23 replies to this topic

[slander55]

For black users of this forum: I use the black racial group within my line of reasoning as an example; obviously I could use other groups instead. Regardless, although I am a racialist, I judge people on an individual basis only. Please do not take my reference to your group as offensive (although, I know its hard not to) because I am not talking about you personally.

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.

You don't think you would share a more similar temperament with your brother, sister, father, or mother than some stranger on the street? We have many ancestor's genetic makeup to choose from; of course, its an amalgamation of all our ancestors, and the many possibilities are limitless, but we will still more likely share our closest relatives physical attributes as well as propensities. To go further, I don't see any reason why this wouldn't extend to specific groups who are more related to each other; like ethnicity and to a lesser extent, racial families. However, as I have said before, I believe all groups' measureable attributes are distributed on a normal curve; thus, the average is higher for one group, but individuals from the other can have a higher "score". I am sure you have heard of the bell curve; and yes, I know many of you can probably conjure articles that supposedly refute it as well. But, I can also refute those with more that confirm the bell curve. It would be a pointless "reference" battle.

This subject is especially trivial and due to the current level of understanding on genetics. You say there is no "intelligence" gene or genes. Well, then what genes are there? Can you give me a research paper that has pinpointed the "blonde hair" gene? I'm not even sure if we have gotten that far.

Your race is not of direct value to you; only certain members of it.

You are correct. I don't care, personally, for every single person that is apart of my race, but I do acknowledge the right for all distinguishable groups to exist. Why do people care to save the Florida Panther? From the external view, its just a black Mountain Lion in the swamp; there are plenty of tan Mountain Lions in the Southwest of America. Why do people care to save any species or sub-species of animals?

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.

But, how do you explain the fact that every single area where blacks make up a sizeable population, the area is, for the most part, anti-social. Its the same in Africa, Haiti, America, South America, etc. Now, I do concede that political and economic systems do play a role in considering the success of countries, but as for black nations, they are ALL too overwhelmingly similar. Too coincidental; I would think at least one area where they make up a sizeable population, they would be successful. (EDIT: I just reread this and I understand this line of reasoning is getting redundant; so let me rephrase a little, if black individuals can be successful (which is obviously true), why can't at least one large black society be successful? Why can't they make the right "system in at least one of their lands?)

Remember, the larger the number of whatever is being sampled, the closer to the average you get. Statistics.

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.

Considering there are no differences among different populations, I mean the world would "be lesser" as a matter of principle. As I have said before, why does anybody want to preserve unique species or sub-species, or races, or whatever? I guess, in this instance, its all a matter of opinion.

I must say however, if the white race, particularly Germanic-Celts, does die out, the historical track record shows that this group has created at least 95% percent of the world's advancements. Coincidence? Maybe, but what if it isn't? I know, I know, individualism.... but if it truly is a random process based on what type of environment people live in and not genetic differences, and considering the fact that only a handful of of nonwhite countries have reached 1st world status (most of these are of just one other group; East Asians), I would say, if Whites vanished, the human species, in general, will be in a whole lotta trouble.

Regardless, that is secondary to the fact that ALL people that identify as a group deserve the right to self-determination free from outside influence. That goes for every single ethnic group. Whites, blacks, Orientals, Indians, etc. all deserve this same right.

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.

Whites didn't always live in Europe. Modern day whites migrated to Europe from present-day Caucassus steppes in Russia and are known as indo-Europeans or "Nordics". From there, these people spread to all parts of the world including Europe, Middle East, India, China, and even Japan. In the Middle-East, at least in those times, the population was white, but in time, was bred with many other groups from Africa and Asia to produce the population there today. Mediterranean whites also comprised most of ancient Egypt as well.

Looking at modern history, one knows quite well that people's ethnic composition within a given land changes do to intermixing between racial lines. Look at Central and South America for refernce. In as little as 500 years, the have changed from being a "pure" Native American people to a White/Native mix that is certainly different from both of the "pure" groups.

Of course, one would have to look at mummies from the time to really know.

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.

I agree, don't want to dwell off topic too far, but whites have been more dominant than others becuase they were more successful. What generated this success? Chance? All other groups had just as much of a chance to be as successful, but some still have individuals who are hunter-gatherers. Why don't hunter-gatherers still exist in all groups. From your logic, one would assume that all groups would have a similar chance to show this type of behavior, yet it is only existent, to a large extent, within the traditional Negroid population and central and south Native Americans. The small population of Western Whites and East Asian are really the only first-world nations, and besides a brief Arabic rise, they have been the only groups to acheive such success throughout all of history.

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.

I concede that a countries success will be determined partially of political and economic systems. I still believe, however, that certain groups, when left to themselves, will lean towards a similar system, and when they attempt to organize a system that they are not compatible with, it will fail.

For example, your so-called free-market South American countries. Another example is Nazi Germany, non-capitalist and a great economic success; just too ambitious on warring. The people make it or break it.

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.

Listen, Africa fits your mold because most are authoritarian (although Nazi Germany was too, but it was an economic success; as a matter of fact, most Western European nations were "authoritarian" monarchies, but these areas still advanced), but Central and South America do not. Explain Mexico to me. These countries are supposed to have a similar system as North America and West Europe, but they seem to be plagued by anti-social behavior that inhibits a free-market economy. Why is it so different there than it is in America? Why don't people in America behave with a similar anti-social behavior?

I know... it's gotta be something besides the people. How dare it be the people who are within the system.

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.

That's assuming tests were truly accurate back then. So, what were the Africans' IQs, 50? The fact remains that Britain had the largest empire the world has ever known and a high proportion of ethnic Britons have contributed to the advancement of this world when comparing their population to the rest of the world. This all started before they were truly capitalist.

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.

Europe has always been richer than Africa and most of the world as well, though. Also, what's this about environment? Africa has some of the most fertile land in the world near and around Ethiopia, but the people there have destroyed the land. White farmers were doing the faming in Zaire, until their leader, the tyrant Mugabe, decided to take their land and slaughter them. Of course, now, if you read up on the subject, Mugabe wants to give them some land back because the black population is starting to starve. Unbelievable. Everybody had the same chance, some people could do it, and others just can't. Everything else are excuses. If we ignore the root cause of the problems, we will never be able to help them. The root cause are the people. They must take responsibility for themselves and Westerners must stop making excuses. Why do you think they will be any different here, when they make up the majority of white countries?

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.

Sure, but the most egotistical parents won't even care for their child while the most self-sacrificing will die for their children. Those are different sides of the spectrum. Its all about where a person is on the spectrum.

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

Maybe an authoritarian system is the product of an egotistical people. People acheive power only because there are some, mainly wealth holders, who want them in power. Therefore, they can see benefits from such a regime and the dictator keeps power.

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.

Wow... do we agree on at least one point?

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

The history of the Jew's influence on societies runs very deep and stretches even into Roman times. Don't get me wrong, I do not "hate" Jews; I have a few Jewish acquaintances and they are very nice people, but their group's influence on Western society is undeniable and not necessarily to the benefit of white people. Of course, a racialist's perspective on why they are so influential is the same exact reasoning of why whites are more influential/successful than blacks (as a group), different genetic predispositions.

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.

We can't get lost in semantics, which it seems we are doing. I am trying to state, what I believe are, the different levels of egotism. Those who are most egotistical will not even care for their own children, while those who are most sacrificial will give their life for society in general, quite possibly even the "global" society.

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.

I disagree. Competition is healthy and it fosters growth and development. Money is obviously what pushes those to compete. But, when people are too egotistical, they begin to lie, cheat, steal, and murder. When a group is too egotistical, they will create an enviornment where a lack of freedom exists. The egotistical cannot keep a capitalist society intact. This is why Africa, Middle East, and South America will have such a problem implementing a capitalist system.

On the other hand, white societies have always been sacrificial. In being sacrificial, whites will be complacent with their position if they cannot acheive a higher status. Whites work as the cogs in a clock; they accept their status in society and work to improve whatever organization they are apart of. In essence, they sacrifice their lives for what they are apart of. This runs deep and is the main reason whites are freely giving over their native lands to hordes of non-whites. (of course, I am speaking by averages again because I am sure you have met many a greedy white guy).

Also, I will read up on the link you have supplied when I have some free time.

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 not familar with a "pure" form of capitalism that it appears you are speaking of. Is a capitalist system ruled by a government body? A republic? When I speak of capitalism, I am speaking of the economic system only, not a political system.

Capitalism will not work with an egotistical people for the reasons I gave above. Capitalist systems are beneficial because they weed out the weak as to supply the consumer with the most superior product/service to price ratio. In a sacrificial society, people give theri lives to better the organization they work for. Egotistical people will plunder the organization they work for. The only way to be successful in a capitalist society is if you work together in order to make your organization the best; therefore, everyone is trying to be better than everyone else, and this is, not only good for the consumer, but for the economy as well. This is not egotistical though because it wouldn't work unless the average manager/worker was complacent with their position and didn't have the need to loot and plunder, either the business or society in general.

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, it is natural to conform to your surroundings. The fact is, you could have a very intelligent black who makes enough money to live in either a middle or upper class neighborhood, but his kid correlates more along the average. Therefore, even though he may want to steal, he doesn't as he conforms to live in his surroundings. Although, even this doesn't stop many blacks from giving into their propensities; take a look at American Hip-Hop stars and football players. Obviously money doesn't mean a thing. (remember I am using averages, this doesn't apply to individuals).

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

Sacrificing for the masses is why whites have been the most successful people, and it is also why capitalism works so well in Western nations. Communism only appears to be sacrificial on paper, but when in practice, it entices those wo are in power to be corrupted because of their access to wealth. It is actually a system of egosim because those who are in power use it to stay in power and attain wealth all at the expense of the working population. Wouldn't you agree?

Also, you just can't have a system that doesn't offer people incentives to work. This is why capitalism is the best economic system. People work harder for the incentives.

Where is your reasoning behind this?

In America and Western Europe, where the majority population is sacrificial on average, the people will give everything they have, even their children (lineage), to the comfort of other groups of people. This is why many whites are "disgusted" at white nationalism at first glance. Its because it is against their nature to be egotistical in the manner nationalism requires; and this is the main obstacle to nationalism. Nationalism is egotistical, only to the group the nation is composed of, but then it is sacrificial within this group, igf you get what I'm trying to say. Whites have a propensity to be sacrificial for all groups that are within their territorial boundary. This is why blacks, in America, are free today. (a society does not need ethnic minorities to remain competitive in a capitalist society, all a country needs to do is outsource; think Japan).

Now, a good example of an extremely egotistical group is the Jews. What other group do you know that, for most of this nation's history, has not had a state of their own, yet has been able to keep largely genetically Jewish, all with their own genetic diseases to boot? The fact is, long after whites have given themselves away due to their sacrificial nature and have mixed in with the browns of the third world, and most others are mixed as well, the Jewish people will still be here. But now, they will probably be the only elite.

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.

Why can't they technology wise? Have they not the same potential as we do?

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

I agree IF they can implement such a system, but I do not believe they have the ability to do so for the reasons I have given above.

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

The CIA worldfactbook states the majority of these economies are "free-market" orientated. Free-market means competition, and competition means privately owned (to an extent; how can the government compete against itself?); all together, that equals capitalism. The fact is they can't do it due to the corruption of a people who, on average, are egotistical.

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"?

Wait a second. You are taking my words out of context. I never stated blacks don't belong in America, I said they don't belong in a white society. American society, when speaking globally I suppose, is a white society, but blacks have made their own society within America, which is also American society. Of course it is white American society that has created the greatest country on the Earth, but nobody ever said blacks can't take part or don't belong in American society.

What I said was blacks don't belong in a white society as whites don't belong in a black society. Just my opinion. I am for all white states as well as all black and mestizo states within America. Given enough time, maybe we could all work together as one country with separate identities or maybe we will all form our own countries.

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.

Their ancestors destroyed their country, and their ancestors passed on these same genes to them. Why do you think their offspring could do better in America when they had just as much of a chance when they started their own countries less than 200 years ago? Its all excuses; fifty years will pass DarkReaver, and you will see a state of decline in both America and Western Europe. You will say its because we implemented more socialistic policies, but in reality, its because the demographics are changing, nothing else. With this demographic change, the systems of government and economics will probably change as well; therefore, nobody will ever blame the people within. The people make the land and the system, not the other way around.

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.

I apologize again for the length of time it took me to post. Look forward to seeing your reply.

[Twilight]

For black users of this forum: I use the black racial group within my line of reasoning as an example; obviously I could use other groups instead. Regardless, although I am a racialist, I judge people on an individual basis only. Please do not take my reference to your group as offensive (although, I know its hard not to) because I am not talking about you personally.

Since you're taking the characteristic "black" then you are in fact talking about me / us personally.

Now, you are saying that you want to divide yourself from all non-whites right? Now, this includes people like me. Do I seem like the kind of person you could never get along with? Do I sound like some kind of gun-running liquor store robber? Do I seem like someone you would not accept as a friend (if I was white)? I am, in fact, a senior journalist of a prominent publication and a part-time philosophy student. Explain how I am harming your society. If you can't, why would I be rejected from the society you propose? The only reason would be my skin colour, which is not a valid reason.

Regarding your IQ comments, think about this: Only a minority of black people in America have an IQ lower than the lowest-IQ-white-person (that is, assuming the person in America with the lowest IQ is not white). How then can you accept whites within the "acceptable range" but reject blacks within that same (but unacceptable) range?

Blacks commit more crime than whites on average, I know that. How does this provide you with an argument against blacks that do not commit crime? (Which is, in fact, the overwhelming majority of blacks). It actually doesn't. As DR has pointed out somewhere - AVERAGES of groups do not mean FACTS of individuals - myself being an obvious example. Do you think I am 10 times as likely to kill you as an average white person?

You also noted somewhere that not all whites are "acceptable". This means that it is not actually "white nationalism" it is "white-intellegent-non-criminal nationalism" or something astonishingly impractical like that.

[Twilight]

For black users of this forum: I use the black racial group within my line of reasoning as an example; obviously I could use other groups instead. Regardless, although I am a racialist, I judge people on an individual basis only. Please do not take my reference to your group as offensive (although, I know its hard not to) because I am not talking about you personally.

Since you're taking the characteristic "black" then you are in fact talking about me / us personally.

Now, you are saying that you want to divide yourself from all non-whites right? Now, this includes people like me. Do I seem like the kind of person you could never get along with? Do I sound like some kind of gun-running liquor store robber? Do I seem like someone you would not accept as a friend (if I was white)? I am, in fact, a senior journalist of a prominent publication and a part-time philosophy student. Explain how I am harming your society. If you can't, why would I be rejected from the society you propose? The only reason would be my skin colour, which is not a valid reason.

Regarding your IQ comments, think about this: Only a minority of black people in America have an IQ lower than the lowest-IQ-white-person (that is, assuming the person in America with the lowest IQ is not white). How then can you accept whites within the "acceptable range" but reject blacks within that same (but unacceptable) range?

Blacks commit more crime than whites on average, I know that. How does this provide you with an argument against blacks that do not commit crime? (Which is, in fact, the overwhelming majority of blacks). It actually doesn't. As DR has pointed out somewhere - AVERAGES of groups do not mean FACTS of individuals - myself being an obvious example. Do you think I am 10 times as likely to kill you as an average white person?

You also noted somewhere that not all whites are "acceptable". This means that it is not actually "white nationalism" it is "white-intellegent-non-criminal nationalism" or something astonishingly impractical like that.

[Darkademic]

You don't think you would share a more similar temperament with your brother, sister, father, or mother than some stranger on the street? We have many ancestor's genetic makeup to choose from; of course, its an amalgamation of all our ancestors, and the many possibilities are limitless, but we will still more likely share our closest relatives physical attributes as well as propensities. To go further, I don't see any reason why this wouldn't extend to specific groups who are more related to each other; like ethnicity and to a lesser extent, racial families.

The thing is though, my mother is loud and boisterous, my dad is quiet and reserved. They are pretty much opposites in terms of personality. This is often the case with relationships, people are attracted to those with complimentary personalities rather than personalities which are exactly the same. I am quiet and reserved most of the time. My grandma (on my dad's side) literally NEVER stops talking. The longest I have ever experienced her not talking for is about 8 seconds. Why is there such a incongruency? My cousins fall under all sorts of personality types. My brother is far more extorvert than I, my sister is rather more introvert than I. All this variation within one family logically means that in a wider ancestral group the variation will be yet greater, and since within my own family there are pretty much all personality types, I don't see how "racial personality traits" can exist at all.

This subject is especially trivial and due to the current level of understanding on genetics. You say there is no "intelligence" gene or genes. Well, then what genes are there? Can you give me a research paper that has pinpointed the "blonde hair" gene? I'm not even sure if we have gotten that far.

Many physical traits can be pinpointed, including skin colour and eye colour. No "behavioural" genes have yet been pinpointed, and there is debate over whether many of them exist. I do have a couple of biologist friends that I could call if you'd like a more knowledgable insight; but they both hate forums for some reason.

You are correct. I don't care, personally, for every single person that is apart of my race, but I do acknowledge the right for all distinguishable groups to exist. Why do people care to save the Florida Panther? From the external view, its just a black Mountain Lion in the swamp; there are plenty of tan Mountain Lions in the Southwest of America. Why do people care to save any species or sub-species of animals?

Well what is distinguishable about the "white race"? Species can be biologically defined according to common genotype, human "races" cannot. You can trace ancestry but this is not the same thing. Common ancestry does not equate with common genes due to the huge amount of unpredictability and intermixing concerning gene-flow.

Concerning the conservation of those panthers, I see no productive reason for their preservation. Those that seek to conserve animal species are usually doing it for the species' "novelty value" rather than any utilitarian function. The same could be said of WNs preserving the "white race".

But, how do you explain the fact that every single area where blacks make up a sizeable population, the area is, for the most part, anti-social. Its the same in Africa, Haiti, America, South America, etc. Now, I do concede that political and economic systems do play a role in considering the success of countries, but as for black nations, they are ALL too overwhelmingly similar. Too coincidental; I would think at least one area where they make up a sizeable population, they would be successful. (EDIT: I just reread this and I understand this line of reasoning is getting redundant; so let me rephrase a little, if black individuals can be successful (which is obviously true), why can't at least one large black society be successful? Why can't they make the right "system in at least one of their lands?)

I think your ideas about Africa are severely misguided. Yes there is a lot of poverty and violence, but it's not all like that. Ghana has one of the lowest crime rates in the world, lower than that of Japan. If "black America" was a seperate country it would rank 6th in the world for GDP, above the Netherlands and Australia. Socialism and interventionism causes economic and ultimately national failiure, as the famous economist Ludwig Von Mises demonstrated. Race on the other hand does not. To bring race into the equation you would have to prove that socialism is somehow an instinct of "non-whites", otherwise it remains a superfluous factor. I refuse to believe polticial systems are genetically determined without any proper evidence.

I must say however, if the white race, particularly Germanic-Celts, does die out, the historical track record shows that this group has created at least 95% percent of the world's advancements. Coincidence? Maybe, but what if it isn't? I know, I know, individualism.... but if it truly is a random process based on what type of environment people live in and not genetic differences, and considering the fact that only a handful of of nonwhite countries have reached 1st world status (most of these are of just one other group; East Asians), I would say, if Whites vanished, the human species, in general, will be in a whole lotta trouble.

Only a very, very small fraction of "whites" made all these advancements. They made them because they had the education and the environment in which to do so, not because they had a "genetic predisposition to advance". Without a means to particular knowledge, people cannot gain that knowledge. Africa has just had more factors which made it structurally less developed. I don't claim to know the exact causes of Africa's failures but there is nothing to logically connect race with it, correlation does not equal cause.

Regardless, that is secondary to the fact that ALL people that identify as a group deserve the right to self-determination free from outside influence. That goes for every single ethnic group. Whites, blacks, Orientals, Indians, etc. all deserve this same right.

Groups don't have rights, individuals do. If they want to group themselves together then fine, but they do not have the moral or legal right to force people from their homes or invent racial jurdistiction laws beyond their own private property. Individuals have the right to freedom of association, and capitalism would ensure this is enforced; white nationalism takes further uneccessary steps and WNs are anti-individualist. You say you judge people on an individual basis as a primary, but if you did you would be simply a capitalist, not a white nationalist. WNism treats groups as more important than individuals - so the "black group" is incompatible with the "white group", end of story; which is irrational.

Looking at modern history, one knows quite well that people's ethnic composition within a given land changes do to intermixing between racial lines. Look at Central and South America for refernce. In as little as 500 years, the have changed from being a "pure" Native American people to a White/Native mix that is certainly different from both of the "pure" groups.

Yeah. Sorry I don't get the point you're making here.

I was merely pointing out that the earliest "successful" civilizations were "non-white". Sumeria, Egypt, Mesopotamia had a "real" civilizations centuries before the "whites" of northern Europe got past simply being barbarian tribes living hand to mouth. Because the middle-easterners were genetically superior? I think not.

I agree, don't want to dwell off topic too far, but whites have been more dominant than others becuase they were more successful. What generated this success? Chance? All other groups had just as much of a chance to be as successful, but some still have individuals who are hunter-gatherers. Why don't hunter-gatherers still exist in all groups. From your logic, one would assume that all groups would have a similar chance to show this type of behavior, yet it is only existent, to a large extent, within the traditional Negroid population and central and south Native Americans. The small population of Western Whites and East Asian are really the only first-world nations, and besides a brief Arabic rise, they have been the only groups to acheive such success throughout all of history.

I suppose you could call it chance - that is just how history has unfolded. It is not true that all groups have had the same chance. Most of Africa has a much less suitable environment for farming and an abundance of large animals not present in Europe, meaning that nomadic existence remained preferable and settled communties developed much later. As you should know, farming is what started modern civilizations - the transition from nomadic tribes to agricultural communities. You need to research history a great deal before you make conclusions. There is no proof that Africans have always had a lower potential intellegence so you cannot simply conclude that African civilizations have been less successful because of their supposed lower intellegence (or other genetic factors). It is likely that 200 years ago (or less) the African average IQ would be equal to the European average IQ based on statistical trends. The Flynn effect shows us this.

I concede that a countries success will be determined partially of political and economic systems. I still believe, however, that certain groups, when left to themselves, will lean towards a similar system, and when they attempt to organize a system that they are not compatible with, it will fail.

There is no evidence that races are predisposed to make particular political systems (which are based on complex conceptual knowledge which is not inherited at all). There is no evidence to suggest particular races are more "selfish", so these are arbitrary assertions. Economic success is 100% dependant on the socio-politico-economic system in place. The system is made by the collaboration of individuals such as philosophers and economists. These intellectual trades are learned. Learning takes time. Time was in shorter supply in sub-saharan Africa which could not sustain agricultural communities as effectively, so their intellectual and social growth was limited. This is logical.

For example, your so-called free-market South American countries. Another example is Nazi Germany, non-capitalist and a great economic success; just too ambitious on warring. The people make it or break it.

South America is not free-market capitalist.

http://www.acton.org...icle.php?id=469

As for the Nazis, economists argue that the expansion of the German economy between 1933 and 1936 was not the result of the Nazi party, but rather the consequence of economic policies of the late Weimar Republic which had begun to have an effect. In addition, it has been pointed out that while it is often popularly believed that the Nazis ended hyperinflation, the end of hyperinflation preceded the Nazis by several years. Production was primarily consumptive rather than productive (make-work projects, expansion of the war-fighting machine, initiation of conscription to remove working age males from the labor force), inflationary pressures began to rear their head again, although not to the highs of the Weimar Republic. If German socialism was left to continue then it would have undoubtebly imploded just like Soviet socialism. Nazi Germany simply did not last long enough to be a "testament to the productivity of socialism". The destruction of civilization under statism is not instanteous, in other words, socialism is not instanteously "unworkable" (economically) but unsustainable (unworkable over a period of time). They got a surge in production (at the detriment of certain parts of the population) but the economy would be ultimately unsustainable over a long period of time (since sacrifices can not be made indefinately).

Listen, Africa fits your mold because most are authoritarian (although Nazi Germany was too, but it was an economic success; as a matter of fact, most Western European nations were "authoritarian" monarchies, but these areas still advanced), but Central and South America do not. Explain Mexico to me. These countries are supposed to have a similar system as North America and West Europe, but they seem to be plagued by anti-social behavior that inhibits a free-market economy. Why is it so different there than it is in America? Why don't people in America behave with a similar anti-social behavior?

South America is still statist and has been built on decades of socialism which have made the countries invariably unstable, if it embraces capitalism, South America will prosper. Contrast this to the United States which was founded upon capitalist principles of individual rights. Africa is predominantly socialist and ruled by despots - built on a past of tribalism and instability - a sure-fire recipe for disaster. The "authoritarian monarchies" you mention were "succesful" to an extent - I.e. they advanced (v. slowly), but only a very tiny minority felt any real progression - the monarchs, the landowners, the lords - the rest of society suffered in harsh poverty. Having a large empire does not make a society successful - the Mongols had a large empire, and they were barbarians. Feudal societies were built on slavery and coercion. This really is all historical - thorough research would be needed to elaborate properly on all this.

That's assuming tests were truly accurate back then. So, what were the Africans' IQs, 50? The fact remains that Britain had the largest empire the world has ever known and a high proportion of ethnic Britons have contributed to the advancement of this world when comparing their population to the rest of the world. This all started before they were truly capitalist.

There is no record of African IQ from that time but it is heavily doubtful that it was lower than it is today since a lower than 70 IQ leads to inability to function properly as a human being - I.e. speech, basic social functions, basic cognition.

As above, a large empire does not mean a successful society. Also, who do you think were the main innovators in Britain during Feudal times? The serfs? No, the intellectual achievements will have been made by those with the freedom to do so - the rich and the landowners. The system will have crushed the majority into poverty. Capitalism maximizes potential productivity by giving all people this freedom. A huge relative proportion of advancement in technology was made in the 19th-20th centuries because of capitalism - advancements previous to these two centuries were VERY slow in comparison.

Europe has always been richer than Africa and most of the world as well, though. Also, what's this about environment? Africa has some of the most fertile land in the world near and around Ethiopia, but the people there have destroyed the land. White farmers were doing the faming in Zaire, until their leader, the tyrant Mugabe, decided to take their land and slaughter them. Of course, now, if you read up on the subject, Mugabe wants to give them some land back because the black population is starting to starve. Unbelievable. Everybody had the same chance, some people could do it, and others just can't. Everything else are excuses. If we ignore the root cause of the problems, we will never be able to help them. The root cause are the people. They must take responsibility for themselves and Westerners must stop making excuses. Why do you think they will be any different here, when they make up the majority of white countries?

It'd be different in America because black Americans are strikingly different to Africans. America will only turn out the same if someone like Mugabe somehow takes control. He is why Zaire has been annihilated, not because of the racial demographics. Fertile land is nothing without enforced property rights, without the freedom to use the land, without any kind of economic infrastructure or law, not to mention the climate dependability required for sustainable crop cycles.

Sure, but the most egotistical parents won't even care for their child while the most self-sacrificing will die for their children. Those are different sides of the spectrum. Its all about where a person is on the spectrum.

Dying for their child is not about sacrifice. If the child was of no value whatsoever to the parent, they wouldn't die for them. Love is selfish..

Maybe an authoritarian system is the product of an egotistical people. People acheive power only because there are some, mainly wealth holders, who want them in power. Therefore, they can see benefits from such a regime and the dictator keeps power.

Yes, though this is irrational egoism as authoritarian systems invariably end in failiure.

Wow... do we agree on at least one point?

Hehe, I'm not here just to disagree with you, I'm here to present the truth, at least as I believe it to be.

The history of the Jew's influence on societies runs very deep and stretches even into Roman times. Don't get me wrong, I do not "hate" Jews; I have a few Jewish acquaintances and they are very nice people, but their group's influence on Western society is undeniable and not necessarily to the benefit of white people. Of course, a racialist's perspective on why they are so influential is the same exact reasoning of why whites are more influential/successful than blacks (as a group), different genetic predispositions.

It's still very Marxist sounding. There is nothing that blatantly suggests jewish influence anywhere to me. I don't accept that they are a strongly united group with a comon goal of influencing politics & the economy. I don't really accept that they are a "racial group" either, to me Judaism is a religion nothing more - a very, very small one at that.

We can't get lost in semantics, which it seems we are doing. I am trying to state, what I believe are, the different levels of egotism. Those who are most egotistical will not even care for their own children, while those who are most sacrificial will give their life for society in general, quite possibly even the "global" society.

Sacrifice means opting for a lesser value in favor of a greater one which is irrational and destructive. Selfish people are productive, altrusitic people are destructive. This is explained in Ayn Rand's "The Virtue of Selfishness". Selfishness does not mean "working for one's own interests at the expense of others". Selfishness is demonized by mystic philosophies to mean as such. Selfishness means working for one's own interests NOT at the expense of others. Selfishness does not imply coercion, egomania, deception or fraud. It implies the exchange of lesser values for greater values.

I disagree. Competition is healthy and it fosters growth and development. Money is obviously what pushes those to compete. But, when people are too egotistical, they begin to lie, cheat, steal, and murder. When a group is too egotistical, they will create an enviornment where a lack of freedom exists. The egotistical cannot keep a capitalist society intact. This is why Africa, Middle East, and South America will have such a problem implementing a capitalist system.

Egoism doesn't drive people to lie, cheat, steal, and murder, irrationality does. That or a failing system which has no enforcement or regard for individual rights.

On the other hand, white societies have always been sacrificial. In being sacrificial, whites will be complacent with their position if they cannot acheive a higher status. Whites work as the cogs in a clock; they accept their status in society and work to improve whatever organization they are apart of. In essence, they sacrifice their lives for what they are apart of. This runs deep and is the main reason whites are freely giving over their native lands to hordes of non-whites. (of course, I am speaking by averages again because I am sure you have met many a greedy white guy).

Sacrifice does not cause success, productive work does. Egoism is a better ethic for productive work - sacrifice is what prevents productive work - see Communism.

I am not familar with a "pure" form of capitalism that it appears you are speaking of. Is a capitalist system ruled by a government body? A republic? When I speak of capitalism, I am speaking of the economic system only, not a political system.

A capitalist system is not "ruled" by anyone. It is a constitutional republic, laws are not voted in they are objectively defined. Without understanding what I am advocating you shouldn't attempt to argue against it any further.

See http://www.capitalism.org and take the tour for a quick intro.

Well, it is natural to conform to your surroundings. The fact is, you could have a very intelligent black who makes enough money to live in either a middle or upper class neighborhood, but his kid correlates more along the average. Therefore, even though he may want to steal, he doesn't as he conforms to live in his surroundings. Although, even this doesn't stop many blacks from giving into their propensities; take a look at American Hip-Hop stars and football players. Obviously money doesn't mean a thing. (remember I am using averages, this doesn't apply to individuals).

This is just conjecture though. I still don't believe that blacks who "act white" are acting against "instincts", which humans do not possess anyway.

Sacrificing for the masses is why whites have been the most successful people, and it is also why capitalism works so well in Western nations. Communism only appears to be sacrificial on paper, but when in practice, it entices those wo are in power to be corrupted because of their access to wealth. It is actually a system of egosim because those who are in power use it to stay in power and attain wealth all at the expense of the working population. Wouldn't you agree?

Communism and all forms of collectivism fail because they are totalitarian. They destroy the only real source of wealth; the minds of the people. Communism is forced altruism. The intentions of the dictatorship aren't relevant - communism and all forms of collectivism are invariably doomed as they deny man's productivity, they deny reason. Sacrificing for the masses is communism.

Also, you just can't have a system that doesn't offer people incentives to work. This is why capitalism is the best economic system. People work harder for the incentives.

Indeed. Capitalism is the best system as it conforms to the nature of human beings. Humans are rational animals. To make use of reason one needs to be free from the initiation of force. Capitalism enforces this essential requirement. WNism doesn't conflict with capitalism legally, but it does so morally as capitalism is individualist, WNism is anti-individualist.

Why can't they technology wise? Have they not the same potential as we do?

For circumstantial reasons I have mentioned previously. Development requires a stable, settled society which was not feasable in sub-saharan Africa until much later than in Europe for example. Slavery and despotism then crushed any hope they had of developing like Europe.

I agree IF they can implement such a system, but I do not believe they have the ability to do so for the reasons I have given above.

This is just an assertion without actual proof. Sure it would seem that historically blacks haven't been as successful as the rest of the world, but you can't say it's because they're black - the logic just doesn't add up.

The CIA worldfactbook states the majority of these economies are "free-market" orientated. Free-market means competition, and competition means privately owned (to an extent; how can the government compete against itself?); all together, that equals capitalism. The fact is they can't do it due to the corruption of a people who, on average, are egotistical.

Chile would be the only country in South America that embraces capitalism, and if it continues it's economy will continue to flourish as it has been doing. South America's past and present is dominated by socialism and statism and this is a fact. They are free-market with government intervention which is a contradiction in terms. If you still believe they are free-market capitalist, please show me relevant information on their national economic policies.

Wait a second. You are taking my words out of context. I never stated blacks don't belong in America, I said they don't belong in a white society. American society, when speaking globally I suppose, is a white society, but blacks have made their own society within America, which is also American society. Of course it is white American society that has created the greatest country on the Earth, but nobody ever said blacks can't take part or don't belong in American society.

What I said was blacks don't belong in a white society as whites don't belong in a black society. Just my opinion. I am for all white states as well as all black and mestizo states within America. Given enough time, maybe we could all work together as one country with separate identities or maybe we will all form our own countries.

Apologies. Well Twilight Killer has put forward a relevant question that covers this. What criteria logically defines "belonging" with regards to race?

Their ancestors destroyed their country, and their ancestors passed on these same genes to them. Why do you think their offspring could do better in America when they had just as much of a chance when they started their own countries less than 200 years ago? Its all excuses; fifty years will pass DarkReaver, and you will see a state of decline in both America and Western Europe. You will say its because we implemented more socialistic policies, but in reality, its because the demographics are changing, nothing else. With this demographic change, the systems of government and economics will probably change as well; therefore, nobody will ever blame the people within. The people make the land and the system, not the other way around.

I doubt this heavily - the white population of America is growing not shrinking anyway. Britain is massively multiracial now. I didn't realise it much before, but I took a walk around the city yesterday and probably 40% of people I saw were non-white. Things don't seem much different economically now from 10 years ago. Same socially. Multiracialism just doesn't have much of a visible effect on these things. The non-white people walking around behaved no different than the whites walking around. They dress the same, they do the same stuff, they shop, they eat. Really, no big deal.

I apologize again for the length of time it took me to post. Look forward to seeing your reply.

No problemo. It's now 2:23AM and I really need to get to sleep!!

[Twilight]

It's unfortunate that slander never returned. It's very difficult to get people from places like StormFront to venture out to other forums because they can be so easily defeated without the moderation and support they have at SF.

[Darkademic]

It's unfortunate that slander never returned. It's very difficult to get people from places like StormFront to venture out to other forums because they can be so easily defeated without the moderation and support they have at SF.

Yeah, I messaged him a couple of times on SF but no response. Guess he didn't have any fight left in him. Ah well. Still, I've been debating on MootStormFront recently against "Dani". She has some really mind-boggling beliefs such as reality having no set identity, and humans being slaves to biological urges, as well as your basic WN jibber-jabber.

http://www.mootsf.or...hread.php?t=554

http://www.mootsf.or...hread.php?t=758

http://www.mootsf.or...hread.php?t=786

Those are the three threads. The middle one is the most direct between me and her.

[Twilight]

You can't reason with people like that DR. It's best not to bother with irrationalists and subjectivists at all. I'm actually struggling to find something that she has said which is correct.

[Darkademic]

Hehe I did say to her that the debate was over a while back now, but I believe continuing is in my interests. It's really helping me clear up any worries or misunderstandings I have about Objectivism; things I probably wouldn't think of otherwise.