FYI, I spent some time on STORMFRONT today, and I think I can see where a lot of the confusion is coming from about race and evolution and how that plays into the WN movement issues in your posts, so I’ve got a few observations and questions.
The thread was started for people to defend White Superiority. It’s pretty natural for most of us folk to assume that if someone comes in here talking about racial differences, they’re talking about racial superiority/inferiority.
Do you personally believe that Whites are superior to other groups? Or is it that you just think Whites are different.
Is it your contention that different races (or ethnic groups, or whatever you want to call people who look different from each other) simply **can’t ** live peaceably together? Is that what your seperatism argument comes down to?
What would the ideal world look like to you? In particular, are you at all concerned what happens outside of your eventual White Homeland-- whether the other non-Whites segregate as well, or whether they all band together in various non segregated nation-states?
Proof of the existence of race. I’m arguing with the assertion that, “since race is arbitraritly defined, there is no such thing as race.” It’s a pretty stupid one.
I know that. The discrepancy in frequency, is obvoius. The gene that makes one’s erythrocytes impenetrable by the plasmodium merozoites is a primarily racial adaptation. I do not have it because I did not evolove in an environment prone to 1-inch mosquitoes.
Ahh. 2.5% of the U.S. population, 60% of the elite media jobs, huge chip on shoulder from long and often violent conflicts with our ancestors (“our” meaning white gentiles.)
Ted Turner is a gentile! Nothing to see here! Move along!
Nah. I think there is something to see. Why don’t you?
Oh good, a hypothetical conspiracy to cover up hypothetical findings. I think this defense is on slightly thin ice.
This sounds like you’re admitting it’s geographic while saying it’s not. What does “primarily racial” mean? It’s not racial at all. People who qualify as black, white, and Arab have the trait. Depending on where you live, you may think of it as primarily black, but as somebody else already said, not even all black people have it. So I’m hard-pressed to understand how this is “racial” at all.
Stormfront doesn’t post anything from anyone other than the most regular users without reviewing it first. The moderators there work pretty dam hard to perpetuate their self delusion that, in their words, “there is no intelligent opposition to white nationalism”, and this requires that they NOT have many, if any, posters like the SDMBers posting in this thread. So what this boils down to is that there is a an inverse relationship between the both the strength of your arguments and the veracity with which you present them and the chance of your posts even showing up at all on that board. They really have no choice if you think about it, if they did not do this their “opposition section” would look like most KKK rallys with 50 people protesting every hooded wonder.
The Amren report “The color of Crime” is psuedo scientific nonesense. On it’s cover it makes the ridiculous claim that “blacks are more dangerous than whites” and tries to back it up with FBI murder arrest rates, conveniently leaving out the fact that whites are disproportionally represented in drunk driving arrests, which cause roughly as many deaths as the intentional homocide in the FBI stats. This mainstay of your ideology is a sham.
Here is more:
The traits that racial categories are based on are inherited non-concordantly to virtually all other traits, making them meaningless identifiers of anything other than the very traits themselves. This is an established scientific fact, it is why scientists use populations and not “races” when describing groups of people.
Here, notorious Hollywood Jewish anti-Jewite Ben Stein puts forward the following hateful anti-Jew canard:
“Their research showed that “only” about 60 percent of the most important positions in Hollywood were run by Jews.”
As far as having a grudge against us, do a search at www.imdb.com for “Holocaust” and then for “Ukrainian famine.” The Jews that Stein writes about decide what movies get made, you darned “slow person.”
Ahhh shit man another board war. Wouldn’t we be better off if you guys took your ball and went home and we called a mod in to clean up the broken pickle jars here on aisle 8?
Didn’t this exact same thing happen a few months ago? Has anybody had any kind of change in opinion whatsoever? You guys aren’t convincing us, we aren’t convincing you, etc.
Oh, and pervert, sorry I didn’t respond to those posts like 3 pages ago, but now they are moot. FWIW, I believe if the White Nationalists created their own little commune of a million or so, and the Sheer Awesome Power of the White Man caused it to become the most enlightened, safest and economically powerful entity on the planet, people would want to move there. They would go seeking a better life and better jobs. Some of them would lie to get in. The fair black people, the blonde Hispanics, the Jews with small noses. So self-reporting of race would of course fail, because this Pure White Race would be corrupted by all the traces of other stuff leaking in.
And to Xenologist and the rest who consider there to be a biological definition of race, he must be reading a different set of reports than what I am reading, and I read most of the genetics journals every week. Just give me a link to one peer-reviewed report in the last five years that supports either multiple origins of man or a biological definition of race (in the terms you seem to define them). It is not what your common sense or half-understanding of human and population genetics makes it out to be; it is the consensus of the people who truly understand genetics. I would like to think that I have a reasonable understanding of genetics and I can assure you that there is absolutely no genetic determination possible of the classic 5 races (or however many races you wish to find). If you want to debate genetics, just produce the literature.
This is silly. Even complete loon racists like Rushton still get their works published if they are presenting actual data with proposed hypotheses (however tortured). The idea that a perfectly legitimate hypothesis such as Multi-Regionalism would be suppressed is absurd. There is nothing about Multi-Regionalism that even “violates” some imagined PC code. Mutli-Regionalism is not “bad” in some way; it simply is not supported by the increasing accumulation of evidence. Claiming that “PC” has somehow “suppressed” Multi-Regionalism is the height of paranoid delusion.
Irrelevant. Specifically, the genetic trait that gives rise to Sickle-Cell anemia (in both of its most common forms) occurs in people from more than two of the supposed “races” of the old ethnologists. In addition, attempts to link Sickle-Cell among supposed “Caucasians” to “race mixing” have been disproven for some time. Stating that “Race is geographically based” perpetuates the notion that there is an objective biological reality to race, which is contrary to the evidence. The social construct of race has nothing to do with Sickle-Cell and Sickle-Cell cannot legitimately be used as a “race marker.”
How? You appeared to be saying that blue eyes are a predictable racial trait…if any ‘race’ can have blue eyes, then how does finding the gene for blue eyes in a unknown fetus prove which race you’re looking at…let alone race itself?
No what I am a saying, is those guys who decided what race was, were morons and judged what they saw from the view of their own stupidity and could have just had easily decided that anyone who was taller than 5’6" was a different ‘race’. So yea, basing your world view on an arbitrary, illogical and out of date theory is well…
Again, you appeared to say that sickle cell was a racial trait…again you have a problem, a) All Africans don’t suffer from it and b) it’s found in all those ‘races’ you’re positive are separate and whose existence you’re sure of.
How can a trait be racial, if it isn’t shared universally by the race it’s supposed to prove the existence of?
While Mothers Against Drunk Driving has a good point, it’s not my ideology.
First, assuming that your claim is true (and I’d like to see a CITE that 1,000 licensed white drivers will be arrested more often for drunk driving than 1,000 licensed black drivers), the murders, rapes, assaults and unclassified obnoxiousities committed by blacks against whites (compared with whatever slim DWI margin you’ve found) outweigh that. But that’s just my opinion.
Also, to my knowledge drunk drivers are not demanding reparations. Maybe I’m wrong.
All I’m saying is that scientists wo support “accepted” theories are more likely to get more funding. No one who truly sets out to find race markers is going to get much.
I concede that this was an exaggerated example.
I never said it was a “race marker” I said that evolution has caused it to occur in different races at different frequencies in different reasons. Hence, we evolved seperately. We diversified. I also concede that sickle-cell was not a great example. It has spread widely throughout the races and is either a very old gene or a convergent one.
I can’t believe that we’re still arguing about this “race is a social construct” malarky. Nobody is going to go to the NAACP and argue that “Blacks were never enslaved, because there is no such thing as blacks because there is no such thing as race”. Nobody is going to say that “no genocide ever happened beause there can’t be genocide since we’re all the same”. No one would even argue about something so retarded. I don’t know why I am. When you hear: “The suspect is an African-American male, age 29…” on TV, you know what they are talking about. You don’t go, “Oh! We all came from Africa! That could be me! I’m 29!”
Fine. If I can’t convince you that there are is obvious diversity in the human species (“human” is NOT a race) that can be generally categorized into races and ethnicities, (with fuzzy lines around the edges, and places it’s difficult to determine the cladistics, just as in less specific taxonomy) then I give up. If you truly beleive that two “Black” parents could have a “White” baby because the “consensus” (ppttthhh ) of modern “geneticists” states that race is a “social construct,” and that there is “no objective biological reality to it” (ppppptttthhhh ) then I can probably not convince you that 2+2 = 4 or your that your ass is not a blue banana tree. Sematics can be designed such that someone can believe whatever they want to believe; scientists can be funded to show whatever results are desired, wihtin reason. I’m just curious to know why people are so desperate to buy into this feces. We’ll have to agree to disagree.
This might have been delicious irony except for a few facts (facts, those troubling obstacles to silly prejudices):
Unlike the claims of white supremacists, the result of the “choosing” is obligation, not exaltation. In terms of Judaism, “Chosen People” refers to responsibility, not to being given a more “choice” position among other peoples. That is why Jews are held to 613 laws as part of their Covenenant while Gentiles are held only to seven.
) of modern “geneticists” states that race is a “social construct,” and that there is “no objective biological reality to it” (ppppptttthhhh