 to 1,850 Sampson, 1985:190) Japanese newspapers and magazines contained many rare - and so difficult to recognise logographs. If there was no alternative way of recognising them they would cause problems. But prewar Japanese readers were able to read them because along side them the Japanese print their pronunciation in their phonetic script (Unger 1987: 34). A similar practice for semi-literates using pinyin occurs for slogans on posters, and place-names on road signs in China (Sampson, 1985: 159). (b) Though it is possible, Japanese is not normally written in its phonetic script. However, it is in one circumstance - for Braille. This has lead to a paradoxical situation "The blind man can be better educated than his more fortunate brethren who are endowed with good sight; for the former, by acquiring the forty-seven letters of the I-ro-ha syllabary, through the Braille system, can read history, geography ...; whereas he who has eyesight cannot read the daily papers unless he has mastered at least 2000 characters (Nitobe, quoted by Sampson, 1985: 103-4).
...
The delegation of power to literates.

that is the inferiority of them imho , and not only imho as I provided you this fundamental website explaining the issue much better than me due to my insufficient English.

Psychonaut

10-26-2009, 11:46 PM

I think it's much easier for a chinese kid to learn our alphabet than for a western kid theirs.
It's not only me who claim ideographic writing systems being exoteric to an extent , if compared to our phonetic systems...

The problem that I see as a professional Chinese linguist with Romanization attempts is that while they're wholly able to express Chinese phonology with great ease, they lend themselves far too easily to confusion due to the extremely limited number of Chinese phonemes. Trust me, I hate studying characters, Traditional and Simplified, but with Pinyin, there's no way to convey the same amount of meaning in a sentence as there is with characters.

Here's a great example: the phoneme tā can mean either he, she or it. In spoken Chinese, there is no way to differentiate which is meant except by context. In written Chinese they are all expressed as different characters with equivalent pronunciations. Romanization would destroy this and add another level of imprecision to what is already a very imprecise language. It is the phonemic limitations inherent in Chinese that have led them to keep the character system while Korean and Japanese are in the process of abandoning it.

Östsvensk

10-27-2009, 12:23 AM

I voted preservationist. However, I do emanate from the thought that the Nordish race is better than others. But Nordicism to me is more of a religion and a matter of personal taste. I don't emanate from seeing all Asians as smart or all Negroes as dumb.

I choose to believe in Nordicism because I am Nordish myself. I think that all races should think something equal to Nordicism ideology, but from their kinds perspective.

Lysander

10-27-2009, 12:31 AM

Östsvensk

10-27-2009, 12:36 AM

I'm a preservationist, but Im also a racialist and I believe in superiority/inferiority of certain ethnicities/races over others.

Negroes are physically superior, East Asians are intellectually superior, Caucasians are in-between mixing good physique and a relatively high intellect and thus constitute the overall best mix.

Now, the second might be true, but when you claimed the first, you probably spoke of Negroes in North America. These are generally physically superior because they have been conceived through certain breeding programs.

Lysander

10-27-2009, 12:45 AM

Now, the second might be true, but when you claimed the first, you probably spoke of Negroes in North America. These are generally physically superior because they have been conceived through certain breeding programs.

No I did not. I spoke of Negroids in general, especially the Bantu (West African) Negroes, the "clean" Negroes. Not the Somali-Ethiopian Semitic mix.

Negroids clearly have superior physique when compared to whites and Asians, Negroids also have much higher levels of testosterone (which grows muscles) and increases lust for sex (thus leading to their over representation in rapes?).

Brännvin

10-27-2009, 07:45 AM

Negroids clearly have superior physique when compared to whites and Asians, Negroids also have much higher levels of testosterone (which grows muscles).. .

Do you have a source of a study linking it to currently?

Lysander

10-27-2009, 12:58 PM

Do you have a source of a study linking it to currently?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2084746

Brännvin

10-27-2009, 01:10 PM

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2084746

That study is from 1990 (1990 Dec;67(3 Pt 2):1203-6.), old one, but I'll to try find it better, but for what I know this is questionable.

Lysander

10-27-2009, 01:21 PM

That study is from 1990 (1990 Dec;67(3 Pt 2):1203-6.), old one, but I'll to try find it better, but for what I know this is questionable.

The Pythagorean theorem is ancient but none the less true for it.
The problem with these kind of studies is that they are politically incorrect thus largely unexplored.

Tony

10-27-2009, 01:40 PM

The problem that I see as a professional Chinese linguist with Romanization attempts is that while they're wholly able to express Chinese phonology with great ease, they lend themselves far too easily to confusion due to the extremely limited number of Chinese phonemes. Trust me, I hate studying characters, Traditional and Simplified, but with Pinyin, there's no way to convey the same amount of meaning in a sentence as there is with characters.

Here's a great example: the phoneme tā can mean either he, she or it. In spoken Chinese, there is no way to differentiate which is meant except by context. In written Chinese they are all expressed as different characters with equivalent pronunciations. Romanization would destroy this and add another level of imprecision to what is already a very imprecise language. It is the phonemic limitations inherent in Chinese that have led them to keep the character system while Korean and Japanese are in the process of abandoning it.
I agree with you on this , rigth for that reason people in the past adopted the writing system that fit at best their spoken language and not viceversa , for example the Greeks when lent the alphabet from the Phoenicians , after a hunderd years of "training", chosen (apart from changing the direction) to add the vowels because the Greek language , being an Indoeuropean one , need vowels to get the meaning od a speech , differently from the semitic languages such as Hebrew or Arab.
However my point was that of efficiency per sè , not the efficiency in order to get what a Chinese speaker means.
To me , and to a scholar like John Skoyles as well , phonological systems are more efficient and advanced than the logographic ones.
From a certain point of view IndoEuropeans were lucky to speak a language that needed to be written a phonetic system and not an ideographic one.

Brännvin

10-27-2009, 01:55 PM

The Pythagorean theorem is ancient but none the less true for it.

What relationship exists for it? Are not two different sciences?

The problem with these kind of studies is that they are politically incorrect thus largely unexplored.

But does not change the fact as it is questionable politically incorrect or not.

Lysander

10-27-2009, 05:42 PM

What relationship exists for it? Are not two different sciences?
Point being that genetics don't change in two decades...

But does not change the fact as it is questionable politically incorrect or not.
The superior Negroid physique is proof enough.

Tomlinson

10-27-2009, 10:15 PM

Re: preservation, when did nordish.net stop hosting a pro Israel news blog? Is Apricity a continuation and pro Israel also with Israel as European?

Psychonaut

10-27-2009, 10:17 PM

Re: preservation, when did nordish.net stop hosting a pro Israel news blog? Is Apricity a continuation and pro Israel also with Israel as European?

I think I can honestly say that I've never read a more confusing post...:confused:

The Lawspeaker

10-27-2009, 10:17 PM

Re: preservation, when did nordish.net stop hosting a pro Israel news blog? Is Apricity a continuation and pro Israel also with Israel as European?
Err no. What nordish.net does is their problem. And we are not pro-Israel but pro-Europe.

Brännvin

10-27-2009, 10:43 PM

Point being that genetics don't change in two decades...

Genetic studies, and research methodology in two decades has changed a lot :coffee:

The superior Negroid physique is proof enough.

Prove me with examples?

Matritensis

10-27-2009, 10:50 PM

^^^^^^

http://www.uco.es/organiza/departamentos/prod-animal/economia/dehesa/images/morcilla.gif

I know I'll be sorry for this,but I couldn't resist the temptation:p

Monolith

10-27-2009, 11:02 PM

Negroes are physically superior, East Asians are intellectually superior, Caucasians are in-between mixing good physique and a relatively high intellect and thus constitute the overall best mix.
I tend to think this is an oversimplification, since none of the above mentioned groups is even remotely as monolithic as you claim.

Barreldriver

10-28-2009, 03:14 AM

The more I think about this issue the more difficult I find it to classify my standpoint.

I find it best to just list some concepts that I follow then let others judge where it falls.

1. I care about my folk above all else, I could really give a rats ass about an outsider.

2. I use racial slurs, first off because I find it funny to watch people get so defensive, second because they are natural slang that I've been around all my life, they're part of my vocabulary, third these slurs I only use to describe the lowest of the low, for instance I reserve the term nigger for a black person that bums, cheats, steals, lies, etc.... while a self respecting and contributing black person I just tolerate, and to the smart asses out there, yes I have seen a contributing black man or two rare as they may be.

3. I do not comprehend the desire to want to bring physical harm to someone or their family just because of their race, there are people I would not breed with nor identify with in conflict or an ethnic sense but that does not give me the right nor obligation to terrorize.

Loki

10-28-2009, 04:03 AM

Re: preservation, when did nordish.net stop hosting a pro Israel news blog? Is Apricity a continuation and pro Israel also with Israel as European?

nordish.net (when I owned the site) hosted a blog which supported the publication of Mohammed cartoons. That was some years ago. I can't see anything wrong with that, but it has no connection with Apricity forum.

By the way, what kind of troll are you?

Loxias

10-28-2009, 11:19 AM

The superior Negroid physique is proof enough.

Is there anywhere a proof of this inverse relationship between physical and mental capacity? It's pretty obvious that it's not true on the individual level. However I don't know about the population level.

Geopagan

10-28-2009, 02:15 PM

East-Asia has high litteracy rates, so it's an efficient system.
It was the same in Europe for a long time, people couldn't read except for a few.

I love East Asia and lived there for a while, and you'll find no truer appreciator of the culture there than I. But I have to disagree with the comment that they have a more efficient language system.

The European language is reduced into phonemes while the Asian countries you mentioned use syllabic building blocks. With a system based on phonemes you actually maximize the use out of the sounds. English (and European countries in general) have much smaller alphabets than Asian countries and yet are still able to produce extensive and expansive vocabularies and word banks from them.

You can really notice the effects of this after having lived in East Asia. The people say predictable things in the same situations. After 5 months I could predict what a person would've said in a given situation because they overused words (To what extent this is due to ethnic character vs. the limitations of their language system I do not know) and had fewer to draw from than Europeans.

Tony

10-28-2009, 04:34 PM

You can really notice the effects of this after having lived in East Asia. The people say predictable things in the same situations. After 5 months I could predict what a person would've said in a given situation because they overused words (To what extent this is due to ethnic character vs. the limitations of their language system I do not know) and had fewer to draw from than Europeans.
I'm attracted to this stuff , is it like they're robots speaking say "hi I am awake , I am eating , I am drinking , it is late , bye I am going to sleep , goodnight" period or sort of?::D
really , I'd appreciate if you define more in depht this thing , and also would like to hear about it the opinion of Pshychonaut.

Loxias

10-28-2009, 04:42 PM

That's the impression I've had of the Chinese language too. In comparision, Japanese is more similar to European languages (declension of words, multisyllabic words...) and has a more complex vocabulary (most words having several forms, either borrowed from Chinese languages or from native Japanese origin).

Geopagan

10-28-2009, 04:49 PM

I'm attracted to this stuff , is it like they're robots speaking say "hi I am awake , I am eating , I am drinking , it is late , bye I am going to sleep , goodnight" period or sort of?::D
really , I'd appreciate if you define more in depht this thing , and also would like to hear about it the opinion of Pshychonaut.

For instance, when you present a Japanese person with a question or a problem that is puzzling to them, they will say "muzukashii" which means "difficult". And they will say this EXACT same word on pretty much all occasions (I don't like to say 100.0% because there are always exceptions, but this is as close as you will get to 100%).

How many expressions in English represent the same thing? Many!!! For instance we can say: "This is difficult"; "This is hard"; "I can't wrap my head around this..."; "This is troublesome and tedious"; etc. This is but one small example.

I think that overusing words has the effect of making people too communal and perhaps this has repricussions in their overall creative thinking?

As well, some of them have the same symbols for two or more different meanings. I think that if you have three native scripts, you should be able to avoid repeating things.

While having to remember so many scripts can strengthen mnemonic and cognitive skills (and is therefore a credit); I believe that it can be unnecessarily overtaxing and monopolizing and can compromise other intellectual facilities.

Tony

10-28-2009, 05:04 PM

Intersting Geopagan yet East Asians overall score better than Caucasians , from the examples you've posted it seems they "work" more efficiently than us but lack the "genious".

Psychonaut

10-28-2009, 05:11 PM

The European language is reduced into phonemes while the Asian countries you mentioned use syllabic building blocks. With a system based on phonemes you actually maximize the use out of the sounds. English (and European countries in general) have much smaller alphabets than Asian countries and yet are still able to produce extensive and expansive vocabularies and word banks from them.

You're able to produce large word banks, but only at the cost of having at least a dozen homonyms for each phoneme. Here's one of my favorite examples of just how ridiculous the phonemic limitations are. The sentence:

老式老师老是落事了。

Pronounced as:

Lǎoshì lǎoshī lǎoshi làoshìle.

Meaning, "the old fashioned teacher always suffers mishaps." In spoken Chinese, this kind of sentence is unintelligible and is only so when written down due to the phonemic similarity of the words involved.

Geopagan

10-28-2009, 05:22 PM

Thanks Psychonaut. That was a very good example.

As for Tony, what do mean that East Asians score higher than Caucasians? In what academic tests? And do you mean East Asians living in Western countries, or East Asians in their native homes?

Tony

10-28-2009, 05:26 PM

Groenewolf

10-29-2009, 02:29 PM

Forgot to write it , I meant they score better in IQ tests.

Varies with what research you take as proof. But concusses seems to be that they are better in the non-verbal aspects and Caucasians are better in the verbal aspects of intelligence.

National_Nord

11-19-2009, 07:48 PM

I vote for I'm a preservationist, but Im also a racialist and I believe in superiority/inferiority of certain ethnicities/races over others.

Brynhild

11-19-2009, 08:03 PM

I voted for the first one. As far as I'm concerned, all heritage and culture is important. None of them should be tarnished the way they have been.

francescovalentino

11-20-2009, 07:50 PM

Mmmm...I voted for the first choice. I like to think my views reflect what was the norm throughout most of history - that whilst one can have a mutual respect, even appreciation, for other races (though some more than others), I maintain a healthy belief in the supierority of Western cilivization/culture and my loyalties lay with my own people without question.
I prefer to think of my support of Europeans over other races in much the same way as people support their favourite sports teams; an open, robust and heart-warming pride, rather than any sinister connotations the media attach to any form of 'Euro-pride'.

SwordoftheVistula

11-25-2009, 07:23 AM

rather than any sinister connotations the media attach to any form of 'Euro-pride'.

Pretty sure none of us actually desire any of the 'sinister connotations the media attach'. The question is, how much you let them take hold and scare you off.

Poltergeist

11-25-2009, 08:54 AM

I find this notion of [insert] "pride", quite ridiculous, bordering on grotesque. "Gay pride" is the first thing that comes to my mind as comparison and association. :D

When did such idea of this or that "pride" start, I wonder? Was it first with black pride, then later some "whites" imitating it, or there was something even before that?

safinator

02-17-2012, 09:11 PM

I'm a preservationist, but Im also a racialist and I believe in superiority/inferiority of certain ethnicities/races over others.

Bakura

02-17-2012, 09:24 PM

I voted for second, it's obvious that some races are superior than rest and some lower and inferior.

Flintlocke

02-17-2012, 09:26 PM

The first came from the second.

Chronos

02-17-2012, 09:34 PM

Lol, I find this thread kind of amusing.

None, I say that countries should simply remain homogeneous, e.g. not diverse.

What did the Arabian Empire think of the Europeans at its height? That they were barbarians, savages.

What do we think today of the Arabs? Barbarians, savages.

Altough, Europe has produced 2 civiliztions, which is something that any other region hasn't achieved. That is, the Greek/Roman duality, along with the Central-Western Europe/United States duality, respectively.

Ville

02-18-2012, 03:42 PM

In a larger perspective, the purpose of outgoing civilizations is to become fertilizer for coming civilizations.

I believe that genuine ‘preservationists’ do pursue a noble cause. At the same time, on this forum and elsewhere, I have seen too many instances of fossilization of minds that naturally resulted in display of rather gutter racism.

Perhaps sailing in the continuous storm of Time should make ‘preservation’ a more delicate pursuit. If not careful, the ‘preservers’ may maneuver themselves into a state hostile to any change which will doom them as historical losers.

Let us not forget that Nazis, the builders of the Third Reich, too fancied themselves as some kind of ‘preservers’ of previous great civilizations. Well, we all know their attitude towards racial supremacy.

Joe McCarthy

02-18-2012, 03:50 PM

Let us not forget that Nazis, the builders of the Third Reich, too fancied themselves as some kind of ‘preservers’ of previous great civilizations. Well, we all know their attitude towards racial supremacy.

Another group, the British, also believed in racial supremacy, yet were remarkably successsful for centuries until the 'Thousand Year Reich' that lasted twelve years came along and financially broke the British Empire.

Arsen_

02-18-2012, 04:37 PM

I may believe in superiority/inferiority of certain ethnicities/races over others but I live and act as if I don't believe in superiority/inferiority of certain ethnicities/races over others.

rhiannon

03-31-2012, 01:42 PM

The top option most definitely.

CelticViking

03-31-2012, 04:53 PM

I am no racist in fact I dislike racists, because they give us a bad name.

Well good luck trying not to be racist LOL

San Antonio prep hoops fans accused of racism over 'USA, USA' chant
sports.yahoo.com/.../san-antonio-prep-hoops-fans-accus... - United States
8 Mar 2012 – A high-profile high school in one of the wealthiest districts of the San Antonio region finds itself under fire after its fans chanted "USA, USA,

'Chocolate on your face' girl, 6, branded a racist | Mail Online
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/.../Chocolate-face-girl-6-branded-racist.ht...
The parents of a six-year-old girl are outraged after their daughter was branded a racist and fear it could 'haunt' her throughout her time at school.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1225633/Chocolate-face-girl-6-branded-racist.html

Toddlers who turn their noses up at spicy food from overseas could be branded racists http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2261307/Toddlers-who-dislike-spicy-food-racist-say-report.html

Tintin= Racist
Narnia= Racist
Charlie and the chocolate factory= Racist
Lord of the rings= Racist

Swedish flag= Racist
German flag= Racist
Italy flag= Racist
British flag= Racist
Australian flag= Racist
American flag= Racist
New Zealand flag= Racist

CelticViking

03-31-2012, 05:12 PM

In my country we have had two distinct races living side-by-side for over 300-years. No amount of legislation has helped the Negroes raise to the level of the Whites. I voted for option #2.

The Maori are a young group, only 1000s years old. Mixed between Micronesians, Polynesians, Melanesians and Europeans. They still kill each other, a low population but high crime such as baby killing. We have given them cars, tv, park,zoo,sport and everything.
But what do they find entertaining ?

Nia was subject to extensive physical abuse for weeks, possibly even months, before being admitted to hospital and dying of brain injuries on 3 August 2007. The court concluded she had been kicked, beaten, slapped, jumped on, held over a burning fire, had wrestling moves copied from a computer game practiced on her, spit on, placed into a clothes dryer spinning at top heat for up to 30 minutes,[1] folded into a sofa and sat on, shoved into piles of rubbish, dragged through a sandpit half-naked, flung against a wall, dropped from a height onto the floor, and whirled rapidly on an outdoor rotary clothes line until thrown off.

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

Virtuous

03-31-2012, 05:26 PM

If people aren't racialist I don't know why they're here.

I myself admit that Mediterranean or perhaps Semitic race is inferior to Germanic or any Northern European race. I don't know what DNA I have but yeah if I do have a shitload of Semitic DNA I bow down to other superior races, but I don't know if I do so I'm not in the ladder of races yet.

Most (no not all) Arabs are f***ing apes that's all I know, and if you say they are the same as you...I pity you foo'.

Stefan

03-31-2012, 05:34 PM

I myself admit that Mediterranean or perhaps Semitic race is inferior to Germanic or any Northern European race.

Can you substantiate such a claim with empirical evidence? Furthermore, I'm highly interested in how you define "Semitic" race and "Germanic" race. These terms are generally attributed to ethno-lingual groups, not races. Finally, I want to express a statement based on observations that for the most part, Europe is mono-typic. Variation is based on prevalence of certain types, rather than the presence of clearly separated and pure entities. It might've been the case in the history of Europe, actually it was likely the case, but it certainly isn't true now to infer or declare Europe as a polytipic continent, well at least for now(immigrants will change that as their population sizes become more noticeable.)

Anyway, one mustn't confuse cultural efficiency with racial superiority.

Albion

03-31-2012, 07:36 PM

If I went with number one I'd be lying. The truth of the matter is that Africans, Australian Aborigines and some Middle Easterners cannot in any shape or form compare to the races and civilisations of Europe and East Asia.

Virtuous

03-31-2012, 07:41 PM

Can you substantiate such a claim with empirical evidence? Furthermore, I'm highly interested in how you define "Semitic" race and "Germanic" race. These terms are generally attributed to ethno-lingual groups, not races. Finally, I want to express a statement based on observations that for the most part, Europe is mono-typic. Variation is based on prevalence of certain types, rather than the presence of clearly separated and pure entities. It might've been the case in the history of Europe, actually it was likely the case, but it certainly isn't true now to infer or declare Europe as a polytipic continent, well at least for now(immigrants will change that as their population sizes become more noticeable.)

Anyway, one mustn't confuse cultural efficiency with racial superiority.

Oh please I might not be professional at knowing races and such but you know well what I meant, Arabs are apes..and I'm surprised that you don't agree with that, specially since Yanks are the ones who hate the Middle-East most.

Cultural Efficiency also depends on racial superiority, you don't see much cultural efficiency in Africa don't you?

Stefan

03-31-2012, 08:33 PM

Oh please I might not be professional at knowing races and such but you know well what I meant, Arabs are apes..and I'm surprised that you don't agree with that, specially since Yanks are the ones who hate the Middle-East most.

Cultural Efficiency also depends on racial superiority, you don't see much cultural efficiency in Africa don't you?

This still doesn't specifically explain anything in your post. You make a seemingly baseless claim, and support it with other seemingly baseless claims. I ask you to support the claim with logical reasons, and you sidetrack with a rant about Arabs, a people who do not fall within Southern Europe at any significant proportions to leave a significant genetic impact that would affect the pheontype of populations, rather than individuals.

Let's make something clear. Southern Europeans are not of the same racial type as Arabs, despite what neolithic Middle Eastern influence they might have. This was before many variable population movements, and also before any genetic contributions from factoring sources. This was when Europe was far more diverse racially, and also far more pure among the various types. If a Southern European has significant, recent Near Eastern ancestry, then I hope you agree that it would be inaccurate to call them a Southern European.

As for cultural progression, racial ability is one factor - but certainly not the only one. Furthermore, comparing two predominately Caucasoid groups with the distinction between a Caucasoid and Negroid is deceiving.

Regardless, my problem with these "superiority" theories is that they aren't scientific. They don't perceive actual genetic contributions, nor observe the clade-like structure of the human population. They view all groups as equally distinct based on minor attributes such as hair, skin color, etc. Finally, they attribute all achievements of a culture to a racial status, which is a one-dimensional and objectively incorrect way to perceive any animal population, whether human or not. Having said that, I do believe Caucasoids are more intelligent than Negroids, as a whole. I also believe Negroids have their minor genetic advantages and disadvantages as well(such as physical speed.) Regardless, to say one race is superior to another is purely a context of environment. To say one race created a superior culture to another is also deceptive and generalizing, because races don't have cultures, far more specific ethnicities do.

So the problems with your statement can be summarized in a few points:

- You don't substantiate your argument with empirical, scientific concepts when describing a scientific concept such as "race."

- You don't substantiate your argument with historical evidence.

- You base your argument on assumptions, which are then based on more assumptions.

- You assume that the relationship between race and culture is fully correlative.

- You assume the negative racial characteristics of "arabs" to translate to Southern Europeans, as if all Southern Europeans were mixed with recent contributions and those were the sole traits passed on.

- You assume a purity among Northern Europeans.

- You assume a monotypic Europe.

- You form the conclusion that Southern Europeans and Northern Europeans are vastly different in terms of racial composition, and allude it to the MUCH larger difference between Caucasoids and Negroids, which are actual races.

- You assume intuition and perception is correlative of actual reality.

Those are just a few problems I have with your post, unless you clarify it with substance to contradict such assumptions. Currently, there are too many assumptions, and far too little substantial empirical evidence to verify them.

Edit: Maybe it is a matter of me taking things from your post too concretely though. When I read Mediterranean, I imagined the context of the entire Mediterranean. Which generally I attribute to Southern Europe. Possibly, did you not mean that?

European Loyalist

03-31-2012, 08:38 PM

Albion

03-31-2012, 09:47 PM

What are your thoughts on environmental determinism (eg. guns, germs and steel)?

Jared Diamond basically suggests we got lucky by being in the right place. However that isn't the entire story. Whilst a lot of what we needed for civilisation originally came from the Middle East, most of it had to be adapted for the very different conditions here.

Another point to make is that the spread of civilisation would have changed the very make up of the people.
I read a theory before about "human domestication" which basically explained that the violent, criminal persons in society were largely bred out of major civilisations. They were used in wars and as warriors and many of them died before passing on their genes whilst criminals were often sentenced to death or banished. In this way societies became ever more self-domesticating, with traits suitable for our different civilisations thriving at the expense of those that aren't.

Then you have to think about what else civilisations did. They required people to think a lot more, to carry out very complex tasks far removed from hunter gathering. Some things such as farming would have required a degree of strength. Meanwhile, hunter-gatherers or pastoralists in Africa needed to run on many occasions which may explain why there's a lot of fast runners from there.

Not all of it is due to civilisation though, a lot is due to climate and simply just genetics. Jared Diamond has purposefully made his theory overly simplistic in an attempt to downplay European achievements and try and portray them as some sort of "mistake".
This is racism if there ever was any, nobody would be allowed to get away with publishing a book about Australian Aborigines if it suggested they copied the boomerang and what little culture they have from someone else.

Virtuous

03-31-2012, 09:57 PM

This still doesn't specifically explain anything in your post. You make a seemingly baseless claim, and support it with other seemingly baseless claims. I ask you to support the claim with logical reasons, and you sidetrack with a rant about Arabs, a people who do not fall within Southern Europe at any significant proportions to leave a significant genetic impact that would affect the pheontype of populations, rather than individuals.

Let's make something clear. Southern Europeans are not of the same racial type as Arabs, despite what neolithic Middle Eastern influence they might have. This was before many variable population movements, and also before any genetic contributions from factoring sources. This was when Europe was far more diverse racially, and also far more pure among the various types. If a Southern European has significant, recent Near Eastern ancestry, then I hope you agree that it would be inaccurate to call them a Southern European.

As for cultural progression, racial ability is one factor - but certainly not the only one. Furthermore, comparing two predominately Caucasoid groups with the distinction between a Caucasoid and Negroid is deceiving.

Regardless, my problem with these "superiority" theories is that they aren't scientific. They don't perceive actual genetic contributions, nor observe the clade-like structure of the human population. They view all groups as equally distinct based on minor attributes such as hair, skin color, etc. Finally, they attribute all achievements of a culture to a racial status, which is a one-dimensional and objectively incorrect way to perceive any animal population, whether human or not. Having said that, I do believe Caucasoids are more intelligent than Negroids, as a whole. I also believe Negroids have their minor genetic advantages and disadvantages as well(such as physical speed.) Regardless, to say one race is superior to another is purely a context of environment. To say one race created a superior culture to another is also deceptive and generalizing, because races don't have cultures, far more specific ethnicities do.

So the problems with your statement can be summarized in a few points:

- You don't substantiate your argument with empirical, scientific concepts when describing a scientific concept such as "race."

- You don't substantiate your argument with historical evidence.

- You base your argument on assumptions, which are then based on more assumptions.

- You assume that the relationship between race and culture is fully correlative.

- You assume the negative racial characteristics of "arabs" to translate to Southern Europeans, as if all Southern Europeans were mixed with recent contributions and those were the sole traits passed on.

- You assume a purity among Northern Europeans.

- You assume a monotypic Europe.

- You form the conclusion that Southern Europeans and Northern Europeans are vastly different in terms of racial composition, and allude it to the MUCH larger difference between Caucasoids and Negroids, which are actual races.

- You assume intuition and perception is correlative of actual reality.

Those are just a few problems I have with your post, unless you clarify it with substance to contradict such assumptions. Currently, there are too many assumptions, and far too little substantial empirical evidence to verify them.

Edit: Maybe it is a matter of me taking things from your post too concretely though. When I read Mediterranean, I imagined the context of the entire Mediterranean. Which generally I attribute to Southern Europe. Possibly, did you not mean that?

All these fancy words...you should keep them for university.What's your point, races are all equal? I'm not making assumptions but that is what I believe and it is my opinion, races are not equal...yes they have their advantages and disadvantages and yeah when I said Mediterraneans I was referring to Southern Europeans.

brunette

03-31-2012, 10:00 PM

This still doesn't specifically explain anything in your post. You make a seemingly baseless claim, and support it with other seemingly baseless claims. I ask you to support the claim with logical reasons, and you sidetrack with a rant about Arabs, a people who do not fall within Southern Europe at any significant proportions to leave a significant genetic impact that would affect the pheontype of populations, rather than individuals.

Let's make something clear. Southern Europeans are not of the same racial type as Arabs, despite what neolithic Middle Eastern influence they might have. This was before many variable population movements, and also before any genetic contributions from factoring sources. This was when Europe was far more diverse racially, and also far more pure among the various types. If a Southern European has significant, recent Near Eastern ancestry, then I hope you agree that it would be inaccurate to call them a Southern European.

As for cultural progression, racial ability is one factor - but certainly not the only one. Furthermore, comparing two predominately Caucasoid groups with the distinction between a Caucasoid and Negroid is deceiving.

Regardless, my problem with these "superiority" theories is that they aren't scientific. They don't perceive actual genetic contributions, nor observe the clade-like structure of the human population. They view all groups as equally distinct based on minor attributes such as hair, skin color, etc. Finally, they attribute all achievements of a culture to a racial status, which is a one-dimensional and objectively incorrect way to perceive any animal population, whether human or not. Having said that, I do believe Caucasoids are more intelligent than Negroids, as a whole. I also believe Negroids have their minor genetic advantages and disadvantages as well(such as physical speed.) Regardless, to say one race is superior to another is purely a context of environment. To say one race created a superior culture to another is also deceptive and generalizing, because races don't have cultures, far more specific ethnicities do.

So the problems with your statement can be summarized in a few points:

- You don't substantiate your argument with empirical, scientific concepts when describing a scientific concept such as "race."

- You don't substantiate your argument with historical evidence.

- You base your argument on assumptions, which are then based on more assumptions.

- You assume that the relationship between race and culture is fully correlative.

- You assume the negative racial characteristics of "arabs" to translate to Southern Europeans, as if all Southern Europeans were mixed with recent contributions and those were the sole traits passed on.

- You assume a purity among Northern Europeans.

- You assume a monotypic Europe.

- You form the conclusion that Southern Europeans and Northern Europeans are vastly different in terms of racial composition, and allude it to the MUCH larger difference between Caucasoids and Negroids, which are actual races.

- You assume intuition and perception is correlative of actual reality.

Those are just a few problems I have with your post, unless you clarify it with substance to contradict such assumptions. Currently, there are too many assumptions, and far too little substantial empirical evidence to verify them.

Edit: Maybe it is a matter of me taking things from your post too concretely though. When I read Mediterranean, I imagined the context of the entire Mediterranean. Which generally I attribute to Southern Europe. Possibly, did you not mean that?

Neolithic isn't competely Middle Eastern that started from West Asia and landed in the Eastern Mediterranean.

European Loyalist

03-31-2012, 10:12 PM

Jared Diamond basically suggests we got lucky by being in the right place. However that isn't the entire story. Whilst a lot of what we needed for civilisation originally came from the Middle East, most of it had to be adapted for the very different conditions here.

Another point to make is that the spread of civilisation would have changed the very make up of the people.
I read a theory before about "human domestication" which basically explained that the violent, criminal persons in society were largely bred out of major civilisations. They were used in wars and as warriors and many of them died before passing on their genes whilst criminals were often sentenced to death or banished. In this way societies became ever more self-domesticating, with traits suitable for our different civilisations thriving at the expense of those that aren't.

Then you have to think about what else civilisations did. They required people to think a lot more, to carry out very complex tasks far removed from hunter gathering. Some things such as farming would have required a degree of strength. Meanwhile, hunter-gatherers or pastoralists in Africa needed to run on many occasions which may explain why there's a lot of fast runners from there.

Not all of it is due to civilisation though, a lot is due to climate and simply just genetics. Jared Diamond has purposefully made his theory overly simplistic in an attempt to downplay European achievements and try and portray them as some sort of "mistake".
This is racism if there ever was any, nobody would be allowed to get away with publishing a book about Australian Aborigines if it suggested they copied the boomerang and what little culture they have from someone else.

I think it's clear that Europeans had environmental and geographic advantages. The adaptation process was not overly difficult, we are talking about very simply techniques and processes relating to agriculture and animal domestication. GGS does go too far with its determinism, but there are important core arguments there.

I agree that we have to look at the feedback effect that civilization had on Europeans. Has this had a positive effect on our intelligence? One could surmise not by the fact that East Asians lived in uncivilized conditions for millenia and in an extremely short period of exposure to knowledge and education were able to out-match Europeans. While it could also be argued that it has because of the continued dominance that European peoples have in the field of scientific innovation.

Anyway I try to stay away from making conclusions on this stuff because it is beyond my scientific knowledge. Best to remain as skeptically honest as possible I think.

PetiteParisienne

03-31-2012, 10:15 PM

I chose the second option, though with two caveats:

There are many exceptions and grey areas. I also always treat every person I meet with respect and kindness unless they prove they do not deserve it.

Stefan

03-31-2012, 10:51 PM

All these fancy words...you should keep them for university.What's your point, races are all equal? I'm not making assumptions but that is what I believe and it is my opinion, races are not equal...yes they have their advantages and disadvantages and yeah when I said Mediterraneans I was referring to Southern Europeans.

The terminology isn't fancy for the purpose of being fancy, it is appropriate for this type of discussion. It has a degree of specificity that allows for my ideas to be clear and concise when understood. Words are just approximations of ideas, and I try to use the words that are the most accurate approximations for my ideas. If it is a problem to understand, I'm sure a dictionary can help.

None of my points stated nor implied that I consider races equal. I questioned your assessment of the degree of distinction among Europeans(Northern and Southern), your simplistic equation of Southern European and "arabs" based from assumptions rather than empirical evidence, and the credibility of the information you have provided and upheld to be true. I asked for you to give details from which you formed your opinions, not to declare them again in different words.

I even explicitly stated, Caucasoids have advantages over Negroids, and vice-versa. That is contradictory with an idea in which I am a proponent of racial equality.

I think this is an example of why I dislike racial supremacists. They tend not to know much about race, taxonomy, or evolution in general. They have the right idea that races are not equal, but they form fallacious conclusions from this fact.

Neolithic isn't competely Middle Eastern that started from West Asia and landed in the Eastern Mediterranean.

My point was that the vast majority of the West Asian influence on Europe was from the Neolithic period, a period a long time ago when the racial makeup of different populations was vastly different from what it is today. Anybody who has modern admixture from these regions, is a deviation from the norm, not a representative of a Southern European common.

Albion

03-31-2012, 10:56 PM

I agree that we have to look at the feedback effect that civilization had on Europeans. Has this had a positive effect on our intelligence? One could surmise not by the fact that East Asians lived in uncivilized conditions for millenia and in an extremely short period of exposure to knowledge and education were able to out-match Europeans. While it could also be argued that it has because of the continued dominance that European peoples have in the field of scientific innovation.

Well pre-industrial revolution Europeans and East Asians would have been very alike. Access to science and the arts was for the upper and middle classes.
Europe really only has around 200 years advantage over Asia, but globalisation is closing that gap.

As you've basically summarised, it's a range of factors from genetics and geography to civilisation and the largely unseen affects that has had.

Saruman

03-31-2012, 11:19 PM

Jared Diamond basically suggests we got lucky by being in the right place.

He was right actually without realizing it. All racial types are reflections of various environments to a large extent. Those more advanced are reflection of environments that are more favorable to hominids.
So essentially favorable environment = evolution,
unfavorable environment = stagnation or even devolution.

Let's try to imagine that only unfavorable environments exist on this planet, I have troubles imagining any higher civilization in 2012 or 20012.

Stefan

03-31-2012, 11:19 PM

Let me try this from a metaphorical aspect.

Let's say aliens destroyed earth, but before doing so -- they took Europeans from various areas of Europe. The aliens raised these Europeans as one group, under one culture, but they weren't allowed to mix. After a generation, the aliens placed all of them on a planet, and told them, "the Northern and Southern Europeans must fight each-other, the winners prosper on the planet." Who would win?

See the problems here?

Firstly, how do any of them know from which European country they come from. Can you distinguish, on the individual level where any individual in Europe is from with a level of accuracy? Yes, you can guess. We guess all the time. But, can you tell for sure?

Then, there is the problem of not knowing which group has more advantageous traits, assuming they did find out who is from which country. We can't predict who will win. We don't know the environment, we don't know genetic factors. In fact, would the distinction between Northern and Southern Europeans be that great in which certain environmental factors affect everyone of one group over another? Certainly not.

I think it is clear at this point of the thought experiment that all Europeans are part of the same amalgamation of ancestral contributing populations. They are all within the same race. The distinction isn't great enough to determine a difference at an accurate degree, irrelevant from cultural preparation, of traits within a parametric environment let alone in general. On the other hand, it would be much easier to identify distantly related Near Easterners, even if there is still some error. It would be without any issues at all to identify Negroids.

Insuperable

03-31-2012, 11:29 PM

I think it's clear that Europeans had environmental and geographic advantages. The adaptation process was not overly difficult, we are talking about very simply techniques and processes relating to agriculture and animal domestication. GGS does go too far with its determinism, but there are important core arguments there.

I agree that we have to look at the feedback effect that civilization had on Europeans. Has this had a positive effect on our intelligence? One could surmise not by the fact that East Asians lived in uncivilized conditions for millenia and in an extremely short period of exposure to knowledge and education were able to out-match Europeans. While it could also be argued that it has because of the continued dominance that European peoples have in the field of scientific innovation.

Anyway I try to stay away from making conclusions on this stuff because it is beyond my scientific knowledge. Best to remain as skeptically honest as possible I think.

It is the other way around. How?

You can see that from the Christ era and all the way to the era of Guttenberg Europe was nothing compared to India, the Middle East and China. The reason behind this is because knowledge was not spread.
All knowledge was held by the Church. When Guttenberg made the first printing press in Europe ( other continents already had the technology of printing press ) then immediately after that the scientific revolution began with the Copernicus, Kepler, Newton and others and lasts till this day.

2Cool

03-31-2012, 11:32 PM

Preservation is fine until you start disrespecting other people due to their culture of race or try to compromise their rights as human beings. I believe in racial equality but not cultural equality (cultural relativism). I also believe that if you were to take people from different area in the world and placed them in the same environment (financial, cultural, educational, emotional etc.) that you wouldn't see any correlation between their intelligence or success and their race.

Virtuous

03-31-2012, 11:33 PM

The terminology isn't fancy for the purpose of being fancy, it is appropriate for this type of discussion. It has a degree of specificity that allows for my ideas to be clear and concise when understood. Words are just approximations of ideas, and I try to use the words that are the most accurate approximations for my ideas. If it is a problem to understand, I'm sure a dictionary can help.

None of my points stated nor implied that I consider races equal. I questioned your assessment of the degree of distinction among Europeans(Northern and Southern), your simplistic equation of Southern European and "arabs" based from assumptions rather than empirical evidence, and the credibility of the information you have provided and upheld to be true. I asked for you to give details from which you formed your opinions, not to declare them again in different words.

I even explicitly stated, Caucasoids have advantages over Negroids, and vice-versa. That is contradictory with an idea in which I am a proponent of racial equality.

I think this is an example of why I dislike racial supremacists. They tend not to know much about race, taxonomy, or evolution in general. They have the right idea that races are not equal, but they form fallacious conclusions from this fact.

My point was that the vast majority of the West Asian influence on Europe was from the Neolithic period, a period a long time ago when the racial makeup of different populations was vastly different from what it is today. Anybody who has modern admixture from these regions, is a deviation from the norm, not a representative of a Southern European common.

Albert Einstein – “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.”

If you didn't know I'll enlighten you, what I am talking about is not just Southern Europe but specifically Sicily and Malta, Malta is where I live.

A good amount of Maltese people have Phoenician DNA (it is Semitic), others have less or nothing from Semites and are more mixed with Italians,Normans,Brits,Spaniards or even Germans.

What I have noticed is that people from South of Malta tend to be more aggressive and loud mouthed, and yes they do show more "Semitic-Sicilian" features, while the Northern part of Malta..where noble families from Italy,France,Normandy and people from European countries had settled appear to be more civilized.

That's what I've been trying to explain.

Stygian Cellarius

03-31-2012, 11:36 PM

I'm a preservationist, interested in saving the culutral and genetic heritage of human populations, and I don't believe in racial supremacy.

The word "supremacy" can be confusing, but based on the 2nd poll option I'm going to assume you mean superiority in biological and cultural attributes and not elite dominance.

In order for biological superiority to be false, then biological equality must be true, but that is not how the biological world works. There is no such thing as equality anywhere in the universe. That is a concept that exists only in the minds of men. The only "place" one could find equality are in abstract concepts in the mind, but reality exhibits only variation and diversity.

No two comparable attributes in reality are the same. There will be some difference at some level. If the attributes have a specific function (like in biological systems) then we have a reference for measuring their performance and assigning them a relative, arbitrary value. After that, the attributes can be organized hierarchically. This can be done with all attributes in the universe so long as we can determine their function.

Inequality exists for sure. The only thing debatable is how divergent these inequalities are. Are they great enough to "matter"? I believe they are.

2Cool

03-31-2012, 11:37 PM

Albert Einstein – “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.”

If you didn't know I'll enlighten you, what I am talking about is not just Southern Europe but specifically Sicily and Malta, Malta is where I live.

A good amount of Maltese people have Phoenician DNA (it is Semitic), others have less or nothing from Semites and are more mixed with Italians,Normans,Brits,Spaniards or even Germans.

What I have noticed is that people from South of Malta tend to be more aggressive and loud mouthed, and yes they do show more "Semitic-Sicilian" features, while the Northern part of Malta..where noble families from Italy,France,Normandy and people from European countries had settled appear to be more civilized.

That's what I've been trying to explain.

There's your answer. Noble families are richer, more educated, more financially stable etc. Just go look at the differences between an upscale community vs middle class community vs ghetto.

2Cool

03-31-2012, 11:40 PM

The word "supremacy" can be confusing, but based on the 2nd poll option I'm going to assume you mean superiority in biological and cultural attributes and not elite dominance.

In order for biological superiority to be false, then biological equality must be true, but that is not how the biological world works. There is no such thing as equality anywhere in the universe. That is a concept that exists only in the minds of men. The only "place" one could find equality are in abstract concepts in the mind, but reality exhibits only variation and diversity.

No two comparable attributes in reality are the same. There will be some difference at some level. If the attributes have a specific function (like in biological systems) then we have a reference for measuring their performance and assigning them a relative, arbitrary value. After that, the attributes can be organized hierarchically. This can be done with all attributes in the universe so long as we can determine its function.

Inequality exists for sure. The only thing debatable is how divergent these inequalities are. Are they great enough to "matter"? I believe they are.

What if someone told you that inequality exists between individuals but not races? The DNA diversity between humans race is super small in the grand scheme of things and not big enough to have the impact that you claim.

Virtuous

03-31-2012, 11:41 PM

There's your answer. Noble families are richer, more educated, more financially stable etc. Just go look at the differences between an upscale community vs middle class community vs ghetto.

Nope, I mean people coming from noble families..doesn't mean they're still noble.

Another thing I wish to say which proves my point, no wonder many Maltese people have Semitic DNA, Semites are more aggressive and tend to rape more y'know?

Stefan

03-31-2012, 11:44 PM

Albert Einstein – “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.”

I take that to mean, everything should be made as simple as possible within the appropriate level of depth. I'm sure Albert Einstein would agree that Tensor Calculus and Differential Geometry were important mathematical fields required to describe his theory of General Relativity and gravitation at the level of depth a physicist requires, while it would confuse the layman. One mustn't simplify something beyond recognition so that everyone can understand it. Rather, one should make something as simple as possible while maintaining a semblance of its meaning.

If you didn't know I'll enlighten you, what I am talking about is not just Southern Europe but specifically Sicily and Malta, Malta is where I live.

A good amount of Maltese people have Phoenician DNA (it is Semitic), others have less or nothing from Semites and are more mixed with Italians,Normans,Brits,Spaniards or even Germans.

What I have noticed is that people from South of Malta tend to be more aggressive and loud mouthed, and yes they do show more "Semitic-Sicilian" features, while the Northern part of Malta..where noble families from Italy,France,Normandy and people from European countries had settled appear to be more civilized.

That's what I've been trying to explain.

How do you know that is an expression of their inherent biological traits(in other words - race) opposed to their cultural lineage? Are you telling me that Phoenicians, the ultimate originators of the alphabet you and I are using right now(as well as many others) were not civilized compared to their contemporaries in Europe at the time of their existence? Is civilization solely correlative of biological factors?

Stygian Cellarius

03-31-2012, 11:49 PM

What if someone told you that inequality exists between individuals but not races? The DNA diversity between humans race is super small in the grand scheme of things and not big enough to have the impact that you claim.

Inequalities exist at all levels. ANY line drawn between any arbitrary groups will produce inequalities. The only thing debatable is how great or how small.

2Cool

03-31-2012, 11:52 PM

Nope, I mean people coming from noble families..doesn't mean they're still noble.

Another thing I wish to say which proves my point, no wonder many Maltese people have Semitic DNA, Semites are more aggressive and tend to rape more y'know?

Where do you base these claims? More aggressive how? Have you looked at European history? Sure there's more violence there now but that has more to do with corruption, political issues, and religion than their DNA.

Virtuous

03-31-2012, 11:56 PM

Virtuous

04-01-2012, 12:06 AM

Where do you base these claims? More aggressive how? Have you looked at European history? Sure there's more violence there now but that has more to do with corruption, political issues, and religion than their DNA.

I base these claims on facts bro, most of the rapes committed in Malta are done by illegal immigrants.

2Cool

04-01-2012, 12:06 AM

Inequalities exist at every level. ANY line drawn between any arbitrary groups will produce inequalities. The only thing debatable is how great or how small.

Those groups are pointless though. There are so many factors involved in making such a claim that it would be impossible for you to take European and say Africans and say that one is superior to the other due to their DNA and DNA alone. The only way for us to know for sure would be to perform a scientific experiment on humans where you'd take a bunch of people, and see them grow while they are in the same exact environment. But, even then you wouldn't be able to claim much since unless you make these humans live in a lab their entire life you would skew the values with external factors. But no one would do such a thing since it violates human rights and since such as experiment would skew the values too since it would be an unnatural environment for humans.

Albion

04-01-2012, 12:14 AM

Nope, I mean people coming from noble families..doesn't mean they're still noble.

Another thing I wish to say which proves my point, no wonder many Maltese people have Semitic DNA, Semites are more aggressive and tend to rape more y'know?

Isn't Malta pretty small to be dividing it into North and South racial divisions? If anything I'd expect it to be relatively homogeneous, with any differences being between Malta and Gozo rather than South and North Malta.
Are there any major obstacles between north and south?

Virtuous

04-01-2012, 12:19 AM

Isn't Malta pretty small to be dividing it into North and South racial divisions? If anything I'd expect it to be relatively homogeneous, with any differences being between Malta and Gozo rather than South and North Malta.
Are there any major obstacles between north and south?

Nope, trust me mentality and appearance of people change from North to South also in Malta :) , hell you can even feel the difference in climate and how the air feels..it's hard to explain.

2Cool

04-01-2012, 12:22 AM

I base these claims on facts bro, most of the rapes committed in Malta are done by illegal immigrants.

I'm going go out on an limb here and state that these illegal immigrants are poorer and less educated than the general population of Malta. The correlation has nothing to do with race here but with social class. Crime has always and will always be higher in poor, less educated areas.

Stefan

04-01-2012, 12:25 AM

Cool,Stefan..sure both of you can't know anything about my country since you don't live here.Let me give you another example,look into the middle east..how civilized are people there?

Also why do we all don't want Europe to get flooded by illegal immigrants (mainly from North Africa)?Because they're equal to us?

I'm starting to lose interest, it seems to me you're unable to bridge the connection of inherent biological traits that prove the superiority of Northern Europeans to Southern Europeans, or even Europeans to Near Easterners. Immigrants who travel to another country arrive illegally for a reason. We don't want people flooding into Europe because we're interested in ethnic preservation, but also because the illegal immigrants represent the lowest individuals of their respective populations, and leech off resources of the country they've emigrated to. None of this is reflective of biology, except the significant biological difference that would affect the diversity of the core population.

Being different isn't causation for being inferior or superior in all contexts, only when you consider the context of an environment. If you take a group of Europeans and you take a Sub-Saharan African, place them in Sub-Saharan Africa; the Sub-Saharan Africa will not experience skin cancer at the same incidence and will not die out after a few generations. The same applies if you take Sub-Saharan Africans and put them in Scandinavia. Vitamin deficiencies will eventually dwindle their population. That is what is meant by racial superiority/inferiority. The same thing is reflective of intelligence. Europeans have been selected for more intelligent individuals, and therefore are capable of more advanced cultures than Africans. Are you telling me such noticeable differences are observable within Europeans, enough so that they would be designated as different races? I don't think so.

As for Europeans vs Middle Easterners, that is a different story. Overall, Middle Easterners will survive better in the Middle East and Europeans in Europe. Both seem capable of advanced civilizations; the Middle East was the leading region of Mathematics and Science when Europe was in the Dark Ages. Now the region isn't in such a great position overall, but I doubt that is due to any new biological progressions.

Virtuous

04-01-2012, 12:33 AM

I'm starting to lose interest, it seems to me you're unable to bridge the connection of inherent biological traits that prove the superiority of Northern Europeans to Southern Europeans, or even Europeans to Near Easterners. Immigrants who travel to another country arrive illegally for a reason. We don't want people flooding into Europe because we're interested in ethnic preservation, but also because the illegal immigrants represent the lowest individuals of their respective populations, and leech off resources of the country they've emigrated to. None of this is reflective of biology, except the significant biological difference that would affect the diversity of the core population.

Being different isn't causation for being inferior or superior in all contexts, only when you consider the context of an environment. If you take a group of Europeans and you take a Sub-Saharan African, place them in Sub-Saharan Africa; the Sub-Saharan Africa will not experience skin cancer at the same incidence and will not die out after a few generations. The same applies if you take Sub-Saharan Africans and put them in Scandinavia. Vitamin deficiencies will eventually dwindle their population. That is what is meant by racial superiority/inferiority. The same thing is reflective of intelligence. Europeans have been selected for more intelligent individuals, and therefore are capable of more advanced cultures than Africans. Are you telling me such noticeable differences are observable within Europeans, enough so that they would be designated as different races? I don't think so.

As for Europeans vs Middle Easterners, that is a different story. Overall, Middle Easterners will survive better in the Middle East and Europeans in Europe. Both seem capable of advanced civilizations; the Middle East was the leading region of Mathematics and Science when Europe was in the Dark Ages. Now the region isn't in such a great position overall, but I doubt that is due to any new biological progressions.

Lowest individuals?Are there even "higher individuals" in North Africa except for dictators or what's left of them (which still are animals)...not even now after the Libyan revolution Libyans seem to be happy, they're still going to be like before..like bloodthirsty animals.

Anyway I don't know what's your time but here's late and I'm tired to be reading walls and replying all the time so cya tomorrow.

Stefan

04-01-2012, 12:43 AM

Yes, within a population there are biological differences at the individual level. Mutations occur in individuals, and just because a population is on average significantly more intelligent than another there is no reason to believe everyone in a single population is more intelligent than everyone in another. The same applies for other traits. Race is a biological description of human differences at the level of populations. It makes sense that we speak of it in biological terms. Anyway, I'm done as well. This topic is starting to get boring, and I wasted a lot of time on it. Good night, and I look forward to seeing you in other topics. ;)

Virtuous

04-01-2012, 12:48 AM

Stefan

04-01-2012, 12:52 AM

Oh excuse me for wasting your precious time mate, I'll also be wasting my time on other threads tomorrow ;), good evening to you, sir.

Oh no, I didn't mean you wasted my time. I wasted my own time. I was the one who replied to you, and kept debating really. I get pretty focused when it comes to these types of discussions, and forget about other things. :)

SilverKnight

04-01-2012, 12:56 AM

I believe in preserving culture and humanity's destiny in the universe, not race as I don't believe in such thing. I don't believe in racial supremacy, rather in the individual how they think and act.

European Loyalist

04-01-2012, 02:10 AM

He was right actually without realizing it. All racial types are reflections of various environments to a large extent. Those more advanced are reflection of environments that are more favorable to hominids.
So essentially favorable environment = evolution,
unfavorable environment = stagnation or even devolution.

Let's try to imagine that only unfavorable environments exist on this planet, I have troubles imagining any higher civilization in 2012 or 20012.

The midwest of the United States has a very similar climate to continental Europe and has just as fertile land. Why aren't the natives who live(d) there as advanced as Europids?

You have to take into consideration not just environment but geography, Europe's closeness to the fertile crescent and it's land connection on a similar latitude to the far east are crucial factors in its success.

Kazimiera

04-01-2012, 03:06 AM

Definitely option 1. I believe in preservation of cultures, not just European but all. All are equally important. I do not believe that one race is superior to the others. There are good people across the world and there are bad people across the world.

CelticViking

04-01-2012, 03:44 AM

Actualy they where well adapeted for a stone-age or bronze age civilasation. if we had ignored there living places they would still be able to survive without aid.

They would run out of food, just like the Maori were.

Pallantides

04-01-2012, 03:55 AM

I support ethnic and cultural preservation, but I don't care or feel much connection with some random jokel from a different culture and ethnic group just because he happen to share the same skin colour as me and nothing else. I'm definitely not a "white collectivist" supporter or what it whatever it's called.

Also I prefer to approach people as individuals and don't scorn someone solely based on their skin colour and ethnic heritage.

Joe McCarthy

04-01-2012, 04:22 AM

Also I prefer to approach people as individuals and don't scorn someone solely based on their skin colour and ethnic heritage.

You might find that treating people as individuals would get complicated in the Detroit hood around midnight or so. ;)

CelticViking

04-01-2012, 04:34 AM

[I]
Negroes are physically superior, .

The World's strongest Black man is Mark Henry.

During his time in high school, Henry was a three-time state champion with state records in the squat at 832 lb (377 kg), bench press at 525 lb (238 kg) and deadlift at 815 lb (370 kg).[10] At the Texas high school powerlifting championships in April 1990, Terry Todd, a professor of kinesiology at the University of Texas at Austin and former weightlifter, spotted Henry and persuaded him to go to Austin after he graduated to train in the Olympic style of weightlifting.[10] Henry broke four national junior records in weightlifting after eight months of training in Olympic style weightlifting.[11] In April 1991, he placed fourth at the United States Nationals, and finished sixth at the World Junior Weightlifting Championships in Germany two months later.[11] In Henry's first year of competing, he broke the three junior (20 and under) American records 12 times, and became the United States' top superheavyweight, surpassing Mario Martinez.[12] Henry was billed as the "World's Strongest Man" after he qualified for the weightlifting competition at the 1992 Summer Olympics, where he finished tenth in the super heavyweight class.[7][12] Ten months before the 1992 Olympics, Henry had begun training with Dragomir Cioroslan, a bronze medalist at the 1984 Summer Olympics, who said that he had "never seen anyone with Mark's raw talent".[12] At the 1995 Pan American Games Henry won a gold, silver and bronze medal, and a year later, he became a North America, Central America, Caribbean Islands (NACACI) champion.[7] He also participated in the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta, and was voted team captain, but only finished fourteenth after suffering a back injuryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Henry

He has anger problems and is fat. John Cena(wrestler) picked him up and throw him on the ground. John won the match.

The World's strongest Men are mainly Cromagnid.
Mark Henry isn't even on the list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World's_Strongest_Man

Magnus Samuelsson broke Nathan Jone's arm. (wrestler).

East Asians are intellectually superior, Caucasians are in-between mixing good physique and a relatively high intellect and thus constitute the overall best mix

All the computers, cars, bikes, trains and planes etc were made first by People of European descent . With out these the Chinese and Japanese wouldn't be like they are today.

Asians also have pushy parents and less friends and relationships with other people. Which means they can focus on one thing.

Here are some things my daughters, Sophia and Louisa, were never allowed to do:

• attend a sleepover

• have a playdate

• be in a school play

• complain about not being in a school play

• watch TV or play computer games

• choose their own extracurricular activities

• get any grade less than an A

• not be the No. 1 student in every subject except gym and drama

• play any instrument other than the piano or violin

• not play the piano or violin.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704111504576059713528698754.html?= no

Tiger mothers, made famous by author Amy Chua, may actually have got it all wrong.

Fiercely pushy Chinese mothers, who heap pressure on children to succeed both academically and in their leisure activities, may in fact contribute to low self-esteem and high levels of depression.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2088117/Tiger-Moms-Studies-suggest-highly-pressured-children-prone-depression-anxiety.html#ixzz1jogttAGV

Japanese women are not having children because they are anxious and worried about the future
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=31709

Record numbers of young Japanese do not have boyfriends or girlfriends, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-15915118

People of European descent have more friends, relationships and play sport. We like watching movies and playing games too.

Robertt52

04-01-2012, 04:38 AM

95/100 humans are impulsive with strong symptoms of ADHD. This is the only reason why I like my race, the Europeans, and why I see myself as a racialist. European people, in my experience, on average have higher introspection rates and less impulsive and compulsive behaviors. Of course not all. I'd say with Europeans it goes from the average of 95/100 to something more tolerable like 75/100.

I still can't stand most Europeans obviously considering the above.

Aemma

04-01-2012, 05:57 AM

Those groups are pointless though. There are so many factors involved in making such a claim that it would be impossible for you to take European and say Africans and say that one is superior to the other due to their DNA and DNA alone. The only way for us to know for sure would be to perform a scientific experiment on humans where you'd take a bunch of people, and see them grow while they are in the same exact environment. But, even then you wouldn't be able to claim much since unless you make these humans live in a lab their entire life you would skew the values with external factors. But no one would do such a thing since it violates human rights and since such as experiment would skew the values too since it would be an unnatural environment for humans.

Human beings do not and nor will they ever live in a petri dish. Short of humans being able to do this, I fail to see why some of you choose to discuss DNA as anything of real consequence regarding such a topic. DNA has never written any literature, nor built cathedrals, nor launched Hubble telescopes into space. To suggest that anything at such a microcosmic level has any bearing on this discourse is nonsensical. One may as well talk about atoms and then call it a day since at that level we'd all be hard-pressed to make any cogent arguments stating that there truly exists a difference between a chair and a human being.

Saruman

04-01-2012, 10:14 AM

The midwest of the United States has a very similar climate to continental Europe and has just as fertile land. Why aren't the natives who live(d) there as advanced as Europids?

I'm not speaking about civilizations but rather anthropological traits. What makes you think natives like Sioux who live there aren't anthropologically as advanced as Europids?
These Sioux are surely not below European average of "evolution".

http://home.comcast.net/~zebrec/imgs/chief_sitting_bull3.jpg

http://www.victoriareeceart.com/use_images/paintings/22.jpg

Apples and oranges, but still higher civilization advancement of Europeans was to a significant extent work of certain European types, which are on higher level. Anthropological advancement is a potential for high achievements, but how far have certain groups advanced their cultures depended upon a variety of other factors.

Stygian Cellarius

04-01-2012, 03:08 PM

Human beings do not and nor will they ever live in a petri dish. Short of humans being able to do this, I fail to see why some of you choose to discuss DNA as anything of real consequence regarding such a topic. DNA has never written any literature, nor built cathedrals, nor launched Hubble telescopes into space. To suggest that anything at such a microcosmic level has any bearing on this discourse is nonsensical. One may as well talk about atoms and then call it a day since at that level we'd all be hard-pressed to make any cogent arguments stating that there truly exists a difference between a chair and a human being.

As of now, there is no equality/inequality argument that can use DNA anyway due to the infancy of the discipline (as far as I know of). All arguments must revolve around observable phenomena; manifest behavior, manifest culture, etc. That is what we can measure. That is how our cognitive processes discriminate (in the neutral sense of the word) and make sense of the world we live in.

With that said, I do believe that once we have a complete knowledge of the our genome I think it will be quite telling.

SilverKnight

04-01-2012, 08:37 PM

The advancement of a humanity in the trail of evolution isn't about how many skyscrapers we build, how many cars and trains we put out. It's rather about coexisting with our planet just like the natives did, being in touch with the spiritual realm and being able to feed our population and future generations ahead. Now the opposite is occurring almost if not everywhere.

Evolution and so called "human supremacy" is about survival and letting our nurturer (our planet Earth ) survive as well. Not how "smart" we pretend to be and how much military power we create. I believe our ancestors like the cavemen dwellers in Europe had these abilities thousands of years ago during the Ice Age and afterwards, then we lost it, and now we're in the process of destroying ourselves slowly.

Stygian Cellarius

04-01-2012, 10:21 PM

The advancement of a humanity in the trail of evolution isn't about how many skyscrapers we build, how many cars and trains we put out.

What you describe indicates economic progress, but I think you were referring to technological progress in-itself―a cognitive expression. is that right?

Technological progress is certainly associated with survival, and therefore evolution. In the long run, it may actually be the most important evolutionary asset, but it requires a deep-field time perspective to see it. Habitable-zones in a solar-system are finite in both space and time. Which means that life must relocate in order to survive. That cannot be accomplished with anything other than technology. In fact, all life on a planet are eventually dependent on technology for their long-term existence. Ironic, is it not?

It's rather about coexisting with our planet just like the natives did, being in touch with the spiritual realm and being able to feed our population and future generations ahead. Now the opposite is occurring almost if not everywhere.

All of these are good and necessary things. Although, I am reserved about the "spiritual" part.

Evolution and so called "human supremacy" is about survival and letting our nurturer (our planet Earth ) survive as well. Not how "smart" we pretend to be and how much military power we create.

Pretending to be smart? Those who generate technology and ideas really are smart.

Military power is also very important and one of the most obvious extensions of evolution. Human conflict will never end. It cannot end. Evolution requires two fundamental things to work, the will to exist and diversity (and overlapping ecological niches). Conflict is the natural product of this very basic system. Is it unpleasant? Yes, but there needs to be some level of acceptance because we are dealing with something that cannot be stopped.

I believe our ancestors like the cavemen dwellers in Europe had these abilities thousands of years ago during the Ice Age and afterwards, then we lost it, and now we're in the process of destroying ourselves slowly.

There are no abilities that our ancestors had that we do not also have. We have the same potential, perhaps even more potential. But yeah I agree with you that we are making bad choices.

Supreme American

04-01-2012, 10:29 PM

Option #2

If we really were all equal, then I wouldn't be bothered with all this, and the problems like people speaking different languages and having different religions such as Islam could be solved by integration.

I'm #2 as well and one of the big reasons I am is because the way 3rd worlders follow whites around for a better standard of living. I think if option #1 were true, their countries would be more livable and they wouldn't feel the need to mass-flee their homelands and come to ours, thus integration wouldn't even be an issue.

I don't think it a coincidence that national accomplishment/success and IQ are similarly correlated.

Supreme American

04-01-2012, 10:30 PM

As of now, there is no equality/inequality argument that can use DNA anyway due to the infancy of the discipline (as far as I know of). All arguments must revolve around observable phenomena; manifest behavior, manifest culture, etc. That is what we can measure. That is how our cognitive processes discriminate (in the neutral sense of the word) and make sense of the world we live in.

With that said, I do believe that once we have a complete knowledge of the our genome I think it will be quite telling.

I tend to disagree on the heritability of IQ as shown through twin studies. I also think there is no reason to think that humans all evolved equally with the same intelligence and the same temperament. Animals certainly haven't and you see it especially in different breeds of dogs. I think the idea that we all evolved at the same rate to the same level is a matter of religious-type faith.

Stefan

04-01-2012, 10:31 PM

Evolution and so called "human supremacy" is about survival and letting our nurturer (our planet Earth ) survive as well. Not how "smart" we pretend to be and how much military power we create.

Actually at this point or at least very soon, the primary factor for our survival is our intelligence. Eventually through natural causes, if not artifical causes, the Earth's climate will not be habitable for humans. Whether it is sooner or later is irrelevant, it will happen. The more capable we are with technology and our cooperation as a group will determine whether or not we survive to inhabit other regions of our universe. Furthermore, as resources become sparse(and they will), it will be the groups with power or intelligence who will survive. Despite what some might think, we are still under selective pressures; whether they are natural, social, or artificial it doesn't matter. The Earth won't be here forever, and to rely on it and its resources as much as we have historically will prove detrimental to our survival or at least our progression. It might be in the near future(more likely), it might be in the distant future, but eventually it will prove true that humanity will face a selective crisis.

A clear knowledge of biology, specifically ecology, reveals to us that humans are animals, and we will have a population limit. What happens after that population limit is reached will lead to some significant selective processes. If humanity survives it, which is likely, a superior humanity in terms of tenacity will exit such a catastrophic world, and the process will continue until eventually we do go extinct. Those who are inferior won't survive. Yes, whether or not you believe some races are inferior to others, it is irrefutable that some individuals are inferior to others, when it comes to survivability in specific environments and situations. I think we've reached a point of complacency and take a lot things for granted. At least this is the case in industrialized societies. It seems to me as if we live in a good time period, but it can't last with the rate our population is increasing, and the more prepared, the more intelligent, and the more powerful individuals will be the ones who will survive a far less bountiful era caused by the massive increases in the human population.

Supreme American

04-01-2012, 10:33 PM

I'm not speaking about civilizations but rather anthropological traits. What makes you think natives like Sioux who live there aren't anthropologically as advanced as Europids?
These Sioux are surely not below European average of "evolution".

It's worth noting that the Sioux had no written language until Jesuits made them one. Contrary to popular leftist political spin, they actually WANTED the Catholics to come and teach them the ways of the white men. (http://books.google.com/books?id=P5iWvJ0oiWsC&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=sioux+taught+writing+by+whites&source=bl&ots=yzfD65esV4&sig=1WEL8WVZ6QFqSSNuZLoPxhxg0rQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=M9d4T6LlNcLItgebq-3QDg&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=sioux%20taught%20writing%20by%20whites&f=false)

Stygian Cellarius

04-01-2012, 10:55 PM

I tend to disagree on the heritability of IQ as shown through twin studies. I also think there is no reason to think that humans all evolved equally with the same intelligence and the same temperament. Animals certainly haven't and you see it especially in different breeds of dogs. I think the idea that we all evolved at the same rate to the same level is a matter of religious-type faith.

No doubt, but I think you misunderstand me. I was not very clear on this point. We arrive at these conclusion through logic, an understanding of probability, evolution and the general rules of inheritance. We don't need to know the function of each gene to figure this stuff out.

That said, what can be deduced from the above is that inequality must exist, but it wont tell you where and what the inequalities are. For that one must analyze the manifest cultural and behavioral data (until we discover more informative information about genes).

Pallantides

04-01-2012, 11:15 PM

It's worth noting that the Sioux had no written language until Jesuits made them one.

Celts and Germanic people didn't have any written languages either when the Romans first came in contact with them.

It was the Romans that introduced the written language to the Celts.

Supreme American

04-01-2012, 11:19 PM

Option one. I don't believe that any culture/ethnicity is inferior, they are just different and should remain so.

People that marry and have sex with children as a culture (not an aberrancy) are not the equals of Western Civilization.

Supreme American

04-01-2012, 11:21 PM

That said, what can be deduced from the above is that inequality must exist, but it wont tell you where and what the inequalities are. For that one must analyze the manifest cultural and behavioral data (until we discover more informative information about genes).

True, and again, when you have a culture that has existed 20,000 years or more and has shown little to no forward progress, I think any pretenses to equality are thrown out of the window.

Supreme American

04-01-2012, 11:25 PM

Also I prefer to approach people as individuals and don't scorn someone solely based on their skin colour and ethnic heritage.

But they aren't - it's simply being noted that certain negative and indeed dangerous pathologies are associated with skin color/ethnic heritage, and that can't be denied.

Psychologically speaking, it is known that people gravitate toward environments that are compatible with their genetic tendencies. People tailor their activities to fit their psychological predilections, and that is one HUGE can of worms.

SilverKnight

04-02-2012, 12:57 AM

What you describe indicates economic progress, but I think you were referring to technological progress in-itself―a cognitive expression. is that right?

Economic progress is good, never denied that. But what I meant is that the growth that we have had in the past decades have become a problem to our planet (like pollution, environmental damage, population boom) and we greatly depend on our planet to sustain ourselves, otherwise we won't survive at least sustain most of the population.

Technological progress is certainly associated with survival, and therefore evolution. In the long run, it may actually be the most important evolutionary asset, but it requires a deep-field time perspective to see it. Habitable-zones in a solar-system are finite in both space and time. Which means that life must relocate in order to survive. That cannot be accomplished with anything other than technology. In fact, all life on a planet are eventually dependent on technology for their long-term existence. Ironic, is it not?

It is ironic yeah and eventually one day in a future close or far from now we will have to rely on other plants by moving some of the population there ( that if we still exist off course, hopefully).

All of these are good and necessary things. Although, I am reserved about the "spiritual" part.

I'm a very spiritual person and that's why I mentioned human spirituality. I believe that we need to seek more enlightenment because it will briing into our hearts more love, peace make people wonder more about the eternal universe we live in.

Pretending to be smart? Those who generate technology and ideas really are smart.

True, people who generated these technologies should get the credit, and they have helped us a lot, but other technologies have being for the worst then the better, example: The atomic weapon. And what I meant by "pretending to be smart" are those folks out their who think that just because they belong to a "higher class" they are smart and they have never contributed to an invention what so ever.

Military power is also very important and one of the most obvious extensions of evolution. Human conflict will never end. It cannot end. Evolution requires two fundamental things to work, the will to exist and diversity (and overlapping ecological niches). Conflict is the natural product of this very basic system. Is it unpleasant? Yes, but there needs to be some level of acceptance because we are dealing with something that cannot be stopped.

Agreed with this statement of yours. War is definitely part of evolution, but there are things that have gotten out of hands and sometimes this things go beyond the needs of evolution causing havoc and imbalances, therefore war should be prevented at most, otherwise we could cause our own extinction if lets say, a thermonuclear war where ever to occur.

There are no abilities that our ancestors had that we do not also have. We have the same potential, perhaps even more potential. But yeah I agree with you that we are making bad choices.

What I meant by our ancestors being more capable, is that before we where more united, we where more capable then most people today, to work together and cooperate (food gathering, sharing food, creating farms to feed villages, hunting together etc). Greed has become more popular, and I believe humanity should work together more then kill each other.

Actually at this point or at least very soon, the primary factor for our survival is our intelligence. Eventually through natural causes, if not artifical causes, the Earth's climate will not be habitable for humans. Whether it is sooner or later is irrelevant, it will happen. The more capable we are with technology and our cooperation as a group will determine whether or not we survive to inhabit other regions of our universe. Furthermore, as resources become sparse(and they will), it will be the groups with power or intelligence who will survive. Despite what some might think, we are still under selective pressures; whether they are natural, social, or artificial it doesn't matter. The Earth won't be here forever, and to rely on it and its resources as much as we have historically will prove detrimental to our survival or at least our progression. It might be in the near future(more likely), it might be in the distant future, but eventually it will prove true that humanity will face a selective crisis.

A clear knowledge of biology, specifically ecology, reveals to us that humans are animals, and we will have a population limit. What happens after that population limit is reached will lead to some significant selective processes. If humanity survives it, which is likely, a superior humanity in terms of tenacity will exit such a catastrophic world, and the process will continue until eventually we do go extinct. Those who are inferior won't survive. Yes, whether or not you believe some races are inferior to others, it is irrefutable that some individuals are inferior to others, when it comes to survivability in specific environments and situations. I think we've reached a point of complacency and take a lot things for granted. At least this is the case in industrialized societies. It seems to me as if we live in a good time period, but it can't last with the rate our population is increasing, and the more prepared, the more intelligent, and the more powerful individuals will be the ones who will survive a far less bountiful era caused by the massive increases in the human population.

Some races might have less mental / economic capability then others but we all live together on this planet. Some might not like hearing this, but if immigration to first world countries continues to grow at the rate that is now and non-white immigrants adapt to these societies and some get absorbed it will be an element for mixing, and one day these homogenous countries might end up mixed and race will not be the issue, but rather human survival as a whole. If Europeans survive and grow again then yes, it's more likely that they will end up as the supreme rulers of the planet and explained to other planets in the universe together with other superior races as well.

la bombe

04-02-2012, 01:17 AM

I voted the first option. However, I'm not a cultural relativist and I do think there are certain cultures that have no place in Western society. I also believe that humans are tribalistic by nature and the concept of one big, happy, multicultural beige human family is a misguided and unrealistic one.

Having said that, I tend to judge people on an individual basis and I would never discriminate against anyone solely because of their race or ethnicity.

Supreme American

04-02-2012, 01:24 AM

I also believe that humans are tribalistic by nature and the concept of one big, happy, multicultural beige human family is a misguided and unrealistic one.

The only chance it has to remotely "work" is by what we're seeing: soft totalitarianism via tight speech laws and special laws against those who object with force, as well as endless ideological manipulation in schooling and media.

StonyArabia

04-02-2012, 01:35 AM

Neither, I however certainly don't believe in inferior races or such things. However culture is most important. As mixed person I have nothing to lose or gain, so for me it does not matter.

Supreme American

04-02-2012, 01:49 AM

Neither, I however certainly don't believe in inferior races or such things. However culture is most important. As mixed person I have nothing to lose or gain, so for me it does not matter.

You can believe races aren't inferior, but I don't think you can deny that certain races believe they are just that.

SilverKnight

04-02-2012, 06:28 AM

Very interesting poll results, I would have expected more apricians leaning to the belief of "racial superiority" then the opposite, but it's pretty tight.

Joe McCarthy

04-02-2012, 06:43 AM

Neither, I however certainly don't believe in inferior races or such things. However culture is most important. As mixed person I have nothing to lose or gain, so for me it does not matter.

That's of course risible. Just as blacks see an advantage in there being more blacks in terms of group interests, you have an advantage in there being more mixed race people, which of course explains why you defend mixed unions.

Joe McCarthy

04-02-2012, 06:55 AM

As for the poll question itself I can't vote as it is framed poorly. Racialism is not a belief in biological racial superiority so much as it is a belief that race is a genuine category and that racial differences have some role in behavior, performance, identity, and outlook. In that sense most everyone, mixed race or not, is a racialist if they have common sense or any knowledge of the science on the matter.

An actual claim to racial superiority based on biological characteristics cannot be proven, imo, though neither can it be disproven, so I'm agnostic on the issue. What I do believe in is racial supremacy in that whites should rule, and take measures to ensure they maintain power. That doesn't imply a belief that whites are inherently superior though. Indeed, at various times in history we haven't been, and a belief that we are inherently superior is actually dangerous as it inculcates a view that we're invincible and breeds overconfidence and lack of dynamism.

Xenomorph

04-02-2012, 09:51 PM

I've always found the term "preservationism" rather perverse. As if we are speaking of some kind of dead archaeological sample, whose stiffness we are trying to preserve, so that it doesn't turn to dust.

What kind of perverse look of culture and nation does that entail? Culture and nation are neither dead nor immutable, but essentially living, breathing and also changing. What we should is not try to suffocate and "preserve" some dead past, but rather we should steer the direction of the constant life of the nation towards the eternal values. We should in our national cultures, do everything to positively cultivate goodness, truth and beauty, and in this way, immortalise our communities in their humble places in history.

That is the true immutable nation, which we may never fully achieve, but which we can always try to approach.

Edit: as to racialism, if racialism entails the reduction of the wordly and spiritual life of the nation, culture and people, into abstractly constructed and evidenced categories of biological or "spiritual" meta-races, which concrete nations are supposed to embody, then I can only say that such an abstraction is an artifical creation, and therefore not a part of the natural consciousness of the average member of a nation. It is ultimately a kind of naive and pointless idealism, which can only lead to further division between those nations who have a true spiritual community together, and who don't need any intellectuals to construct artificial meta-racial categories for them.

Hit the nail on the head.

The first and foremost duty of everyone should be to try live the golden rule. We do that, and many things will fall into place. Will we ever achieve that ideal? Probably not, but for me, it's the most important thing we can do to improving the world.

Cultures are not dead things, they are ever-changing, and should be ever-changing and able to learn from their mistakes. What we should hold onto are the values of generosity, honesty, and upholding human life and dignity. When it comes to indvidual customs, I think that many should be preserved. It's a terrible shame when dominant cultures completely swamp smaller cultures. That being said, protecting those customs should always be secondary to the values that I mentioned above.

rhiannon

04-02-2012, 11:41 PM

Hit the nail on the head.

The first and foremost duty of everyone should be to try live the golden rule. We do that, and many things will fall into place. Will we ever achieve that ideal? Probably not, but for me, it's the most important thing we can do to improving the world.

Cultures are not dead things, they are ever-changing, and should be ever-changing and able to learn from their mistakes. What we should hold onto are the values of generosity, honesty, and upholding human life and dignity. When it comes to indvidual customs, I think that many should be preserved. It's a terrible shame when dominant cultures completely swamp smaller cultures. That being said, protecting those customs should always be secondary to the values that I mentioned above.

Very well said. I couldn't agree more:thumb001:

AussieScott

04-02-2012, 11:42 PM

Xenomorph

04-02-2012, 11:57 PM

The Golden rule has allowed for exploitation in the good times, other then that it has made people weak.

Then it wasn't being utilized in its truest form. You wouldn't want to be exploited, so thus you shouldn't exploit others. I agree that it's probably a hopeless ideal, but most ideals are. As for the thing about being weak, while adversity is what toughens people, accumulated tenacity and strength shouldn't come about due to injustice. The slaves who were recruited as gladiators in ancient Rome were tough as nails; that didn't make the gladiatorial combat any more right. Being strong should come about due to the natural adversities that life throws at you, not from having to fight off those who want to use you for you're worth.

Might is right will return one day.

It never left; just look at many third world dictatorships. And one might argue that the massive corporate power and political corruption that we see in more developed countries is a more sophisticated version of might is right. Might by itself may be able to dominate, but without some kind of moral core, it can only lead to bad things for everyone else.

StonyArabia

04-03-2012, 07:02 AM

You can believe races aren't inferior, but I don't think you can deny that certain races believe they are just that.

That's because the concept of superority and inferiority are rather relative and depends on the circumistances. Civilizations have risen and fallen and this rather a universal theme. There are individuals who do believe they are inferior, but certainly not on a collective level, and this because of self-hate and which often have complex origins.

That's of course risible. Just as blacks see an advantage in there being more blacks in terms of group interests, you have an advantage in there being more mixed race people, which of course explains why you defend mixed unions.

Not at all, well I am mixture of Caucasian( SouthEast Euro-NorthWest Asian) and Arabian. However other mixed race people will be of different stocks from me so how would that be to my advantage that there will be more mixed race people. I defend mixed unions because I believe people have the right to choose their paterners and who they want to be with, since I have no interest but the protection of freedom and liberity that is between two consenting adults nothing more and nothing less, certainly it's not about group interest, but more so about the true meaning of love at the end of this. If two people really love each other despite beloning from a different stock people, and not let them be united to each other, in my eyes is a form of cruelity.

Joe McCarthy

04-03-2012, 10:12 PM

Not at all, well I am mixture of Caucasian( SouthEast Euro-NorthWest Asian) and Arabian. However other mixed race people will be of different stocks from me so how would that be to my advantage that there will be more mixed race people. I defend mixed unions because I believe people have the right to choose their paterners and who they want to be with, since I have no interest but the protection of freedom and liberity that is between two consenting adults nothing more and nothing less, certainly it's not about group interest, but more so about the true meaning of love at the end of this. If two people really love each other despite beloning from a different stock people, and not let them be united to each other, in my eyes is a form of cruelity.

More mixed people, even in general, still means a mixed category comes to be enlarged, which is beneficial to you personally as mixed race people are a distinct category in population statistics.

I'm unsure why you continue to insist you only favor mixed unions because people have some nebulous right to 'choose their partners'. You've stated repeatedly that you oppose gay marriage, among similar unions, so that explanation doesn't wash. :rolleyes:

Supreme American

04-03-2012, 10:17 PM

Supreme American

04-03-2012, 10:19 PM

That's because the concept of superority and inferiority are rather relative and depends on the circumistances. Civilizations have risen and fallen and this rather a universal theme. There are individuals who do believe they are inferior, but certainly not on a collective level, and this because of self-hate and which often have complex origins.

Yet in spite of that it has been shown that IQ is heavily genetic and that even in biological twins raised by different adoptive families, the IQs of the siblings remain very close to each other throughout their lives.

The environment-only theory has long been debunked.

2Cool

04-03-2012, 10:24 PM

Yet in spite of that it has been shown that IQ is heavily genetic and that even in biological twins raised by different adoptive families, the IQs of the siblings remain very close to each other throughout their lives.

The environment-only theory has long been debunked.

Can you post a link to that study?

Supreme American

04-03-2012, 10:44 PM

Can you post a link to that study?

Two points:

1) I and others have posted IQ heritability links to you previously which you ignored, and

2) I got it from a developmental psychology textbook from a class I took just over a year ago. But if you're curious (not that you'll change your mind) It's in this book (http://books.google.com/books?id=GLt5_uO-DFwC&pg=PA17&lpg=PA17&dq=belsky+behavioral+genetics:+scientifically+expl oring+the+%22nature%22+of+human+differences&source=bl&ots=QHIpadp-V-&sig=UJ7FEVdc0JblwT8ZgwO0qCXWFmE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=33x7T_q9Bo2C8ATcx7ziBA&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false), you can scroll down to page 18 and read the text.

Prince Carlo

04-05-2012, 12:20 PM

I don't believe in racial superiority of certain races over others. I will leave that stuff to retard nutzis.

JamesSteal

04-05-2012, 12:32 PM

I believe in racial superiority over certain races, especially ones that wear lip plates, bathe in cow urine, have no technological achievements, constantly ask for handouts, reek of an odor and constantly necklace each other.

http://www.innovatrs.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Innovation.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5306/5624471000_b33b8e41f0.jpg

StonyArabia

04-06-2012, 06:34 PM

More mixed people, even in general, still means a mixed category comes to be enlarged, which is beneficial to you personally as mixed race people are a distinct category in population statistics.

That indeed could be true, but this is only to a certain extent. However if it happens it happens if it does not, it has no effect at all.

I'm unsure why you continue to insist you only favor mixed unions because people have some nebulous right to 'choose their partners'. You've stated repeatedly that you oppose gay marriage, among similar unions, so that explanation doesn't wash. :rolleyes:

This might sound strange to racialists who often tend to be hypocrites you even agreed with me on this, but mixed race unions have always have happened and it's probably as ancient as humanity itself. In fact they occurred due to formation of political alliances or simply there was not much women, and in very rare cases it even occurred with men. However homosexuality was always seen to be something in all socities to be wrong and immoral, this because it does not have a have a natural tendencies. Interracial romances have occurred in almost all socities and they are rarely rejected especially if it's the dominant men who are taking women from the subdued population. In other cases there is indeed interracial romances in every situation where two different people are present. One of them even became an important American legend, Pocahontas, and in Mexico La Malinche who is the wife of Hernan Cortes who bore him the first Mestizo. There are many stories that are of this nature in many areas that have striking similarities, the most recent is that of Iraq.

However although there is a political nature to such marriage but they are also truly built genuine relationship love and that's what is important. The only criticism is often targeted at women rather than men, however you can't eat your cake and have it too. Thus the situation between heterosexuality that might be deemed as interracial is rather natural at the end unlike homosexuality and hence there is no similiarties between them if any at all. If two consenting adults who really want to be with one another and is based on mutal understanding friendship and built on genuine love, then I see nothing wrong with it and people should mind their own business plain and simple.

La Malinche

http://s17.postimage.org/5a3wpyfvz/malinch1.jpg (http://postimage.org/)
free picture hosting (http://postimage.org/)

Just one example.

However such stories repeat themselves