23 replies to this topic

[Darkademic]

I shall re-post the debate that occured between several of the members here and a White Nationalist called slander55 who came from Stormfront to challenge us. Maybe this will spark some new interest here, I may invite some of them to start a fresh debate if I have some spare time.

White Nationalism is a movement which seeks to create an all-White nation, usually through the expulsion of non-Whites from traditionally White nations such as the United Kingdom. Since my time debating on Stormfront.org I have debated heavily at MootSF, most notably against a White Nationalist who goes by the screen name Dani. I doubt she'd ever come here, but there is plenty of material on MootSF if anyone wants to view it.

[iF0rmulae]

Well we're all at least a small percentage African, so we're all just somewhere on a gradient, there are no pure "white" race.

This race shit is stupid. If a white person commits murder, should all white people should be jailed for it? Race has no bearing on the content of one's character. People choose the route they take in life.

[Twilight]

http://www.newsreel....ce/whatdiff.htm

".. They found that 95% of the DNA variation they studied is due to differences between individuals within any continent. But they also found they could use the remaining 5% of the variation as genetic "footprints" indicating the continent from which an individual's recent ancestors came."

This means that basically .. "races" are irrelevant. They do counter it saying that this is still a massive difference; but the 5% between continental population difference is both small quantitively and qualitively - I.e. it doesn't do much.

Why are they worried about the survival of this one (very varied) group? They should be more worried about their own life.

[iF0rmulae]

They use all these silly statistics. It'd be no different to say "on average, humans create more pollution than animals, therefore humans should be removed". On average, whites are more likely to become alcoholics, should we all be put in alcohol rehabilitation clinics then? Are all white people responsible for the actions of the Nazis? Averages as evidence for something is plain ignorant.

If they want rid of crime, it'd be far easier to target criminals as a whole, rather than a group who commit more crime on average, since criminals as a group, are 100% likely to have commited a crime.

[Lozzaa]

They say they are not racists but they constantly refer to evidence which shows black inferiority and tendancies to be violent.

I think it would be a lot more simple if a the idiots who advocate this stuff were sent to their own remote island to rid the world of their rubbish.

One word. Begins with B. Ends with S. Has eight letters. There's no point in even arguing back.

[iF0rmulae]

I think it would be a lot more simple if a the idiots who advocate this stuff were sent to their own remote island to rid the world of their rubbish.

Yeah, that's basically what they want; a "white" nation, so let 'em have it and see how far they get! They'll soon see that "white" people have pretty much nothing in common with each other.

[slander55]

For those who are curious, White Nationalism is simply the preservation of white heritage. We believe every distinct group of people should be allowed to self-determination within their own state; this goes for all ethnic groups. This is the crux of the matter. Now tell me, what is wrong with wanting this?

I think it would be a lot more simple if a the idiots who advocate this stuff were sent to their own remote island to rid the world of their rubbish.

I see you are a leftist authoritarian. Why would you seek to limit the free and open flow of ideas? Because you don't agree with them?

They use all these silly statistics.

Now, why are statistics silly? Have you ever taken a statistics class? Statistics, as long as they are unbiased, or, in other words, are within the 'confidence interval', can depict the bigger picture that is not seen by the individual eye. For example, not only does statistic provide information you would consider good, like if red meat is likely to cause heart attacks, they also show who commits more crimes per capita. These statistics are from the FBI, so are credible. Therefore, statistics aren't silly, what is silly is people decide what they want to believe regardless of what is shown to be true.

".. They found that 95% of the DNA variation they studied is due to differences between individuals within any continent. But they also found they could use the remaining 5% of the variation as genetic "footprints" indicating the continent from which an individual's recent ancestors came."

This is one I don't understand so maybe you can explain it to me. I'll give the same scenario I gave DarkReaver in StormFront.

Saying that my genetics is more similar to a black's genetics is like saying I am more related to your 2nd cousin than you are. Take a second to think about that. You share a common ancestor with your 2nd cousin after you share one with myself, so obviously you would be more related to him than I would. Just the same, whites share a common ancestor with each other AFTER they do with blacks, therefore, whites are more related to each other than blacks.

Obviously, what happens when two people mate is they share their genetics with their offspring. The offspring then shares the genetics, that his parents gave him, with his own offspring. This goes on and on until we get to the present. As long as the racial group mates within its own race, then these traits will continue to be passed onto later generations. So, if whties share a common ancestor after they do with blacks, please tell me how their genetics might be more similar to a blacks? (the fact that they can both have brown eyes does not count).

Well we're all at least a small percentage African, so we're all just somewhere on a gradient, there are no pure "white" race.

Right. Even though our lines broke off thousands of years ago, we still have genetic markers that can be traced back to Africa and elsewhere. Regardless, whiteness really isn't truly defined, and it tends to be a touchy subject for those who care. If going by genetic markers, many southern Italians might not be considered white, depending on how stringent one is with the percentage of European markers that are needed to be considered white. Southern Italians have been considered white for thousands of years and they would not take kindly to being limited from entering an all-white nation if one were to form. This is why this subject can be touchy.

Personally, I think if someone's genetic markers are 90% or more European, then they would be considered white. That is not a standard definition though.

Please feel free to ask any questions. I am not here to 'convert' anyone, I am only here to discuss ideas. I would appreciate serious responses for a serious discussion. I don't know how tolerant you guys are, but people that hold views such as mine are usually met with extreme hostility; I hope that is not the case here.

Have fun ripping my post apart.

[Twilight]

Welcome slander55, I never expected a WN to actually come here.

This is one I don't understand so maybe you can explain it to me. I'll give the same scenario I gave DarkReaver in StormFront.

Saying that my genetics is more similar to a black's genetics is like saying I am more related to your 2nd cousin than you are. Take a second to think about that. You share a common ancestor with your 2nd cousin after you share one with myself, so obviously you would be more related to him than I would. Just the same, whites share a common ancestor with each other AFTER they do with blacks, therefore, whites are more related to each other than blacks.

Obviously, what happens when two people mate is they share their genetics with their offspring. The offspring then shares the genetics, that his parents gave him, with his own offspring. This goes on and on until we get to the present. As long as the racial group mates within its own race, then these traits will continue to be passed onto later generations. So, if whties share a common ancestor after they do with blacks, please tell me how their genetics might be more similar to a blacks? (the fact that they can both have brown eyes does not count).

Yes your argument would seem logical at first, but it is far from being that simple. Some white lineages will change relatively quicker than others; skin colour may remain unified, but the rest of the genetic code may shuffle around in countless ways. This means that you can be more genetically alike a black person than another white; because whites themselves are too diverse genetically (and in every other way) to be unified, and you are just as likely to be similar to a black person in all but skin colour and physical attributes. It is not easy to explain; perhaps Reaver can call in one of his scientist friends; though they aren't very fond of forums.

[iF0rmulae]

Now, why are statistics silly? Have you ever taken a statistics class? Statistics, as long as they are unbiased, or, in other words, are within the 'confidence interval', can depict the bigger picture that is not seen by the individual eye. For example, not only does statistic provide information you would consider good, like if red meat is likely to cause heart attacks, they also show who commits more crimes per capita. These statistics are from the FBI, so are credible. Therefore, statistics aren't silly, what is silly is people decide what they want to believe regardless of what is shown to be true.

Statistics are useful to an extent, but not in the way used by racists. The statistics themselves are based on the circular logic fallacy when describing races. They use the statistics as if they show the cause of the problem when they do not. This misuse of statistics commits logical fallacies; the questionable cause fallacy and the fallacy of insufficient sample. Racists may go on to use any number of other fallacies including the fallacy of division, the guilt by association fallacy, the fallacy of composition, appeal to authority, appeal to popularity, appeal to tradition, appeal to consequences of a belief.. to name a few.

Right. Even though our lines broke off thousands of years ago, we still have genetic markers that can be traced back to Africa and elsewhere. Regardless, whiteness really isn't truly defined, and it tends to be a touchy subject for those who care. If going by genetic markers, many southern Italians might not be considered white, depending on how stringent one is with the percentage of European markers that are needed to be considered white. Southern Italians have been considered white for thousands of years and they would not take kindly to being limited from entering an all-white nation if one were to form. This is why this subject can be touchy.

Personally, I think if someone's genetic markers are 90% or more European, then they would be considered white. That is not a standard definition though.

This is the thing right here; the lines between races change depending on what traits you select. Even when you select a trait that you see as common, such as ancestry, you then have to draw a line somewhere, not based on fact or practicality; but based on pure guesswork or random preference. Moving the line by a fraction of a percent would shift a huge number of people from one side to the other, so it's not a decision you can make lightly either.

Please feel free to ask any questions. I am not here to 'convert' anyone, I am only here to discuss ideas. I would appreciate serious responses for a serious discussion. I don't know how tolerant you guys are, but people that hold views such as mine are usually met with extreme hostility; I hope that is not the case here.

Since most of the people here are here due to the direct request of the admin, it's quite a select group. You won't find many crazies here. I am very opposed to racism (or white nationalism) but that doesn't mean I should be aggresive towards you, so long as you show the same civility that you have already. Before you arrived, this thread was one-sided as you can see, so it's good to have someone to debate with. Anyway I'm babbling; welcome to the DR forums!

[Darkademic]

Hi there, glad you decided to register.

For those who are curious, White Nationalism is simply the preservation of white heritage. We believe every distinct group of people should be allowed to self-determination within their own state; this goes for all ethnic groups. This is the crux of the matter. Now tell me, what is wrong with wanting this?

Nothing in theory is wrong with it. The problem is that whites aren't genetically, behaviourally or intellectually distinct. The divisions amongst "whites" far outweigh the similarities between them. The overlapping between them and other so-called races far outweighs the characteristics that make a "white" race distinguishable at all.

[iF0rmulae]

Nothing in theory is wrong with it. The problem is that whites aren't genetically, behaviourally or intellectually distinct. The divisions amongst "whites" far outweigh the similarities between them. The overlapping between them and other so-called races far outweighs the characteristics that make a "white" race distinguishable at all.

Exactly. WN seems to think Whites and non-Whites are inherantly incompatible. I have many Black friends, some Chinese friends, some Middle-Eastern friends, as well as many White friends. I know them. I know that we get along well, otherwise I would not choose them as friends. They aren't idiots or violent. This flies in the face of their whole case.

[Darkademic]

Since this got .. ignored .. by StormFront I shall post it here. If slander returns at some point he can reply to it here. I think I'm more or less done at SF.

I have light brown hair and green eyes, yet my sister has blonde hair and blue eyes, so, by what I am seeing from your logic, since we are so physically varied, there lies the possibilty that I am more related to another person with light brown hair and green eyes and a similar personality, which can be through environmental variation, than I am my own sister. Of course, anybody in their right mind knows that's silly.

Well doesn't this answer your own question? Either 1) people can be behaviourally and physically different even with closesly linked ancestry and/or 2) the environment (even when very similar between these people) can cause people to stray a long way from their behavioural genetic predispositions. Of course I simply don't see genetics as having much influence to begin with; certainly not on one's volitional process.

If you still disagree, how can you explain such variation even between close family members? I know many people who have very different personalities to their siblings and/or parents.

That's assuming the individual doesn't have an emotional attachment to what they believe in. But, assuming no emotional attachment. The fact is, even though you believe its the economic system which fosters success whereas I believe its the people who live within the system, white societies have still been the most successful throughout most of history.

Emotions are directly dependant on values. An emotional attatchment is the same as a value dependancy. Emotions can arise irrationally if you don't understand where they come from for example when feeling duty to your race. Your race is not of direct value to you; only certain members of it.

The point here is that if genetic differences exist between different populations, then this would help explain why societies are highly correlated on racial grounds. This would make a big difference to everybody and it would help the world come to a solution on social problems instead of just ignoring what could be the root cause.

If genetic differences, or more importantly character traits were found within racial lines with some degree of strictness then sure, I could see how seperation would be alright; but since they don't, and many non-whites are perfectly civilized and "white acting" (though I wouldn't be so arrogant as to call it such), then seperation along racial lines remains unjustifiable.

Myths and Realities on the Rise of Blacks Out of Poverty

These people all have a common heritage that is unique to the world; let's say there are no differences 'on the inside' (which I really do doubt), just the ability to preserve the phenotype of unique peoples should be more than enough of a reason. Really, what is the difference between the Florida panther (an endangered species) and the mountain lion of the American southwest? By the naked eye, these two creatures are identical, I think they are even the same species (Although, I am unsure), yet we want to preserve the Florida Panthers for being endangered. Why should we? What does it matter? Its arbitrary and would have no effect on the world. Who cares about preserving any kind of unique animal life...what do they offer the world? The fact is, if we lost these unique creatures, the world would be lesser for it.

Well the world wouldn't be "lesser for it" if creatures become extinct. Countless species have become extinct; life goes on. The preservation of a phenotype? I really do not see why this is desirable at all. So what if no one has blue eyes anymore; it's not like you're actually killing people off to achieve it. These groups have a common history / heritage sure, but they certainly are not confined to it.

Celebrate Individualism, Not Ethnicity

'White' civilizaton has been on par or better than the rest for the whole of its existence.

The earliest "advanced" civilizations such as Sumeria, Babylon and Egypt were Middle-Eastern and way ahead of the more "white" civilizations of Northern and Western Europe. Before the industrial revolution civilizations were primarily successful due to coercion, war, slavery and imperialist expansionism. Also, over the course of history it has only been a very small minority who felt the benefits of advancements that were made; the majority of the populations lived in horrible poverty and relative slavery. Of course this is a generalization but it is true in that respect; anyway I don't want this to divert into a debate over history.

Let's be realistic here, Eastern Europe is behind when compared to western standards, but if you compare the area to the rest of the world, the only ones that can top them are Germanics/Celts (westerners) and East Asians; they are ahead of the rest.

They are ahead because of the politico-economic systems. Socialism and authoritarianism cause death and stagnation. Russia felt the full force of this, and had they not sacrificed millions of lives, their economic collapse would have arrived much sooner. This is the most obvious demonstration of how the politico-economic structure has the most influence over the functioning of a country. They are white, but this did not save them; socialism destroyed their society.

People create political systems, and political systems are ideas. Ideas are not inherited. A country's polticial system is the primary determinant for it's long term success or failiure. Socialist / authoritarian systems will be less successful, capitalist / libertarian systems will be more successful and examples of this correlation are well documented.

"Twenty countries in sub-Saharan Africa are poorer now than they were in 1990. Another 23 are, astoundingly, poorer than they were in 1975. Three hundred million people in the region now live in extreme poverty. Sub-Saharan Africa also scores lower on the "freedom index" than any region on the planet."

http://william-king....msysf/cs20.html
http://www.srsd.org/...2001/communism/
http://www.libertyha...entionist.shtml
http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1981
http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3355

If everyone had the capacity to do so then I would think there would be more successful areas in the world instead of the ones that sem to follow the strict racial lines. For example, many Africans and East Indians are still in the hunter and gatherer stage; haven't even reached the stone age. Why? A bad idea? LoL. Well, I guess so! So, why do they continue to live in that state?

Countries are successful primarily due to the politico-economic system they implement, as well as countless other factors such as productivity (which relies on the system in place). Obviously they don't want to live in poverty; Most of them are victims of poverty and / or oppression.

Capitalism Is the Cure for Africa's Problems
Africa: A Tragic Continent

I highly doubt Britains average IQ was comparable to Africa's a century ago. I would need proof for that. Really, a century ago and Britain had the biggest empire the world had ever known; and you're comparing them with Africans....

http://observer.guar...,476639,00.html
http://www.staffs.ac...20Dumbingup.htm
http://www.cyberspac...il_2001.html#iq
http://www.numberwat...002 January.htm

Britain's average IQ is currently 100. It has risen 27 points since 1942 (making it 73 back then). The current average IQ of Africa is 70-75.

Then why are a small group of people, whites and East Asians, the only ones who have raised themselves. I know, I know; its the ideas. What you are forgetting is the correlation of success when measured by race or ethnic groups; that IS one big coincidence. Nearly all East Asian and all Western nations are successful, yet, only a handful of other nations have seen such success, and if they have its because they were lucky enough to live on a plot of oil.

It's no coincidence. The Africans never established real centralized governments or empires like those in Europe. They never had the massive amounts of coercion to achieve progression as in Europe, yet it was coercion enough to minimize advancement. Their climate and population dispersion is much less ideal. It doesn't matter how intellegent or able a population is if they cannot use it; North Korea being obvious proof of this. Richer countries established an institutional structure to become rich -- an institutional structure that not only attracted investment but talented, hardworking immigrants, as well. Contrast that to today's poor countries, whose policies and institutional structure do just the opposite -- repel investment and cause their most talented people to leave. No nation "started out" rich. Every nation had to become rich. Free nations became rich. Non-free nations looted until they destroyed the source of wealth, then became poor and will remain that way until they become free.

I was under the impression that egoism is motivation through self-interest. Depending on how egotistical someone is depends on what they will sacrifice for. Remember, some one doesn;t have to be purely altruistic or egotistical. Some will only provide for their own family unit, some for the society, some for the country, and others won't go beyong themselves. Well, I believe that groups, on average, are destined to exist somewhere on the scale of egoism and self-sacrifice. Depending on where they are on this scale depends on what type of ideologies they will embrace as a group.

Providing for a family is still egoistical. One wouldn't do it if it was completely unhelpful to one's self. Parents support children as it's their responsibility, and they gain significant value from their children; children support their parents because they depend on them to survive early on and "owe" them in many ways.

In Africa, where they are very egotistical, the ruling class plundersthe local population for power. They also attempt to smite their opposition. This is why many areas, such as South and Central America, Africa, and the Middle East are so authoritarian.

This is the force initiated by those who achieve power. Plundering the local power is an example of socialism and authoritarianism.

I disagree. I think crime is absolutely that; selfishness. Someone wants to better themself, ie steal a nice radio from their neighbor because its better than the one they already have, at the otehr person's expense. That is being selfish. Murder is selfish because you are depriving a person of their life for your own benefit and the expense of them. People commit crimes because of some reason or motivation to do so, not irrationality.

The last sentence is basically saying that people who murder have a reason to murder; an objective reason. They in fact do not, and commiting murder is irrational and evil. The motivation is usually purely emotional; and emotions are not a tool of cognition or a reference for how to act and thus actions based soley on emotions are also irrational. Okay yes crime is selfish, or at least it is intended to be, but it is irrational egoism rather than rational egoism and the consequences are potentially far more damaging to the individual than they are helpful.

No, I am not demonizing anybody. I was just stating that Jews are egotistical as a group, but are more dangerous than blacks because they also have the capacity (higher average intelligence) to reach unlimited potential in a society as to force their agenda onto others; for their benefit and the expense of others.

Sounds awfully Marxist. I.e. jews = bourgeoisie.

Also, I am curious about what you think about Jewish success? Do you think its just coincidence or do you believe genetics (higher average intelligence) plays a role?

Well we have already decided that we can't reach a conclusion. It is however inconsequential; if they are successful in using their intellectual advantages then all the best to them. If they are not using force or fraud that is. Have you any documentation of jews having a high rate of use of force / fraud?

I didn't know egoism only applied to individuals and not groups. So, you think its impossible for a people to have self-interest for their own group? I think egosim can exist in stages; egoism for the individual, egoism for the family unit, egoism for the ethnic group, and egoism for the society as a whole. Now, that might not make much sense to you, but when you think about it, its all where the average person in the group exists on the scale of egoism and self-sacrifice. If the average person in a group is at the egotistical side of the spectrum then they wouldn't go much further than caring for themselves, while, if the person is atthe other side of the spectrum then they care for society, or even the world, as a single unit.

No it's a contradiction in terms. "Ego" implies the individual person. Egoism "for a group" is nonsensical; it is only egoism if helping the group helps the individual. Again, if this involves no force or fraud; there is no wrong doing.

Now, to go a little further, capitalism only works in countries that the average person is willing to sacrifice for the general society. People don't need to steal from their neighbor, as much, because they are complacent with where they're at. They are willing to do their part to make society work. They sacrifice their life for the greater good; society. This is why low-class white areas are not plagued with crime as well.

Capitalism works regardless. Lack of freedom and defense of individual rights is all that will prevent capitalism from "working". Rational people don't "work for society" they work ultimately for themselves.

Loving Life: The Morality of Self-Interest and the Facts that Support It (Part 1 of 7)

Capitalism will not work in countries with egotistical people because everyone will be waiting to get their turn. People are not complacent with where they are at and they continuosly want more at any cost. This means the ruler will attempt to 'steal' ultimate control at the expense of the poeple as well as why they will horde all humanitarian aid for themselves. So they have the power to distribute it. In short, they will always be predisposed to create authoritarian regimes and will never be able to implement such a system as capitalism. In America, this is why all-black neighborhoods, even those that reach lower middle-class status (such as Carol City in South Florida for those who are familiar with that area), are still all crime ridden. They look to benefit from the expense of their neighbors, or look for the 'easy route', such as drug dealing, still all at the expense of others.

Capitalism will work best with egoistical people. What your writing seems so familiar; it's exactly what I was writing one year ago in defense of communism. You mention a "ruler"; capitalism has no such entity.

I am sure environment plays a role on an individuals outward personality; for example, a black who is born middle class might 'act' similar to a white of middle class, but would his temperament be the same? This is going back into genetics, and is a dead-end discussion. I haven't enough knowledge on the topic and don't have enough patience to look up the information to continue such a discussion.

This is a very large assumption on your behalf; that blacks can only "act" white while not thinking as such "on the inside". How do you know it is not the same for whites? Moreover, why would it even matter what one's inner-temperment was if their outward manner was acceptable?

Well, depending on the situation. Sometimes self-sacrificing might call for one to give his life for his nation, but most of the time, the individual will work for his spot in life, and from their will do his part to better society. He is sacrificing his life and complacent with his status all for society, and doesn't need to benefit from other people's expense. This is how it would be in a monoracial society where the people are all willing to sacrifice for the community.

I don't see your basis for these assumptions. Sacrificing yourself for "the masses" is a wholly Marxist idea.

Now, it is definitley self-destructive when you have multiple ethnic groups within one society as equals. The self-sacrificing community will give all they've got for the other communities, even their land, while the other communities will continue to take for themselves what they can get from the sacrificing community. Inevitably, all distinct ethnicities will die out except those who are the most egotistical. this is exactly what is happening in America and Western Europe today.

Where is your reasoning behind this?

Britain built its present-day system off of the foundation that laid before it. America also built its system off this same foundation. Like you said, we build off of the work of others, BUT, as long as we have the capacity to do so, I really don't believe the African San can create a society on par with Westerners, even if we gave then all the necessary items to do so. Also, I would like to add that Western societies weren't always capitalist and free-market orientated, when we were fuedal, we were still on par (namely East Asian) or on top of the rest of the world, and as the Rennaisance kicked off, we supassed the rest by far.

By what standard are you judging? If you're going by technology then sure, but if you're going on freedom, poverty, conflict etc. then no.

So, what would be the answer for African nations? Move all of them over here? What makes you think they won't be tyrranical over here when they are in large numbers in proportion to the population as a whole? That's taking a pretty big gamble don't you think? Surely, wherever they exist in large numbers, they have shown 'tyrranical' and anti-social behavior as a group.

Establish a capitalist society and Africa will fix itself. Read some of the relevant links I have given.

Most countries in South America, at least according to the CIA world factbook, have market-oriented economies; the countries are in shambles. What's funny is, France and Germany both have very socialist economies, and although growth has slowed, it is nowhere near dieing, and their per capita GDP (which measures economic strength) are some of the highest in the world. I think that's a hole in Capitalism, the idea, is what causes countries to be successful.

They are socialist. They are authoritarian. They have been so since they were formed.

http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1696

France and such made huge leaps when they became more capitalist in the 19th century, but now their socialist policies are seriously slowing them down. Of course it will take a while before their economies start feeling the effects of socialism; these aren't things which happen overnight.

Sorry for the long post.

Hehe it's okay; took me a long time to write out my response but I enjoy getting the ol' mental cogs working. I appreciate the time you're putting into this.

[Darkademic]

This was another post I never replied to:

They don't belong because?

BECAUSE THEY AREN'T WHITE. What is so hard to understand? They have their countries, why can't we have ours? Why are you for homogeneous nations in Africa, Asia, and elsewhere, but not in Europe? What does it matter even if we are the same? NO PEOPLE DESERVE TO BE DISPLACED WHATEVER THEY MAY BE.

America belongs to black Americans just as much as it does to white Americans. America is their country. Most of them conform to American ways of life. It's the same in England; most blacks are typically English in how they behave. I saw a black person on the bus yesterday wearing business attire and he talked like a very upper-class English person! How can you suggest HE and the many others like him "don't belong"?

Don't you get it? They are coming to our countries because we made ours good and they destroyed theirs. Why do we have to be punished, through displacement, because we did good and they did bad?? Why are you for this punishment? Its not right and I don't understand how ANY sane person who knows anything about history could agree with it. Even if race is a social contruct, IT EXISTS and means something; just look at legislation in the U.S., or read a newspaper to see.

They didn't destroy their country though, it was in turmoil well before they were even born. Just because you were lucky enough to be born there doesn't give you any more claim over the country as a whole.

[iF0rmulae]

So, is he actually going to respond?

[Darkademic]

I had been debating for a few weeks at SF and this guy did a "summary" of my arguments. I can't be bothered to waste anymore time at SF but I will post my response here just so he doesn't get the "final word".

His original post is at http://www.stormfron...650#post1917650

So, he is unable to distinguish a "black culture" that is many times more prone to AIDS than any "white" or "asian" culture?

The implication here is that being prone to AIDS is part of "black culture". So I suppose all white people with AIDS, or whom are HIV positive, are part of black culture too.

Perhaps "shared culture" is what's throwing him off. When he hears "white culture" he should think, the culture of the entire set of people who are white. When he hears a WN say "white," generally he should think of "a descendant of European Christendom." This is an ancestral designation, there isn't anything remotely impossible about specifying it. Most of our brains are devoted to processing visual data, and we can categorize people racially with a high degree of accuracy just by studying them for a few moments.

By this logic - ANY group of people can have a culture - even those who have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING CULTURALLY in common. I'm part of right-handed culture, it beats left-handed culture hands down!

DR is speciously (and somewhat surreptitiously) implying that every single member of a proposed group must share a value or a trait for it to be a "group" trait. That's false.

So - I am a White Nationalist then - even though I do not hold any WN beliefs. That apparently doesn't matter!

Groups are possible using various factors and matrices of factors, and they're capable of being fuzzy. His thinking here is turgid and shallow. If 5 bank robbers kidnap a hostage evading police, they're still a bunch of bank robbers even if one of their "group" is an innocent victim. What DR is really doing is attacking the idea of human groups per se.

This does not backup your claims at all. How the hell is the innocent victim a bank robber?! So you think the police are going to send ALL of them to prison? This really demonstrates what your beliefs are all about - "get rid of all non-whites since some of them are bad".

There is no shared tradition, belief or lifestyle between whole races, and there is therefore no culture associated with those races.

European cultures have more in common with European cultures than with African cultures. Descendants of European Christendom share more ancestors with Mozart and Michelangelo than asians or blacks do.

Individuals are unique, but personalities still emerge from groups.

What we're getting from DR is the impression that he hasn't accounted for Social Identity Theory or anything like it. Science shows us that people are hugely tribal, and that they will fracture into groups at the slightest differences. The more SALIENT the difference, the more they fracture and the more highly they place the fracture in terms of "fracture hierarchy" (as individuals can handle multiple factions).

The first point is irrelevant to the point I made about "shared racial culture" - shared ancestors is nothing to do with it. Race is not an objectively salient difference. Culture is populational not racial - a black American has more in common culturally with a white American than he does with a black African living in a rural tribe community.

Stereotypes and wive's tales usually have basis in good hard observational evidence. Like walking under ladders? Keep in mind that frequently a person working atop a ladder drops things, and they generally fall straight down. So, the old wive's tale is good solid advice.

He acts as if "generalizing behavior" isn't good science. It is.

Actual behaviour of individuals is better information than "general behaviour of races". You act on the latter and ignore the former.

So, DR sees no correlation between race and culture. Wow, it is hard to argue with total stupidity! What am I to expect from a guy who talks about race yet doesn't know what his opponents even think about the subject, much less culture or correlations?

A few centuries ago there were lands and peoples that had never seen a white man, but this guy sees no correlation between race and culture. ROTFLMAO!

Glad you like to roll around laughing due to something that is not funny in the slightest. People never seeing a white person before has absolutely no relevance whatsoever - maybe that's what you were laughing at? I also never said that race and culture do not correlate - very vaguely - some "races" are more likely to have a particular culture than others. What I said was that race does not determine culture.

How does he know ethnicity is a "non-essential factor," especially given his statement below that "all the data isn't in on race" (paraphrasing there)? What is a non-essential factor? What is an essential factor? ISN'T THE FACT THAT PEOPLE THE WORLD OVER CONSIDER IT VERY MUCH AN ESSENTIAL FACTOR SOMEWHATE FLYING IN THE FACE OF HIS ASSERTION THAT IT'S INCONSEQUENTIAL OR UNIMPORTANT?

Appeal to popularity. Changing the criteria are we? We're talking about race not ethnicity - otherwise you can break down "white" into any number of ethnicities. Race is not an essential factor regarding someones character, ideas and values - it is a purely circumstantial factor.

You hear that? There's no ONE tradition/lifestyle/custom/idea (meme) held by all white people, therefore "white culture" is unidentifiable.

What sort of culture does this leave us? There is no meme common to ALL Americans* so there is no identifiable "American*" culture, or "German*" or Nigerian or Thai culture. There is no political culture, no artistic culture, no group culture of any kind permissible under this criticism. Only "individual culture," an oxymoron, is possible in DR's world.

You have a point. The national cultures above are just terms for a collection of sub-cultures within a particular country. The culture of the samurai may be part of "Japanese culture", but not all Japanese people are samurais. This simply means concepts of national, racial or ethnic cultures like these are simply generalizations - groupings of more specific cultures - rather than specific entities in themselves. None of this helps your case - it just invalidates the idea that "white culture" means anything specific.

This doesn't mean only individual culture is possible, as you claim, since it doesn't mean people can't have shared ideas / lifestyle / traditions - it simply means that national cultures are generalizations. It means that some "cultures" are more generalized than others. Usually, the bigger the group - the more generalized - making "white culture" far too generalized to be of any use as a concept.

Huh? What the hell does that mean? In America, blacks correlate much more strongly with violent crime than whites or asians. What kind of non-racial demographic explains this? Is he going to explain away the disproportionately high black rape rate with poverty now? He needn't bother, the numbers (controlled for SES) wouldn't support him.

You're ignoring individuals again - this would make "white" rapists part of "black culture" - and since the only characteristic of "white culture" is "whiteness" - and the only characteristic of "black culture" is "blackness" - this doesn't make sense. If racial cultures are not exclusive to any particular race - and the amount of overlapping is by no means trivial - why identify these cultures based on "race" in the first place? "Western culture" would be a more fitting term - and a person of any race can be part of Western culture.

Lol, he's a bit special isn't he. How is "criminal culture" (a construct of his mind) "identifiable" when there is no meme shared by all criminals? He's so full of shyte his teeth are brown. He seems to be doing his best to doggy-paddle his way about though, God bless him!

Idiot - criminals have CRIME in common - since it's an ACT. "Being white" is NOT an action - so it is not a cultural characteristic.

He has his blinkers on, that's why he can't see it. When culture x blends with culture y to become xy, both cultures x and y are destroyed and one cannot just "extract" x or y back out of xy. That's a loss of diversity. When culture x1 evolves into culture x2, x1 has been lost indeed, but that in no way makes the exchange of x1 for xy the same as the exchange of x1 for x2.

All this of course is ignoring Salterian interests, which trump all of this.

Culture is not mathematical. My association with parts of Chinese culture only ADD to my "cultural self". You imply cultures are mutually exclusive - e.g. you can't eat BOTH Chinese and English food - you have to either mix them together into hybrid meal, or stick with one. It's not x + y = xy it's simply x + y = x + y. If I did choose to try mixing Chinese and English food together though, it would be x + y --> x + y + xy. Creating new cultural composites does not destroy the original cultural elements - it's not like chemistry.

One does not choose the culture one is raised into, which has enormously more impact on an individual than the culture he's exposed to later in life. It's also stupid to imply that culture is a simple "yeah sure" choice when it clearly is not. Humans are not completely rational free actors but animals who are vulnerable to suggestion and manipulation and persuasion and argument and opprobrium. We're social creatures.

Social institutions are not a determinant - they just lay out a scope of possibilities and options from which the individual can choose. Early in life a child may simply accept things - including lies - but as one gets older - one has the ability to reject any false ideas, if he/she chooses to put the effort in to understand the falseness in they have been told. My dad loves football and has always tried to make me like it just as much. The country is also football crazy. However, I do not like it - I choose not to like it because I value many other things higher than football.

Anyway - this has no relevance to "race culture".

Does he or does he not approve of a people creating a living space just for itself? Can he think of a way for a race to ensure its existence without having a living space? Is it okay for family and friends to ask to stay the night if in need? How about complete strangers? How about several strangers?

That's what PRIVATE PROPERTY is for. If a non-white comes to America and legitimately acquires some property - you have no say over his ownership of that property.

Whites have many overlapping matrices of cultural similarities, one only need remove one's blinkers to see them; DR should try starting with observation and progressing to conclusions, instead of the other way around, and see where that gets him. The rest of his strawman bleating about eugenics and purity aren't worth my time. Even if I was a supremacist I wouldn't be the silly cardboard cutout he's grappling with.

And many blacks have the SAME "matrices of cultural similarities". You are merely ignorant enough to ignore this and fit them into a "negative / threatening" group regardless.

Britain is ten percent non-white, and showing that Britain has a better economy than a less non-white nation isn't going to "prove" that Britain owes any success whatsoever to multiracialism. The lesson there is that Communism is bad for economies, though it seems even worse for non-whites than for whites.

There's barely room to stretch in Britain as it is, but there go the British pols bringing in more "asylum seekers" (seeking asylum from the societies they and theirs created) from the 3rd world; knobs like DR are to blame.

No Britain's success alone won't prove it, but the contribution of non-whites to the economy will: South Asians alone contribute more than £5 billion to the economy. On the whole - ethnic minorities are worth around £32 billion to the economy.

How does he propose to test cultures to determine whether or not they'll be "destructive" to one another when he's set forth rules that make all such cultures "unidentifiable?" Does he propose to just throw cultures together (without at least the natives' permission, as has been the rule throughout the west) and figure out later if they're "destructive" towards one another? If so, how does he propose to determine if the relations are "destructive" when his rules as set forth make any such cultures "unidentifiable?"

His own internal "logic" is so shot through with holes that I assume he came up with it only seconds prior to posting.

I've already explained how cultures are identified. Destructive cultures are those which are harmful & violent. Cultures which promote violence - which promote irrational behaviour - which are anti-individualist.

There is no one common meme in "religious culture," or "musical culture," or "British culture," or "German" culture, etc. It's about relative frequencies of meme-matrices, not any single meme shared by all. It's about the differences in culture one gets when sampling all blacks as opposed to all whites or all Germans or all x.

His assertions fly in the face of both the dictionary and common sense definitions of culture.

So in other words - a person can be part of a culture without having ANY of that culture's ideas, values or traditions. This flies in the face of dictionary and common sense definitions.

His treatment here of the term MCism as if it means "different peoples interacting" is curious. If indeed as he implies MCism is something that just "is," then why promote it? Why do our elites ram it down our throats, and dedicate asides to it, as if it is some positive that we'll all be better for embracing? We all know of course that THE WORLD is mutlicutural, but how does that imply that all nations SHOULD BE multicultural?

Is he confusing an "is" with an "ought?"

I never implied an "ought". Promoting MCism is just as pointless as trying to fight it. The very fact that we are arguing shows conflicting interests between whites. Cultures in reality are infinitely overlapping - one can be part of thousands of "cultures" based on his individual ideas / lifestyle. It's never a case of "culture-x vs. culture-y" it's a case of "idea-x vs. idea=y".

Societies vary in their homogeneity, and Japan, a relatively very homogenous society, isn't close to becoming a nation of "clones." In other words, the most homogenous nations on Earth have plenty of diversity and don't need to import any.

Doesn't his assertion that a perfectly (strawmanly) homogenous society would be clonal imply that he's a genetic determinist?

"Homogenity = diversity" -- right then.

And no - it would not imply that I'm a genetic determinist because I never implied anything about genetics - I used the term "clone" to imply exact sameness in terms of culture / character.

Working to maximize homogeneity isn't impossible (as Japan can attest), nor is working to minimize it (as the U.S., Australia, Canada and most of the west can readily attest).

So is Japan homogenous or diverse? Make up your mind.

One side says "human biodiverity is important, is among our primary interests, and should be preserved" the other says "no, human biodiversity is meaningless except for surface traits and preserving it is wrong." An intelligent man does indeed step back and conclude, "hmm, none of this has been conclusively proven yet," but he does not treat each as having equal merit!

Ad Hominem Tu Quoque.

Anyway, I never said biodiversity should be preserved, nor did I say it should be actively prevented.

Nonsense: gene tests are perfectly objective. Even so, fuzzy borders do not invalidate the concept of race, any more than fuzzy borders invalidate the concept of color (or can he, unlike anyone else on Earth, show me precisely where orange ends and red begins?).

Has he read any of the articles I've pointed out yet? I doubt it. He should be off somewhere by now educating himself and wondering why he'd choose to argue with people whose arguments he doesn't even understand yet, but he doesn't have the sense for that.

Fuzzy borders do not invalidate the concept of "race" no - but VERY fuzzy borders DO invalidate attempts to draw a line between "distinct" races.

Colour is a FAR, FAR simpler concept as it only has a SINGLE variable - light wavelength - so you can judge a colour as being "red", "orange" or "red-orange", but not BOTH "red" AND "red-orange". "Race" involves thousands and thousands of variables which overlap - so depending which variable you choose - someone can be "black" in one instance and "white" in another.

Comparing the two simply supports the idea of gradiated races. Good work.

He's still wrong; race correlates fairly strongly with culture, far more strongly than most traits.

It doen't, but so what if it did? Again - why is a black person who "acts white" (by your arrogant standards) still treated as if he "acts black" - I.e. excluded from the "white nation". Ignoring individuality.

Race does not strongly correlate with culture. Some specific things might roughly correlate with "race" - but not "culture" in totality. Also, there is nothing that is culturally exclusive to a single "race" - so culture CANNOT seperate "whites" from "non-whites" no matter how you try to push it.

Relatively speaking (globally), the Japanese subcultures are extraordinarily similar to one another!

This was in response to "From the youth culture of Tokyo, to the rural country men, to Shinto priests. Are you saying these groups are somehow very similar?" So in other words, yes, you actually believe priests are "extraordinarily similar" to teenagers in Japan.

Ah, so now that you're not playing semantic games anymore, all a culture needs are "things associated with it."

Laws are not a cultural trait that people carry with them. When a Japanese tourist is in America he does not have his law. Is his culture any less Japanese? Doesn't the fact of dialects (colloquialisms are present in all languages) argue counter to his assertion of a common Japanese language as cultural trait?

Isn't a "broadly shared mentality" exactly what we've been arguing when discussing "white culture?" Isn't this a violation of his "one meme shared by ALL members of a culture" 'rule?' He seems to have two sets of logical criteria, one for himself and another for us.

I've been over this. I retract my comments about the "all members sharing aspects of a culture for it to be a culture at all" - I concede that culture can be either specific or generalized and different cultures range between the two. "Asian culture" is extremely generalized - "Japanese culture" is less so - "Tokyo student culture" is less so etc. The more generalized cultures have less practical use since they do not imply actual unity of ideas / lifestyle, just a vague cohesiveness. Cultures are still gradiated, overlapping and range from broad to narrow in what constitutes them.

There are commonalities which exist, e.g. western civilization. It's funny how whites in South Africa and Zimbabwe end up with cultures more similar to those of whites in Europe than blacks in Africa, isn't it?

Since culture is passed on and learned - obviously. It's funny how blacks in America and England end up with cultures more similar to those of whites in Europe and America than blacks in Africa, isn't it?

I only said that there is a Japanese culture, but this is not the only culture in Japan. There are countless cultures which those living in Japan may or may not be identifiable with. E.g. the culture of a group of Shinto priests would be rather differnt to a group of Toyko students.

...all of which are Japanese cultures and have more in common that with the average non-Japanese culture.

Nope. Shinto priests will have more in common with priests around the world than with Tokyo students. Tokyo students will have more in common with students from the west than with priests.

I have a chinese girlfriend blah blah <snip>

I wonder how many of DR's ilk believe as they do at bottom because they like to bang asian chicks, how many object to those who oppose mass race-replacement (ethnic cleansing...slow genocide...call it what you will) just because exotics (non-natives) give them a stiffy?

Genocide implies intentional killing of groups. Me choosing a non-white partner is not an attempt to kill anyone - and it won't. Race mixing does not equate to murder.

DR is so naive he thinks all Chinese people love him and speak about him the same way to his face as they do behind his back for Chinese ears only. He would do well to learn a bit about the Chinese and their racism (missed the Condoleeza Rice flap have we?).

Now you're openly lying. I do not think such a thing - Just because I have some white friends does not mean I want all white people as my friends - same goes for people of any ethnicity. You make baseless assumptions about people you don't even know - whites are just as likely to talk behind your back and be racist as anyone else.

If he'd read the thread on racial categories in the Science forum he'd know better, but he isn't interested in that! See, anything that might convince him to enjoy his Chinese girlfriend less then he does now must not be investigated, it must be rejected, sight unseen.

Why would I care if my girlfriend was biologically more different to me than an average white girl? Why would that change my perception of her? It wouldn't alter the fact that I love her for who she actually is - not what her genes say she "probably" is.

What kind of sense does this make: "since race is gradual, we categorize on appearance"?

Read what I put in context. Race biologically is gradual - we categorize race on appearance. How does this NOT make sense?

Essentially DR is once again surrendering the argument here. He's stated that a white group can be identified. So, all we need to do is compare the cultural means (averages) of all members of the white race with the same for all non-white groups to get a meaningful picture of precisely what white culture is.

Duh.

That's all WN is essentially based upon - averages. The average IQ of whites is 100 - which isn't particularly good. On average - white people prefer non-intellectual activity such as reality TV, shopping and entertainment. So bloody what?! You simply ignore individuals who do not fit the average. Averages are not accurate predictors of an individual's characteristics. If a black person has exactly the same personality and interests as your best friend for example - why would he not be equally suitable for your best friend? Because he's black? So?!

When 100 environmentalists run an environmentalist NGO, there's one culture at that NGO. When 10 Texan oil millionaires who care nothing for the environment join, the culture has changed. Environmentalists have proportionally less power over the organization AND ITS CULTURE than they did before. Once the Texans number half the total membership, the first culture of the NGO has been effectively destroyed and replaced by a new culture.

This sort of simplicity is lost on DR.

Since it isn't like that at all. The ideas of the 100 environmentalists will remain the same - the ideas of the oil millionaires will remain the same - unless persuasion happens. The two cultures that existed in the first place are still there - just because you group them all arbitrarily under a single heading doesn't make them miraculously become in agreement with one another.

Again he drags out his on-again off-again, now-you-see-it now-you-don't "meme shared by ALL white people." Oh brother. My God this guy is the poster child...

It it irrelevant if it's culture or not - or if you can decide what "white culture" even is - it remains true that there are more divisions amongst whites than there are unifying characterisitcs - and that there aren't any characteristics held by all - or even most - "whites".

The two correlate to a massive degree. I wonder how many blacks he think give birth to white children? I'll let his idiocy about "observational categories" go because he's scientifically illiterate (all data is based on observation, therefore all categories are as well).

Go on then - show me your evidence. What "racial" genes are linked with the genes that determine skin colour - and what do these genes do? Six genes determine skin colour - observational categories of race are based on these six genes. Observational categories of race do not directly correspond with the thousands of other genes which are prevalent in particular populations.

I find Chinese/Japanese females generally a lot more attractive than English/Russian females.

Never mind that the ones he likes are probably Eurasian. Did you see how he just puts it out there, that he prefers asian females to white females? (Never mind the speculation involving low-testosterone white males and preference for asian females)

So far he's given his best argument as "cuz my gal's asian!"

I suppose I have a genetic predisposition to prefer the colour purple to other colours too? The "one's I like" are not Eurasian actually. This wasn't an argument it was a fact. I don't see why you've brought the fact I have a Chinese girlfriend up so many times - none of my argument is based upon that fact - you're moaning about it for no reason. All my other female friends have been white in the past so you're making a null point.

Notice how when he finally admits that he's been playing semantic games in bad faith all this time, he prefaces his paragraph with, "to be honest." I guess my mom is right, starting a sentence that way undermines everything else you say that you don't preface that way.

It's a figure of speech.

Notice how he pretends that a significant portion of the cries of "MCism forever!" aren't designed to do just that, to forward relativistic frameworks for evaluating groups.

Blah blah.. I don't support forced or legislated MCism.

He's using ignorance as a weapon again I see. Notice how he happens to use "Jewspeak" as well. He doesn't come out and state MCism isn't an ideology, he just implies it. Maybe that's because he's just smart enough to know he's wrong and might get called on it. Multiculturalism is an ideology.

Multiculturalism is an ideology yes, so?

I thought Commies knew a thing or two about race, at least "as a social construct." The Beav has never heard of "white flight" I guess.

White flight is caused by either irrational fears - or because of actual negatives such as crime in a neighbourhood. A neighbourhood won't become trashed simply because "blacks" move in - they have to be "bad" blacks.

Rand can take her hatred of my race to hell with her. I wonder if Beaver knows his heroine despised multiculturalism?

Yes, and in the way she meant it, I despise it too. You distort "multiculturalism" by equivocating it with "multiracialism".

True, and if you really wanted to take this view far enough, I suppose you could say that each individual has his/her own personal "culture."

In a way yes, but then it wouldn't be an actual culture because the factor of "shared" ideas / lifestyle is removed.

LOL. See above. "Duh, in a way I guess, duh, wait, that, like, makes for an ox-y-mor-onic definition of culture...darn."

The thing is, I already knew that.

Note how a Christian cannot be a part of Islamic culture and vice-versa, as though there weren't millions of people running around contradicting him every day with their intermarriage and their living side by side daily. A black can be a part of "white" culture though, right?

Intermarriage and living side by side in no way invalidates what I said. A SINGLE person cannot be a Christian and a Muslim. And yes, a "black" person can be part of "white culture".

Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors and others that share non-essential characteristics.

Note that racists never say this, but rather anti-racists say it and beat it like the strawman it is.

Yeah.. sure. You want to escape from ALL NON-WHITES - you therefore see ALL of them as a threat or as incompatible. If this isn't confiming my above statement, I don't know what will.

Now this is reaaaallly rich. I'm really enjoying this one. Note that I generally write replies linearly top to bottom; I don't read the whole thing first, instead I parse it and reply as I go. So, I didn't really know that Beaver was a Randite, I just smelled it on him. I expressed my feelings about Rand, and perfect as punch he goes on to quote the precise bit from Rand I was referring to, her ad hominem anti-rural anti-white working class anti-farmer* prejudice in her (silly little) essay "Racism."

http://svyatoslav.50...ANDSRACISM.HTML

http://s7.invisionfr...a...t=195

[Twilight]

Those are huge DR! Been a busy fellow haven't you?

Bravo concerning your posts at SF btw; you made a few little mistakes but I'll let it go this once!

DR is speciously (and somewhat surreptitiously) implying that every single member of a proposed group must share a value or a trait for it to be a "group" trait. That's false.

Why do you even bother with this imbecile DR? I saw some of his posts over on SF. The guy makes so many logical fallacies and spouts so many pointless insults that it shows him as completely incompetent and incapable of rational debate. He is a baffoon! Slander doesn't appear to be replying. I guess WNs don't like to venture too far from the fold.

Oh and for the bemusement of any WNs looking at this, I am black (using your standards anyway). Quick run away, ahhhh!