PDA

View Full Version : Just a thought


MrAngry
11-17-2006, 08:47 PM
I am intrigued, even if there was a racial demarcation and every "race" achieved eutopic isolation without trying to annihilate each other, I have just read through a thread RIP VNNforum.com, which has racists arguing among themselves. (this pleases me:rofl: )

Does this suggest that a new type of discrimination would develop among single races?

shanemac
11-17-2006, 09:21 PM
I am intrigued, even if there was a racial demarcation and every "race" achieved eutopic isolation without trying to annihilate each other, I have just read through a thread RIP VNNforum.com, which has racists arguing among themselves. (this pleases me:rofl: )

Does this suggest that a new type of discrimination would develop among single races?


Of course... tribalism is a basic human trait. Racism is just a form of tribalism applied to different races rather tribes. Tribalism will never die, and discrimination exists between white tribes in all-white countries.

It's a matter of degree. I see multiracialism as a bad thing because it leads to divisions in society which can never be mended. I also believe that whites make the best societies in the world, and that allowing large numbers of non-whites into our nations leads inevitably to a deterioration of the values in our nation.

Furthermore, natural racial differences applied across large populations will ensure different races will do better or worse than others in society/life (ie on average men will outperform women in engineering, computer science, whites will outperform blacks in any kind of intellectual activity). When we assume (without evidence) that all people are equal, then the only logical reason for such differences is racism/sexism... so this leads to policies like affirmative action (reverse discrimination) to reverse such perceived racism/sexism, and this is a bad thing because it is fundamentally unfair.

Starr
11-17-2006, 09:27 PM
Why does racialists arguing among themselves surprise you or make you happy? There will always be personality and ideological clashes among any group of people. This does not mean that there are not many ideas that we all agree on(racial seperation being a big and very important one) for the most part or that we all seek similar goals and that we all care about the advancement and survival of our race, above all else.

An all white society would not be free of conflict among people along many possible seperate lines(religion, alone is the cause of much negativity and that is just the first thing that popped into my head) I don't think anyone is stupid enough to believe that. But that is a complete seperate issue from what we have to deal with in a racially diverse society, with a clash of people with very different behaviors, cultures, and abilities all throw together and expected to assimilate into one big melting pot, which is a negative for everyone concerned.

Keystone
11-17-2006, 09:36 PM
It's a matter of degree. I see multiracialism as a bad thing because it leads to divisions in society which can never be mended. I also believe that whites make the best societies in the world, and that allowing large numbers of non-whites into our nations leads inevitably to a deterioration of the values in our nation.
I absolutely agree, but too many racists---"racialist" is a weenie word---interested in separation think it would be cure-all as long as they are in charge. Whites are best left to solve their own race problems in their own locales and countries. Too many old oxen to gore for anything else.

For instance, I wouldn't touch the Irish--British pickle with a bargepole, just as white Americans have their own set of problems.

Björn
11-17-2006, 09:38 PM
I am intrigued, even if there was a racial demarcation and every "race" achieved eutopic isolation without trying to annihilate each other, I have just read through a thread RIP VNNforum.com, which has racists arguing among themselves. (this pleases me:rofl: )

Does this suggest that a new type of discrimination would develop among single races?

Perhaps your concern for racism is related to internal conflict? Not all people who believe in race are racist.

shanemac
11-17-2006, 09:43 PM
For instance, I wouldn't touch the Irish--British pickle with a bargepole

LOL... can't say I'd blame you.

MrAngry
11-17-2006, 09:44 PM
Of course... tribalism is a basic human trait. Racism is just a form of tribalism applied to different races rather tribes. Tribalism will never die, and discrimination exists between white tribes in all-white countries.

Where does it end, does this suggest that racism is really just tribalism, and heads a long list of "degrees" in which people will turn to, will it umtimately mean we all segregate ourselves as individuals?

It's a matter of degree. I see multiracialism as a bad thing because it leads to divisions in society which can never be mended. I also believe that whites make the best societies in the world, and that allowing large numbers of non-whites into our nations leads inevitably to a deterioration of the values in our nation.

Its not multiracialism that leads to divisions, there are many examples where it can work, it fails when one group of people segregate or are segregated by a classification, in this case race. More likely it is usually poverty and poor education that leads to a breakdown in societies.


Furthermore, natural racial differences applied across large populations will ensure different races will do better or worse than others in society/life (ie on average men will outperform women in engineering, computer science, whites will outperform blacks in any kind of intellectual activity). When we assume (without evidence) that all people are equal, then the only logical reason for such differences is racism/sexism... so this leads to policies like affirmative action (reverse discrimination) to reverse such perceived racism/sexism, and this is a bad thing because it is fundamentally unfair.

We will see the rise of two new economic superpowers over the next 20-30 years where those societies will flourish and what you term as the best societies in the world will perhaps suffer as a consequence, there are many european examples of "white" nations being less than desirable also, not due to race or colour, but as Ihave said previously, due to lack of education and wealth.

MrAngry
11-17-2006, 09:47 PM
Perhaps your concern for racism is related to internal conflict? Not all people who believe in race are racist.

expand on that comment for my education please.

Thomas777
11-17-2006, 09:54 PM
I also believe that whites make the best societies in the world, and that allowing large numbers of non-whites into our nations leads inevitably to a deterioration of the values in our nation.


I appreciate your point, but I don't know germane it is to determine what races create/cultivate the "best" societies.

Multiculturalism (as you have already pointed out) creates intractible lines of sociopolitical conflict between peoples and alienates individuals from their fellows. Its a system that favors big capital interest over public interest. That is why I oppose it.

I personally think that many White societies (including my own) are really quite dysfunctional compared to some other societies (Japan comes to mind). That said, my interest is not in establishing "superiority" or "inferiority" of races...my interest is advancing what is best for my own nation, as it is the only nation I've got.

shanemac
11-17-2006, 09:56 PM
Where does it end, does this suggest that racism is really just tribalism, and heads a long list of "degrees" in which people will turn to, will it umtimately mean we all segregate ourselves as individuals?

Race/Nation/Region/City/suburb/family/socioeconomic class/football team/school.... These are the categories into which people segregate themselves. Whatever divisions exist in the society, people will tribalise themselves along those lines.



Its not multiracialism that leads to divisions, there are many examples where it can work, it fails when one group of people segregate or are segregated by a classification, in this case race. More likely it is usually poverty and poor education that leads to a breakdown in societies.


Yes there are some very few examples where multiracialism works on at least a superficial level. Like in a football team I guess. However, there are many more cases where it is a negative rather than a positive (social harmony, national values).




We will see the rise of two new economic superpowers over the next 20-30 years where those societies will flourish and what you term as the best societies in the world will perhaps suffer as a consequence, there are many european examples of "white" nations being less than desirable also, not due to race or colour, but as Ihave said previously, due to lack of education and wealth.

China and India will no doubt improve economically, because they have such large workforces who are willing to work for low salaries. However, in terms of culture, science and revolutionary technological breakthroughs, I doubt if they'll ever reach the levels of North America and Europe. We shall see.

ironweed
11-17-2006, 10:03 PM
Its not multiracialism that leads to divisions, there are many examples where it can work, it fails when one group of people segregate or are segregated by a classification, in this case race.

Where has multiculturalism worked in the past, and where is it working presently?


More likely it is usually poverty and poor education that leads to a breakdown in societies.


What society has ever collapsed because of the poverty and poor education of the masses?


We will see the rise of two new economic superpowers over the next 20-30 years where those societies will flourish and what you term as the best societies in the world will perhaps suffer as a consequence,

Assuming you mean China and India, I think you should be sticking "maybes" all over the place. Not saying you're wrong, necessarily, but I do think the case is far from proven. You seem to be taking the rather deterministic attitude that people took in the early 1980s re: Japan. Go browse through a university library sometime for the Japan as Number 1, The Japan that can Say No, etc., genre to see what I mean.

Besides, the Chinese have historically been among the most arrogant, self-centered peoples on the face of the earth. And the caste system of India was originally nothing but racism masquerading as religion. The effect of your argument -- at least to my eyes -- is that you seem to be saying racism and tribalism are just peachy for everbody but Europeans.

MrAngry
11-17-2006, 10:03 PM
Race/Nation/Region/City/suburb/family/socioeconomic class/football team/school.... These are the categories into which people segregate themselves. Whatever divisions exist in the society, people will tribalise themselves along those lines.


school, class, mates, eye colour........ we would all end up in tribes of one!





Yes there are some very few examples where multiracialism works on at least a superficial level. Like in a football team I guess. However, there are many more cases where it is a negative rather than a positive (social harmony, national values).

The USA is a multicultural society, and can be galvanised regardless of Race/Nation/Region/City/suburb/family/socioeconomic class/football team/school, by an act of terror. Perhaps if we put our energies into forming a common goal rather than what makes us different the world could be a better place.




China and India will no doubt improve economically, because they have such large workforces who are willing to work for low salaries. However, in terms of culture, science and revolutionary technological breakthroughs, I doubt if they'll ever reach the levels of North America and Europe. We shall see.

This was Japan in the 50's and 60's, but you're right, we shall see, time will tell.

MrAngry
11-17-2006, 10:07 PM
Besides, the Chinese have historically been among the most arrogant, self-centered peoples on the face of the earth. And the caste system of India was originally nothing but racism masquerading as religion. The effect of your argument -- at least to my eyes -- is that you seem to be saying racism and tribalism are just peachy for everbody but Europeans.

nope, racism isnt peachy for anybody, If you were Indian, chinese or any nationality, the same applies.

Don Quixote
11-17-2006, 10:14 PM
It's a matter of degree. I see multiracialism as a bad thing because it leads to divisions in society which can never be mended.What about the divisions that already exist within racially homogeneous societies? Does racialising matters serve as a smoke-screen to distract attention away from injustice?
I also believe that whites make the best societies in the world, and that allowing large numbers of non-whites into our nations leads inevitably to a deterioration of the values in our nation. What do you mean by best? Do you think Ireland in the 17th-19th centuries was amongst the best? Do you think Dickenisan England was something to boast about? When we assume (without evidence) that all people are equal, then the only logical reason for such differences is racism/sexism... so this leads to policies like affirmative action (reverse discrimination) to reverse such perceived racism/sexism, and this is a bad thing because it is fundamentally unfair.Not necessarily. Political equality is not the same thing at all as the kind of equality preached in Human Rights discourse. A political community can grant all its members (citizens) equal political rights without recognising or invoking the Human Rights conception of equality.

Björn
11-18-2006, 04:14 AM
expand on that comment for my education please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman
11-18-2006, 04:23 AM
(this pleases me:rofl: )

You would enjoy that lol.

Ahknaton
11-18-2006, 04:24 AM
expand on that comment for my education please.
Your inner conflict is what makes you so angry. You can't resolve your emotional abohorrence of racism with the rational side of your brain, which perceives that some arguments presented by racists are correct. Therefore you start seeing this conflict within and between other people. Believing that the conflict is between other people and not within yourself helps you to suppress the feeling that you are mistaken in your views and are not being true to your rational self. In addition, conflict between racists makes you feel that your conflict with them (which is to a far greater degree) is no greater than the conflict they have with and between themselves, and hence makes your conflict with racists (which you have internalised into a conflict within yourself) feel like less of an issue by comparison.

In order to resolve this inner conflict, you must reconcile your observations and rational deductions about race with your emotional need to reassure yourself that you are not a hateful person. This can be accomplished via the realisation that conceding objective truths about racial issues does not imply some kind of imperative to adopt hateful attitudes towards other races.

http://z.about.com/d/german/1/0/w/T/FreudCigar200.jpg

Björn
11-18-2006, 06:36 AM
Your inner conflict is what makes you so angry. You can't resolve your emotional abohorrence of racism with the rational side of your brain, which perceives that some arguments presented by racists are correct. Therefore you start seeing this conflict within and between other people. Believing that the conflict is between other people and not within yourself helps you to suppress the feeling that you are mistaken in your views and are not being true to your rational self. In addition, conflict between racists makes you feel that your conflict between them (which is to a far greater degree) is no greater than the conflict they have with and between themselves, and hence makes your conflict with racists (which you have internalised into a conflict within yourself) feel like less of an issue by comparison.

In order to resolve this inner conflict, you must reconcile your observations and rational deductions about race from your emotional need to reassure yourself that you are not a hateful person. This can be accomplished via the realisation that conceding objective truths about racial issues does not imply some kind of imperative to adopt hateful attitudes towards other races.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Ahknaton MMXII again.

Helios Panoptes
11-18-2006, 08:48 AM
I refuse to believe that you've had a thought.

Hachiko
11-18-2006, 10:38 AM
school, class, mates, eye colour........ we would all end up in tribes of one!

Oh, so you are an arrogant capitalist then? :D

MrAngry
11-18-2006, 10:50 AM
Your inner conflict is what makes you so angry. You can't resolve your emotional abohorrence of racism with the rational side of your brain, which perceives that some arguments presented by racists are correct. Therefore you start seeing this conflict within and between other people. Believing that the conflict is between other people and not within yourself helps you to suppress the feeling that you are mistaken in your views and are not being true to your rational self. In addition, conflict between racists makes you feel that your conflict with them (which is to a far greater degree) is no greater than the conflict they have with and between themselves, and hence makes your conflict with racists (which you have internalised into a conflict within yourself) feel like less of an issue by comparison.

In order to resolve this inner conflict, you must reconcile your observations and rational deductions about race with your emotional need to reassure yourself that you are not a hateful person. This can be accomplished via the realisation that conceding objective truths about racial issues does not imply some kind of imperative to adopt hateful attitudes towards other races.


:rofl: very profound, but, a load of bollocks!

MrAngry
11-18-2006, 10:51 AM
Oh, so you are an arrogant capitalist then? :D


No, Im not a capitalist, however I admit to arrogance if it makes ya happy.:mad:

Hachiko
11-18-2006, 10:59 AM
No, Im not a capitalist, however I admit to arrogance if it makes ya happy.:mad:
Ok then, so how would we attain human cohesion (which you seem big on) by being a world of individualists??? :confused:
If you haven't done so already, I suggest you watch the anime Neon Genesis Evangelion. I think the concept of the Human Instrumentality Project http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Instrumentality_Project coincides with your idealized notion of what inter-personal relationships should be.
I'd rather just be me though, thanks anyway. :D

MrAngry
11-18-2006, 11:04 AM
Ok then, so how would we attain human cohesion (which you seem big on) by being a world of individualists??? :confused:
If you haven't done so already, I suggest you watch the anime Neon Genesis Evangelion. I think the concept of the Human Instrumentality Project http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Instrumentality_Project coincides with your idealized notion of what inter-personal relationships should be.
I'd rather just be me though, thanks anyway. :D


We wouldnt, I was trying to point out in a previous post that tribalism is a matter of degrees. BTW, saw your photo in another thread, who is the guy behind you? :)

Hachiko
11-18-2006, 11:07 AM
We wouldnt, I was trying to point out in a previous post that tribalism is a matter of degrees. BTW, saw your photo in another thread, who is the guy behind you? :)
Verrrrry funny indeed....:)

MrAngry
11-18-2006, 11:11 AM
Verrrrry funny indeed....:)


sorry, couldnt resist....:)

Hachiko
11-18-2006, 12:10 PM
sorry, couldnt resist....:)
Neither could I!!! :rofl:

Geist
11-18-2006, 12:55 PM
The VNN posters in that thread are basically the niggers of the racialist world.

Ahknaton
11-18-2006, 01:18 PM
:rofl: very profound, but, a load of bollocks!
I could be your biographer. I know you better than you know yourself.

MrAngry
11-18-2006, 01:21 PM
I could be your biographer. I know you better than you know yourself.


Of course you do, :rofl: :deadhorse:

Dr. Gutberlet
11-18-2006, 09:35 PM
Humans were never meant to live in groups of more than several hundred members at most. All of the sociopathy that exists is in large part due to unnatural, modern living conditions.

MrAngry
11-18-2006, 10:26 PM
Humans were never meant to live in groups of more than several hundred members at most. All of the sociopathy that exists is in large part due to unnatural, modern living conditions.


Interesting notion, got any credible evidence or literature I can read?

antibuddha
11-19-2006, 04:32 AM
http://www.bbsonline.org/documents/a/00/00/05/65/bbs00000565-00/bbs.dunbar.html

Jonathan
11-20-2006, 08:38 AM
Where does it end, does this suggest that racism is really just tribalism, and heads a long list of "degrees" in which people will turn to, will it umtimately mean we all segregate ourselves as individuals?
No, I doubt that it will ever get to the point where we see ourselves as individuals. I reckone that nuclear families is the smallest you'll get to.

MrAngry
11-20-2006, 12:08 PM
No, I doubt that it will ever get to the point where we see ourselves as individuals. I reckone that nuclear families is the smallest you'll get to.


Depends on your idealoogy doesnt it, having said that, most of the planet seems to get along fine. Its ideologies, greed, ignorrance and powerful men who cause unrest. :(

Hachiko
11-20-2006, 12:12 PM
most of the planet seems to get along fine. Its ideologies, greed, ignorrance and powerful men who cause unrest. :(
Do you mean that we are getting along now or we would if those outside influences weren't serving as divisive measures?

MrAngry
11-20-2006, 12:37 PM
Do you mean that we are getting along now or we would if those outside influences weren't serving as divisive measures?


In said most, and I made a simplistic and rose coloured statement, I just wish people would focus on what makes us the same, and not what devides us, ho hummmmm :(

Jonathan
11-20-2006, 05:30 PM
Depends on your idealoogy doesnt it
No, it doesn't depend on your ideology as far as I'm concerned.
Sociologists seem to have come to the conclusion that the most primitive societies in the world tend to display amoral familism (amoral devotion to one's nuclear family) i.e. It seems that people naturally identify with and strive to support their immediate family under normal circumstances. Any kind of group larger than this (tribe, polis, kingdom, state etc) seems dependant on mutual gains (or subdugation). Anything smaller than this i.e. the individual, is insufficient for survival (see Aristotle). Sure, the odd Hermitt here and there can survive for a lifetime, but name me a hermitt who has had a significant effect on a society?

Its ideologies, greed, ignorrance and powerful men who cause unrest. :(
In most cases, yes.

MrAngry
11-20-2006, 06:17 PM
No, it doesn't depend on your ideology as far as I'm concerned.
Sociologists seem to have come to the conclusion that the most primitive societies in the world tend to display amoral familism (amoral devotion to one's nuclear family) i.e. It seems that people naturally identify with and strive to support their immediate family under normal circumstances. Any kind of group larger than this (tribe, polis, kingdom, state etc) seems dependant on mutual gains (or subdugation). Anything smaller than this i.e. the individual, is insufficient for survival (see Aristotle). Sure, the odd Hermitt here and there can survive for a lifetime, but name me a hermitt who has had a significant effect on a society?


This is true, naturally instinctive.

Everything else you wrote is true also, however ideologies can be divisive too, wouldnt Nazism be an example?

Jonathan
11-20-2006, 06:56 PM
This is true, naturally instinctive.
Yeah, that's all I was trying to say. That the natural unit is the family, not necessarily the individual and not necessarily the race.

ideologies can be divisive too, wouldnt Nazism be an example?
Oh of course. Nazism, the the manner that it was expressed in NS Germany under Hitler was clearly something the world could have done without!

P.S. I'm not a Nazi.

MrAngry
11-20-2006, 07:06 PM
Yeah, that's all I was trying to say. That the natural unit is the family, not necessarily the individual and not necessarily the race.


Oh of course. Nazism, the the manner that it was expressed in NS Germany under Hitler was clearly something the world could have done without!

P.S. I'm not a Nazi.


OK :) :) :) :)