Racial Responsibility? What the Fuck?

O.k., I am recapping off of my last thread and the other new threads dealing with such subjects [in euphemism] as the 'stereotypical universal B.O. of Arab peoples' and '"What If" Slavery of Blacks was Reinstated as a Legal Institution' and there seems to be some reoccuring themes in the [il]logic of those who argue for the supremacy/pride/nationalism/genocide/subjugation/etc. of various races on all sides...

 [...I've seen forums in which it has literally turned into a White vs. Black vs. Yellow debate in which the racist Whites accuse ALL Blacks of inferiority and universal problem-making, the racist Blacks accuse ALL Whites of universally instituted racism and holding them back and the racist Yellows accuse the Whites AND Blacks of genetically objective inferiority [see: Wikipedia article on 'Race and Intelligence'] and themselves of being the true superior peoples of humanity... Egh, at least to me, all of these people just seem likepeople needing a lesson in objectivity playing out old evolutionarily primate neuro-script under the guise of objectivity and 'intellectualism'...]

...of this conflict. One of these themes is the theory that because a person is of a certain skin color, they are instantly and undeniably universally responsible AND A PART OF the actions of other people of that same skin color, whether positive or negative. Some of the arguments I've seen from various people who spout this 'Racial Responsibility' as if it was as absolute and irrefutable as the loads of other ignorance they consider true are...

From Racist Whites = "We Anglo-Saxxons have practically carried the Western World, European AND American on our backs. Economic, Scientific, Philosophic, Literary... all us. We have the Magna Carta. Shakespeare. Quantum Physics, the Constitution... all of it. All these inferior races have... what? Nothing." Analysis: So, based upon this logic of ability based on race, you're able to  recite all of Shakespeare's sonnets and plays, explain the structure and significance of Iambic Pentameter, explain the full spectrum of mathematic, physical and theoretical principles surrounding quantum mechanics and apparently do anything that anyone who's white has ever done... AND YOU WERE THERE AT THE MAGNA CARTA, TOO? WOW!

From Racist Blacks = Usually there is a mentioning of how their musical traditions have been stolen by Whites. Everything from original tribal beats to original Rock&Roll to Raggae to Funk to House to Disco to Jazz has been co-opted... Unh-huh... Same analysis, write and perform a song of the genres mentioned here based upon your obvious ability to do so as a black person and THEN talk to me.

You get my point people.

Discuss... rationally, please.

Don't get your point.

Shorten it down plz

¯\(°_o)/¯

I think I get it:

Just because we many philosophers and sienticst where whites it doest mean that you or me can do just what they did. And that everyone is responsible for their own actions. We should not judge all blacks just because some of them do bad things.

AmIrite?

Most Japanese can't do what the samurai did, but that doesn't mean they aren't proud of their ancestors and cultural forebears and RACIAL forebears that were samurai.

Seriously, all you anti-racists have a stick up your ass. Let people do what they want. Anti-racists are some of the most hateful and 'discriminatory' people around, especially when it comes to putting their nose into other people's beliefs and business. So, I'm proud of being white. Puhleeez, my heroes are white, and since I'm into everything from science to ol' school logical positivism, I've got a lot in common with my white forebears. We've got serious pride, and things to be proud about, in our ancestors. It doesn't give us superpowers or anything like that, but it definately gives up somebody to look up too. Gives us cultural meaning and a common heritage to share as well. White people have got alot to be proud of. In the past, we didn't take 'shit' from nobody. Hopefully more people will wise out and step out of this religion and inquisition of political correctness.

I say let people be proud of their racial heritage. Stop hating on whites. I've got serious racial love for my people.

Yours truly,
The Racist 

Yeah, let's hate solely on Saxons instead.
FRANKISH PRYDE!!!!

I'm pretty racist myself but I agree that people shouldn't base their opinions/beliefs on stereotypes or basically something that doesn't support their opinions well. 

How come you don't have a section on racist yellows? 

>>1
You already finnished the discussion.

"From Racist Whites = "We Anglo-Saxxons have practically carried the Western World, European AND American on our backs. Economic, Scientific, Philosophic, Literary... all us. We have the Magna Carta. Shakespeare. Quantum Physics, the Constitution... all of it. All these inferior races have... what? Nothing." Analysis: So, based upon this logic of ability based on race, you're able to  recite all of Shakespeare's sonnets and plays, explain the structure and significance of Iambic Pentameter, explain the full spectrum of mathematic, physical and theoretical principles surrounding quantum mechanics and apparently do anything that anyone who's white has ever done... AND YOU WERE THERE AT THE MAGNA CARTA, TOO? WOW!

From Racist Blacks = Usually there is a mentioning of how their musical traditions have been stolen by Whites. Everything from original tribal beats to original Rock&Roll to Raggae to Funk to House to Disco to Jazz has been co-opted... Unh-huh... Same analysis, write and perform a song of the genres mentioned here based upon your obvious ability to do so as a black person and THEN talk to me."

>>2
>>3
>>4
>>5

Since everything ever is TL;DR fo ryou guys, here:
Just because old white dudes did noteable things, doesn't mean that any given white dd you encounter is the next Einstein or Voltaire.
Just because old black dudes made tribal music that influenced music for many generations, doesn't mean and random black dud you meet is a musical genius.
Just because asians are stereotyped as being smart, doesn't mean some every asian person you meet will be a superultramega genius.

>>10
WTF is wrong with my keyboard?!
Sorry,

Since everything ever is TL;DR for you guys, here:
Just because old white dudes did noteable things, doesn't mean that any given white dude you encounter is the next Einstein or Voltaire.
Just because old black dudes made tribal music that influenced music for many generations, doesn't mean and random black dude you meet is a musical genius.
Just because asians are stereotyped as being smart, doesn't mean some every asian person you meet will be a superultramega genius.

There, now the spelling isn't all fucked up

>>10
Your spelling sucks, you must be a female canadian with south western Irish ancestry between the ages of 22-34.

>>10
GTFO

>>10
FUCK OFF SNARKLON

I am NOT knocking White Pride... Well actually, I am... Mostly because it seems foolish for so many different white, black, asian, etc. cultural backgrounds to all automatically group themselves together into one mega-culture.
Kind of like whites who automatically take up their "Nordic" and "Celtic" heritage without actual proof of having ancestors that were actually involved in the events that forged those cultures.
Kind of like blacks who automatically take up their "Slave" and "African High Bred" [Nubian, Egyptian, etc.] heritage without having any actual proof of ancestors involved in the events that forged those cultures.

On Asian Racists: I realize that there are many Asian racists out there, but lets face it folks: Besides the occasional nationalistic "Got Rice, Nigga?"-spouting fool from Asia or America, there doesn't seem to be as many well... nationalistic fools coming around 4chan and other websites spouting off their particular brand of ignorance.

On stereotyped behavior of "Anti-Racists": I'm Libertarian, against political correctness and am a full supporter of your pride in your ancestor's achievements... [Besides grouping all of the Caucasian people's various cultures under the label of just WHITE. That seems more of an insult to the forebearers of Western Civilization... Caking them all together and erasing their individual/cultural achievements rather than recognizing them.], but I don't appreciate one thing...

How the Politics section of World4Chan and some of the associated Image Boards of the [#]Chan network have degraded into all out racism...

If you want to show pride in your peoples, then please, do. Don't let any bleeding heart "white guilt"-spouting liberal tell you what to think or how to act.

If you want to make social commentary on the various sides of the Cultural Wars, whether on the social or racial aspect, then please do... But please keep it tasteful, free of slurs [Which you should all know more or less degrade the quality of an argument anyway.] and a commentary meant to invoke free thought and thoughtful speech, not put down a whole type of people for the actions of a minority of those people. Whether through images or words...

This is all I ask that may happen here. I realize we have a diverse and...creepily open community here sometimes, but there is a very thin line between expressing oneselves freely and freely being a fucktard. Ponder this. Thank you.

1. Racism isn't a bad thing. It's a current taboo. What is racism? Racism means that you believe that races exist, races being the convergence of statistical data in observations to correlate to probabilities that certain traits will show up in a population group due to shared genetic, primarily, and cultural, secondarily, characteristics. These probabalities are actually closed to Bayesian, being that they are more like confidence that something will be a certain way rather than reflecting an actual 'real' probablity as is the case with quantum physics.

2. When you say racism, you seem to be using it inapproiately as a term that means, "white dominated interracial conflict."

Whites do not dominate every interracial conflict, and when they do they tend to be rather tame. The full-blown 'informal' genocide and removal of whites in Zimbabwe/Rhodesia and in South Africa seems to be a nice contrast.

http://www.africancrisis.org/default2.asp

Let's take the United States, for instance. Let's consider the immigration problem racially. Living space is a limited commodity; Japan illustrates this concept nicely. Right now, white living space in the United States is being threatened by an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants. In Europe, the white population is being threatened by a muslim population.

Throughout this conflict, whites standing up for white self-interest are being portrayed as immoral or villanous somehow, i.e. racist (a term that is silly as the much ballyhoo-ed anti-semetic.) Ones that stand up for anti-white activity are seen as progressive. No one questions the right of
these various non-white populations to encroach upon the territory of white populations.

To illustrate this let's take into account Bob's mantra:

BOB'S MANTRA
"Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries."


"The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them."


"Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to "assimilate," i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites."


"What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?"


"How long would it take anyone to realize I'm not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?"


"And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn't object to this?"


"But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews."


"They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white."


"Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white."
 

Bob Whitaker

http://www.whitakeronline.org/
----------------

This is the interesting part of this topic. Whites are 'suggested' in modern white cultures to not stand up for their own self interest. It's racial and cultural suicide on a massive scale.



My theories on who heads the propagation of this implicit anti-white attitude? It's a group that no one dares criticize. They are incredibly powerful within the economies and media of nearly every white country today; they somehow manage to get billions upon billions of dollars in free aid to a country that has little to do with the self-interest of the United States; they control the most powerful lobby in the United States; they implicitly direct the military and foreign policy of the United States; they regularly commit atrocities without mention; they attacked a military vessel of the United States with the intention to damage relations or start a war between the U.S. and Egypt; they practice a religion which preaches ethnic superiority and xenophobia; they have been repeatedly removed from countries after they 'overstayed' their welcome to the point of becoming destructive pests and refusing to assimilate; they have been remarked on negatively by some of the greatest figures in Western history.

"If you want to identify the real rulers of any society, simply ask yourself this question: Who is it that I cannot criticize?"

>>16
immigrants from mexico enter the USA because they can get hired and work for 3 dollars an hour because your businessmen care more about cutting costs than what is right

don't confuse the issue, it's largely economical- and youre a shining example of those outstanding morons who believe it is solely an issue of race.

racism is at best one of the factors which helps antagonize the american populous against the immigrants. racism, at least the way most of the racist posters in this thread go about it, has no rational grounds. statistics might prove that generally speaking one group might be a little smarter than the other, but it does not account for the exceptions to the rule, and it leaves it up for speculation as to what causes the gap. in your every day conduct, you cannot justify racism- no matter how much you want to, no matter how much it was reinforced when you were growing up.

>>17

1. Define racism
Ok, I went ahead and made a very formal definition of 'racism.' You are obviously not using my definition.

2. "racism has no rational grounds"
Ok (for your definition,) explain why and prove it.
Then, for MY definition explain why and prove it.

To prove that my definition of racism has no grounds and is not justified you will have to prove that:

1. Statistical correlation is a fallacy.
2. Genetics is a hoax propagated by white 'racist' eugenicists that didn't really study Euclid or mathematics or advanced logic or the material they, but just like white skin.
3. Heredity, if it exists, is only skin deep and other traits outside of the aesthetic are inherited from something other than parents.
4. Inherited traits within a population are not excised or increased by breeding patterns.
5. People that come from the same region of the world that share some sort of common history and genetic linkage do not have the right to name that shared bond.
6. There is absolutely no observational data that links the idea of race to any statistical correlation, whether it be genetic, cultural, relgious, psychological, sociological, physical, spiritual, idealistic, or so on.

Somehow, I think my 'racist' ideas will stand up to logical scruntiny. After all, I 'came into' my racist ideas by analyzing the current multicultural ideals. The irony of the current explosion of 'racists' is that we all came from 'multicultural society' families.


Aracialism (the idea that races cannot be observed) is a ridiculous idea. You might then say, "Well, where do you draw the lines?" I would answer at the ones that most obviously fill the criteria for race, as could be inversely derived from the criteria about. The irony about thought is that even with mathematical constructs there is no such thing as absolute certainty. Real numbers, when analyzed deeply, are similar to cauchy sequences that extend indefinitely and are cut off by a error bar, the epsilion in the definition of a limit in calculus. Is a human being 1 human being or 1

One irony that I've noticed, with my high racist IQ, is that 'anti-racists' seem to know what racists are 1. thinking 2. how they grew up 3. how racism affects their behavior 4. what normative scheme (shoulds and shouldn'ts) 'racists' should be judged by.

There are people to whom family is everything. Let's call those familists. There are people to whom country is everything. Those are called nationalists. There are people to whom a single idea is more important than anything else. These are called idealists. There are people who believe everyone should believe that no one should disapprove of anyone else, except of who someone is disapproving. Somehow, you fit that requirements for that role.


One key fact you have to understand is that racists embrace separate, diversity, and freedom of expression. Anti-racists embrace cosmopolitanism and the outlawing of 'wrong ways of thinking.' People like me are true heretics, the Martin Luthers that are chased by the modern inquisition.

continuation of above regarding numbers and 'separation' of traits into catagories:

Where do you draw the line between objects? 1 human being? What does that mean? There isn't some abstract concept of 'human being' floating around. Berkley proved that when someone thinks of an 'abstract' concept they are actually thinking of many concrete ones. So, what fits the bill for the object of a human being? Well, whatever matches the many relational statistical correlations that you 'subconciously' associate with the words (reference) of 'human being.' In the same way, race is a clear enough idea if you have a concept of the idea, and if you don't have a clear enough concept of the idea, you don't have a thorough experience of diverse groupings of human beings or the data related to them. In other words, if you do not have a concept of 'relation by race' you are 'racially blind' or 'racially naive.'

Also, another issue I might address while I'm at it, before someone moronically mentions it again, is that statistical data by its very nature includes variation. In fact, depending on the variation, statistical data might include in it its very points of falsifiability. For instance, a statistic might include green and not green.

If I say that black population group A contains haplogroup C 90% percent of the time, I have IMPLICITLY inferred that 10% of the time they do not. If I take this to be Bayesian, then that means my confidence that any black person I see has this haplogroup is 90% and my confidence that they DON'T have this haplogroup is 10%.

Not every black person has to be a criminal for blacks to be 400% more likely to commit an interracial crime than whites. All that means is that (postulating in this current example that I'm asian, which I am not) I'm perfectly certain that, if I'm looking to avoid interacial assaults, I'm 400% safer in a white neighborhood than I am in a black neighborhood.

"I'm 400% safer in a white neighborhood than I am in a black neighborhood. "

Well, if you're white... Of course. Clearly judging by America's current racial climate, in a white neighborhood non-whites will have a problem being safe in a definate psychological sense of the word. Racist love to dice shit up into "who steals, who rapes?" as if history hasn't proven their (so called white) behavior to be just as hostile if not more. This is like the Japanese caliming to be peaceful despite the Rape of Nanking.

Your non-hostile experiences with whites come from you being white. Don't delude yourself with any sense of objectivity, because by virtue of your dogmatic approach to race- you simply lack the inborn ability to approach the issue objectively now matter how loudly you rail on about the lack of falsibility of statistics or logics or what have you.

What you fail to understand time and time again is that race, as concept has thus far done more harm than good. Can you enlighten us on what good it's done for all of human kind? What do you think gets a stronger negative reaction from the human psyche? Being different...or being treated a certain way FOR being different?

Your approach is clearly one of white supremacism because thus far "Race" as a concept has only "worked" in favor of white privalege. Anyone cheering for race and ignoring the harm the concept has done is cheering for the unfair privaleges that come with their race. (Affrimative action, positive stereotyping into certain roles within society, etc)

Finally, it's a common effort amoung those adopting psuedo-logical racism to totally ignore their lack of data and data that clearly speaks contrary to their views. Arguements for "the overpowering strength of genetics" would have worked when we couldn't identify the mechansims by which we actually gain an understanding of ourselves and the environment.

Of course you can't just come right out and say "nurture doesn't make a difference" because you know you'd be wrong. Instead you puff up genetics like it's "safe" in a game of freeze tag.

Summing up: Race isn't a purely logical, genetic or natural concept. Cows, Monkeys and Ducks don't group together according to facial features or color or whatever genetic definition you've got. To approach it as this tangiable idea rooted in the logic of nature is pretty fucking ridiculous- so ridiculous that it almost refutes itself over and over again.

How much longer do we have to sit here and watch you contradict yourself with concepts that are apparently so lofty to you that you don't understand the irreconcilable conflicts that give rise to turning your ideas into social modus operandi.

but the japanese are superior to us is a fact
god i wish I where born japanese ;'[

1. My assumption in this example was if I were Asian.
-----------------
Clearly judging by America's current racial climate, in a white neighborhood non-whites will have a problem being safe in a definate psychological sense of the word. Racist love to dice shit up into "who steals, who rapes?" as if history hasn't proven their (so called white) behavior to be just as hostile if not more.
--------------------
No. Blacks are safer in a white neighborhood than they would be in a black neighborhood. Of course, one neighborhood is not equal to another, but let's take this construction to be poor neighborhoods. Blacks are safer in a poor white neighborhood than they are in a poor black neighborhood.

---------------
What you fail to understand time and time again is that race, as concept has thus far done more harm than good. Can you enlighten us on what good it's done for all of human kind? What do you think gets a stronger negative reaction from the human psyche? Being different...or being treated a certain way FOR being different?
---------------
Race is a concept and it is an observation. Observational data doesn't just pop out of existsnce because you don't like it. If a group of like-minded people get together to reinforce their ideas this is known as politics. Races, families, clans, nations, ideological groups, colleges, states, and so on, all have political underpinnings. When you say 'difference' you are relating to group conflict which is spriously correlated with race. In other words, you aren't being entirely intellectually honest. In order to attack race from this viewpoint, you have all forms of human grouping, the social aspect being one of the most powerful forces for change by mankind.

The good that realization of race does comes from the support roles and human activity that comes out of it. Let's compare the idea to realization of family, family also being a heredity based social construct. When a family functions appropriately, it offers a support base and a boon of good will to the members from the members. Families, if they work properly, are good for the interaction of the members. It gives people a reason to come together.

You rail against the concept of the 'other' and the idea that conflict comes from it. But, you have forgotten something. Being white, when I interact with Asian mathematicians, do I consider them the 'other' or do I consider to have a bond with them through commonality of interest? Well, I can tell you that from my experience that I do not consider them the 'other.' But, I realize that they do not come from the same race as I. They have a different heritage. This is not a source of conflict; like nation, it only becomes a source of conflict when one group threatens another in some way. Ironically, all the much ballyhooed hype about and concentrating on blacks, who have played a very small role in history, is that blacks are overly threatening to whites as they encroach on white living space and cultural standards. Orientals do not do this, so there are no complaints about this.

When race is realized, blacks obviously are given a bad reputation, but in all honesty, as a race they deserve that bad reputation. When race is realized, Orientals are given a generally good reputation and they generally deserve this. When race is realized, whites are given a good reputation, and guess what, they too deserve this reputation as a race. Considering that all white people are following in the tradition of many great men and women, we certainly have a lot to live up to.


Who should you blame, the 'racist' for being observative or the black community for not being able to control their own?


The irony about 'race,' no matter how hard you try to attack those that recognize it, is that it will persist beyond you. Why? Because it gets its roots from observation. People will observe it over and over again and be driven to come to their own natural conclusions.

-------------
Anyone cheering for race and ignoring the harm the concept has done is cheering for the unfair privaleges that come with their race. (Affrimative action, positive stereotyping into certain roles within society, etc)
-------------

This again is a biased attack on observation. Observation affects cognition. This much is certain. However, being Oriental does not mean that you have a degree in mathematics. However, it has been observed that many Orientals tend to flourish in math.

Basically your argument on 'stereotyping' is this:
"I recognize that Oriental students do better in math in class, because I recognize this I will give Oriental students a better score in math because I know they are Oriental."

This is a laughable concept. It is an especially laughable concept to white people, who in general practice the ideas of distinction handed down through our traditions. Those ideas being from Greece, giving logic special claims to certainty, and to emphasis on freedom of expression and result, i.e. the scientist culture that came out of our ancestors' advances in philosophy. Your arguement is that race shouldn't be realized because it might lead to some form of nepotism, but by that arguement nation or family or friendship or any other sort of common bond, outside of the ironically 'white' set of cultural values, that could result in nepotism, shouldn't be realized. In other words, the relation with race and nepotism is spurious, related rather to shared group bonds than race itself.  If you wish to make an attack against all form of human identity, observational like race or species, or convienient like fraternity membership, then go ahead and do so. You will be wasting your breath; human beings tend to thrive on these things and derive considerable benefits from them. 

Ha, you mentioned 'white supremacism.' Took you long enough. Any white people that realizes and acts on their racial membership is eventually called this. Once you have realized this identity, you also realize that this term has become so ubiquitous that really what it has come to mean is, "realization of white racial interests as a group." So, if you mean to say that I realize race and recognize that white people have a right to continue their culture and racial traditions without attack or disruption, rather the disruption be black, mexican, or muslim, then you are absolutely correct and this attitude is good and beneficial for white people to have, for themselves.


As for an
================
Apes and monkeys in the wild live in close-knit families, generally isolated from other groups. They can be extremely territorial and aggressive if threatened. Recently, biologists studying chimpanzees in western Africa noticed a huge decline in the chimps' numbers as logging operations neared their home range. It seems that the loggers' machines chase chimps across territorial borders, resulting in a deadly conflict between opposing chimp groups.
==================

So, why are so many whites coming to a racial realization against the surge of propaganda designed to 'turn off their brain' to the realization of race? Because white racial interest is being especially threatened. The problem is not with whites flooding into other countries and demanding to fly an alien flag or demanding that schools be taught in English rather than Chinese or with whites attacking or breaking the laws of the culture they have infiltrated, the problem is that whites are being threatened in this manner.

This is forcing whites to realize that they share things in common with one another and that they have shared interests in the preservation of their race and culture and living space.

As these forces rise to a climax, which they currently are, no amount of propaganda designed to manipulate psychological awareness will stifle the common realization of shared racial bonds.

>>21
Whites are capable of crime? Is that your only argument? OF course we're capable of crime, I'll even help you kick down that strawman, since it's not me, I agree. Whites are capable of crime.

They enslaved millions of blacks was for 2 reasons.

1: The technology gap allowed them to do so. When one despotic group finds itself with military superiority over another, that's what happens. The Romans did the same to the Gauls, the Mongols did the same to China, the Khwarazmian empire and the Kievan Rus and the Tutsis did the same to the Hutus. If you have a problem with crimes committed by whites, don't forget to whine to your own race and Mongoloids aswell.

2: Blacks have no balls. They didn't enslave the locals because they kept fighting back, it was too much work. When the first few docile and dumb black slaves began to arrive they had no trouble putting them to work. In the Haiti revolt it was at a time when France was in political turmoil, they outnumberred their slavers 14 to 1 with the slaves having access to guns making them very close to the effectiveness of any european soldier after the revolt was in full swing. This compared to the rampage through Italy of Spartacus where slavers outnumberred slaves 2 to 1 and in which not all slaves were involved in combat and did not have the spartan training, discipline, arms and armour of the roman legions. Spartacus initiated the revolt with much worse odds since whites have the intelligence to see beyond their own immediate needs. The enslavement on the scale during the triangular trade could have never been done with any other race than the cowardly negro race. Blacks are good runners.

With reason 2 in mind it is obvious why so many blacks are too short sighted to solve their problems and resort to crime.

What I would actually like to put down here is that the root word of nation in latin refers to race. The original idea of nation was racial, and the idea of nation somehow transferring from a people to a piece of land marked be imaginary borders happened over thousands of years as a matter of convienience.

The actual root national idea is racial, speaking of a specific people.


# natio nationis : nation, race, people, breed /pagan people.
# nativitas : birth.
# natu : (ab,sing.) by birth.
# natalis natalis : birthday.

>>23

1. You need to broaden your definition of the word "safe". Who is safe from people who beat drums about "racial bonds" and cry "the whites are under attack!" and build up petty delusions about "their way of life being threatened". It's ridiculous that you can pretend this environment is "safe" for non-whites.

2. Trying to hide racism under the "blanket of observation" as if you're defending the concept of logic itself is a long overused fallacy by white nationalists. Observation and co-relatives aren't whole sciences and they aren't wholly scientific ways of percieving race and race's relevance in society. Once again this is the "nurture doesn't exist" argument that your types are quite afraid to use openly.

Of course I'm attacking observation. That's scientific skeptism and that doesn't go away just because you want so desperately to belong to a ficticious group of peoples who you *think* you share something in common with.

"Observation affects cognition"

LOL, you sound like a child. Of course it does. But without indentifying and reconciling the mechanisms which produce the results we observe- we don't have truth. It is "knowledge"? In a sense, yes. But is it the truth? Obviously not.

It's a generality, a stereotype and it is possible to stack stereotype upon stereotype until you've convinced yourself that your observations are true- which is clearly what you've done with the whole concept of race.

3. You wrote: "The good that realization of race does comes from the support roles and human activity that comes out of it. Let's compare the idea to realization of family, family also being a heredity based social construct. When a family functions appropriately, it offers a support base and a boon of good will to the members from the members. Families, if they work properly, are good for the interaction of the members. It gives people a reason to come together."

But even the perfect Family doesn't work properly. What makes a family "work"? A mommy, A daddy, and 2 siblings? People don't adhere to how you think "family" should be. The idea of the proper family changes. Father no longer knows best. Are you saying that your family has to be someone who looks like you and speak the same language as you do? Putting race and family together in such a way is a page right out of every black and white nationalist group ever.

Think about it. All you basically did was validate my statement. The only good that race does is that it gives you someone to indentify with in society- thus providing support. But race can be replaced with so much else that I'm hard pressed to see much use in the concept unless you happen to be at the top of the racial heirarchy (and benefitting from the idea of race)

I mean: Are we babies? Do any of us really *need* this extra support? And why can't this behavior stretch beyond race and progress into love for other human beings as "family"? Family is such an abstract term that can apply to anyone for any reason- regardless of race. That's how love and support actually work.

When race is realized, blacks obviously are given a bad reputation, but in all honesty, as a race they deserve that bad reputation. When race is realized, Orientals are given a generally good reputation and they generally deserve this. When race is realized, whites are given a good reputation, and guess what, they too deserve this reputation as a race. Considering that all white people are following in the tradition of many great men and women, we certainly have a lot to live up to.

"Race is realized". See, this is what doesn't sit well with me. What you're clearly expressing to me is that race is a choice. You can *choose* to deal with people on either general or individual levels.

So, according to your statement, it's alright that whites have a reputation for mass genocides, warmongering, ethinic cleansing, bigotry, etc? By calling this "revised white history" you're saying that I'm not indentifying the mechanism for the behaviors of whites. Why is wrong from me to not indentify the mechanisms for white, but right when you don't address or indentify the mechanisms for blacks? Why do you refuse to acknowledge the fact that no one- no human being wants to be treated based on generalities? Why do you continue to ignore the basic human need for affection? Given this acknowledgement- what do you think is going to eventually happen if your big seperatist race war prophecy comes true? Do you really think human history is going to look at your types as new frontier liberators? You're delusional.

4. The only thing whites are coming to realize is that there will soon be an end to white privalege. The "realization" you speak of is just that- a realization that (A) Whites have no culture. None. Your race isn't based on culture, it's primarly based on skin color/facial features/etc. Russians, Irish, Scottish, British = All seperate cultures, seperate genes, seperate families and these people aren't consider different races from "the white race"? Why not?

I suppose you don't have an answer for any of my questions because you are even too fucking stupid to get that you not only called yourself a white supremacist (I mean, you welcomed the term) - but you basically validated the believe that people like you are white supremacist/seperatist/nationalist - whatever. You're looking out for "white interests" - we all understand that and because you don't truly have the entirety of humanities interests at heart- you must be stopped.

>>25
NATIONALIS LEBENSRAUM

Any "race" will only be as unified as the enemy races it can rally up against. If all the other races you didn't like were eradicated, your life would soon revert back to infighting, when there's nothing to unify against anymore. Eventually, when enough divergence happens, your progeny will be hurled back into another racial conflict.

1. You ignored most of my essay.

2. Inductivity ensures that we can never have perfect certainty about any testable knowledge.

3. Yes, race has to be realized. It's not necessarily a choice to realize it, more like a choice to stop denying it. Race is a natural observation. Shared traits are easily recognizable.

For some alterior motive you are being disingenuous. It's easy to tell when your opinion of whites comes through.


---------------
So, according to your statement, it's alright that whites have a reputation for mass genocides, warmongering, ethinic cleansing, bigotry, etc? By calling this "revised white history" you're saying that I'm not indentifying the mechanism for the behaviors of whites. Why is wrong from me to not indentify the mechanisms for white, but right when you don't address or indentify the mechanisms for blacks? Why do you refuse to acknowledge the fact that no one- no human being wants to be treated based on generalities? Why do you continue to ignore the basic human need for affection? Given this acknowledgement- what do you think is going to eventually happen if your big seperatist race war prophecy comes true? Do you really think human history is going to look at your types as new frontier liberators? You're delusional.
--------------------

Your argument is thus:


defending white racial interest against invaders = nazis = genocide

What you have ignored is that 'race-replacing' whites throughout the world is genocide in itself. Politically correct genocide is genocide never the less.

Here's Bob's Mantra in case you haven't read it.

BOB'S MANTRA
"Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries."


"The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them."


"Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to "assimilate," i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites."


"What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?"


"How long would it take anyone to realize I'm not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?"


"And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn't object to this?"


"But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews."


"They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white."


"Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white."
 

Bob Whitaker


Obviously, you have no problems with mexicans encroaching upon white living space. You also have no problems with whites being raped, removed, displaced, and killed in South Africa and Zimbabwe.

The white people suffering in South Africa are suffering due to a government that embraces 'communism, diversity, and equality.' Apparently, diversity is a world which is without the only people that are not diverse, i.e. whites. Apparently equality means violent oppression of whites by non-whites.

Anti-racism means anti-white. Anti-whiteness carries the implicit definition of oppression of whites and their genocide.

You state more by what you implicitly don't talk about than what you do.

Ignoring race does not rid you of racial conflict. Racial conflict can only be avoided by limited separation, mutal respect, and non-aggression.

The only argument against racism seems to be "WHITES ARE EVIL THEY GONE AN DONE AN CONQUERRED AND ENSLAVED!!". This is more nazi than some of the shit militant racists spout out, since the nazis just loved pinning all their problems on jews and believing any crimes committed against them and "collaborators" are justified. I believe racism is the major cause of high crime rates by the black community. Anti-white racism.

Whites are not a minority yet so the aggression is relegated to non-whites with nothing to lose. When the entire community sees they will lose nothing, the similarity will become more apparent. If black crime rates were acceptably low and the majority of blacks were conservative, there would be no racism.

-----------------
I mean: Are we babies? Do any of us really *need* this extra support? And why can't this behavior stretch beyond race and progress into love for other human beings as "family"? Family is such an abstract term that can apply to anyone for any reason- regardless of race. That's how love and support actually work.
------------
1. Yes human beings need support. No this is not an indication of being 'a baby'.

2. There is a shared comaraderie that humans share with each other. This is true. This is not racial comaraderie.

Races also share racial comaraderie with each other. You speak as though the two are mutually exclusive. They are not.

There is also family comaraderie. This is not mutually exclusive with race or nation or species either. You can share racial, familial, national, and idealistic comraderie with different sets of people. They are not mutually exclusive. Race is just a current taboo. In the future, the taboo might be family or nation. who knows?

As per family, Joe who lives down the street is not family.

When you say that two non-blood related people are 'family' then you are using the term with a different connotation. My dog is family. She isn't even human. However, she is not related by blood either. I know this. So, what does family mean in this case? It means that my dog and I are as close as families are supposed to idealistically be.

Certainly, race is no barrier to two non-blood-related or copulation-related people being 'family' in this connotation. Why waste your mind attacking racialists? There is something else going on here. You consistently portray the 'white' in your mind as 'the other'. You see whites with a racial identity as threatening. Threatening to the point where you wish to spend hours talking on a message board to oppose the realization of racial identity by whites.

Again, you portray whites as being some sort of villian throughout history. This is odd. From my perspective, even before my racial realization, I saw whites as heroes. My heroes were Leibniz and Newton, Decartes and Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. Aesop's fables was my joy.

You might say this is 'one-sided' but I think positively of my own people. This is typically a healthy view that peoples and races have. They believe that they come from a positive tradition. Yet, your world view is one where the white is greedy, sinister and evil, the caricatured villan.

In fact, you would characterize my believe in white history being a positive one as being evil. This is strange.

Again, you are being disingenious. I wonder where your self-interest lies? I wonder what motivations you have? Where does your racial interest lie? Where do your other interests lie? You obviously have some motive for doing this. Will you be disingenuous in that admittal as well?

If I were planning to destabilize Japan, I would first seek to divide its people. I would convince them that Japanese is really a silly term, and actually most Japanese come from specific regions. These regions are distinct. And the Japanese look different, why look at the Ainu! They hardly look Japanese at all! Why, there is no such thing as Japanese people!

The first activity of the propagandist is to attack unity.

'Anti-racism' is 'anti-white-ism.' So, why do you fear and hate the white race so much, that you would attack its members implicitly by dividing them?

>>29

You ignored most of my essay.

I really didn't. Perhaps you can cite passages that I've ignored?

Inductivity ensures that we can never have perfect certainty about any testable knowledge.

Such a statement reveals the nebulous core of your hastily thrown together set of beliefs. More to the point- I find it funny that you're able to acknowledge this and then rail off another "essay" about what you think race absolutely means. You seem to think lack of perfect certainty doesn't invalidate your statements. Meanwhile, this is the glaring hole in your race theory. Your refusal to indentify, acknowledge and address the varying mechanisms for such "observations" is what makes you wrong.

Yes, race has to be realized. It's not necessarily a choice to realize it, more like a choice to stop denying it. Race is a natural observation. Shared traits are easily recognizable.

Oh, no, see it is indeed a choice. A choice to deny or accept or disregard or impose importance upon. Race is passed down like stereotypes about blondes and redheads, woman and man, God and you and I. It's something that is socially re-enforced over and over to the point where you simply cannot begin to express to me where the line ends and begins. You don't know which came first- the race or the racist. It is this lack of "perfect certainty" that leaves your ideals wanting of something other than just (constantly) repeating over and over that you're just "observing". If people just simply "observed race" - then there would be no concept of "race" (and therefore no race conflict) to begin with. What else is the repetition of "Shared traits are easily recognizable" but social dogma?

For some alterior motive you are being disingenuous. It's easy to tell when your opinion of whites comes through.

On the alterior motive front I'm going to have to plead ignorance. However, I think it should be pointed out that you are constantly confusing "white privelage" with "the white race". My opinions on the white race, or any race for that matter stem from the inherant wrong of racial privelage in a world where seperatism, accepted unequal treatment, lack of cultural and genetic diversity are apart of a set of dying core values. 

"Your argument is thus:"

Time to deflate this. You'll forgive me if I completely ignore Bob's Mantra. I'm not arguing with Bob. I'm arguing with you. Plus there was already a thread about Bob where I and many other addressed the mantra. I'm sure you remember.

"White racial interest" is a funny phrase. It's almost as if you're afraid call it what it is.

White privalage.

At this point in human history it's rediculous of you to come on here speaking innocenously of "white racial interest" as if their interest hasn't historically been at another race's expense. Who are these "white people" what types of things are in their "racial interest"? Sounds very, very abstract to me. 

And LOL "Race replacing"? As if what exactly? There was some grand non-white scheme to remove whites from their "homes"? Come on, now. In the name of white privalage, whites have been "race replacing" for quite a while now. They called it colonialism.

"Obviously, you have no problems with mexicans encroaching upon white living space. You also have no problems with whites being raped, removed, displaced, and killed in South Africa and Zimbabwe.

Actually, I have a very basic problem with immigration and it comes from being a non-white middle class American and has nothing to do with "white living space". My problem with immigration is the narrow-sightedness of the movement itself- but that these people are acting as a shield for a class conflict that has to take place.

But I think I should point out the duplicity in your implication. Let's say for instance that I didn't have a problem with all the whites being kicked out of Africa----how would that hypothetical concern (or lack of) be any different from your real-to-life concern for "the white race"? How would that be adverse to "seperation"? Shouldn't the whites leave Africa, like you believe the blacks should leave White America? Where was the "mutual respect" in Manifest Destiny? Where was the "non-agression" in colonization of Africa and the western slave trade? You seem so willing to call all these "white men" from the past "your fathers" based on a subjective view of history--- yet you can't find it in your idiotic heart to acknowledge "your fathers" sins?
 
While you're at it, answer these questions (THAT YOU IGNORED) as well.

***Why is wrong from me to not indentify the mechanisms for white, but right when you don't address or indentify the mechanisms for blacks? Why do you refuse to acknowledge the fact that no one- no human being wants to be treated based on generalities? Why do you continue to ignore the basic human need for affection? Given this acknowledgement- what do you think is going to eventually happen if your big seperatist race war prophecy comes true? Do you really think human history is going to look at your types as new frontier liberators?

Ignoring race does not rid you of racial conflict. Racial conflict can only be avoided by limited separation, mutal respect, and non-aggression.

Ignoring race doesn't rid one of racial conflict because a racist will always spread the conflict to others. Misery loves company. So you got it half right. Racial conflict can only be avoided by limited seperation from RACISTS while remaining non-aggressive and respectful of their inherant dumbfuckery.

>>31

Hey, can you try and keep your replies to one thread? Or would that be too much to ask? Why do you need to carpet bomb your retorts?

1. Yes human beings need support. No this is not an indication of being 'a baby'.

Considering race is truly a frivilous area of human support...you can see why I consider it to be spoiling to the intellectual development of a young human mind. It's funny, those that have basked in white privalage are reacting the same way a child would react to being told "no"- only you're calling it "white racial interest" and "survival".

Rubbish.

There is a shared comaraderie that humans share with each other. This is true. This is not racial comaraderie.

It is *very* true and more powerful than racial comaraderie. Having trouble admitting this, are we? Bringing two whites together in a common cause is business as usual. People of different colors coming together provides affection for more than one group of people and is a more favorable image of humanity in the collective (conscious?) memory of humankind. 

Races also share racial comaraderie with each other. You speak as though the two are mutually exclusive. They are not.

Oh but they are. It's so easy for you to make these blanketing statements...Hahaha..."They are not." It's really funny. Racial comaraderie is directly opposed to fundamental drive of human comaraderie, in that racial comaraderie comes from RACE and the other comes from simply being HUMAN. 


When you say that two non-blood related people are 'family' then you are using the term with a different connotation.

This is you trying to set-up what "family" means. There are no "connotations" when you feel that you have real family ties. It isn't always something defined by blood, race, etc. And it doesn't require such a great deal of thought. Deal with it.

Certainly, race is no barrier to two non-blood-related or copulation-related people being 'family' in this connotation. Why waste your mind attacking racialists? There is something else going on here. You consistently portray the 'white' in your mind as 'the other'. You see whites with a racial identity as threatening. Threatening to the point where you wish to spend hours talking on a message board to oppose the realization of racial identity by whites.

You can continue to believe what you want, honestly. I'm threatened by whites in the same way I'm threatened by other blacks, the rich, the drone-like middle class,  fundamentalists, anything that's opposed to my sense of individuality. Everything is the other if it tries to treat me as a generality.

What you fail to understand is that by virtue of this little conversation...whites already have a racial identity and that indentity is a myth. I remember when nation and "race" were one in the same. Seperate nations were races unto themselves. And this changes because of what? You're going to tell me humans didn't understand color back then? Or is it more likely that has history marched on, race as a concept was easier to perpuate because of the privalages that come from being a certain race?

People just flat out don't want to be treated like that anymore. They want to be free. Your ideals do not facilitate that freedom.

Again, you portray whites as being some sort of villian throughout history.

And again you mistake whites of a certain era (with all their privaleges) as the entire white race. What's odd is your ability to claim your whiteness one second and then deny it everytime someone brings up the holocaust, slavery or imperialism. It's not your ability to think positively of "your people" that irks me...it's your inability to acknowledge that they may have negatively affected non-whites in the name of "white racial interests". Why do stereotypes cease to "have an element of truth" in them when it comes to white people?

History is history. So why do you cry when you're basically being treated like everyone else now? Whites have been given a stereotype and I say: So be it. POOF. There goes your superiority. There goes your heirarchy. There goes your privalage. 

Of course all of this seems strange to you.

You're white.

Maybe now you're beginning to understand the difference in being treated as an individual or a generality.

In fact, you would characterize my believe in white history being a positive one as being evil. This is strange.

Wrong again. How can you be apart of the "white guy" that wrote the Magna Carta, but then claim that you had nothing to do with the Holocaust? They're both "white" are they not? This thinking isn't in and of itself evil...but it leads to evil because of a distinct lack of perspective. You see nothing bad about your race when the negativty they perpetuate affects non-whites. Yet, "Blacks rapin' our white wimmins" is one of your frequently expressed concerns. You're right...it IS strange.

I wonder where your self-interest lies? I wonder what motivations you have? Where does your racial interest lie? Where do your other interests lie? You obviously have some motive for doing this. Will you be disingenuous in that admittal as well?

My self-interest lies fundamentally in the fostering of the individual spirt of human kind as a whole. My motivations are selfish in that I wish to be treated as an individual and not as a member of a group of people- whatever the commonality might appear to be. White privalage is an extention of the concept of race and has done far more harm to humanity than good. And what little good it does is frivilous. Race has become a burden and an obstuction to the individual. Only a madman can believe he has "a white heart" or "a black mind". The individual is greater than the sum of it's socially (or genetically) re-enforced parts.
 
In short: You, to me, represent everything adverse to the progression of my individual self. Racial privalage- white, black, whatever...must be stopped for the sake of a human kind that wants individuality.

...*sigh*...

At first, looking at the conversatiosn that emerged from my reposting, I was thrilled to see INTELLIGENT dialogue about cultural/sociological/racial/etc. issues...

But I've quickly come to see that people have reverted back into certain roles veiled as intellectual objectivity, instead of... "OMG, NIGGERS SUCK" or "OMG, WHITE PEOPLE SUCK" it is more like "fatalistic white nationalist/supremacist seeing a rising racial conflict" vs. "I will Group All White People As the Bearers of Previous Various White People's Actions Against Other's Crimes" vs. "I'm Going to be a Idiot Poster to this Thread"...

Seriously people, I'm not expecting a whole consensus as to the future of the Culture/Race Wars to come to a beautifully peaceful cease-fire based upon this thread, but in hopes that something may at least be achieved throughout or beloved Image Boards, I will reinterate my main points:

[1] Please do not group all people into one group based upon the actions of few of that group, whether positive or negative. You have not observed/interacted with the whole of those people, so thus you cannot pass ultimate judgement on them.

[2] Please refrain from using slurs... I'd really prefer there to be a refrain from racial slurs as it seems as if gender and sexual slurs will persist whether I like it or not [Call this P.C. if you want, but I'm really just trying to avoid conflict and a blow to the image of the board.], but still... Please.

[3] Please do not allow ANYONE to tell you what to think, do or say, even me, but please, if you have a point you're trying to get across, try to use LOGIC.

[4] Please tell me why there are people from http://www.stormfront.org a nd why Anti-Fascist-Action and Anti-Racist-Action all have this site on watch??? [Seriously, did we get infiltrated?]

Thank you.

>>33

There are no white people? Well, you seem to have no problems with using the word 'white' to throw around blame; you just seem to have a problem with it being used to throw about praise as well.

'White people' commit such and such crime and make up white privelege, but the work of science is due to specific individuals that HAPPEN to be white.

So, whites collectively aren't responsible for any of the good they do, but they are collectively responsible for the evil that they do. Either way, they shouldn't continue on as a heritage, tradition, or people.

That's a sort of hypocritical, and as has been mentioned on this board many times, and 'anti-white' way of looking at things.

There is no squeaky clean race. You have to do 'naughty' things to survive. Usually, there are also two sides to a story.

Example: Small band of white settlers wipes out such and such tribe in the congo. They meet each other by accident. Tribe is 100% uncivilized, steals children and rapes women. Does not understand 'white' way of looking at things, i.e. our form of morality. (And let's just say that even though there may be more than one good way of looking at the world, some ways are worse than others. In this case, the 'tribe' is way worse in terms of morality and being civilized.) White settlers, group of 20 maybe, go and wipe out the tribe of about 50. Remaining women and children integrated into white settlers.

Good or bad? Were the white people evil for wiping out a nuisance to the very last person who refused to surrender? Or were the natives bad for doing bad things to the white settler's women, children, or men (depending if they killed them too.) Heck, the white settlers and the 'tribe' could have had skirmishes with each other and nobody remembers who first started it. The white settlers win. Sociologist and PC crowd comes back 200-500 years later when they don't know the full story, and didn't live under threats or in the shoes of the white settlers, and condemn the white settlers as being evil. They bemoan the poor tribe. They call the white settlers evil and racist. If the sociologist and the politically correct crowd had been in the same situation, they probably would have been right in there helping with the fighting, because they were royally pissed off at the 'tribe' for things they did and what the hell they could willingly do to you.

Next, the PC crowd says, hey! Look! Not just the white settlers were evil, but 'whiteness' is evil! Apparently, the settlers are 'white' when they do things that the PC crowd doesn't like, but when they do good things they are 'British' or 'Irish' or 'French' or whatever. Oh, and they are symbols of 'whiteness'.

It's silly. Ok, white is a definition. You can fit into the definition or not. People make oberservations on racial terms. Big deal. Everybody seems to go spasmic on this junk.

People in Japan (if I remember correctly) did some studies on trying to figure out why 'white people' are so damned white, and why they have lots of diverse (and beautiful in my opinion, so sue me) eye colors and hair colors. Well, apparently, men in that part of the world had to go out and kill things alot. This meant that men were typically pretty scarce. Also, they were pretty monogamous starting from some point. So, women had extreme competition. Basically, women that had all these unique mutations were sought out over women that did not. Additionally, these mutations are MORE than just cosmetic. Apparently, blond hair is linked to higher levels of estrogen. So,

Apparently this is racist. Science is racist? Apparently the Japanese are white supremacists. Uh, right.

Basically, my belief is one day we'll have the ability to basically make anybody into nearly anything using genetic science. Race will become less important then, because there won't be stable populations breeding with each other. Everybody will be intelligent or have the traits that they want. If you like blond hair better than brunette hair, then you can have blond hair. You can get the gene. If you have blond hair and you like brunette hair, you can have brunette hair too. If you want to be smarter and have more self control, you can get the genes for that too.

For some reason I don't think anybody would like to get the 'dumbing down' genes that make it harder for you to control yourself and think.

Look, not every race is equal to every other race. The world has been going on for a frickin long time, and some races have gone through more selective breeding than other. But, in the future, if we can keep from losing our ability to discriminate the good from the bad because of PC relativism, we'll all have the choice to be what is good for us.

To end this, I'll add two things. One, some things are equally good, but some things are worse than those equally good things. Sorry, some people got the short end of the stick. With science, hopefully we'll be able to change things so everybody 'gets a good.' Or, at least they can choose whether they want the good or not. Two, race 'exists' right now. It is a pretty good way of
categorizing things. In the future though, race might be a good way of categorizing things. Most people might have blond hair, or red hair (real read, not orange red) and purple hair or even green hair, and all sorts of things like that. I say, more power to them. But, we haven't reached that point yet, and let's not glorify savagry because it's 'different.' Let's not glorify stupidity because it's 'different.' Seriously, I believe that this isn't my final life on this world, and I do not want to have to live in a 'gone native PC culture' in my future lives.

Yours truly,
The Racist  

-------
In the future though, race might be a good way of categorizing things. Most people might have blond hair, or red hair (real read, not orange red) and purple hair or even green hair, and all sorts of things like that.
----

Sorry that's suppose to be 'might not be'.

The Racist

That's a sort of hypocritical, and as has been mentioned on this board many times, and 'anti-white' way of looking at things.

What is so hypocritical about it? My basis for saying that the white race is a fabrication is based on the fact the root of the word was used to define nations of people. The only benefit from realizing race is "support", support that frankly should be aptly filled by family and friends. Just because someone is the same race as you doesn't make them your family. It is in this way that race becomes a strong social force based on the priveleges of being a certain race. The racial heirarchy exist for this reason alone. Not as a mere classification.

So, whites collectively aren't responsible for any of the good they do, but they are collectively responsible for the evil that they do. Either way, they shouldn't continue on as a heritage, tradition, or people.

No. If you perceive yourself to be a part of "the white race". Then it is simply a matter of taking responsibily and pride in all the think the white race has done collectively. Negative or Positive. THis is your burden and your responsibilty to your racial indentity. This isn't about non-whites history getting the short end of the stick. This about your ability to knowledge that way the world is now- owned by whites- is due to white privalege. You trumpeting all the good whites have done, while glaring over the past atrocites by screaming "objectivy" works only when you having this discussion with other white men.

Meaning- your behavior in regards to "preserving white racial interest" (See: White privalege) doesn't fly with the rest of the world. All this "white backlash" you seem occupied with, as if you're afriad your people are going to be wiped out- stems from you wanting to see white privalege continue.

Of course you want to keep thing seperate and use these definions- you're white and you're on top of the racial heirarchy. What I'm saying is: For human kind to continue on this way is just silly. Race does very liitle good. Most of what race has done has been bad.

Acknowledge this, already and put it perspective as to where you see the world going in the next 1,000 years.

This about your ability to knowledge that way the world is now- owned by whites- is due to white privalege.

You mean like affirmative action? We own the world? China? Taiwan? Japan? Neat? Umm, where's my slice? I mean, I could have sworn that I worked for what I have...  Maybe this invisible white privelege has invisible benefits too? Gee, I guess somebody else stole it for me and forgot to send the memo? So, where's the white privelge in China? Where's the white privelege in Japan? Where's the white privelege in the middle east? Where's the white privelege in South America? Gee, I thought they had Japanese privelege and Chinese privelege and Arabic privelege and all that. I don't really mind because that's their business and I'm perfectly fine with staying in my own country. Oh well. At least you've clarified that white people are the only people not allowed to be 'priveleged,' even amongst themselves. Silly me.

I always thought it was rich people that got priveleges for their class. I guess now it's 'white' people. Oh well. Umm, maybe you live in a place where all the white people are rich?

I know that in the U.S. alone that 45% of the wealthiest portion of our country is either part/half jewish or jewish. Whee! Most ethnocentrific people evar! So, jewish people don't get privelege but WHITE people get privelge. You can't insult jews because otherwise you're a nazithatwantstokillsixmillionjews and a holocaust magician. You can't mention that you might think that the middle east is more of a war for Israel than anything else because you're an evil anti-semite that wants to wipe out the jewish race! Jewish nepotism and private community funds and jewish groups and jew-only schools and communities abound, but it's WHITES that have the privlege. Silly me.

Oh, I'm sorry. Jews aren't racial whatsoever. They base continued membership of your lineage through your mother's side of the family and some of them consider the combining of jews with non-jews as 'destroying the jewish spirit.' Silly, silly, silly me! It's white privelege, stupid!

Jewish people are successful, not because of jewish privelege, but because they are a smart and industrious and harmless and blameless people! White people get all their benefits from white privelege and are evil and sickly and dasterdly! Also, they don't even exist! They're just an illusion! They THINK they exist, but they DON'T really! It's just a social fabrication! They really don't have anything in common, like history or common ground to ethics or common heritage or a similar pool of genetic traits! It's just a white illusion! Don't you see?

You trumpeting all the good whites have done, while glaring over the past atrocites by screaming "objectivy" works only when you having this discussion with other white men.

Atrocities? Uh? At least I know you aren't white. Interesting, apparently you don't have any problems insulting my heritage or my people, which is precisely what you are doing. I know that if I insult black people they get pissed. I know if I insult jewish people they get pissed. I know that if I insult mexican people they get pissed. Apparently, unless I hate my 'white' heritage then I'm some backwards bigot? Uh, ok.

Yes! Hating my own heritage and myself is the first step to enlightenment! Everybody else should hate themselves too! We should talk about black atrocities and Chinese atrocities and Japanese atrocities and jewish atrocities all day too! Never forgive, never forget! We only need one side to history!

There is this little stipulation that anti-racists make that I find ironic. Non-white people are apparently not responsible for their actions, like white people are. That's because non-white people either: have no control over their destiny or 2. aren't considered to have any moral authority because they don't know any better, and whites are supposed to.

Race does very liitle good. Most of what race has done has been bad.

Family too! We should wipe out this idea of family! It only divides people! If we didn't have the idea of family, we'd have world peace!

We need more sterile faceless units for the global village!



Who are you to tell me that 1. I don't HAVE a heritage 2. I shouldn't be defending the way of life I so love and 3. I shouldn't object to my way of life and history be shat and spat upon by two-faced hypocrites like you.

Send back the 11 million Mexicans trying to use La Raza to declare the U.S. part of Mexico. Send back the 20 million Muslims in Europe to North Africa and the Middle East. Send back the 5 million jews more loyal to Israel than the U.S. and their overzealous lubavitcher rebbes and their JDL and their AIPAC back to Israel and let them deal with their 'international' problems on their own without sacrificing the blood and treasure of the U.S. and Europe. Do all these things, and then we'll talk.

Yours truly,
The Racist

Send back the 20 million Muslims in Europe to North Africa and the Middle East.

I just love how some of these people live in Australia, yet preach that Australia is evil and they should destroy the country. Down with Australia! Kill the infidels!

Uh, if you hate the country so much, why are you here? Ah, you want all the good things that come from our society, but without contributing anything in return. I see. Praise Allah and your fucking fantastic wannabe Caliphate you ran away from.

Go the fuck away.