Your assumptions fall into the same pit that anarchy does. Given absolute anarchy, humans will eventually bind together for a) safety, b) companionship, c) resources, and d) power.
You forget that we already had a period where we were largely genetically segregated. Know what happened? Everyone farked like bunnies, expanded, started killing each other, forming alliances, building kingdoms, socially revolting and forming democracies, and then you have today. So whaa.
You can’t have a freedom to deny people freedom. You are more than free to start your ethnic cult today. Your problem is that you feel like you should be able to impose your ideas on everyone, and can’t. I have a freedom to NOT do what you want me to do.
Well, having human population diversity is certainly an advantage to the survivial of the human race as a whole. That is a fact.
Also, genetics do not stay constant, they always change via mutations and aggregate phenotypes continuously.
Also, it’s not required that their be an advantage to doing this because it’s about freedom for both individuals and groups, though there are certainly many advntages genetically speaking. Everything is relative as we all should know. Relatively speaking, certain tribes of African genetics dominate certain sporting events. If we were all genetically homogenized, this particular advantage would not exist. When we all start to think and care about genetics, and embrace our fundamental right to genetic freedom, there will be all kinds of advantages created here and there and everywhere for all of us to enjoy.
You prove how brainwashed you are everytime you say “white nationalist.” Genetic Freedom benefits every living human upon the planet. If you don’t understand that, you didn’t read the whole essay, or you read it and it went straight over your head.
The concept of group freedom has nothing to do with “white” people. It has to do with fundamental freedoms of genetic life. Regarding how the United States was founded… it was founded by Christians - and slavery was the result… It was founded during a time that we knew nothing of genetics or the many other sciences we know of today. You are right that group freedom, genetically based, has been tried, foolishly implemented and failed sometimes. In the case of Jews, the group effort is very, very successful as they are the wealthiest human ethnic group on the planet, pound for pound.
You have to be able to think over the course of a century or longer to comprhend genetic freedom. If you are stuck in this year or the next decade, that is way, way too short sighted to get it.
You don’t understand social economics, either.
They are also one of the smallest, and one of the ones most invested in. They have also been at war for the past 3,000 years. They also don’t practice this. They admit anyoen who converts into their culture.
You actually got it… at least the second part of what you said. Regarding fascism… no you can draw no realistic correlation between fascism and genetic freedom, that is discussion that I could easily win. biased? Again, not sure how that word poked in. I’ve alread explained how it’s not segregation.
Now you’ve gotten off track again… AND AND AND AND
Individual AND group freedom. Both in balance and the whole essay goes into detail about it. The main problem is that the concepts are so progressive that they cause a meltdown in peoples mind because nothing like it has ever existed before.
It is, by definition, segregation. You said so yourself. being such, it is by definition biased, and it is most certainly fascism - at the very least, tyrrany by the majority.
Groups have no right to freedom. They are regulated by the individuals within. You just want a simple tyrrany by the majority and repression of the minority.
lol, yea, that’s it. You’re so progressive. You’re progressive like L. Ron Hubbard.
It pushes it in a variety of ways. Long discussion…
These people, in these shows, are often portrayed arguing with each other and they are whiny and all kinds of things. This could certainly influence how people interact in real life. Media is a strange entity. I definately believe the owners of it are utilizing fabian gradualism, and by definition, nothing being done there would be obvious or blatantly noticeable. You’d have to study it, in detail, program by program, line by line. It would be a major endeavor. Culture has changed much more rapidly since media arrived. This is because human beings “become” what they see. They watch MTV and become that. Media provides lots of different pathways and most children embrance and follow at least one of them. The most significant, and negative, thing that media accomplishes is preventing people from communicating slowly and carefully with one another. Children don’t communicate with parents and visa versa. Our minds become filled with mush and communication with real people takes a backseat.
Bingo, you just provided everybody with an example of fabian gradualism… boring you said regarding mono-ethnic relations. This qualifies as hate speech.
A black woman was removed from a radio station because she said “Every time a black man goes with a white women that one less guy we have to choose from.” We live in a society that is literally scared to talk about anything related to ethnicity and genetic freedom. Media is completely sensored and that, all by itself, is sufficient to aid the homogenization which is actively taking place. If you deny that homogenization is currently taking place, you must not get out much.
First observe what is happening in all “formerly white” nations of the world. They are homogenizing with many different ethnic groups. Then ask the question why. Media is the most powerful force, in existence, over the human mind. You simply dismiss it as a contributing cause and refer to such thoughts as paranoia. That is fascinating and quite revealing of the type of intellect you possess. Maybe you have some agenda, I don’t know.
The proof of this promotion is on every blockbuster shelf in america. It could be scientifically analyzed, on a sociological perspective, and the trends would reveal themselves.
This whole segregated genetic freedom thing is better for humanity.
Rebuttal: No it’s not. Refolding any beneficial adaptations back into the general gene pool benefits a greater number of the next generation, allowing them to wallow in a small minority do not. If, as you say, there are some genetic groups that have greater athletic prowess or intelligence, we should encourage them to spread those genes into other lines. A certain disease resistance or great intellect doesn’t do the species that much good if only a very small amount of the species has it.
(voluntarily) Segregated communitees promote different genetic lines.
Though I am sure you will keep very different lines with your method, it is happening anyway. Constant genetic drift occurs the workd over, and the larger human populations only make it happen more. Genes will change and people will develop whether or not they are sectioned off into their own homelands.
Also, there is the problem of the nation. No current nation could exist if town sized (that is what they would have to be as genetic differences would be too great in anything larger) populations do not intermix. It would quickly lead to fractionalization of the country with different sections deciding they no longer have enough in common with the rest of people to remain part of the same Country.
So now you have many small yet close in relative proximity communities that cannot intermix. Some will do bettert and become richer while others will not. When you have the posibility of doing well for yourself and advancing enough to be able to improve your environment it imposes a certain passivity. When, however, you are disallowed from ever moving into the upper echelons of society you are begging for at the least crime and more likely war.
You have said that I am conditioned by the media to think this is White Nationalism. In fact I had not heard of the concept until about a month ago when a bunch of them invaded this board. I am not rejecting your concepts because I do not understand them (though I admit that I do not understand much of the essay as it is barely in English and completely incoherent), but specifically because I do understand them. You want to restric people’s freedom of movement, specifically where they live. We do not believe in setting up ghettos for every ethnic group in the country because we have seen where this leads. It is a very basic principle of a free country that people be allowed freedom of movement.
As it is now you can still go through with your plan even without new laws. Just get a bunch of friends together, move to a new community together (or one that is dominated by whichever group you like) and advertise for others to do the same. If someone you don’t want moves in take a page from the Amish and shun them. Believe me, they will move. You can make life very uncomfortable for them without breaking any laws at all.
Media first changes society… then portrays it “as it is”… You can comprehend how that works right?
Just one way, specifically I think that would do it. There would likely be lots of little laws here and ther that would have to heed this overall amendment. Essentially it would be called the Genetic Freedom amendment (or some other name) and it would state that all members of the human race have a fundamental human right to genetic freedom for both individuals and groups. The human race has a fundamental right to genetically branch and, understanding the controlling factors of population trends - proximity and media - all people have a right to gather together in whatever groups they choose, this gathering may be based on their genetics, they may live in communities and discriminate, on the basis of genetics, when deciding who may live in their community.
Obviously the size of communities is one of the great debates that will be upcoming as the concept of genetic freedom propogates. Additionally, there will be great discussions on how much of the planet should be reserved as “free range” where no group genetic freedom is allowed. Both individual and group genetic freedom will eventually live in harmony here, on our planet.
The contributing cause is that those countries had better economies, better education, and higher qualities of life thant the nations from which the immigrants moved. The one thing you are right about is that if two ethnicities live in close proximity they will inter marry. This has happened everywhere from the beginning of time, it doesn’t take the media to do that (look at what happened whenever one country conquered another). The only reason you saw more of it recently is that people have an easier time travelling to these countries than they did before. So yes, paranoia seems very likely.
OK, then show me the trends. You have often said that you believe the media is trying to modify society, but you have yet to give any proof. Considering how silly the claim is, the burden of proof is on you. Hell, I don’t even buy your very thin reasons why they would even have any reason to do it in the first place. You need to show that the media is PRECEDING culture as far as these things go. If they are simply reflecting it then you have no point.
castaway, this is what you’ve demonstrated so far:
You are a paranoid conspiracy theorist
You do not comprehend history
You do not comprehend culture
You do not comprehend social economics
You do not comprehend genetics
You do not comprehend basic civics
You do not comprehend law
There is likely much more you do not understand, but I’m tired of making the list. It would be easier to list what you DO know:
Well, you know how to type, unfortunately…
…
Eh, nevermind.
Even on a local population level with 1,000 individuals, your experiment would go horribly wrong, much less global. As most idealists do, you have absolutely no comprehension of either what it would take to start your program, or of how you would maintain it.
Media, literally, creates what we want… The problem would be solved if we simply had more diversity in the owership of media outlets. Done.
[/QUOTE]
Well, the first part of that statement, the ‘creates what we want’ part, I wouldn’t call ‘media’ but rather ‘marketing’. One of the first lessons and first year student in business marketing learns is that it’s far easier to create a demand for something than to find an unoccupied niche. That doesn’t just apply to the media but to all forms of persuasive discussion. From fabric softener to policital campaigns…you create a demand for something that didn’t exist before and it leads you to profit.
The second part I believe completely. I would cheerfully turn back the last 10 years of media consolidation led by the easing of ownership laws by congress and the FCC. If nothing else we’d get more independent music on free radio (but I’m an XM guy, actually).
But I’m still uncertain about what you would do that would gain you something you don’t already have. You say
[QUOTE=castaway]
Just one way, specifically I think that would do it. There would likely be lots of little laws here and ther that would have to heed this overall amendment. Essentially it would be called the Genetic Freedom amendment (or some other name) and it would state that all members of the human race have a fundamental human right to genetic freedom for both individuals and groups. The human race has a fundamental right to genetically branch and, understanding the controlling factors of population trends - proximity and media - all people have a right to gather together in whatever groups they choose, this gathering may be based on their genetics, they may live in communities and discriminate, on the basis of genetics, when deciding who may live in their community.
[QUOTE]
But I’m still not seeing why you can’t already. There is absolutely nothing to prevent this from occuring. I have lived in several towns in my life (small one’s, admittedly) which have been essentially monochromatic. They’ve been all white (or the non-white population has been a handful at most…less than 1%). Could you and your fellow travellers relocate to one of those and feel assured that it would remain so? And even then, if you owned the land you certainly wouldn’t sell it. You could even control the media in such a town.
I know there’s a certain group of libertarian thinkers that wish to do such a thing is some out of the way area. Move there, establish a libertarian majority, and then start living by hardcore libertarian ideals. Some propose doing this in a specific states in the USA and some propose doing this overseas someplace. But either way it gets them where they wish to be, right.
So please explain what specific actions you would expect the government to take to establish the right of ‘genetic freedom’. Would land need to be officially set aside? Would there need to be laws designed to prevent inter-racial marriages and reproduction? And what, then, would the sanctions be for those that ‘crossed the line’ (for lack of a better term!).
Seriously, man. I’m interested in exploring the world you see as being necessary for this. I may not agree with you, but I find the discussion worthwhile.
The problem here is your presumption that Genetic is a synonym for racial… thus the rest of what you spent time thinking is mute.
What you just said is propaganda regarding racial traits being unreliable as indicators of closeness. I didn’t say it wasn’t true, because anything as generally put as you just put it can be “generally” true in many cases… but also, racial physical traits can indicate “closeness” genetically speaking… but really, what racial physical traits are we talking about because that is at the core of this little thought stream. Condoms would be classified as “unreliable” if they failed 10% of the time… get it?
And your point is?
Genetic Freedom is a fundamental human right regardless of how we play with words regarding racial differences and similarities. We are precisely as genetically different and genetically similar as we are. Done. Genetic Freedom takes care of the rest. Perhaps you have a phobia of groups of humans being genetically free and enjoying it.
You have major perception distortions. It’s not about preserving anything, genetics change always (period). It’s about people being free and not being controlled by a more powerful “top of the pyramid” force - the elites, or whatever else you want to call them. And then it’s alsy very much about living in a free and diverse world with many different lands, creativities, cultures, ideas, etc… that we can all go visit and stimulate our own creativity etc… You are closed minded.
Lots of wasted brain power here… this is the typical media line which encourages homogenization of human genetics. So when I say that media encourages homogenization, this is part of that. We can play with words and make statistics look however we wish. Whoever is in charge of the promotion decides what the mainstream will think by promoting or tilting the science in whichever direction they wish. And, again, nothing you’ve said changes the fact that genetic freedom for intelligent genetic life is a fundamental right, not only on this planet, but in the universe as a whole. The alternative is suppression of genetic freedom - which is the line you are currently walking - and understandably so given human history and the fear you must feel regarding that.
Listen carefully - we could all be clones of each other, Genetic Freedom would still be a fundamental human right for that clone world. None of the “playing with words” above is relevant to Genetic Freedom being a fundamental right of existence. We are not just individuals, we are also groups of individuals - freely so. The only time when that freedom must be suppressed is when we have groups that strive to hurt, oppress, or do negative things to others.
It’s not your decision what other groups of individuals choose to go by… it’s their decision. Get that? It’s called Genetic Freedom for both individuals and groups of people.
Perhaps in your group, you would “HAVE” to do that. You sure do have a tyrannical mindset way of looking at things. Try to be more creative and free with your thinking.
I’m just trembling at the thought of the results… My God… what if… what if…
It’s irrelevant…
This is certainly an interesting area of scientific study. It’s also a percentage game. It’s about phenotypic probability, I’m quite certain you know what that means. See, the propaganda tilt you are currently putting on the science is your agenda. We could all be genetically identical - Genetic Freedom for both individuals and groups of people would still be a fundamental human right.
,
You finally led into a good point. If people wish to do this, they are free to. If they wish to do genetic tests on themselves and harnass a particular mutation or phenotypic combination, they have that right. And you are absolutely correct that ignorant people would look at this believe that they were practicing Genetic Homogenization… but then that’s what education is for, isn’t it?
As I continue to show, the flaws are in your perceptions, or in your agenda. You have numbers, the mob, on your side right now, sure. But ignorance will eventually be educated and then even you will have to start talking the talk of Genetic Freedom as a fundamental human right.
A group of 10,000 people live in a 10x10 mile area, let’s call them the “ziglets.” Some “Goobers” come along and find some empty land on the ziglet district and start to build a house. The Ziglets say, “Hey, this is our little area, why are you choosing to live here?” The Goobers say “because we want to, we like it here it’s very nice.” The Ziglets say, “yes we made it nice, feel free to copy us, but the choice of whether you live here is always up to us.” The Goobers say, “Screw you, we’re moving in.” So who has just enforced their will upon who?
Any group can branch simply by choosing extreme endogamy. There is no requirement that they live separately to keep their genes separate. As long as they decide that they will only mate with the right sort of people, they are on their way towards developing their own genetic group.
The whole “genetic freedom” schtick is simply a smokescreen to rationalize the desire to “discriminate in housing.” No law requires you to mate with the “wrong sort” of person. So simply choose the “right sort” of person and you are all set.
Castaway, replacing the word “Whites” with “Ziglets” and “Blacks / Asians / Generic Dirty Foriegners” with “Goobers” doesn’t make your theory any less racist. It just makes you sound like a childish fool.
It’s the covering-up of the real motives that bothers me. If you say you don’t want black people in your neighbourhood, I would think you were a racist. If you say you just don’t want any different groups around and this is a natural tendency of humankind, you’d be a dissembling and insidious racist, which is worse. It’s lacking the balls to state your views forthrightly that bugs me.