Why do so many in this forum put so much more emphasis on race than culture or language?

[B01AB20]

Maybe, two Americans know history (I am one of them) and I scored 90 percent on a pew research scientific knowledge quiz so I am racist because ironically I am not as ignorant and uneducated as the average American. The average American is a dumbfuck who thinks blacks are equal because they make low IQ rap, porn and are good at a lot of sports, Asians aren't that fucking stupid you better believe they know blacks are inferior not absolutely but in key areas that really matter.

So you're racist against blacks because they're inferior. OK.

But do you rather live in a multiculti society along with smart asians or in an homogeneous society with only average ignorant and uneducated (your words) white americans?

By 'homogeneous' I don't mean 100%, but above 90%.

[Beowulf]

Possibly Canada? (The Quebec issue notwithstanding). New Zealand is not too bad either. But generally I agree, homogeneous societies tend to be more peaceful and cohesive, at least insofar as they do not have large socioeconomic disparities, which isn't guaranteed.

N.B. And at least you have the honesty and decency re Latin Americans. (Would some other Spaniards on this forum do so though?)

I agree with B01AB20, Latin Americans are very integrated here even one of my best friends is son of Latin American parents

[Tooting Carmen]

I agree with B01AB20, Latin Americans are very integrated here even one of my best friends is son of Latin American parents

But do Spaniards make a distinction between White(r) Latin Americans and those who look blatantly Mestizo/Mulatto/Black/Amerindian, or not really?

[PierreUno]

I think some people living in the developed world who put a lot of emphasis on race do so in the pursuit of self-expression. Having a defined identity and a distilled sense of self is very important in the 21st century.

Today people undertake the road to a sense of self more consciously and strategically than ever before. We no longer become who we are just willy-nilly. We design and contrive our way to selfhood with dollars and wireless.

One guy may be polyamorous and organize his schedule around consuming anime, another guy might attend viking concerts and organize his beliefs around his haplogroup. Today pastimes don't just pass the time, and individuality is a muscle that can be trained.

Actuallly, most people wouldn't even think about race that much if liberals did not force people to mix socially. It is not about self worth since my IQ is at least in the 120s the average American black IQ is 85 that is like a profoundly mentally retarded chimp compared to me relatively speaking. You know scientific giants (titans) such as Charles Darwin and the godfather of DNA James Watson are considered racist right ? Who are anti-racist liberals ? Scientifically iliterate dumb fucks.

Multiculturalism: According to liberals, the necessity of having a society composed of many different ethnic, racial and sexual types in order to make people see that 'the only real race is the human race'; actually, a formula for social unrest and chronic unhappiness as a result of different ethnic, racial and sexual minorities all vying with one another for power and influence and hating each other as a result.

Intolerance: According to liberals, an irrational refusal to interact with others, usually because they belong to a different group; actually, the courage to stand up to liberal bullying and exercise one's right of free association.

Extremist: According to liberals, a wild-eyed bomb-throwing cross- burning hate-filled government-bashing rabble-rousing gun-loving lunatic; actually, a sensible person who wishes to preserve his culture, his country and his race, and who therefore does not appreciate having his nation, his own neighborhood or his own business overrun by alien hordes, druggies, welfarites, criminals, voodooists, homosexuals, AIDS carriers, or any of the other "diverse" groups which liberals are so assiduous in championing.



Equality: According to liberals, what all men have; actually, what all men don't have.

Discrimination: According to liberals, a horrible crime in which certain groups are treated unjustly and as inferiors for no good reason; actually, a natural reaction of reluctance by the members of one group to interact or mix with the members of a different group, usually because the two groups are different, it being natural for people to seek out others of their own kind.

Prejudice/Bigotry: According to liberals, an irrational dislike of the members of another group; actually, a sensible reaction of suspicion to those with whom one is unacquainted, or a rational reaction to the warnings which one has received from trusted persons about the members of certain groups.

Racism: According to liberals, hating others because of their skin tone; actually, having the sense to see that skin color is a marker of often- profound differences which lead people to take account of those differences -- differences which reinforce the natural desire of each person to live, work, marry and mingle with his own kind.


Hate: According to liberals, an undesirably-negative state of mind, usually exhibited for no good reason toward members of groups to which one does not belong; actually, the kind of emotion which sensible people exhibit toward bad things (as they might exhibit toward blacks because of their high crime rate and low achievement level), and which liberals exhibit in tremendous abundance toward anyone who questions their dogmas.

[Beowulf]

But do Spaniards make a distinction between White(r) Latin Americans and those who look blatantly Mestizo/Mulatto/Black/Amerindian, or not really?

No, the only Important thing is to respect each other even if you are Mulatto or Mestizo etc... In spain we don't really care about that, there would be people that yes but in this case in average we don't really care about that.

[B01AB20]

Those are two particularly extreme examples, but let's face it: most Spaniards in this forum (even more than some other Western nationalities, I would hasten to add) are quite right-leaning to varying degrees and would have been at least indifferent/tolerant if not outright supportive of Franco.

Franco was not specially racist IFAIK, and he tried to be good friend with Latinamerican countries, even with Castro and Allende.
Not a valid reason, not a logic reason for your prejudices against us man.

You could make a poll with that cuestion to be answered by spaniards here, I'm sure you'll be surprised.

[axel.aleman]

But do Spaniards make a distinction between White(r) Latin Americans and those who look blatantly Mestizo/Mulatto/Black/Amerindian, or not really?

Si pero Cristiano Viejo como no me metia con el me trataba bastante mejor que mongrels como Konan, Hasien y otros. En España cuando fui dos semanas no tuve ningun problema
Y eso que ademas de parecer dominicano tambien podria haberme confundido con alguien del Magreb

[PierreUno]

So you're racist against blacks because they're inferior. OK.

But do you rather live in a multiculti society along with smart asians or in an homogeneous society with only average ignorant and uneducated (your words) white americans?

By 'homogeneous' I don't mean 100%, but above 90%.

You think you are sophisticated but you aren't since Western culture is arguably superior to asian culture(s) and blacks are the bottom of the barrel here. Blacks are low IQ, criminal, and low achievement. Neil Degresse Tyson ? He writes books for laymans instead of other scientists because he is not that smart he is a token negro.

[PierreUno]

As I wrote here: https://www.theapricity.com/forum/sh...language/page3
"I just find the dissonance in values and priorities that many forum users have risible (not saying you specifically). They complain if their neighbourhood or city changes from 99% White to 93% White, but seem (at least by comparison) quite relaxed at seeing their native language disappear or being subsumed." Let us discuss.

Racist: The term the liberal uses to call a man a nigger.

One of the most difficult of all things to endure for a crow, a raven, a wolf, or a human is to feel alone and separated from one's own kind. A sense of belonging is one of the most universal of all feelings -Lawrence Kilham (1989), quoted in Candace Savage, Bird Brains: The Intelligence of Crows, Ravens, Magpies, and Jays, Sierra Club, 1995: 61

In the present day the term racist is usually considered an insult, and hardly a day goes by without some white man saying how horrible he thinks racism is or apologizing for the racism of his ancestors. More than this, many acts presumed to be motivated by racism have now been made illegal, and others which are already illegal are given enhanced penalties when motivated by racism. But white racism -- which happens to be the only kind denounced by our wonderful liberal media, which gives a pass to the racism of blacks, hispanics, Jews and that of just about every other group -- is not only defensible, but actually desirable, while the opposing anti- racist liberal philosophy which advocates "equality", "integration", "tolerance" and "multiculturalism" is not only bad for most of those affected by it, but is in fact preparing the ground for the breakup of our nation on the rocks of racial strife.

To begin, let us ask what is generally meant by the term racist -- excluding, that is, the implication that those to whom it applies are somehow "evil". The answer is evidently something along the following lines:

A racist is a man who honors his race, reveres his ancestry, prefers -- like virtually everyone -- to be with his own kind, and believes that his genetic inheritance is worth preserving in the same way that liberals believe that the spotted owl, snail darter, American Indians and Australian aborigines are worth preserving.

From this definition it can be seen that there is nothing whatsoever the matter with being a racist, and indeed that if liberal logic is followed in the case of the spotted owl and Australian aborigines, then liberalism is compatible with every sort of racism -- not that liberals would follow their own logic, or any logic, for that matter.

Now it is true that racists are sometimes accused of "hate" in their attitude toward other races, and it must be admitted that there are probably some racists who do hate the members of other races in some fashion or another. Hate, however, has nothing to do with racism per se: While a man may love or care about his own race, this does not mean that he has any special negative feelings about other races, any more than a man who loves his family can be said to hate other families.

But if hate is not a part of racism per se, there is obviously an emotional distance between the feelings a man has for his own race and the feeling he has about the races which are not his own -- feelings which in some cases may be positive, in some indifferent, in some negative in one degree or another. And there is a very simple explanation for these feelings: If a group survives, this means its members have a special feeling for one another which keeps the group together, and thus a fortiori excludes outsiders. In fact, the success of a group's survival as a group is proportional to the intensity of the positive feelings which the members have for the group, and thus is proportional to the intensity of the negative feelings which the members have for other "competing" groups. Or to put it another way, negative feelings about other groups -- including hate -- are nature's way of insuring group survival. Thus we see that every group from families to nations depends on "love" for the group by the members and "hate" (in a relative sense) of other groups and their members.

In ordinary circumstances, group "love" and group "hate" are rarely evident in any population, but they do become evident -- and in fact can become extremely intense -- in circumstances in which the group is threatened. In wartime, for example, the enemy is often depicted as morally depraved monsters; but when the war is over, normal relations resume in which the former enemy becomes "normal". Certainly this situation occurred in both World Wars, the Cold War and the Viet Nam War.

Among those most often thought to exhibit race "hatred" are "rednecks", "skinheads", "Archie Bunkers" and other whites from the lower economic strata who are thought to be too stupid, uneducated or otherwise unsophisticated to understand the wonders and marvels of the highbrow liberal multicultural philosophy. Such people are indeed often unsophisticated, and frequently exhibit strong negative emotions toward nonwhites, with the result that they make themselves easy targets for liberal anti-racists, who have little difficulty in holding them up to contempt. As it happens, however, the liberals are too clever by half. The very reason that lower-class whites frequently exhibit such strong negative emotions toward nonwhites is precisely because it is lower-class whites who are the first to be directly threatened by nonwhites. This is because it is those on the economic margins who cannot afford to move to the suburbs to get away from the urban decay which blacks and other minorities inevitably bring; and thus it is these lower-class whites who must contend on a daily basis with the frequently-uncivilized behavior of such minorities. What all this means, then, is that the liberals who pride themselves on "compassion" for the "poor" and the "underclass" in fact follow policies which damage poor and underclass whites, but which leave the mostly-wealthy liberals unaffected. No wonder the rednecks, skinheads and Archie Bunkers are full of hate!

The urban decay which minorities bring -- and the hate which it generates in the white underclass that has to contend with it -- is actually part of a race war which is going on not only in America, but in the entire Western world. In fact, it is really more than a race war, since groups other than races are involved: ethnic minorities, women, homosexuals, the handicapped, children, and a great many others, with yet others constantly entering the fray. This war may perhaps better be characterized as a war of political correctness versus political incorrectness, or for simplicity, the PC war. But while this war has the appearance of being fought "for" a large number of disparate groups, even cursory examination leads to the conclusion that the PC war is actually a war against the white man and Western culture which he created. This is not merely indicated by the fact that whites are constantly denigrated as "racist" by the media mavens who are pushing this war in every Western country, but also because the powers-that-be who have embraced political correctness as official policy have also embraced the notion of erasing national boundaries -- boundaries which, for all practical purposes, are the boundaries of white nations. The significance of this erasure is that it will cause the white nations -- along with their cultures and genomes -- to disappear, both because of amalgamation with other white nations and -- most importantly -- because of Turd World immigration which national boundaries will no longer be able to restrain, and which will occur as a result of the attraction of Turd-Worlders for the easier living (and especially the welfare benefits) of more wealthy societies.

The obvious question raised by the above observations is, What is fueling the PC war? While there is perhaps no easy single answer, there are several factors which are playing a major role. One of these is the economic factor: Turd-Worlders work for less, and allowing open-border immigration drives down wages which large corporations have to pay, while permitting free trade allows companies to relocate overseas in the midst of even cheaper labor. Beyond this, the PC war gives large corporations a competitive advantage over their smaller rivals: Implementing affirmative action and other anti-racist programs costs money, and smaller companies have more difficulty in meeting the expenses than do the more-established ones.

Yet a second reason for the PC war is the abundance which white Western culture has produced. This occurs because white men -- unlike those of most other cultures -- possess a compassionate nature which makes them sympathetic to the less-fortunate, and this characteristic -- once exhibited as a messianic zeal to convert "the lesser breeds without the law" to Christianity and civilized ways of living -- has been transmogrified in the present secular age into a propensity toward welfare handouts, the relaxation of immigration restrictions, and other behaviors which ultimately endanger the very civilization which produced the benefits for which Turd-Worlders so hunger.

Of equal if not greater importance than company economics and Western abundance in fueling the PC war is a third factor -- the Jewish community. Altho Jews make up less than 3% of the American population, they are enormously wealthy and powerful, and in addition have a strong ethnic (or if you prefer, racial) identity. Furthermore, there has been a long history of Jewish persecution by white Christian culture, from well before the Inquisition to WWII Germany; and this has bred into Jews a profound anti-gentile mindset and a "never forgive, never forget" and "eye for an eye" Talmudic mentality whose logic seeks to repay the gentile community in kind for the Jews' historic sufferings, even tho Jews have long been accepted into Western society and most of those who persecuted them are long since dead. Evidently, then, Jews have both the means and the motive for fueling the PC war; and while the subject of their involvement is too complicated for this brief essay, the following are some facts which deserve to be noted:

Communism was an essentially Jewish phenomenon, and constituted a worldwide conspiracy for what amounts to Jewish political dominance.

In the late 1920s the American communist party decided to deliberately promote racial strife with the view to weakening America for a communist (hence Jewish) takeover.

For many of its early years, the major officials and lawyers of the NAACP were Jews.

A large portion of the activists in the Civil Rights movement were Jews.

Most of the major figures in the feminist movement were Jews.

Jews are a dominant force in newspapers, television and Hollywood, and these media have incessantly promoted the liberal anti-racist PC line.

Jews contribute more than half the operating funds of the (liberal) Democratic Party, dominate the Congress (Pat Buchanan called it "Israeli- occupied territory"), and hold more than 50% of the appointed posts in the Clinton administration and probably an even higher percentage of the Biden administration.

In the present day, the major enemy of free speech -- a specially- cherished value of Western culture -- is the Jewish community, which has forced passage of laws against questioning the Orthodox Jewish Version of the Holocaust in most of the countries of the Western world, and which seeks to stifle free speech on the Internet in the interests of political correctness.

In the paragraphs above we have pointed out that the PC war is a war against the white race and Western culture which whites created, and we also noted that, in many respects, the PC war is a war of Jew against white gentile. The PC war, then, is essentially a race war, and the survival of what is arguably the world's greatest race -- a race which is only 18% or less of the world's population, and hence is itself a minority in this worldwide context -- hangs in the balance.

And that's why I'm a white racist.

[Tooting Carmen]

Franco was not specially racist IFAIK, and he tried to be good friend with Latinamerican countries, even with Castro and Allende.

Franco was more isolationist and traditionalist rather than racist per se, I agree. (Certainly not much if at all more racist than supposedly enlightened democrats of his time like De Gaulle, Churchill, Roosevelt etc.) And as you know, I myself ages ago opened a thread about the Castro-Franco (semi) friendship.

Not a valid reason, not a logic reason for your prejudices against us man.

Don't get me wrong: in real life I love Spain and Spaniards, and I don't think the ones on this forum are such a representative cross section of Spanish political opinion, with all due respect.

You could make a poll with that cuestion to be answered by spaniards here, I'm sure you'll be surprised.

I already did years ago and several users (including you) answered. From what I recall, the results were, well, mixed and ambiguous.