Defend white supremacy! I dare you!

Great Debates
401

After all that, you’re trusting the word of a Jew? I find that a bit odd.

I don’t see what this is supposed to prove. I’m aware that Hollywood doesn’t pay attention to all of history in a uniform way (although this is not only true of Hollywood). I don’t know of any movies about James Garfield, does that mean Jews have a grudge against him?

Your arguments are so weighty and powerful that you had to resort to ad hominems half a dozen posts in. Very persuasive.

Ain’t that always the way? Personally, I think this would be much more delicious if we were talking about white chocolate instead of white supremacy, but I guess you can’t win 'em all.

402

The “obvious” diversity that you see is indeed a figment of your imagination. Genetically, groups with vastly different skin tones (for instance, let’s take Ethiopia and Egypt), are pretty close. Groups which look the same (the Bantu and the Anadaman Islanders) are vastly different. Your precious “White” race is actually a genetic amalgamation. The Basques, Celts, and people of the Ural Mountains are white, yet have a lot of their origin in Paleolithic migrations into Europe before the last Ice Age, and are perhaps related to groups who populated Siberia, Asia, Australoasia, and eventually the Americas. The rest of Europe seems to be populated by waves arriving in the Neolithic period, and are related to people from the Middle East and some African populations. There seems to be less genetic diversity between the Australian Aboriginals and the Europeans than between different groups all within the continent of Africa.

Your white race shares exactly one thing in common genetically – a suite of hypomorphic allele in genes that are in the cutaneous melanin production pathway. They probably started out dark, like the rest of humanity, and several groups seem to have accumulated mutations in genes encoding for cutaneous melain as the low-latitude high-UV selection was lost. That’s it.

403

It would be better if you gave up trying to convince yourself that such straw men have any validity. The problem is not that we can’t categorize. Humans can find ways to categorize anything.

The problem is that you seem to assign some special “reality” to the wholly artificial constructs that people have created. It is not a matter that there are races with fuzzy edges; the reality is that the “races” themselves are fuzzy. At different times, we have had three races, four races, five races, even 60 races. If there is some underlying reality to “race” then we should be able to agree on how many there are and which people are in them. Certainly, people who create boxes into which to wedge all other people can construct arbitrary categories and even pass laws based on such silliness. However, it all falls apart when you try to say some “race” has this characteristic or that characteristic and someone else can come back and say that you can’t be right because you have your artficial lines drawn in the wrong place. The only characterisitics that any “race” has are the physical appearances that allow some people to draw (fuzzy) lines around them.

I would not have bothered to even post on the topic of the reality of “race” except that the nonsense about eye color and Sickle-Cell anemia were tossed out. As you note, they are, actually, bad examples. The greater truth, that you choose to ignore, is that all such examples are bad examples. It is a mark of the poverty of the “race” position that you have to rely on examples that you admit do not make your point.

404

That is the stereotype. It’s usually false. When people talk about “White supremacists” they’re usually talking about us. There are many White Nationalists who believe and promote White superiority; I and many others wish they would shut up about it.

Maybe. Maybe Jews, or Asians are superior. I don’t know, and frankly, I don’t care.

I know we are different. We are unique, and just as worth preserving and undeserving of extinction as anyone else. We have the right to preserve our unique genotype from slow genocide (birthrate suppression + miscegenation + population replacement (a.k.a. "immigration) = no more Whites in 200 years.)

Yggdrasil’s library has some great economic and historical stuff on this. To me, it’s just an obvious result of the fact that people are naturally inclined to work to the advantage of their own genotype, and therefore will naturally work to the benifit of their own ethnicity. The recent behaviour of Whites in the past 50 years towards deliberately trying to forfeit the power and safety of our own people in our own lands is completely unnatural and propaganda induced. No life form commits mass suicide unless there is something seriously wrong.

They DO segregate. It’s the natural thing to do. Ethnic conflicts are happening constantly, all over the world. It is Whites, and only Whites, who have been programmed to hate our people so much that we feel we must give everything we have, including our Countries, to aliens who wouldn’t dream of doing the same for us. It is Whites and only Whites who have been convinced that it’s time for us to “move out of the way” (i.e. die out) because we’re “passe” and “oppressive” (it offends others that we exist).

The ideal world? Diverse. With my people living, evolving, and prospering, independent of alien influence and control.

405

I’m not a mod either but here’s two who are:

406

Here is a little fun for everyone that thinks one can tell a white person when one sees white person. I’m sure a lot of you have seen it before, and wouldn’t even be surprised to get some canned responses, but I’ll throw it out anyhow.

http://www.pbs.org/race/002_SortingPeople/002_00-home.htm

407

From the time I spent on STORMFRONT, and assuming that is representative of your group, the “Supremicists” seem to be in the majority. There does, however, seem to be lots of talk about how to not appear to be a “Supremicist” in public. Did I get the wrong impression, or is STORMFRONT perhaps not a place you strongly associate with?

Good luck trying to keep seperate from other ethnic groups. Leaving aside the whole argument of whether it’s worthwhile or not, I just don’t think it can be done. I think you’ll find yourself drawing ever smaller circles of exclusion as you try to keep pure.

You’ll probably see this as a nit-pick, but I think you mean phenotype, and not genotype. We don’t have any way of knowing what someone’s genotype is. But if you look at the history of “White” Europe over the last, say, 500 years, I don’t see where you get the optimism that a “White” Continent will naturally work to benefit itself.

Again, I’ll echo what I said above in this post. I can’t see any way your group won’t end up drawing ever smaller circles of exclusion between what is “White” and what is “alien”.

408

[QUOTE=tomndebb]

As with all other taxonomy. While they can’t decide whether or not to classify Archyopteryx as a bird or a reptile, and they don’t know whether to put Class Aves in with Reptilia or not, you know the damn difference between a bird and a lizard.

We should? Says who?

Genetics is verynew. We learn more all the time. But the fact is, you know the difference between a Chinese and a Negro.

What do you suppose are the chances of this? Get real. Why would we evolve “fuzzy” lines distinguishing ONLY appearance and nothing else? Human behaviour is the most complex of any life form. And, it’s the hardest to quantify, so there’s nothing we can carve in stone. The probability that the essences of our cognition, emotion, personalities and being remained the same while the thoiusands upon thousands af alleles affecting our appearance diversified so drastically is nil. I can’t “argue” common sense.

The eye colour argument was not that bad of an example. There are no purely African Negroids, Australoids, or Mongoloids that have blue eyes. I’m a brown eyed White, because the alleles for brown eyes are not alien to Whites. I forgot to mention that that was a dumb comparison. The genes for blue eyes are alien to Negros. They don’t have them. If you can prove me wrong, I would love to see this.

Whatever.

[EDIT] Arrggh! Having to sign in again every time I post is really annoying!

409

If white people had the power and all that goodness 50 years ago, how did they fall for the propaganda?

Something IS seriously wrong if equal-rights movements are tantamount to mass suicide in your mind.

410

Frequently. Not always. If you look at people from the farthest distances, you will more often be able to distinguish between groups. The less the distance, the less likely one can distinguish. Look at all the people who can’t figure out whether Greeks and Italians are “white.” How about Turks and Syrians? How about Arabs and Jews? Persians? Egyptians? Berbers? Afghanis? Indians? All of those people were classified as Caucasian, yet I frequently see claims that different groups within that collection are not, somehow, “white.” The same is true for every group on Earth.
There are several groups from Southern Africa whose skin is not particularly dark and they can be confused with people of other groups. I would find it amusing to discover how many people in the White Nationalist movement could successfully score the test to which theR linked.

The whole issue of identifying whites, blacks, and Chinese in U.S. history is the result of the initial immigrants (voluntary or forced) arriving from very localized areas that made it easy to spot the apparent differences. Had the initial immigrants been brought from wider bases of nations, it would have been far more difficult to set up rules to identify who was who.

It just seems silly to try to build groups when they cannot be correctly identified, even on a person-by-person basis.

411

Set your puter to accept cookies.

412

Anyways.

I owe some people a run-down on “Why I believe in National Socialism” and what modern NS is.

For ME, it goes something like this. (Note that if you believe that basic evolution does not apply to humans because we are protected from reality by the god of Political Correctness, this won’t seem right to you.)

Suppose humans spread all over the world, out of Africa, some 50,000 years ago, since that’s the most solid theory right now. Humans diversified and evolved different charachteristics due to random mutations, genetic drift, and environmental adaptation.

Originally, we were polygamous primates in groups of a few dozen or so. But then, we evolved the behavioual social construct known as the “tribe.” Since this behaviour was common to all humans everywhere, it is difficult to say whether our common ancestors were “tribal” or whether it was a convergent adaptation. The point is, we developed a more advanced degree of altruism, and a higer capacity for working in groups of 50-500. Many factors influenced the development of tribal behaviour; marrying outside ones tribe provided better genetic variation, while at the same time, tribal cohesion insured better competition with other tribes. As time went on, the ability for larger and larger tribes to work together cohesively provided for the best survival strategy. After a while, these larger tribes, or clans, surfaced with people numbering in the thousands in many cases, but rarely exceeding a size in which those “leading” the tribe couldn’t meet and interact with all its members. Now, the developments of 1)agriculture and 2)money, provided the necessary prerequisites for a much more advanced, and (this is very important) still very new and underdeveloped behavioural adaptation called a Nation.
A Nation is an amalgamation of many genetically related Tribes into a “Supra-tribe” which can, ideally, work cohesively across numbers in the millions. It is a biological entity. It is this development which is the true foundation for empires, countries, ect. Note that there is a BIG difference between a “Nation” and a “Country” which is usually a failed example of a corrupted Nation.

Before discussing the Nation we must examine what makes these behavioural adaptations possible, and what can undermine them. What makes a “tribe” work? How did altruism develop? (There is a very interesting thread here called, “Are humans domesticated” which I really wish I had time to read right now.) If tribes were to work cohesively, one member of the tribe could “screw everyone else over” by reaping the benifits of tribal membership without putting anything back into it. This is not a barrier for altruism because such a person could be shunned and outcast from the tribe. An adaptation to remove “freeloaders” can develop. If the guy “in charge” abuses his power, he doesn’t stay in charge for very long. In a lagere group, however, especially one in which money must me used, more efficient administration must be utilized. This is where problems arise. The development of Aristocracy occurs, which is privelege based not on trustworthiness, strength, honour, intelligence, or ability. At such a level of complexity, a social structure more complicated that a tribe of say, 1000, has the vulnerability that those who are able to swindle, manipulate, do the right favopurs for the right people, and buy their way into positions power and benefit. So, how does altruism and cohesion advance past that point? Obvoiously, we’re still working on that. It has been such persons who have been genetically successful. But the practical answer can be found in Order Hymenoptera of Class Uniraimia in the arthropods.

In a beehive, why do the workers toil for the offspring of the queen bee? What benefit do they gain? The queen bee is their sister, and if they are successful in producing an efficient enough hive, a new hive that is genetically similar to them will occur. Genetic similarity can override the need for personal gain. That is the key to a cohesive Nation. Without that very same key, no life form more complex than a slime mold would have developed, as no cells would have learned to operate in multicellular form. It could be argued that any one of us is not a single being but is composed of trillions of individual life forms. At some point, though, one must accept the multicellular lifeform as simply an adaptation to a higher form of life.

As long as it is practical, humans will cheat and swindle one another, and no “Country” as complicated as say, America, will be able to survive indefinitely because of it. The cohesion isn’t possible, because there is no system holding back the reproduction of those who abuse the Country, and little protecting those who build it. The only way humans can be taught to work cohesively is if it is genetically beneficial to do so, because other members of the Nation carry a similar genetic structure to them.

This accounts for much of the success of the Tribe, which is small but closely geneticaly related. It is also the source of the very natural behaviour of “ethnic pride.”
This also changes the rules of Natural Selection. Because of altruism within a tribe, individuals did not have to compete directly with eachother as much. As the tribes got larger and more complicated, things like monogamy were developed and everyone who put in got close to their fair share. Much of human Natural Selection has been in terms of whole tribes. Those consistingg of better, stronger, smarter and more cohesive members were able to conquer and displace other tribes. Take their women, reproduce faster, split when they became too numerous, et cetera.

In a social phenotype as large as a Nation, Natural Selection has become null. Though money was a necessary in size, and was part of what made the Nation possible, real Natural Selection aladaptation to regulating production/consumption arouind when a Tribe reached a few thousand most came to a halt because of it. The ability to survive and reproduce could be inherited, swindled, or stolen. We have hit an evolutionary dead end.

Attempted compensations based on redistributing money to the masses, i.e, Democrazy or Communism, are what we’re trying now. But, that will not work because as we can clearly see, these systems are even more easy to manipulate. Natural Selection has been nullified, and at this point, we’re actually suffering from dysgenesis because the best, smartest, kindest, most altruistic, and most able people in our societies are not reproducing. The welfare queens are.
…
I’m getting tired, and I have a Chem Lab to read over. I’ll have to finish this tomorrow.

413

I did mean to add one other thing: while I don’t know what Ben Stein means by “the most important positions,” I don’t know how he came up with the figure, and I don’t know how much it’s changed (if it has) in the eight years since Brando made those bizarre comments.

FenrisSF, if your position was simply that there are lots of Jews in Hollywood, or that the amount of Jews in Hollywood is disproportional to their percentage of the overall US population, I’d have no response except “no shit.” I know that, and I doubt there’s anyone who doesn’t. It’s when you start with the conspiracy stuff that I - like just about everybody else - say goodbye. The fact that a lot of people in the same place are Jewish (and neither you nor I know how observant many of them are, but that’s a whole other thing) doesn’t mean they’re all working together to oppress you.

414

I don’t know how this happened. :confused:
Ahem.

In a social phenotype as large as a Nation, Natural Selection has become null. Though money was a necessary adaptation to regulating production/consumption around when a Tribe reached a few thousand in size, and was part of what made the Nation possible, real Natural Selection came to a halt because of it. The ability to survive and reproduce could be inherited (the money, not the traits), swindled, or stolen. We have hit an evolutionary dead end.

415

Well, all of us White people work together to keep the Black man down don’t we? :smiley:

Okay, I’m going now.

416

Same old, same old, Xeno: you don’t seem to know anything about how evolution works.

You say things like this a couple of times, all of them wrong. Evolution can’t cease to occur. What you mean is that due to technology and such, a greater number of people (who in the past might not have survived) are alive today. That doesn’t mean evolution isn’t happening. Evolution is pretty simple: that which survives, survives. There’s no minimum standard that we’ve now dropped below. The whole point of adapting to your environment (from the standpoint of an organism) is so that you can survive and reproduce. You’re now saying it’s a bad thing that humanity has become successful at this, despite the fact that without it you probably wouldn’t be here in the first place.

And let me guess which category you think you fall into, you modest dude you. The idea that all people who are smart, nice or otherwise worthwhile are already rich, successful and not reproducing (since I imagine you’re referring to the trend that wealthier people tend to reproduce less) and that “welfare queens” are stupid, nasty, selfish and otherwise not worthy of passing their genes on is just ridiculous.

417

Actually, I believe his point is different. In his world view, non-biological events can become biological adaptations, thus the creation of money is, itself, a biologically evolutionary event and the development of the nation state is also a biologically evolutionary event that prevents further development.

Since the white nationalists were asked why they believe what they do, this philosophical approach to biology and history provides that (or one) explanation.

Of course, pointing out that money and nation states are not biological developments is simply the introduction of those troubling facts.

Basically, what Xenologist has presented is a new form of mythology that blends errors in science and history to present Truth as perceived by one group of white nationalists. As such, it is almost certainly not susceptible to deconstruction by rational means. Just as I accept the first story of Creation in Genesis as story (Myth) that describes the orderly creation of a good world with God as the Author, even though I recognize that it provides a wholly inaccurate depiction of the actual physical development of both the cosmos and of the evolution of life on Earth, so tearing apart the errors in Xenologist’s story will do nothing to remove his belief in the Truth of that story.

(For those who are watching from home, of course, I do feel compelled to point of several serious errors in his tale. The idea that a nation is an ‘amalgamation of many genetically related Tribes into a “Supra-tribe”’ is clearly an error. There are numerous examples of multi-ethnic and even (viewed from the perpective of a person who believes in the biological reality of races) multi-racial societies that have become great nations. Egypt had a long history in which it warred against, was attacked by, and merged with the peoples of the Nubian region to its South. During the periods when the nations merged, there is no evidence that they declined (or that they held themselves separate from intermarriage). Similarly, the rise of the Moors demonstrates a society in which “white” people and “black” people met and merged and those people went on to create the wonders of Islamic Spain. Similar events have occurred in China and other regions of Southeast Asia on a couple of occasions. While not (generally) crossing the “racial” barrier, the empires of Assyria, Persia, and Rome were clearly multi-ethnic and each survived for hundreds of years in that multi-ethnic state in which the “tribes” from which they were composed were not related.)

Of coure, the notion that such things as money and nations are biological evolutionary events, while a popular concept with which to toy in 1950s Science Fiction, has no basis in genuine biology. They are fun “what if” games played by people speculating on the human condition, (and, as such, they can shed light on how we perceive ourselves), but there is no biological evidence to support the notion.

418

Granted that this was said in jest, I feel no more compunction to accept claims from black racists to support race-nationalism than I do to accept similar broad and false claims from white nationalists.

419

Most people on welfare are white.

420

Xenologist:

I realise that you didn’t finish your last post, but I’m going to go ahead and respond to what you’ve already written, and then we can take things up again when you have to time to finish.

The process by which civilaztions have arisen out of more primitive human groupings is simply not known. What you are presenting is a hypothesis that cannot be tested or verified. We don’t have the scientific tools to come close to either proving or disproving that hypothesis.

The altruistic tendencies you are talking about do exist, but there is no evidence that they are driven by genetic closeness or by just physical closeness. IOW, you’d feel the same sense of atruism to your genetic brother as you would to an adoptive brother (esp if you didn’t know he was adopted). You have no way of sensing whether one person is more closely related to you than another person.

So, although your hypothesis is not testable, we can hold it up to historical facts and see if hangs together. Just looking at the last century, the mass slaughters and wars were almost never racial in origin, but religious, ideological, economic, or territorial. The bloody history of Europe alone should be enough to make you question how cohesive the “white race” is.

And just to add one more thing that I hope you will take under consideration. You’re a pretty intelligent guy. I can tell by the way you’re posting here, and from what I’ve seen of your posts on SF. I’d strongly suggest you post some evolutionary and genetic questions here in the General Questions forum. The stuff that passes as science in SF is just appalling, and I think you’re smart enough to see that. I think you’ll be amazed at the level of intelligence about those subjects you’ll see from the experts on this board, in the GQ forum.

And if you really want to read a good book about what we know (and don’t know) concerning human development, try one of Edward O. Wilson’s books. I’d recommend reading On Human Nature, for which he won the Pulitzer Prize, and then trying to tackle Consillience.