PDA

View Full Version : Is it better just to admit you are a racist?


delete
01-19-2007, 11:14 AM
I have pondered on this question for a while.

I have noticed for a while that when people who try to criticize jews or people of color, the argument always end up in wether the person is an anti-semite or a racist or not.

If you on the other hand just say you are a racist and a anti-semitic, you play the ball over to the oponent, and people start to ask questions on why you have these opinions.

Don Quixote
01-19-2007, 11:18 AM
I have pondered on this question for a while.

I have noticed for a while that when people who try to criticize jews or people of color, the argument always end up in wether the person is an anti-semite or a racist or not.That's a crude tactic to get off the substantive issue and attack the speaker.
If you on the other hand just say you are a racist and a anti-semitic, you play the ball over to the oponent, and people start to ask questions on why you have these opinions.It follows from the above. Now the speaker is put in the position of defending themselves against ad hominem attacks. The whole tactic involves a genetic fallacy. We see it here all the time, especially when matters Tribal arise.

Petr
01-19-2007, 11:20 AM
The term "racist" is a meaningless abstraction.


Petr

Don Quixote
01-19-2007, 11:28 AM
The term "racist" is a meaningless abstraction.


PetrStrcitly speaking that's right, but in reality it can be a powerful magic word for silencing or marginalising dissenters.

Burrhus
01-19-2007, 01:09 PM
The term "racist" is a meaningless abstraction.

What is an abstraction? What is a meaningless abstraction? What are the characteristics in general (not just of the term racist) of any term that relegates it to the status of being a meaningless abstraction? What are the characteristics of a meaningful abstraction?

In light of your answers to the above questions, what makes the term racist a meaningless abstraction?

Don Quixote
01-19-2007, 01:26 PM
What is an abstraction? What is a meaningless abstraction? What are the characteristics in general (not just of the term racist) of any term that relegates it to the status of being a meaningless abstraction? What are the characteristics of a meaningful abstraction?

In light of your answers to the above questions, what makes the term racist a meaningless abstraction?I took it to mean that its a floating signifier with no precise definition, but with definite Evil connotations.

delete
01-19-2007, 01:32 PM
That's a crude tactic to get off the substantive issue and attack the speaker.

Yes, it is crude, but it is efficient. I really started to ponder on this question when I found out that Roald Dahl people was more interested in wether he was an anti-semite or not, than the books he produced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roald_Dahl#Anti-Semitism

Dahl has been subject to calls for boycotts in Israel and elsewhere because of his alleged (and eventually admitted) anti-Semitism.

In the summer of 1983, he wrote a book review for the Literary Review of God Cried by Newsweek writer Tony Clifton, a polemical picture book about the invasion of Lebanon by Israel. Dahl's review stated that the Israeli attack on Lebanon in June 1982 was when "we all started hating Israel," and that the book would make readers "violently anti-Israeli." According to biographer Jeremy Treglown, Dahl had originally written "when we all started hating Jews" - but editor Gillian Greenwood of the Literary Review changed Dahl's terms from "Jews" and "Jewish" to "Israel" and "Israeli". On the basis of the published version, Dahl would later claim, "I am an anti-Semitic. I am not anti-Israel."[3]Dahl believed that his review kept him from being knighted, which was reportedly an ambition of his.[4] Perhaps due to his hopes for a knighthood, in 1986 Dahl had turned down the award of an OBE, according to government papers which were leaked in 2003.[5]

According to at least two biographers,[6] when defending his review he told a journalist that same year: "There's a trait in the Jewish character that does provoke animosity . . . I mean there is always a reason why anti-anything crops up anywhere; even a stinker like Hitler didn't just pick on them for no reason." Nonetheless, according to Treglown, Dahl maintained friendships with a handful of individual Jews.

In later years, Dahl occasionally tried to downplay some of the accusations of anti-Semitism with a sympathetic*** episode about German-Jewish refugees in his book Going Solo, and a separate claim that he was opposed to injustice, not Jews. He never retreated from his strong stance against Israel, however, and shortly before his death in 1990 he told the British newspaper The Independent "I am certainly anti-Israel, and I have become anti-Semitic."[7]
*** I don't agree with this, as I think the old jew he portraits comes off unsympatic.

Morpheus
01-19-2007, 01:47 PM
The very fact that this question even has to be asked is pathetic.

Many racists are simply insecure about their own beliefs and identity but wish desperately to cast those asperations onto others.

How can you expect your view to hold any weight if you are not even honest with yourself?

I have more respect for someone with opposing views to mine when they are honest about them.

Winston
01-19-2007, 01:50 PM
The very fact that this question even has to be asked is pathetic.

Many racists are simply insecure about their own beliefs and identity but wish desperately to cast those asperations onto others.

How can you expect your view to hold any weight if you are not even honest with yourself?

I have more respect for someone with opposing views to mine when they are honest about them.

The question was about the self-application of a term, not about the actual beliefs defined by the term or about being honest with one's self.

Thomas777
01-19-2007, 01:54 PM
A racist IMO is a person who harbors personal animosity towards another person on account of immutable characteristics.

The term racist has become a floating signifier (as Basil pointed out) that is similar to the term fascist as was enumerated by George Orwell: Calling Smith a racist doesn't really tell us anything about Smith's ideological disposition...it merely indicates that the proponent is informing the audience "I hate Smith".

Thomas777
01-19-2007, 01:57 PM
Many racists are simply insecure about their own beliefs and identity but wish desperately to cast those asperations onto others.


I disagree. I think most genuine racists are pretty vocal in their opinions and their day to day conduct evinces their ideological sympathies. A lot of non-racist people who have internalized the prevailing zeitgeist get upset when they are called a racist because to them it has moral implications. Personally, I don't care if people call me a racist. Its inaccurate, but it doesn't upset me...anymore than it would upset me if somebody called me a communist.

Morpheus
01-19-2007, 02:12 PM
I disagree. I think most genuine racists are pretty vocal in their opinions and their day to day conduct evinces their ideological sympathies. A lot of non-racist people who have internalized the prevailing zeitgeist get upset when they are called a racist because to them it has moral implications. Personally, I don't care if people call me a racist. Its inaccurate, but it doesn't upset me...anymore than it would upset me if somebody called me a communist.

I personally consider you to be a racist and deem it to be an accurate description. :D

As far your description of the average racist is concerned, if we are talking about the ones who congregate on the internet my experience with them has been quite the opposite.

Many of them seem to have strong convictions (although some are also very hypocritical) but at the same time are insecure about their racist beliefs, even apologetic.

I have encountered view few who vocally acknowledge that they are indeed racist (or fit the description of what their opponent considers to be racist) and rationalize their reasons for it.

Rationalizations for their views are often backed by a victim complex rather than coming to terms with what society traditionally calls those views and the term racist as well as the concept of racism is often trivialized.

This is not surprising however. The first thing that evil people attempt to do when faced with opposition to their motive is to trivialize evil if not argue that they are actually good.

Noone wants to be considered evil.

Thomas777
01-19-2007, 02:20 PM
I personally consider you to be a racist and deem it to be an accurate description. :D
You're an ideologue...you label your opposition in order to substantiate your own positions. When I posted on VNN, the VNNers called me a "commie"...its the same sort of tendency.

As far your description of the average racist is concerned, if we are talking about the ones who congregate on the internet my experience with them has been quite the opposite.
My experience with racists is that they are people who bear personal animosity towards other races. I know that they harbor these sympathies based on their conduct and the things they say. Unless you're clairvoyant or some sort of mind-reader, you can only discern ideological dispositions by words and conduct.

Many of them seem to have strong convictions (although some are also very hypocritical) but at the same time are insecure about their racist beliefs, even apologetic.
By definition, somebody like that is not a racist. You have an ideological disposition which posits that people who disagree with you are "secret racists"...just like NeoCons claim that people who disagree with them are "unpatriotic" or "Muslim sympathizers" and the like. I don't have anything to gain by pretending to not be a racist when I talk to you. I'm not in your employ, and you and I don't do business together. You also don't live in my community. What would I have to gain by hiding my ideology from you?

I have encountered view few who vocally acknowledge that they are indeed racist (or fit the description of what their opponent considers to be racist) and rationalize their reasons for it.
Well, you're Black and most racists aren't interested in talking to you for that reason...they are interested in avoiding you. Why would a racist try to convert a Black person to his mode of thinking?

Rationalizations for their views are often backed by a victim complex rather than coming to terms with what society traditionally calls those views and the term racist as well as the concept of racism is often trivialized.
This is speculation...I think most racists and most antis have uninformed ideas about race, and their ideology reflects that. You and I disagree on this point.

This is not surprising however. The first thing that evil people attempt to do when faced with opposition to their motive is to trivialize evil if not argue that they are actually good.
"Evil" isn't really a term that has a place in political discourse. I am staunchly anti-Communist, but I am not going to sit here and tell you that Communism is "Evil". I also think that anti-racism is a destructive tendency, but its not "Evil"...its just incorrect. Communism and anti-racism aren't anymore "Evil" than alchemy was "Evil"...they just reflect incorrect conclusions about observable circumstances and phenomena.


Noone wants to be considered evil.

People who accept the prevailing zeitgeist don't want to be considered so...by definition, a racist is a guy who rejects that value system, so I don't see why he would care.

Dr. Gutberlet
01-19-2007, 02:59 PM
I am a racist, but I can still function in society. I will do business with people of other races because, in this world as it currently stands, it is a necessity to do so. If they respect me, I will give them the same respect in turn. However, I will not go beyond what is necessary to function; neither should they. I think that society would be better off if we were all just honest with one another; honesty is better than false, forced behaviour.

Thomas777
01-19-2007, 03:04 PM
I am a racist, but I can still function in society. I will do business with people of other races because, in this world as it currently stands, it is a necessity to do so. If they respect me, I will give them the same respect in turn. However, I will not go beyond what is necessary to function; neither should they. I think that society would be better off if we were all just honest with one another; honesty is better than false, forced behaviour.

Guberlet raises a good point: If a racist acquiesces to the laws of the land and doesn't abrogate the personal, political, or property rights of other people, why is it important to change his thinking? Suggesting that the inner thoughts and sympathies of people should be subject to official scrutiny is offensive to commonly understood principles of liberty. In fact, its positively authoritarian.

Don Quixote
01-19-2007, 03:05 PM
"Evil" isn't really a term that has a place in political discourse. I am staunchly anti-Communist, but I am not going to sit here and tell you that Communism is "Evil". I also think that anti-racism is a destructive tendency, but its not "Evil"...its just incorrect. Communism and anti-racism aren't anymore "Evil" than alchemy was "Evil"...they just reflect incorrect conclusions about observable circumstances and phenomena.One is reminded of Carl Schmitt on this tendency,
Here one is reminded of a somewhat modified expression of Proudhon’s: whoever invokes humanity wants to cheat. To confiscate the word humanity, to invoke and monopolize such a term probably has certain incalculable effects, such as denying the enemy the quality of being human and declaring him to be an outlaw of humanity; and a war can thereby be driven to the most extreme inhumanity.

Dr. Gutberlet
01-19-2007, 03:06 PM
Perhaps "racialist" is a more appropriate term for myself.

Rusty Mason
01-19-2007, 03:08 PM
You should be extremely reluctant to place an emotionally charged, ambiguous label such as "racist" on yourself.

If some well-meaning but ignorant person should call you a racist, do not give him the polite punch in the face that he so rightly deserves. Give him a chance to ask his question properly. While doing so, he may discover that he doesn't really have a coherent thought after all. He will most likely mumble, retreat back into his corner and, while eating his boogers, will try to figure out what just happened to him.

Morpheus
01-19-2007, 03:23 PM
You're an ideologue...you label your opposition in order to substantiate your own positions. When I posted on VNN, the VNNers called me a "commie"...its the same sort of tendency.

Your racist vs. communist ruse is a false analogy.

I do not know what you posted on VNN that would warrant them to accuse you of being a communist but it is irrelavent to the fact that I can cite quotes on here that warrant considering you to be a racist.

Futhermore, labeling my opposition does not make me anymore of an ideologue than you and does not make the label any more or less correct.


My experience with racists is that they are people who bear personal animosity towards other races. I know that they harbor these sympathies based on their conduct and the things they say. Unless you're clairvoyant or some sort of mind-reader, you can only discern ideological dispositions by words and conduct.

Certainly actions reflect beliefs and that is why I am saying that many people who espouse racist sentiment in turn are very wary of the label racist even when it logically suits them.

By definition, somebody like that is not a racist.

Being insecure about your identity as a racist does not mean you are not racist.

You have an ideological disposition which posits that people who disagree with you are "secret racists"...

This is false. Do you assume that I accuse everyone I have a disagreement with to be a racist?

Or is it just when the argument is race-related? Even them I have disagreements with people, it does not make them racist.

When someone espouses racist sentiment I regard them as being racist.


....just like NeoCons claim that people who disagree with them are "unpatriotic" or "Muslim sympathizers" and the like. I don't have anything to gain by pretending to not be a racist when I talk to you. I'm not in your employ, and you and I don't do business together. You also don't live in my community. What would I have to gain by hiding my ideology from you?

I think a racist's insecurity has far more to do with salvaging their personal self-worth than gaining anything from interacting with opponents.

It's as if you and other racists are sub-conciously trying to pacify your ideological beliefs and I believe that this is the result of influence from the current zeitgeist, in which a racist would be deemed a moral outcast which you do not desire to be.

Well, you're Black and most racists aren't interested in talking to you for that reason...they are interested in avoiding you. Why would a racist try to convert a Black person to his mode of thinking?

I didn't say anything about conversions and I'm speaking of observing conversations on the various boards as well as direct interaction.

The insecure behavior is the same regardless of the ethnicity of the opponent.


This is speculation...I think most racists and most antis have uninformed ideas about race, and their ideology reflects that. You and I disagree on this point.

Yes we covered that in a previous discussion, though you have still not explained what you mean by being "uninformed".

That word implies some knowledge which the people in question do not have and knowledge comes from a source.

What is the knowledge and what is the source?

"Evil" isn't really a term that has a place in political discourse.

Racism is not simply political it is ideological and moral. Evil is a relevant term when discussing racism.


I am staunchly anti-Communist, but I am not going to sit here and tell you that Communism is "Evil". I also think that anti-racism is a destructive tendency, but its not "Evil"...its just incorrect. Communism and anti-racism aren't anymore "Evil" than alchemy was "Evil"...they just reflect incorrect conclusions about observable circumstances and phenomena.

Again this analogy is flawed because communism itself (creation of a collectivist state) does not necessarily have anything to do with morality.

Racism (discrimination against someone because of race) does.

Making someone an unwarranted victim of your prejudices is deemed to be morally repugnant and therefore evil.

People who accept the prevailing zeitgeist don't want to be considered so...by definition, a racist is a guy who rejects that value system, so I don't see why he would care.

That's the crux of the issue. They may reject the value system but being raised in that value system they do not want to be completely ostracized from it.

For many racists there are differing degrees of racism of which they may feel that their level of racism does not actually qualify as "racism".

They want to have their cake and eat it too. Hold racist values without being considered to be racists themselves, because that way that can hold to their convictions and not be considered a moral outcast at the same time.

delete
01-19-2007, 03:26 PM
Rationalizations for their views are often backed by a victim complex rather than coming to terms with what society traditionally calls those views and the term racist as well as the concept of racism is often trivialized.

I live in an area where that are 99% white, and I want it to stay that way. I don't like black people after having met and interacted as a teacher for immigrants and studying with some. I have no problems with east asians, as they are few in numbers and integrate well, so I think it comes down to how people behave rather than how they look.


The first thing that evil people attempt to do when faced with opposition to their motive is to trivialize evil if not argue that they are actually good.

That you actually see people who don't like your race as evil, is one of the reasons I don't want black people where I live. Good and evil is primitive concept that have little meaning in Norwegian language and culture. Food is good, but you will seldom hear that people are considered good. You will never hear somebody call an other person evil, but you will hear that they talk about bad (evil) and good deeds.


Noone wants to be considered evil.
If you are a racist in Norway, you are considered primitive, not evil, so your sentence would be something along "Noone wants to be considered primitive".
I actually don't know what is considered worst here in Norway, being a primitive racist or being a primitive person who thinks people are good or evil. :)

If you for instance asked people if Hitler was evil, most people would protest, even if they believe in the holocaust. They will probably call Hitler a psychopath or an extreme nationalist who hated jews enough to kill them.

Morpheus
01-19-2007, 03:30 PM
Guberlet raises a good point: If a racist acquiesces to the laws of the land and doesn't abrogate the personal, political, or property rights of other people, why is it important to change his thinking? Suggesting that the inner thoughts and sympathies of people should be subject to official scrutiny is offensive to commonly understood principles of liberty. In fact, its positively authoritarian.

Who is trying to change his thinking?

Notice that he also declared himself a racist in his opening sentence.


Perhaps "racialist" is a more appropriate term for myself.

Quit while you're ahead doctor. :rofl:


You should be extremely reluctant to place an emotionally charged, ambiguous label such as "racist" on yourself.

If some well-meaning but ignorant person should call you a racist, do not give him the polite punch in the face that he so rightly deserves. Give him a chance to ask his question properly. While doing so, he may discover that he doesn't really have a coherent thought after all. He will most likely mumble, retreat back into his corner and, while eating his boogers, will try to figure out what just happened to him.

Are you so intimidated by the word racist that you would advocate physical violence?

As far as this topic is concerned I think it is better to just admit you are racist.

Infact such a declaration might throw your opponent offguard.

Petr
01-19-2007, 03:36 PM
Are you so intimidated by the word racist that you would advocate physical violence?
Why are PC African-Americans today "intimidated" by a nice, descriptive terms like "Black" or "Negro"?


Petr

Thomas777
01-19-2007, 03:43 PM
Your racist vs. communist ruse is a false analogy.

I do not know what you posted on VNN that would warrant them to accuse you of being a communist but it is irrelavent to the fact that I can cite quotes on here that warrant considering you to be a racist.

Its not a false analogy. Ideologically minded people construct their opposition...in fact, ideology is largely rooted in opposing "the enemy" whoever that may be. You have decided that I am a racist because you disagree with my political persuasion. You have further stated that racism is evil, so you have ascribed the characteristic of "Evil" to me. What you are doing is trying to eschew responsibility for justifying your ideology. You are something of a political gnostic...what I mean by that is you are claiming to be priivy to some fundamental truth about the human condition (in this case, racism) and claiming that people who question your ideological proclimations are incapable or unwilling to embrace the special knowledge that has been bestowed upon you and your self-appointed fellows who represent Good. What you are doing is trying to preclude people from questioning the legitimacy, the efficacy, and the rationality of your worldview.

Futhermore, labeling my opposition does not make me anymore of an ideologue than you and does not make the label any more or less correct.
I call you an anti-racist because that is what you call yourself. I am familiar with the tenets of anti-racism/humanism (as you obviously are as well) so I don't need to list those characteristics and tenets...it would be a waste of time. We can proceed in accordance with your own definition of your ideological disposition...its categorically different than me choosing to label you for the sake of my own argument.




Certainly actions reflect beliefs and that is why I am saying that many people who espouse racist sentiment in turn are very wary of the label racist even when it logically suits them.
You may be right. A lot of people aren't very intelligent and their worldview lacks internal consistency. You are talking more about fledging sympathies and prejudices rather than ideological racism in this case.



Being insecure about your identity as a racist does not mean you are not racist.

This is speculation, but I think ideological racists believe what they do because they think they are right and everybody else is wrong. I think that the people you are talking about are the sort that I described above...in other words, they are categorically different than the ideological variant.


This is false. Do you assume that I accuse everyone I have a disagreement with to be a racist?
You consistenly lump me in with stormfronters and ideological racists of various stripes that I don't agree with. I extrapolated a general tendency from this.


Or is it just when the argument is race-related? Even them I have disagreements with people, it does not make them racist.

When someone espouses racist sentiment I regard them as being racist.

Understood. The problem is that what you define as racist is an open ended value judgment that amounts to "things that conflict with Mansa Musa's ideological dispositions".



It's as if you and other racists are sub-conciously trying to pacify your ideological beliefs and I believe that this is the result of influence from the current zeitgeist, in which a racist would be deemed a moral outcast which you do not desire to be.
I can't speak for other people, but I don't do any such thing. I am perfectly honest about my political dispositions, here and IRL. I don't force politics on other people, but I don't shy away when asked about them.



.
Yes we covered that in a previous discussion, though you have still not explained what you mean by being "uninformed".
What I mean is that the conceptions of "race" that you and WNs argue about are ideological constructs that are not substantiated by precedent of a scientific or political-theoretical, or historical nature. If you want to adress this is greater detail, start a thread in the "Race Relations" subforum, flag it to my attention, and I will respond as best as I can.

That word implies some knowledge which the people in question do not have and knowledge comes from a source.
That is essentially correct. Its not substantiated by objective authority.


Racism is not simply political it is ideological and moral. Evil is a relevant term when discussing racism.
So says Mansa Musa. My sister in law tells me that people are "Evil" who don't believe in Jesus Christ.


Again this analogy is flawed because communism itself (creation of a collectivist state) does not necessarily have anything to do with morality.
Communism is an authoritarian ideology that violates the personal and property rights of people as a matter of course. It is also a cohesive ideology that has resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of people.

Racism (discrimination against someone because of race) does.
Why, because you say so?

Making someone an unwarranted victim of your prejudices is deemed to be morally repugnant and therefore evil.
You're making an assumption that racism axiomatically equates to violence against other people.

Burrhus
01-19-2007, 04:01 PM
Originally Posted by Heavens to Betsy
Yes but neither describes my views. I'm 'not racist', I'm not 'anti-racist'.

Your assertion is contrary to the law of the excluded middle, P ∨ ~P. Given some definition of racist you must be either racist or anti-racist.

You could assert that both terms lack a semantic referent, that is, there are no such things as racists or anti-racists and therefore you can be neither. I doubt that that is what you wish to assert. If I am wrong, please correct me.

I suspect that what you mean to say is that given the available definitions of racist and anti-racist you find that neither applies to you. The burden then falls on you to define the terms, both of which do not decsribe your position on the question of race relations.

Let me assist you. A racist is one who believes that races are real human categories, his race is absolutely superior (somehow) to the other races, it is appropriate to treat people of other races differentially (commonly but incorrectly known as 'discrimination'), that he has negative feelings about other races ranging from hatred to aversion and he advocates policies towards other races ranging from extermination (the extreme) to segregation (the moderate).

An anti-racist is one who either does not believe that racial categories are real or if they are, they are not significant, that all races (if they are real) are equal at least 'morally' if not necessarily biologically, it is inappropriate to treat people of other races differentially, has positive or at least does not have negative feelings about people of other races and advocates a policy of legal equality and racial integration.

If those definitions are not satsfactory, please feel free to correct them. Otherwise they will stand for our purpose here.

Unfortunately, the common definition of a racist is much more simple. He hates people of other races, considers them absolutely inferior and wishes them ill. An anti-racist is then one who does not hate, consider inferior or wish ill on other races. These definitions are flawed in my opinion. While they do accurately describe some people in either class, they are not exhaustive.

I am a positive racist. Let me describe that position for you.

I believe that racial categories refer to real properties of sub-sets of homo sapiens and that they are significant both 'morally' and biologically. The word morally is in quotes because I am using it in a manner that is not common. I am not using it to refer a set of universally accepted or proposed principles of right behavior. I use it rather to refer to a set of rules about behavior which the various racially determined in-groups comprising homo sapiens have arrived at over the course of their evolutionary development which have proven successful in maintaining the in-group's existence. Morality is an in-group property and only tenuously and perodically applicable to out-groups. (When it serves the in-group's interests.)

While morality applies most appropriately to members of one's in-group that does not imply what the word's common, universal meaning would imply. It is not a license to hate or harm people of other in-groups (that would lead to unnecessary inter-group hostilty). It simply means that altruism and trust should be extended to members of one's own in-group and generally (not always) withheld from members of out-groups. Put more simply it means that one should prefer the welfare of one's own in-group to that of others.

Biologically, it seems quite obvious from the empirical evidence available that there are significant differences between the races. Assuming that one accepts the theory of evolution as valid, the process of natural selection has clearly resulted in racial variation as a result of reproductive success in different environments. The traits selected for by the evironments' varying contingencies are not necessarily, or generally, compatible with a change in environment. This applies equally to genetic, phenotypic and cultural/behavioral traits. If one rejects the theory of evolution, then debate on this point is moot and best avoided.

Which brings up the question of racial equality, superiority and/or inferiority. Note that I used the phrase "absolutely superior" above. I do not believe that any race is absolutely superior (or inferior) to another. It would be presumptuous of me to anticipate the course of evolution. Races are either superior or inferior to each other relatively with respect to the specific environments within which they were selected.

Africans make superior Africans and Europeans make superior Europeans. Either is relatively inferior when placed into the environment which selected for the other's biological and cultural traits. Whether or not different racial groups are absolutely superior or inferior is a question that can only be determined in the future by observing which ones have survived the process of natural selection on a global level.

As a positive racist I do not hate people of other races. I am often angry about there behavior and generally find them not to my liking due to the nature of their cultural differences from mine, but that is not hatred. It is simply that I, as all others do, prefer my own kind and to live in an environment that is suitable for expression of my culturally inherited behavior and preferences.

Also as a positive racist, I do not advocate the extermination of other races nor unprovoked hostilty towards them. I do not wish them ill nor do I approve of mistreating them. In fact I wish them well to the extent that their success does not impinge on the welfare of my in-group.

The irony of contemporary race relations is that it is the liberals and so-called anti-racists who have caused the most harm to black people in America (I will not address other locations here). It has been their mis-guided (or possibly nefarious) implementation of policies based on belief in racial equality which have brought so many black people in America to the sad and deplorable condition which they find themselves in.

The poverty, crime, illegitimacy, gangs, squalid living conditions, educational failure, anger and hopelessness found in the black under-class as well as the hostility between blacks and whites result from the liberal effort to create a racially integrated society in the face of the reality of the situation which makes that goal unachievable.

All that has been achieved by the...let's call it the civil rights movement (CRM)...has been the draining from the black community of its best members which has left it bereft of its potential leaders, professionals and wealth creators. These people have been more or less successfully integrated into the white community and are doing well for themselves. This gives anti-racists false hope that all black people can be successfully integrated. But they cannot be. The real biological and cultural differences between the races preclude that ever happening.

This brain-drain on the black community finds it in the condition described above. Without leaders to create businesses and jobs, without schools of their own where they can achieve a level of education suitable for them, without cultural figures who can inspire them to be the best black people that they can be instead of failed whites, without all of the necessary components of a viable culture they have fallen into a state of failure that I find deplorable and even criminal.

It is the liberals and so-called anti-racists who have produced this condition. I call them 'so-called' anti-racists because I believe that they are really the true racists in the most negative connotation of that word. It has been their actions, misguided perhaps (or not), which have brought the black people to the miserable state they are in. They are blind, willfully or ignorantly, to the harm that they caused both for the black and the white people of America.

I am as I have said a positive racist. I do not hate black people, I do not wish them ill, in fact I wish them well. I honestly believe that they would be better off in a segregated society where their best and brightest would live among them and work for the welfare of their own people. Even a cursory glance at pre-1965 black life will show that they had better lives then. They had stable communities and familiies, they had their own businesses supplying jobs, their own schools where they had only to compete with each other and which were not infested with gangs, violence and drugs, neighborhoods where they could be themselves and feel comfortable and watch over each other's children.

Yes, their material standard of living was lower than white people's but that difference was the result of their racial abilities and not white injustice. And even with that material disparity, the quality of life for blacks was better. Each in-group is responsible for its own welfare. It is not a moral duty, as described above, of one in-group to further the interests of another. And it is certainly not the task of the government to impose that duty on one in-group in its polity to its detriment and attempt to enrich the other at the first's expense (an attempt that has failed).

Segregation ought to be the policy advocated for by all people who care about both peaceful race relations and the welfare of black people. Separation will result in improved conditions for both white and black people. Looking honestly at the realities of racial differences is the best course for everyone who wants a rational solution to the racial problem that confronts us.

Positive racism is not about hating the other, it is about loving one's own and peaceful co-existence with the others...living apart.

kultron
01-19-2007, 04:03 PM
I don't see the harm in admitting you're a racist. If someone asks me questions involving race or Nazism or whatever, I'll answer them fairly honestly in a logical, non-dogmatic sort of way. The only time I will not admit I am a racist if it is in a particularily heated situation where I'm in the prescence of those hostile and in greater numbers than I. But who wouldn't do the same, regardless of their beliefs? Thomas777 is on the same track as I. MM doesn't seem to grasp his points clearly enough.

Dr. Gutberlet
01-19-2007, 04:07 PM
Quit while you're ahead doctor.


Well, I was assuming that by my own definition, some WN people would not consider me a true racist. A person has to be smart enough to realize that interraction among the races is unavoidable as of now;I'm a fan of Tom Metzger's approach. An attempt at avoiding people of other races altogether, while attractive in theory, is practically impossible at the moment.

Mentious
01-19-2007, 04:33 PM
If someone accuses you of being a "racist" it's best to say:

"Well yes, if you mean that in the positive sense of the word."

When steam starts coming out her ears, explain that you are really just "racially conscious" or "racially aware." Explain that the term "racist" has become a loaded term with many innapropriate negative connotations. Say that if you are "racist," it's only in the same way that Jews and Blacks are. You appreciate the differences in the races and appreciate your own race no less, and naturally love your own people best. Then finish by saying that it's bizarre and unnatural to not be racially aware. Such appreciation of the human races is the only way that precious human diversity can be preserved. This is all true, so you can say it straightforwardly and sincerely.

Morpheus
01-19-2007, 06:00 PM
Why are PC African-Americans today "intimidated" by a nice, descriptive terms like "Black" or "Negro"?


Petr

If I answer your question are you going to answer my question?

While "black" and "negro" from a linguistic standpoint mean the same thing (one being English the other being Latin to describe the same color) negro has become regarded as a pejorative because it is idenitified with a time period when people often used it to refer to an African-American in a condescending manner.

It is still used in that way today by racists who make an issue out of something that non-racists would not take an issue with.

The meanings and acceptance of words evolve because of the changing attitudes of society. Oriental is the equivalent of Negro for people of East Asian descent.

As for Black, is not considered to be controversial within the African-American community at large, so why imply that it is?

Now are you going to answer the question I asked you first?





Its not a false analogy. Ideologically minded people construct their opposition...in fact, ideology is largely rooted in opposing "the enemy" whoever that may be.

As it relates to race-related message boards I am the one interacting with people perpetuating an ideology not the other way around.

If I have an opposing view it does not change the fact that the theme of discussions are centered around their ideological beliefs.


You have decided that I am a racist because you disagree with my political persuasion.

This is false. I consider you to be a racist because you espouse racism.

Quite the contrary, it is you who are attempting to acribe inaccurate qualities onto me by labeling me an ideologue.

What you are doing is trying to eschew responsibility for justifying your ideology.

This is also false. I continue to justify my beliefs while stating that someone is a racist.


You are something of a political gnostic...what I mean by that is you are claiming to be priivy to some fundamental truth about the human condition (in this case, racism) and claiming that people who question your ideological proclimations are incapable or unwilling to embrace the special knowledge that has been bestowed upon you and your self-appointed fellows who represent Good. What you are doing is trying to preclude people from questioning the legitimacy, the efficacy, and the rationality of your worldview.

Wrong again. I do not have an agenda behind regarding someone as a racist and regarding racism as evil, it is simply a value judgment.

My views are open to questioning it is the type of commentary you are engaging in with this post that is an attempt to elude discussion on the subject.

Why do some racists avoid or resent the label racist?

It is a simply a legitimate topic to discuss without this fallacious rhetoric.

I call you an anti-racist because that is what you call yourself.

I don't even identify as an "anti-racist", that is simply a default label for someone who opposes racism.

When I came to debate racists I was called an "anti" before I even knew what that was supposed to mean.

So who is labeling who?

I am familiar with the tenets of anti-racism/humanism (as you obviously are as well) so I don't need to list those characteristics and tenets...it would be a waste of time. We can proceed in accordance with your own definition of your ideological disposition...its categorically different than me choosing to label you for the sake of my own argument.

If you take objection to being labeled a racist then how would you describe your ideological beliefs when it comes to race?

I can only go by what I percieve a racist to be and what you express on the board to determine whether the label appropiately fits you or not.

It has nothing to do with you agreeing or disagreeing with me on anything, we have labels to judge character and behavior.

You act as if you are being judged unfairly on an issue in which I believe is actually the result of conflicting conscience rather than feeling you are being mislabeled.



You may be right. A lot of people aren't very intelligent and their worldview lacks internal consistency. You are talking more about fledging sympathies and prejudices rather than ideological racism in this case.

No, some of these people espouse racism as part of their world view so they do adhere to a racist ideology they are just inconsistent.



This is speculation, but I think ideological racists believe what they do because they think they are right and everybody else is wrong. I think that the people you are talking about are the sort that I described above...in other words, they are categorically different than the ideological variant.

I know that not everyone who is racist holds an ideological world view that is racist, what I am describing is very broad and applies to anyone who actively expresses racist views but does not consider themselves to be racist.

You consistenly lump me in with stormfronters and ideological racists of various stripes that I don't agree with. I extrapolated a general tendency from this.

When have I identified you with Stormfronters? You are the one who keeps injecting Stormfront into these discussions.

Understood. The problem is that what you define as racist is an open ended value judgment that amounts to "things that conflict with Mansa Musa's ideological dispositions".

No, again who I deem to be racist has nothing to do with my ideological views it has to do with what I percieve to be racism.

I and a racist could be firm believers in democracy and free enterprise yet they support racism and I simply oppose it.



I can't speak for other people, but I don't do any such thing. I am perfectly honest about my political dispositions, here and IRL. I don't force politics on other people, but I don't shy away when asked about them.

In that case hopefully you will answer the question above about your ideological views.



What I mean is that the conceptions of "race" that you and WNs argue about are ideological constructs that are not substantiated by precedent of a scientific or political-theoretical, or historical nature. If you want to adress this is greater detail, start a thread in the "Race Relations" subforum, flag it to my attention, and I will respond as best as I can.

The conception of race that I have is purely biological and rooted in natural science as I have explained in other threads so I think you are mistaken.

If you want to clarify your views on the subject of race which are obviously more complex than the traditional biological and social perceptions of race (though I am sure I am not unfamiliar with your views) than you can make that thread or link to a post of yours where it was discussed before.

That is essentially correct. Its not substantiated by objective authority.

Then perhaps "uninformed" was not the best word.

If you are saying that your view of race is more multi-dimensional then perhaps a better word would be "crude" if you feel someone's conception of race is beneath yours.



So says Mansa Musa. My sister in law tells me that people are "Evil" who don't believe in Jesus Christ.

You don't have to agree that racism is evil. I'm saying that it goes beyond a political orientation.


Communism is an authoritarian ideology that violates the personal and property rights of people as a matter of course. It is also a cohesive ideology that has resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of people.

The part in bold can apply to many political systems it is not a direct theme of communism.

You could regard communism as morally repugnant because it disallows the aforementioned freedoms of having personal and property rights.


Why, because you say so?

Not simply because I say so, rather because how you treat people is directly related to morality.


You're making an assumption that racism axiomatically equates to violence against other people.

No, you are assuming that by victim I only mean one of physical violence.

I don't see the harm in admitting you're a racist. If someone asks me questions involving race or Nazism or whatever, I'll answer them fairly honestly in a logical, non-dogmatic sort of way. The only time I will not admit I am a racist if it is in a particularily heated situation where I'm in the prescence of those hostile and in greater numbers than I. But who wouldn't do the same, regardless of their beliefs? Thomas777 is on the same track as I. MM doesn't seem to grasp his points clearly enough.

No, I understand his points I just don't agree with them.

The situation you described is not what I mean when talking about people being uncomfortable with the term racist.

For instance we are in an internet discussion forum and I see several people who are clearly uncomfortable with the label racist when describing themselves yet are in no immediate danger from their opponents (physically, professionally, socially etc.).

But they are still uncomfortable with the label.

Hakluyt
01-19-2007, 06:09 PM
I take racist to mean simply one who views race as the end-in-itself of political action, or the highest plane of identity to which he is devoted. Fade for example has said that all of his positions are taken in the interests of race, and whatever works in that regard trumps any other philosophical/communal/human/religious interest. That doesn't describe me at all so I would never admit to it.

Morpheus
01-19-2007, 06:24 PM
If someone accuses you of being a "racist" it's best to say:

"Well yes, if you mean that in the postitive sense of the word." (1)

When steam starts coming out of their ears, explain that you are really just "racially conscious" or "racially aware."(2) Explain that the term "racist" has become a loaded term with many innapropriate negative connotations.(3) Say that if you are "racist," it's only in the same way that Jews and Blacks are.(4) You appreciate the differences in the races and appreciate your own race no less, and naturally love your own people best.(5) Then finish by saying that it's bizarre and unnatural to not be racially aware.(6)

Certainly it is only natural for a person of an ideological persuasion to become defensive but this is what I am talking about.

Rather than simply acknowledge the term racist Julian advises to:

(1) Pacify the word itself as a condition of its acceptance.

(2) Use "politically correct" (isn't that ironic?) terms to supplant the less favorable term in question.

(3) Trivialize the word assuming it to be invalid in certain context because of "innapropriate negative connotations".

(4) Generalize other groups as a condition of accepting it as a term to describe yourself.

(5) Sugarcoat your views on the subject.

(6) Employ naturalist rhetoric.

To me all of this is unnecessary.

If you wish to have an open, honest discussion with someone about racism I think the best solution would be to accept that they probably won't see eye to eye and just be straightforward with your view.

If I were a racist and confronted with the accusation of being a racist I would do two things:

1. Tell them that I may be a racist according to their definition of the term and then proceed to ask them what a racist is as they understand the term to mean.

2. I would then explain my point of view on the subject to them.

I'm sure that most racists cannot get by without sugar-coating their views to a non-racist person so Julian Lee's option #5 is almost necessary (blunt racism ala Glenn Miller does not go over very well with non-racists).

Boleslaw
01-19-2007, 06:35 PM
Whenever Im accused of racism, I ask my opponent to define what they mean by "racism" and how that applies to me. Then I go about deconstructing their concept of such.

Such as in this thread (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=11598), when Gracieruth accused me of being both an anti-semite and a White supremacist. I went about debunking her accusation and showing it has no grounds to it.

Janus
01-19-2007, 06:46 PM
Evil is a relevant term when discussing racism. LOL!

[...]

maxsnafu
01-19-2007, 06:54 PM
I took it to mean that its a floating signifier with no precise definition, but with definite Evil connotations.

"Racist" is not supposed to mean anything; it's supposed to conjure
up a vibe.

Starr
01-19-2007, 07:23 PM
It does not bother me when someone calls me a racist, it only bothers me when they, because of the falsehoods they have been taught for their entire life in regards to racialists, begin to use that to attribute views to me that I do not even have.(I want to kill every non-white,etc.)these are the exact kind of things that people think of when they hear that word. On the other hand, if you do just admit it, that takes away from their ability to throw that up and turn the entire conversation over to a situation where you are merely hopelessly trying to defend yourself from that charge. It also gives the impression that you, believe there is something wrong in your own views and need to try to hide or sugarcoat them. Yes, all in all, I do think it is best to admit that you fit societies definition of that word. A word that it is always good to remind people is almost always only used to negatively label whites who are racially conscious, and have a natural preference for their own people, while giving a pass or even saying this is a positive thing for everyone else. A lot of people can see and relate to that double standard.

Always remember, however, to conduct yourself in the proper manner and don't allow people to bait you into either backing down from your views on one hand or reinforcing certain stereotypes on the other. That is exactly what people like this want you to do.

bardamu
01-19-2007, 07:29 PM
I would never call myself a racist in a confrontation because the word generally describes a category of person that is beyond the pale of common decency and even common law.

The thing to do is to parse the word and point out that it only applies to whites and is therefore racist itself as it seeks to negatively stereotype a group. Then you might bring up the semantic trickster called "orwellian inversion" and ask them if they have ever heard the term and know what it means? Then point out the term racist is an example of such an inversion. Basically pound your opponent over the head with thinking they have never encountered watching Surviver or the History Channel, i.e. outclass them.

Mentious
01-19-2007, 08:05 PM
[/B]Certainly it is only natural for a person of an ideological persuasion to become defensive but this is what I am talking about.
Rather than simply acknowledge the term racist Julian advises to:
(1) Pacify the word itself as a condition of its acceptance, blah, blah, blah...
Mansa Musa had conniptions about my post. My opinions about race are sincere and heartfelt, not mere "rhetoric." The issues I raise are valid. Here is my response:

Yes indeed, the word "racist" needs to be neutered and neutralized, because it is an abusive bully word that defames good people and natural instincts; a loaded propaganda word that distorts and obscures reality.

What to call someone who appreciates the varieties of horses and their differences? A "horse-ist."? Maybe a "horseman." (A "raceman.") Or a dog lover who appreciates the varieties of dogs and wants the types to survive.

1. Since there is no word for the connoisseur of human races, may as well call them "racists."

2. Or what to call someone who is simply racially conscious and wants his particular race to survive and evolve? We need a word for that. Since there is no word in currency, may as well use "racist."

3. What to call someone who loves the diversity of the human races (as contrasted to multiculters who actually hate it), and want that diversity to be preserved. May as well call them a "racist" because there's no other word.

I submit that all three of the above motivations are positive and laudable. Yet people with one or more of these natural sensibilities - people not given to "hate" incidentally -- are constantly smeared with "racist" as a negative word. So either they should promote a new word (such as "racialist"), or use "racist" in a positive way.

By the way, there is no "prejudice" any more. (Judgement before having any experience of a thing.) Everybody has experience now. There is only "postjuduce." Using your "judice" (judgement) prior to personal experience is wholly natural and only a little unwise. Using your judgement (judice) AFTER having experience of the thing: That is not only natural and wise, but anybody who does not is losing his faculties of human intelligence.

Also, "discrimination" is a positive word. It is the basic faculty of intelligence that allows us to function and make better choices in every kind of situation. We use our discrimination at all times -- to choose which cherries to eat in a bowl of fruit; to figure out what to do next at a 4-way-stop, to decide who to marry, etc. We should never forget that, and never turn off our discrimination. In fact, any intelligent man must Discriminate Always. And one has to discriminate about the varied meanings and implications in the word "racist," and recognize its positive and natural meanings.

Sulla the Dictator
01-19-2007, 08:10 PM
A racist IMO is a person who harbors personal animosity towards another person on account of immutable characteristics.

The term racist has become a floating signifier (as Basil pointed out) that is similar to the term fascist as was enumerated by George Orwell: Calling Smith a racist doesn't really tell us anything about Smith's ideological disposition...it merely indicates that the proponent is informing the audience "I hate Smith".

noun

1. a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others

Sulla the Dictator
01-19-2007, 08:11 PM
Whenever Im accused of racism, I ask my opponent to define what they mean by "racism" and how that applies to me. Then I go about deconstructing their concept of such.

Such as in this thread (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=11598), when Gracieruth accused me of being both an anti-semite and a White supremacist. I went about debunking her accusation and showing it has no grounds to it.

I guess she never knew you when you were throwing around racial or anti-semitic slurs, and goosestepping all over the board with Wehrmacht.

Mentious
01-19-2007, 08:14 PM
noun
1. a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others

Nobody has "prejudice" any more. It's all post-judice. Whites have now had plenty of experience with Blacks, for example.

If a shopkeeper notices that Blacks often steal from his shop, but Whites rarely, he now can have "postjudice" -- judgement made after experience. For him NOT to use his judgement now; to take this into account and be more suspicious towards the Blacks would be crazy.

People need to update their brains and get a functional language back again. "Prejudice" is natural, coming from the human need for security and caution. Postjudice is not only natural, but essential to any intelligence or successful living.

Sulla the Dictator
01-19-2007, 08:17 PM
Nobody has "prejudice" any more. It's all post-judice. Whites have now had plenty of experience with blacks, for example.

Thats not a legitimate quibble with the definition. The fact is that its quite clear what the word means. Why don't you guys just own up to who you are?

I mean, you're mostly in the company of like minded people. What is the point of playing little word games on the issue? Is it like a sexual deviancy, that you folks are ashamed of?

Thomas777
01-19-2007, 08:17 PM
noun

1. a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others


That is the Webster's dictionary definition. The point I was making is that in the context of political discourse, the term racist has become an open-ended signifier. Its analagous to when Nixon would call people Communist sympathizers.

Petr
01-19-2007, 08:21 PM
Thats not a legitimate quibble with the definition. The fact is that its quite clear what the word means. Why don't you guys just own up to who you are?

I mean, you're mostly in the company of like minded people. What is the point of playing little word games on the issue? Is it like a sexual deviancy, that you folks are ashamed of?
We are just not allowing smarms like you to linguistically define us. It's a matter of principle.


Petr

Mentious
01-19-2007, 08:26 PM
I also think Black people should be discouraged from blaming their problems on Whites. This only makes them confused and weak. Their period of slavery here was like a little dot on a long line of slavery that goes back into darkest Africa. They are still practicing slavery there today, while Whites were so noble that they quickly outlawed it. Even as slaves here, they were far better off than being slaves to other Africans; to hostile neighboring tribes. (Still common today.)

Nobody has done more to try to help the Negro than White people have. And yes, the Jews. As long as Blacks keep blaming White people -- or their short period of slavery here -- for their problems, Blacks will never develop.

Also, the ancestors of those who were brought here as slaves are lucky people to live in a White society now. None of them would want to go back and live in Africa.

Micaelis
01-19-2007, 08:58 PM
We are just not allowing smarms like you to linguistically define us. It's a matter of principle.


Petr

Racism (is) incompatible with faith in Christ. As such faith grows, corresponding attitudes should prevail, which is to say, of the Peace and Truth of His Suffering, the renunciation of fanciful displays of distaste for those who appear unlike yourself. It was such displays, after all, that Christ condemned in the Jewish rabbis.

Petr
01-19-2007, 09:05 PM
Racism (is) incompatible with faith in Christ.
Race-idolatry indeed is. Casually loving and promoting one's own race and ethnic group more than others, however, is just as natural as loving one's own family members more than others.


Petr

Micaelis
01-19-2007, 09:20 PM
Race-idolatry indeed is. Casually loving and promoting one's own race and ethnic group more than others, however, is just as natural as loving one's own family members more than others.


Petr

A Christian's duty is in the evangelisation of faith instead of race, Petr. Otherwise, faith falls into the dilemma in which the Christian Identity heresy rots.

As for loving one's family members more than others, we have only one Father in heaven, and all of our bonds belong unto Him.

Sulla the Dictator
01-19-2007, 09:24 PM
Race-idolatry indeed is. Casually loving and promoting one's own race and ethnic group more than others, however, is just as natural as loving one's own family members more than others.


Petr

How do you justify your 'racial love' if you have to choose between a black Christian and a Bosnian muslim? :p

Starr
01-19-2007, 09:30 PM
Thats not a legitimate quibble with the definition. The fact is that its quite clear what the word means. Why don't you guys just own up to who you are?

I mean, you're mostly in the company of like minded people. What is the point of playing little word games on the issue? Is it like a sexual deviancy, that you folks are ashamed of?


It is not a matter of being ashamed that comes into play that may cause people to reject that label, it is the negativity that surrounds that word. Racist has become synonymous with evil or ignorant in certain people's minds. when and only when practiced by whites. Any thinking person should be able to see that there is something very wrong in the idea that "racism" is only bad for whites, while it is good for everyone else. If standing together and puting the intererests of your own before others is a positive thing for blacks, hispanics, jews,etc. why is it the epitome of evil for us?

Petr
01-19-2007, 09:33 PM
As for loving one's family members more than others, we have only one Father in heaven, and all of our bonds belong unto Him.
You can frankly spare me from platitudes such as this. Only modernist-egalitarian quasi-Gnostics like to pretend that our fleshly commitments in this world are totally irrelevant or evil.


Petr

Petr
01-19-2007, 09:37 PM
How do you justify your 'racial love' if you have to choose between a black Christian and a Bosnian muslim? :p
I have already answered your leading questions of this sort more than adequately elsewhere, like here:

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=59236&postcount=20


Petr

Micaelis
01-19-2007, 09:43 PM
Racism is only a particular manifestation of sin.

To us it seems quite clear that races are phenotypically distinct, that they evolved in accordance with environment, as do all oganisms. Their existence, as well as ther cline, are biologically verifiable. Why one should pride one race over another is not, except when understood in the context of kinship. Otherwise, no other bond occurs between members of the same race. If one takes the scientific approach, the purpose of discrimination seems refutable by the birth of species in Africa and its progression and evolution into and in other territories of global earth. If one takes a religious approach, racism is contrary to God´s most perfect will. Either way, the two approaches are compatible and give us a Truth that is beyond simple prejudice.

Mentious
01-19-2007, 09:45 PM
Racism (is) incompatible with faith in Christ. As such faith grows, corresponding attitudes should prevail, which is to say, of the Peace and Truth of His Suffering, the renunciation of fanciful displays of distaste for those who appear unlike yourself.
What if it turns out to be not just appearance, but reality? Are you saying that religious people must turn off their discrimination? Turn off their minds? Hire a blind taxi-driver? Let a philandering testosterone bum chaperone your daughter? Etc, etc.

Petr
01-19-2007, 09:49 PM
Anyways, this whole thing is one huge false dichotomy. People like Sulla are trying to give the impression that either one must be a mad-dog racist of VNN variety that would happily commit genocide if only given a chance, or a party-line spouting, conformist one-world anti-racist - with no shades of acceptable racialist commitment between.


Petr

Micaelis
01-19-2007, 10:06 PM
What if it turns out to be not just appearance, but reality? Are you saying that religious people must turn off their discrimination`

Quite simply, yes. Discrimination is an obstacle to truth.


Turn off their minds?

See above.

Hire a blind taxi-driver?

Far from being blind, Jesus gave vision to those who could not see.

Let a philandering testosterone bum chaperone your daughter? Etc, etc.

Give your daughter to him who is already won by God.

Sulla the Dictator
01-19-2007, 10:08 PM
Anyways, this whole thing is one huge false dichotomy. People like Sulla are trying to give the impression that either one must be a mad-dog racist of VNN variety that would happily commit genocide if only given a chance, or a party-line spouting, conformist one-world anti-racist - with no shades of acceptable racialist commitment between.


Petr

Yes, I see no value in 'racialist commitment', though its false that I'm some 'one-world' hippy. I think its an offense against your God, to boot. You are supposed to love your neighbor, Petr.

Petr
01-19-2007, 10:09 PM
I think its an offense against your God, to boot. You are supposed to love your neighbor, Petr.
I have dealt with Tartuffean hypocrisy quite enough lately, thank you very much.


Petr

Mentious
01-19-2007, 10:13 PM
Quite simply, yes. Discrimination is an obstacle to truth.
Quite the opposite: Discrimination is the very road to truth, and the only one. Discrimination is utterly necessary and central to any choice of truth. Only with the faculty of discrimination can one distinguish truth from falsehood, right from wrong, or a better from a worse thing. You can't even choose which door to open, or which direction to walk, without discriminating. Look up "discrimination" in the dictionary. (Preferably an older, sane one.)

The vedics, Hindus, and yogis -- sincere religionists all -- state that discrimination is the chief faculty necessary to spiritual illumination. One needs to learn to discriminate between the Real and the unreal; the eternal from the ephemeral. They say one must use the "sharp sword of discrimination" to do this.

Jesus made statements lauding discrimination: "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword!" Separating truth from falsehood; right from wrong. "Straight is the way, narrow is the gate." How the heck are you going to choose the right way; make the right choice, without using your discrimination? "Beware of false prophets which dress in sheeps clothing but inwardly are ravening wolves." How in blazes do you distinquish one from another, and make a wise choice, without using your discrimination.

You can't even tie your shoes without using your discrimination, much less distinquish truth from falsehood. Is your mind in a meltdown?

Micaelis
01-19-2007, 10:17 PM
Quite the opposite: Discrimination is the very road to truth, and the only one. Discrimination is utterly and central to any choice of truth.

There is something logically perverse in your interpretation of discrimination, Julian. By being able to distinguish truth from falshehood, right from wrong, does not by any means justify vindictive behaviour towards those phenotypically distinct, which is our topic of discussion.

Petr
01-19-2007, 10:24 PM
Quite the opposite: Discrimination is the very road to truth, and the only one. Discrimination is utterly necessary and central to any choice of truth. Only with the faculty of discrimination does one distinguishes truth from falsehood, right from wrong, or a better from a worse thing.
There is lots of truth in this. We should be on our guard against the wolf of Unitarian egalitarianism that traipses around in Christian clothing.

We are supposed to be Trinitarians that believe in both Unity and Diversity, not Unitarian monists:

Holistic, Unitarian Ideal and Truth

Lastly, the holistic, Unitarian ideal leads to the destruction of truth because standing for truth, indeed truth itself, is divisive. Rushdoony, states this clearly:

It is thus apparent that . . . [the philosophy of] ‘Realism’ . . . [is] ultimately destructive of the idea of truth. ... ‘Realism’ ultimately reduces all universals to one, unity, and, especially in non-religious forms, is quickly hostile to any notion that truth and unity can be in conflict. (Rushdoony 1978, 7)

Manley Palmer Hall, writing in a South African New Age magazine, Breakthrough, gives us an accurate illustration of how a Realistic effects ones definition of truth.

Plato’s philosophy surrounds the principle of unity. To him the concept of unity was all-pervading, everywhere present and evident. Division was illusion. To accept a philosophy of division was ignorance. Ignorance sees many separate things in the world; wisdom sees only the many parts of one thing. God, man, and the universe are related fragments of a common unity. This concept is true monotheism , [I]for monotheism is more than admitting the existence of one God — it is the realization of the existence of one life of which all things are part.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Unity, or oneness, is the evidence of truth. . . .

Whatever truth does must be unity or oneness, for truth cannot be the parent of division. (Hall 1986, 1ff)
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=15050&highlight=kreitzer


Petr

Mentious
01-19-2007, 10:25 PM
There is something logically perverse in your interpretation of discrimination, Julian. By being able to distinguish truth from falshehood, right from wrong, does not by any means justify vindictive behaviour towards those phenotypically distinct, which is our topic of discussion.
It is you who has the perverse, obtuse, understanding of "discrimination," wholly modern and useless. Look discrimination up in an older dictionary. You are obviously very young. Have you no discrimination? Are you not a cultivated, discriminating person? This is the conventional usage of the word. In English, positing discrimination as "bad" makes no more sense in than claming "reflecting" or "analysis" or "judgement" are bad. They are all related concepts and essential faculties ofy natural intelligence. You discriminate when choosing which movie to see, which shirt to wear, etc.

In the 1960's it was culturally decided that "discrimination based solely on race" was "bad." Later the word "discrimination" got a bad connotation because of its constant use in this connection, but only for idiots. Later, idiots started to complain about "discrimination" itself, as if it was "bad." (As if thinking is bad, or analysis is bad, or evaluation is bad.) Now you hear idiots saying: "You discriminated by not hiring the blind midget as a taxi driver," etc. as though human beings are now banned from using their minds; using their intelligence, and choose a better thing over a lesser thing.

As to "phenotypes": Squirrels avoid wolves because they are red and a little larger. They are intelligent to do so. What if a "phenotypic" difference corresponds to characterological and behavioral differences? (As with the fox). If Blacks rape a lot, for example, it would be insanity for human beings not to use as much intelligence as a squirrel; to apprehend that fact, and use their discrimination to make better choices.

It appears, woefully, that you are one of those modernes whose minds are shutting down; who no longer understand what the word "discrimination" meant in the first place. May as well forget what "thinking" means. Utterly mind blowing!

Micaelis
01-19-2007, 10:33 PM
It appears, woefully, that you are one of those idiots who no longer understand what the word "discrimination" meant in the first place.

Discrimination - the word itself - is polysemical, Julian. The definition has already been established by the thread, which covers the act of prejudice in favour or against a person of a distinct race by merit of the holder's perception of his or her race, which is defined as discrimination.

Idiots, Julian? I may be younger than thou, but in this case YOU are the one that needs to grow up.

Petr
01-19-2007, 10:35 PM
Idiots, Julian? I may be younger than thou, but in this case YOU are the one that needs to grow up.
I agree that Chistians should be able to communicate more graciously with each other, although your naivë platitudes have somewhat annoyed me as well.


Petr

Mentious
01-19-2007, 10:51 PM
Discrimination - the word itself - is polysemical, Julian. The definition has already been established by the thread, which covers the act of prejudice in favour or against a person of a distinct race by merit of the holder's perception of his or her race, which is defined as discrimination.

Idiots, Julian? I may be younger than thou, but in this case YOU are the one that needs to grow up.
Discrimination means the faculty of distinguishing one thing from another, distinquishing differences, and it is central to all human intelligence. Most human decisions involve your faculty of discrimination. It can never be unbound from its core meaning.

I removed my reference to "idiots" in that post, but it is indeed idiotic to not understand what "discrimination" has always meant in English. Does "polysemical" mean that your mind has to get split up and become non-sensical?

Morpheus
01-19-2007, 10:59 PM
It does not bother me when someone calls me a racist, it only bothers me when they, because of the falsehoods they have been taught for their entire life in regards to racialists, begin to use that to attribute views to me that I do not even have.(I want to kill every non-white,etc.)these are the exact kind of things that people think of when they hear that word. On the other hand, if you do just admit it, that takes away from their ability to throw that up and turn the entire conversation over to a situation where you are merely hopelessly trying to defend yourself from that charge. It also gives the impression that you, believe there is something wrong in your own views and need to try to hide or sugarcoat them. Yes, all in all, I do think it is best to admit that you fit societies definition of that word. A word that it is always good to remind people is almost always only used to negatively label whites who are racially conscious, and have a natural preference for their own people, while giving a pass or even saying this is a positive thing for everyone else. A lot of people can see and relate to that double standard.

Always remember, however, to conduct yourself in the proper manner and don't allow people to bait you into either backing down from your views on one hand or reinforcing certain stereotypes on the other. That is exactly what people like this want you to do.

Although I ofcourse, do not agree that the word "racist" is only used against Whites or that most people have an agenda in accusing you rather than an honest observation I think you are closer in mindset to what I was suggesting.

You are not fooling anyone with the monotonous game of trivializing and sugarcoating the term racist.

If you want to clarify that certain negative connotations are inappropiate to describe to you that is a valid concern.

As is clarifying your position on race before accepting the term racist.

You may end up unconvicing at the end of the day (and unfortunately you might) but atleast you are keeping the discussion honest and straightforward,
not succumbing to fallacious rhetoric.

Mansa Musa had conniptions about my post.

Don't be silly. I dissected your post in a calm, concise manner.

My opinions about race are sincere and heartfelt, not mere "rhetoric." The issues I raise are valid.

I was not implying that your post was not sincere, only that it was a perfect example of the mode of thinking I was referring to.

Quite the contrary I did not have conniptions over your post it was simply exemplary of the points I was getting across.


Here is my response:

Yes indeed, the word "racist" needs to be neutered and neutralized, because it is an abusive bully word that defames good people and natural instincts; a loaded propaganda word that distorts and obscures reality.

Obviously I disagree. I do not see the people the word is ascribed for to be good. Nor their ideology to be natural or the use it as a distortion of the word by propagandists.

In most cases I'd fully expect a person accusing another of racism to know exactly what they mean by the word and basing their judgment on rational observation of the behavior that words being considered to be racist, without an agenda behind the accusation.

Indeed the counter accusation of the agenda seems to be a defense mechanism in most cases, holding no basis in reality.

That's not to say that the word cannot be abused or that the person could be identifying negative connotation with you that you yourself do not possess.

In which case the discourse that I laid out would IMO be a more appropiate and effective response.

What to call someone who appreciates the varieties of horses and their differences? A "horse-ist."? Maybe a "horseman." (A "raceman.") Or a dog lover who appreciates the varieties of dogs and wants the types to survive.

In my experience racists do not have compassion for human variation, quite the contrary they believe in the supporting their race at the expense of others and I recall one such racist who considers herself to be not be maliciously racist saying that she values the well being of her race over humanity as a whole.

1. Since there is no word for the connoisseur of human races, may as well call them "racists."

You are using a word that does not traditionally apply to the judgment of humans.

A connoisseur of horses, dogs or fine wine is not judging those things based on a value in which their rights are in jeapordy as a racist normally would.

They are simply judging the qualities that they like and pursue a hobby based on that interest.

Racism is not akin to judging animals or materials to see what qualities suit your taste it is a value judgment of human character and worth based on superficial variation in appearance and differences in ancestry.


2. Or what to call someone who is simply racially conscious and wants his particular race to survive and evolve? We need a word for that. Since there is no word in currency, may as well use "racist."

Perhaps if you were facing imminent genocide or deprived of your civil liberties you would need to be "racially concious" as a product of defending yourself against a threat but even then once that translates into discimination against people because of their race that is the racism.

3. What to call someone who loves the diversity of the human races (as contrasted to multiculters who actually hate it), and want that diversity to be preserved. May as well call them a "racist" because there's no other word.

Again I think the notion that racists "love diversity" is bullshit and in this instance you are the one acribing false connotations to people by accusing them of "hating it" when that statement is unwarranted.

I submit that all three of the above motivations are positive and laudable. Yet people with one or more of these natural sensibilities - people not given to "hate" incidentally -- are constantly smeared with "racist" as a negative word. So either they should promote a new word (such as "racialist"), or use "racist" in a positive way.

Well that is one way of looking at it but I still see them as sugarcoated, illogical and in some instances false altogether, yet still my response to your last post about being example of someone insecure with their racism holds weight.


By the way, there is no "prejudice" any more. (Judgement before having any experience of a thing.) Everybody has experience now. There is only "postjuduce." Using your "judice" (judgement) prior to personal experience is wholly natural and only a little unwise. Using your judgement (judice) AFTER having experience of the thing: That is not only natural and wise, but anybody who does not is losing his faculties of human intelligence.

When you make a judgment of an individual based on their appearance and not on their personal behavior you are pre-judging them and therefore it is prejudice.

That is the prejudice they are talking about.

Also, "discrimination" is a positive word. It is the basic faculty of intelligence that allows us to function and make better choices in every kind of situation. We use our discrimination at all times -- to choose which cherries to eat in a bowl of fruit; to figure out what to do next at a 4-way-stop, to decide who to marry, etc. We should never forget that, and never turn off our discrimination. In fact, any intelligent man must Discriminate Always. And one has to discriminate about the varied meanings and implications in the word "racist," and recognize its positive and natural meanings.

Discrimination is a multifaceted word, you are only using its generic definition. The definition in question is this:

2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.


In modern society that is deemed to be negative. Now when faced with that you can either argue that you do not employ this form of discrimination or that such discrimination is not negative but at that point you are forced to give an honest account of your views before you can be persuasive.

Your accuser may more may not buy it, but atleast it is still honest.

Anyways, this whole thing is one huge false dichotomy. People like Sulla are trying to give the impression that either one must be a mad-dog racist of VNN variety that would happily commit genocide if only given a chance, or a party-line spouting, conformist one-world anti-racist - with no shades of acceptable racialist commitment between.


Petr

Are you going to answer my question?

If not how rude of you to answer my question with a question (misdirection) and then avoid giving a proper response.

Masty
01-19-2007, 11:00 PM
Why is the term 'racist' demonised?

Micaelis
01-19-2007, 11:03 PM
I agree that Chistians should be able to communicate more graciously with each other, although your naivë platitudes have somewhat annoyed me as well.


Petr

Racial discrimination or the valuation of one's race as greater than another's has nothing to do with Christianity. It is a secular bias that has seeped itself into certain Christian theologies, creating abominations like "Christian Identity" and other groups that believe they are doing God's will by "hating his/her neighbor for merit of nothing more than being black" or 'race x' that is not 'race y', which is favoured, because it's mine.

Petr
01-19-2007, 11:09 PM
Racial discrimination or the valuation of one's race as greater than another's has nothing to do with Christianity. It is a secular bias that has seeped itself into certain Christian theologies, creating abominations like "Christian Identity" and other groups that believe they are doing God's will by "hating his/her neighbor for merit of nothing more than being black" or 'race x' that is not 'race y', which is favoured, because it's mine.
Strawmanning. There have been countless good Christian believers throughout history who have had healthy "racialist" attitudes and without turning into CI freaks.


Petr

Sulla the Dictator
01-19-2007, 11:21 PM
Strawmanning. There have been countless good Christian believers throughout history who have had healthy "racialist" attitudes and without turning into CI freaks.


Petr, do you consider 18th and 19th century Christians who opposed the slave trade to be heretics?

Petr
01-19-2007, 11:25 PM
Petr, do you consider 18th and 19th century Christians who opposed the slave trade to be heretics?
The Bible condemns "men-stealers", people who aggressively set out for the express purpose of getting more slaves, usually innocent civilians, by force.


Petr

Sulla the Dictator
01-19-2007, 11:29 PM
The Bible condemns "men-stealers", people who aggressively set out for the express purpose of getting more slaves, usually innocent civilians, by force.


Didn't you say that people captured in battle were valid slaves?

Petr
01-19-2007, 11:34 PM
Didn't you say that people captured in battle were valid slaves?
Yes. But it's not the same - not by a long shot - as launching predatory operations for the express purpose of just getting more slaves, like Muslims did for centuries in Southern and Eastern Europe.

In principle, Christians should not launch wars of aggression at all, but if someone attacks them and they strike back and defeat their opponent, then by all means slaves could be legitimately taken.


Petr

Sulla the Dictator
01-19-2007, 11:36 PM
Yes. But it's not the same - not by a long shot - as launching predatory operations for the express purpose of just getting more slaves, like Muslims did for centuries in Southern and Eastern Europe.

In principle, Christians should not launch wars of aggression at all, but if someone attacks them and they strike back and defeat their opponent, then by all means slaves could be legitimately taken.


Hmmm....explain something to me. Why would God find it acceptable to take slaves in...."counter-conquest".....from peoples who had absolutely no say in the aggression of their government?

And what about slavers who merely bought the slaves at market? Does the bible give instructions about obtaining an accurate chain of title on slaves?

Petr
01-19-2007, 11:38 PM
Hmmm....explain something to me. Why would God find it acceptable to take slaves in...."counter-conquest".....from peoples who had absolutely no say in the aggression of their government?

And what about slavers who merely bought the slaves at market? Does the bible give instructions about obtaining an accurate chain of title on slaves?
There are proper answers for all this, but for now I think I've answered your endless idle inquiries quite enough for tonight.


Petr

Sulla the Dictator
01-19-2007, 11:46 PM
There are proper answers for all this, but for now I think I've answered your endless idle inquiries quite enough for tonight.


I don't think we'll be seeing any answers to those questions.

Thomas777
01-19-2007, 11:51 PM
I don't think we'll be seeing any answers to those questions.

St. Paul did not look highly upon slavery, but he didn't condemn it either...in fact, he posited that it was incumbant upon slaves to obey their masters.

Sulla the Dictator
01-19-2007, 11:53 PM
St. Paul did not look highly upon slavery, but he didn't condemn it either...in fact, he posited that it was incumbant upon slaves to obey their masters.

Slaves were the Classical world's equivalent of machines. They were necessary. So the grudging acceptance of the institution is not at all surprising among early Christians. However, what is practical has nothing to do with what God would find VIRTUOUS. And Petr, as a fundamentalist, feels the need to support what he interprets as God's slave laws.

Petr
01-20-2007, 12:01 AM
Hmmm....explain something to me. Why would God find it acceptable to take slaves in...."counter-conquest".....from peoples who had absolutely no say in the aggression of their government?
Atomistic modern individualism, lacking the sense of collective responsibility.

Do you believe the Allies had the right to collectively punish the Germans for Hitler's aggressions with their air raids?


Petr

Keystone
01-20-2007, 12:15 AM
Rationalizations for their views are often backed by a victim complex rather than coming to terms with what society traditionally calls those views and the term racist as well as the concept of racism is often trivialized.
I myself have a victim non-complex. I am a victim of the inner-city blacks' savagery and inability to live like civilized folk. My safety and property value have suffered greatly. My way of life. Society traditionally had shunned such people, but now is forced to put up with them. Race is not a trivial thing with me. It's very real, unlike the MLK national holiday which celebrates blacks going from downtrodden minority to empowered whats-itzes. Nothing could be further from the truth. Your people have squandered money, time, and patience for 40 years now. You're worse off as a race than when you started.



Try that for reality.

Sulla the Dictator
01-20-2007, 12:17 AM
Atomistic modern individualism, lacking the sense of collective responsibility.


So....God needs to collectively punish people who had nothing to do with an act? Why would Balkanoid subjects of the Turkish empire, for example, be slave fodder for you?


Do you believe the Allies had the right to collectively punish the Germans for Hitler's aggressions with their air raids?


A couple of differences. We were not launching air raids on Germany AFTER the war, we were launching them during the war to make the Germans surrender. Secondly, the German people had a lot more to do with their leadership than an 8th century peasant did with his Lordling. Thirdly, we're not God, and we don't ask that you worship us as Gods.

You're suggesting that God supports injustice.

Keystone
01-20-2007, 12:27 AM
I am a racist, I hate niggers.

You can quibble all you want about the word being used inaccurately and it won't amount to anything. To the great mass of people out there, a racist is a person who judges an individual whom they know nothing about based on their race, and that's how you have to deal with it when it comes up.
Blacks can be rampaging around daily spreading disorder and havoc, but folks like Mansa will say, "No they're not. It's your imagination and inherent insecurity. All is well. Crime and squalor? What crime and squalor?"---- like a fucking minah bird.

It's best not even to bother arguing.

Jim West
01-20-2007, 12:28 AM
Are you going to answer my question? If not how rude of you to answer my question with a question (misdirection) and then avoid giving a proper response. Yes, Peter, please do show some consideration and answer the man's question. Have your Bible handy, of course. And your prayer beads as well. And your snake oil too. Oh Peter, you foolishly godly man, how I wish I could smash your pious face into a brick wall of reality, you gutless worshipper of ancient superstitions. Oh, blessed be the vessels of Truth that I, Jim West, am!


Worship THIS, Peter....Kneel Before It

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y102/heartlandusa/white-star-white-background-with-2.gif

Micaelis
01-20-2007, 12:36 AM
Yes, Peter, please do show some consideration and answer the man's question. Have your Bible handy, of course. And your prayer beads as well. And your snake oil too. Oh Peter, you foolishly godly man, how I wish I could smash your pious face into a brick wall of reality, you gutless worshipper of ancient superstitions. Oh, blessed be the vessels of Truth that I, Jim West, am!

Shut the fuck up already. Geez, man...! If anyone is in sore need of a reality check, its you!!

Keystone
01-20-2007, 12:42 AM
Those are the ones I get along with. I think they accept it in me because deep down, they know it's true. What do you expect from Mansa? He's a nigger.
I don't worry about Mansa either. I worry about his oppressed brothers and sisters who are Ruiners of Cities, poor darlings.

We had one nigger fire into a Port Authority bus this week at another nigger. Both teenagers. The last time a white person did that, well...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................fuck me, a white person never did that around here.

Must be the oppression.

Keystone
01-20-2007, 12:46 AM
Call me a racist.

Scryllak
01-20-2007, 12:49 AM
It's not a term I like using. Political labels are useful to the extent that they are (1) accurate, and (2) morally neutral in connotation. Otherwise the term is mired in ideological ambiguity and becomes a propagandic crutch. I'm not even fond of "conservative" or "liberal"--too often they're code words for "good" or "bad," depending on the audience. "Racist" is far, far beyond that pale. I don't ascribe it to myself, and I won't ascribe it to others unless they adopt it themselves.

Language can be used to facilitate or hinder communication. "Racist" does the latter. The egalitarian need to apply it is evidence enough of its negativity.

Morpheus
01-20-2007, 01:09 AM
Call me a racist.

OK racist.

Morpheus
01-20-2007, 01:21 AM
It's not a term I like using. Political labels are useful to the extent that they are (1) accurate, and (2) morally neutral in connotation. Otherwise the term is mired in ideological ambiguity and becomes a propagandic crutch. I'm not even fond of "conservative" or "liberal"--too often they're code words for "good" or "bad," depending on the audience. "Racist" is far, far beyond that pale. I don't ascribe it to myself, and I won't ascribe it to others unless they adopt it themselves.

Language can be used to facilitate or hinder communication. "Racist" does the latter. The egalitarian need to apply it is evidence enough of its negativity.

As I've said before I do not see racist as a political label. What political orientation does being a racist make you?

The word racist is an ideological label in the same way that egalitarian, which you have no problem using is.

It is:

1. Accurate in who it is ascribed to.

2. Describes a specific ideological and moral position.

The problem I believe which is obvious here is that most people take issue with the moral connotations of the word. They simply believe that they are right and right is identified with good, so they take objection to being identified with bad.

From an ideological standpoint I may regard The Ugly American as a racist scumbag, but at the very least he is an honest, even bold scumbag.

He bluntly acknolwedges his racism and identifies it as a separate issue from whether his opinion is right.

Janus
01-20-2007, 01:21 AM
...the purpose of discrimination seems refutable by the birth of species in Africa and its progression and evolution into and in other territories of global earth.This claim is nonsense.By being able to distinguish truth from falshehood, right from wrong, does not by any means justify vindictive behaviour towards those phenotypically distinct, which is our topic of discussion. Do you know the definition of "phenotype"? :rolleyes:

Starr
01-20-2007, 01:21 AM
Although I ofcourse, do not agree that the word "racist" is only used against Whites or that most people have an agenda in accusing you rather than an honest observation I think you are closer in mindset to what I was suggesting.

you have all kinds of organizations out there that exist for the interests of hispanics, blacks, jews,etc. What happens when whites come together for the same purposes. OMG! hate group!


If you want to clarify that certain negative connotations are inappropiate to describe to you that is a valid concern.

As is clarifying your position on race before accepting the term racist.

Clarifying my position on race and stating that I firmly believe that racial differences exist will get me labeled as a racist, which now means to people that I want to exterminate all non-whites. That is how extremely illogical, paranoid and dishonest anti-racists are. They don't have a whole lot in the way of real counter arguments so they merely resort to demonization, which works great since the myth of equality and white guilt have a very powerful hold over people these days.

You may end up unconvicing at the end of the day (and unfortunately you might) but atleast you are keeping the discussion honest and straightforward,
not succumbing to fallacious rhetoric.

I already said in my first post that even with all of the negative connotations I do not reject or hide from the "racist" label.

il ragno
01-20-2007, 01:26 AM
Being a race-iss means never having to say you're sorry after the first, ohhhh, say 10,000 times.

Morpheus
01-20-2007, 01:32 AM
you have all kinds of organizations out there that exist for the interests of hispanics, blacks, jews,etc. What happens when whites come together for the same purposes. OMG! hate group!

These groups are minorities who have historically struggled to gain equality and a footing in American society.

This is also a separate issue from your statement that only Whites are considered to be racist, which by and large is not true.


Clarifying my position on race and stating that I firmly believe that racial differences exist will get me labeled as a racist, which now means to people that I want to exterminate all non-whites.

If someone accuses you of wanting to extermine all non-Whites and if you do not hold that position then certainly you should speak against someone accusing you of it.

I myself have not seen this to be the case when someone makes an accusation of racism. They usually don't assume that you want to kill anyone just because they believe you hate them.


That is how extremely illogical, paranoid and dishonest anti-racists are. They don't have a whole lot in the way of real counter arguments so they merely resort to demonization, which works great since the myth of equality and white guilt have a very powerful hold over people these days.

I don't think your generalization is accurate for most anti-racists.


I already said in my first post that even with all of the negative connotations I do not reject or hide from the "racist" label.

I was speaking in generalities when using the term "you", not you specifically.

I acknowledged your willingness to accept the term racist.

I hope that eliminates any confusion.

Keystone
01-20-2007, 01:53 AM
Being a race-iss means never having to say you're sorry after the first, ohhhh, say 10,000 times.
And avoiding LaBrea and DaQuanzit as much as possible.

The beating of the dead horse that is Black Empowerment should be outlawed. The Great Arc o' Afro-American Achievement and Culture has been reached in our time.

Our cities are destroyed, and Beyonce has another hit movie.

Scryllak
01-20-2007, 01:53 AM
As I've said before I do not see racist as a political label. What political orientation does being a racist make you?

It's primarily ideological, but the obsession with applying it to others is often politically-driven.

The word racist is an ideological label in the same way that egalitarian, which you have no problem using is.

I didn't realize "egalitarian" was an inherently negative term, and wasn't trying to use it that way. I wasn't trying to tag you with it, and won't if you prefer me not to.

It is:

1. Accurate in who it is ascribed to.

2. Describes a specific ideological and moral position.

At its best. Unfortunately, the term's been politically co-opted and has propagated to a ridiculous degree. The only truly accurate definition is the one that refers to it as a belief in racial superiority--I don't have a problem with this definition. But there are those who believe in genetic differences without a belief in superiority; those who advocate separation without supremacy; those avoid minorities because of crime, even if they believe the predilection is environmental; and those who simply prefer familiar company, racially, culturally, and linguistically.

I've heard "racist" applied to all of the above situations, frequently. The label's breadth in combination with its negativity is unacceptable.

The problem I believe which is obvious here is that most people take issue with the moral connotations of the word. They simply believe that they are right and right is identified with good, so they take objection to being identified with bad.

No one wants a negative label. No one deserves one, either, as far as discourse is concerned. It's a morally-loaded, ideoligically-vague term that distracts the discussion, inflames passions, and hinder communication the whole way around. Why the hell would you want to use it?

il ragno
01-20-2007, 02:11 AM
I was going to parody the Geto Boys with "Damn It Feels Good To Be A Race-iss", but fighting rap with rap seemed counter-productive.

So instead, here's a pic of a really ugly Negress.

http://www.nydailynews.com/ips_rich_content/788-TV_iLoveny.JPG

Petr
01-20-2007, 02:38 AM
Yes, Peter, please do show some consideration and answer the man's question. Have your Bible handy, of course. And your prayer beads as well. And your snake oil too. Oh Peter, you foolishly godly man, how I wish I could smash your pious face into a brick wall of reality, you gutless worshipper of ancient superstitions. Oh, blessed be the vessels of Truth that I, Jim West, am!
Oh shut up you pathetic fag weirdo.


Petr

Mentious
01-20-2007, 02:46 AM
Call me a racist.
Yes, a racist in a negative way.

Useless to the cause.

And a macho-posing queer.

Petr
01-20-2007, 02:55 AM
Does Fadey has some petty vendetta going on against me? :rolleyes:


Petr

Sulla the Dictator
01-20-2007, 03:01 AM
Does Fadey has some petty vendetta going on against me? :rolleyes:


Petr

Can slavers accept communion? :p

Petr
01-20-2007, 03:06 AM
More anti-racist recordings, blog entries, and videos from AiG (the leading creationist website on the net). Here are just a few recent ones from Ken Ham's blog.
They are yearning for some mainstream acceptance. Btw, some 19th-century Christians actually welcomed Darwinism because it refuted the idea of separate origin of human races. (See Gertrude Himmelfarb's works)

As far as I'm concerned, most modern Christian preaching that emphasizes obsessively unity at the expense of diversity is de facto Unitarianism in Christian garb.


Petr

Petr
01-20-2007, 03:07 AM
Can slavers accept communion? :p
There is nothing unbiblical about simply owning slaves. Violent man-stealing is a sin.


Petr

Petr
01-20-2007, 03:08 AM
AiG also claims dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/dinos_on_ark.asp
:offtopic: :hijacked:


Petr

Morpheus
01-20-2007, 03:30 AM
It's primarily ideological, but the obsession with applying it to others is often politically-driven.

I don't think so, its motivation is mainly socially driven when in a real world context.

Most people know nothing about the political views of "racialists". I myself had never even heard of White Nationalism or even made a connection between Hitler, White Supremacy and Nationalism before encountering SF and other hate sites, and I can guarantee you this is still true for the vast majority of society.

Most people oppose racism because it is considered to be socially unacceptable.



I didn't realize "egalitarian" was an inherently negative term, and wasn't trying to use it that way. I wasn't trying to tag you with it, and won't if you prefer me not to.

I was saying that they are both ideological labels. It just so happens that racist is inherently negative. You do not seem to have a problem with ideological labels unless they are negative and that was the point I was making.

I have no problem with the label egalitarian.

At its best. Unfortunately, the term's been politically co-opted and has propagated to a ridiculous degree. The only truly accurate definition is the one that refers to it as a belief in racial superiority--I don't have a problem with this definition. But there are those who believe in genetic differences without a belief in superiority; those who advocate separation without supremacy; those avoid minorities because of crime, even if they believe the predilection is environmental; and those who simply prefer familiar company, racially, culturally, and linguistically.

I don't believe that definition to be the most accurate as in a real world context being a supremacist (i.e. believing your race to be best in every way)
is generally not a prerequisite to regard someone as a racist.

It is simply one who advocates racism.

Dictionary.com's 3rd Unabridged definition of the term racism is what I would consider to be most accurate:

3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.



I've heard "racist" applied to all of the above situations, frequently. The label's breadth in combination with its negativity is unacceptable.

If you make a disticntion against a person based on their race rather than treating them as an individual that is what makes you a racist.

I'm sure we could go into one million and one different views that might "escape" the narrow definition of race in and of themselves but in a real world context racist sentiment is really not hard to recognize.




No one wants a negative label. No one deserves one, either, as far as discourse is concerned.

I disagree.

If someone is rude to me in conversation I will regard them as rude.

If someone is deliberately annoying I will regard their speech as annoying.

If someone espouses a view that I identify with negative connotations I will ascribe the appropiate label to them.

It's a morally-loaded, ideoligically-vague term that distracts the discussion, inflames passions, and hinder communication the whole way around. Why the hell would you want to use it?

Why do people use any type of label? To express a viewpoint about someone.

For instance racists use racial epithets against certain groups to express their contempt for that group.

They use labels to describe people who do not support their ideology.

Racist is simply a word to express contempt for racism and identify a person who espouses racism.

It is obviously effective because every discussion I have entered where the subject is brought up, people traditionally identified as racists are simply on some level uncomfortable with the word.

It is like their kryptonite. Most people in society do not want to associate with a racist and no matter how strongly they hold to their views they most interact with society at the risk of losing friends, relationships and jobs.

They do not wish to be viewed in a negative light and so long as they embrace racism they will not escape the label that most people identify with their views.

Starr
01-20-2007, 04:49 AM
Why do people use any type of label? To express a viewpoint about someone

Generally, but that label, like a few others also gets applied to people who might not be racist at all, but for example, might not be politically correct enough or because they oppose immigration, or preferences for other races(such as affirmitive action)In instances like this, it is used by some as a sort of political tool.

They use labels to describe people who do not support their ideology.

Everyone does this. Everyone basically believes their particular ideology whatever it might be, is correct(obviously) and everyone else is wrong or a fool or whatever.

It is obviously effective because every discussion I have entered where the subject is brought up, people traditionally identified as racists are simply on some level uncomfortable with the word.

They are uncomfortable with the PC definition of the word, since it is often used incorrectly. For example, I don't really "hate" anyone. It would be more correct to say that I hate all of the problems that come with living in a multi-racial society. It is difficult, sometimes for people(including me) to separate the two. A natural animosity will exist among the races since people of different races and different cultures in the same society are always going to be in a struggle to dominate. The different behavioral patterns and temperaments also set them apart. And their different abilities are also going to create a situation where some races(as a whole) are going to be more at the top of the food chain and other at the bottom. The races at the top are going to look at the other races as inferior or lesser than them, at least subconsciously and the ones at the bottom are going to be resentful.(you see this in how blacks look upon whites as somehow having an unfair advantage or that they are being held back,etc.). It is going to be more likely the case that people are going to "hate" other races when they do not have a clear understanding of racial differences and what makes people of other races act in a way that is different from them.

It is like their kryptonite. Most people in society do not want to associate with a racist and no matter how strongly they hold to their views they most interact with society at the risk of losing friends, relationships and jobs.

They do not wish to be viewed in a negative light and so long as they embrace racism they will not escape the label that most people identify with their views.

Most people do not want to openly associate with an open racist, because they fear the possible social fall out. I have encountered very few people who are so uncomfortable with my views that they shun me. i have actually run across more people who agree with me on many things.

Hermetic
01-20-2007, 05:17 AM
http://image.com.com/mp3/images/cover/200/dre200/e249/e2491489n0i.jpg





Racism is only a particular manifestation of sin.

Micaelis
01-20-2007, 05:59 AM
http://members.tripod.com/Snyder_AMDG/RoundSacredHeart.gif

http://image.com.com/mp3/images/cover/200/dre200/e249/e2491489n0i.jpg

Mentious
01-20-2007, 08:09 AM
Christ eternally lives.

http://julianlee.com/images/JChristSacredHeart4.jpg

Dodge Viper
01-20-2007, 08:31 AM
http://mud.mm-a7.yimg.com/image/3821981941
Yogic Jesus Christ: Blissfully united with God, Millions of devoted followers.

http://mud.mm-a5.yimg.com/image/3250237735
Vindex: Orgasm Yoga Anti-Christ: Fails to string a decent sentence together.

Burrhus
01-20-2007, 12:05 PM
Mansa Musa had conniptions about my post. My opinions about race are sincere and heartfelt, not mere "rhetoric." The issues I raise are valid. Here is my response:

Yes indeed, the word "racist" needs to be neutered and neutralized, because it is an abusive bully word that defames good people and natural instincts; a loaded propaganda word that distorts and obscures reality.

What to call someone who appreciates the varieties of horses and their differences? A "horse-ist."? Maybe a "horseman." (A "raceman.") Or a dog lover who appreciates the varieties of dogs and wants the types to survive.

1. Since there is no word for the connoisseur of human races, may as well call them "racists."

2. Or what to call someone who is simply racially conscious and wants his particular race to survive and evolve? We need a word for that. Since there is no word in currency, may as well use "racist."

3. What to call someone who loves the diversity of the human races (as contrasted to multiculters who actually hate it), and want that diversity to be preserved. May as well call them a "racist" because there's no other word.

I submit that all three of the above motivations are positive and laudable. Yet people with one or more of these natural sensibilities - people not given to "hate" incidentally -- are constantly smeared with "racist" as a negative word. So either they should promote a new word (such as "racialist"), or use "racist" in a positive way.

By the way, there is no "prejudice" any more. (Judgement before having any experience of a thing.) Everybody has experience now. There is only "postjuduce." Using your "judice" (judgement) prior to personal experience is wholly natural and only a little unwise. Using your judgement (judice) AFTER having experience of the thing: That is not only natural and wise, but anybody who does not is losing his faculties of human intelligence.

Also, "discrimination" is a positive word. It is the basic faculty of intelligence that allows us to function and make better choices in every kind of situation. We use our discrimination at all times -- to choose which cherries to eat in a bowl of fruit; to figure out what to do next at a 4-way-stop, to decide who to marry, etc. We should never forget that, and never turn off our discrimination. In fact, any intelligent man must Discriminate Always. And one has to discriminate about the varied meanings and implications in the word "racist," and recognize its positive and natural meanings.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Julian Lee again. Excellent post.

http://www.journaltek.com/green%20square.jpg

Burrhus
01-20-2007, 12:20 PM
Racism is only a particular manifestation of sin.
If one takes a religious approach, racism is contrary to God´s most perfect will.

High-speed highway to hell, SanR. Arrogance in presuming to know god's will.

If god exists and he separated homo sapiens into races, might not YOU be going against his will by advocating policies that may eliminate those races?

To be consistently christian, young man, a bit more humility would be in order.

Arrow Cross
01-20-2007, 12:47 PM
Shut the fuck up already. Geez, man...!
Racism is only a particular manifestation of sin.
So is cursing, isn't it, you neocon pseudo-Christian?

If "racism", as a mean of survival is considered a sin, then why didn't Christ forbid eating, drinking, or taking breath as well?
Just look around in the so-called "Christian West", where standing out against the enemies of God and nation, the Black and Muslim invaders is considered an evil act of "racism", punishable by prison.
The West will face a racial civil war in a few decades against the strong, united (and yes - "racist") immigrants, because the West isn't "racist" enough to say NO to immigration, to say NO to racemixing and to say NO to Islam.
It would be truly an unworty ending for such a great civilization.

The degeneracy of the Pope and the likes of you "New Age Christians" deeply saddens me. The final days are indeed approaching.

delete
01-20-2007, 12:59 PM
I usually just say that I am not particulary racist, I just dislike jews and negroes and a lot of other people like greeks, pakistanis, communists, people from stockholm etc.

Most people are fine with it, and I have not met people who are not willing to discriminate against somebody, because they feel that the others as a group are cheating and acting outrageously.

I have not seen the good side of their cultures, as I am sure they have, but I think their culture are hurting and exploiting parts of mine, so I don't want them living where I am trying to take care of my culture.
If I try to learn my children humility as I think a society of humble and cautious people will be better to live in, and if some group exploit this trait by training their children to be self promotional exploiters, I want them removed.


@Mansa Musa
Black people think we whites are acting predatory aganist blacks, and want penalties, while white people feel that blacks are. So let us divorce as adults, because our infighting is hurting our children.

Petr
01-20-2007, 01:03 PM
They are yearning for some mainstream acceptance. Btw, some 19th-century Christians actually welcomed Darwinism because it refuted the idea of separate origin of human races. (See Gertrude Himmelfarb's works)

As far as I'm concerned, most modern Christian preaching that emphasizes obsessively unity at the expense of diversity is de facto Unitarianism in Christian garb.
In here I have longer commentary and critique on creationist anti-racism:

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4375&page=2&highlight=familism


Petr

Burrhus
01-20-2007, 01:04 PM
Quite the opposite: Discrimination is the very road to truth, and the only one. Discrimination is utterly necessary and central to any choice of truth. Only with the faculty of discrimination can one distinguish truth from falsehood, right from wrong, or a better from a worse thing. You can't even choose which door to open, or which direction to walk, without discriminating. Look up "discrimination" in the dictionary. (Preferably an older, sane one.)

The vedics, Hindus, and yogis -- sincere religionists all -- state that discrimination is the chief faculty necessary to spiritual illumination. One needs to learn to discriminate between the Real and the unreal; the eternal from the ephemeral. They say one must use the "sharp sword of discrimination" to do this.

Jesus made statements lauding discrimination: "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword!" Separating truth from falsehood; right from wrong. "Straight is the way, narrow is the gate." How the heck are you going to choose the right way; make the right choice, without using your discrimination? "Beware of false prophets which dress in sheeps clothing but inwardly are ravening wolves." How in blazes do you distinquish one from another, and make a wise choice, without using your discrimination.

You can't even tie your shoes without using your discrimination, much less distinquish truth from falsehood. Is your mind in a meltdown?

The problem here lies in the corruption of language arising from the political utility of propaganda.

To discriminate is NOT a transitive verb with or without the preposition "against". It is an intransitive verb. One does not discriminate "against" X, one discriminates "between" X and Y.

A transitive verb denotes an action where the subject acts on the object. Eg. John hit the ball. John does something to the ball. An intransitive verb denotes an act where the effect of the action is on the subject. Eg. John saw the ball. Here John does not do anything to the ball.

To disciminate has unfortunately come to be thought of as a transitive verb but it is not. Its use as such indicates an elision of the full set of assumptions semantically packed into the word. What is really being said is: Mr.A discriminates between X and Y (notices a difference), and then acts with respect to one or the other in a manner that is considered by some to be inappropriate. It is that second act that is transitive. And the appropriateness of the act, or not, is unexamined or assumed.

Eg. Mr.A notices that members of race X damage his property far more than members of race Y. He discriminates. This act has no effect on X or Y. Intransitive. He decides based on that discrimination to not rent to members of race X. Transitive. This act has an effect on X (and/or Y).

The phrase "to discriminate against" is a specious way to hide the two verb/act semantic import of the political propaganda and corruption of language required to advance a dubious poltical agenda.

Whether or not the second, transitive act is morally appropriate is beside the point. In any case, it is not discrimination.

Burrhus
01-20-2007, 01:37 PM
I am a racist, I hate niggers.

Hate and anger are closely related emotions. Both are generated by some perceived (correctly or not) injustice. Put simply, hate is anger transformed by present impotence. When one cannot act to redress the injustice, anger turns to hate.

White people who are angry about the injustice of the racial policies of the last 40 years are justified in their anger (in my opinion). That anger should elicit a response aimed at redressing their grievances. The problem is that all responses to date have been futile. Therein lies the transformation to hate.

To racists who hate I say, hate is a defeatist response to the problem. Maintain your anger and continue to seek redress of the injustice. To hate the perpetrator is simply a short way of saying "I am defeated". Besides giving him the satisfaction of believing that he has harmed you and will not have to pay for his transgression. We have not been defeated yet.

To the so-called anti-racists I say, respond to the anger now or deal with the greater problem of hate later. Hate is not an objective indicator of impotence but rather a feeling of apparent impotence which may well prove to be a temporary condition.

Anger seeks justice. Hatred seeks revenge. Your choice.

Burrhus
01-20-2007, 01:42 PM
It's not a term I like using. Political labels are useful to the extent that they are (1) accurate, and (2) morally neutral in connotation. Otherwise the term is mired in ideological ambiguity and becomes a propagandic crutch. I'm not even fond of "conservative" or "liberal"--too often they're code words for "good" or "bad," depending on the audience. "Racist" is far, far beyond that pale. I don't ascribe it to myself, and I won't ascribe it to others unless they adopt it themselves.

Language can be used to facilitate or hinder communication. "Racist" does the latter. The egalitarian need to apply it is evidence enough of its negativity.

So what word would you use to describe someone such as myself who does not hate blacks or wish them ill but believes that both blacks and whites would be better off if they lived in separation?

Burrhus
01-20-2007, 01:58 PM
Originally Posted by Petr
The term "racist" is a meaningless abstraction.

What is an abstraction? What is a meaningless abstraction? What are the characteristics in general (not just of the term racist) of any term that relegates it to the status of being a meaningless abstraction? What are the characteristics of a meaningful abstraction?

In light of your answers to the above questions, what makes the term racist a meaningless abstraction?

Petr, will you be responding anytime soon?

Morpheus
01-20-2007, 06:11 PM
@Mansa Musa
Black people think we whites are acting predatory aganist blacks, and want penalties, while white people feel that blacks are. So let us divorce as adults, because our infighting is hurting our children.

Most Blacks and Whites just want to live in peace so I'll side with the people who intend to do that instead.

Hermetic
01-20-2007, 06:27 PM
Maybe in the land of make believe.:rofl:

Christ eternally lives.

Hermetic
01-20-2007, 06:32 PM
http://www.geocities.com/mclane65/yancey.jpg
Yes, like this christian couple.

http://mud.mm-a7.yimg.com/image/3821981941
Yogic Jesus Christ: Blissfully united with God, Millions of devoted followers.

Boleslaw
01-20-2007, 07:11 PM
I guess she never knew you when you were throwing around racial or anti-semitic slurs, and goosestepping all over the board with Wehrmacht.

That was how many years ago Sulla? Besides even then my animosity towards Jews and other races had its significant limits.

Starr
01-20-2007, 07:24 PM
Most Blacks and Whites just want to live in peace so I'll side with the people who intend to do that instead.


Of course, most people are going to want to live in peace, but that is much more easily said than done. The peace is very superficial. You can see how superficial it is when these bottled up tensions come to the surface when, for example, there is an incident that is said to have some kind of racial undertones. Racial differences, competition for dominance, and the history between the two races all work against "living in peace." The best hope for a peaceful solution in the long run resides in separation.

bardamu
01-20-2007, 07:32 PM
This is what stops me from joining the church, this pussy crap that seems to have the power to transform people. If the church elected someone to the papacy who was more like a Pat Buchanan or Mel Gibson and announced a new crusade, I'd kiss the ring tomorrow.

Me too brother, me too.

Boleslaw
01-20-2007, 07:39 PM
This is what stops me from joining the church, this pussy crap that seems to have the power to transform people.

Ive always upheld this basic view in one form or another, in fact it more fully developed during my time as an atheist. There's nothing "pussy" about it.

On the surface, being a gutter racist may look tough; much like how being a hip-hop gangsta is supposedly being tough in the eyes of many blacks. But it's largely an illusion.



If the church elected someone to the papacy who was more like a Pat Buchanan or Mel Gibson and announced a new crusade, I'd kiss the ring tomorrow.

And yet both those men kiss the ring of the current Pope, whose nicknames include the "Panzerkardinal" and "God's Rottweiler".

Me too brother, me too.

We'll carry on without you.

Boleslaw
01-20-2007, 07:51 PM
Cardinal Alojzije Stepinac was certainly one hell of a pussy for making statements like the one below; although Im sure the Croatian members here would strongly disagree with that assestment:

http://www.zupa-svkriz.hr/kalendar/novi/opisi/stepinac2.jpg

"Modern racism blames the Church for not falling on her knees in front of its idols. But is ethnicity the highest human value? It is not, because it would otherwise have to be able to fulfill all human strivings and to make man blessed on earth. And that cannot happen; that should be obvious. And eventually, at death, all racial differences disappear. Therefore, man will not be justified in God's judgment by belonging to this or that race, but by honest life and good deeds. So if love toward a nation crosses the borders of sound reason, then it is no longer love, but passion, and passion is neither of use, nor lasting. . . . That is why the Church, in the matters of ethnicity, also puts forward this principle: what you do not want to have done to yourself, do not do to others! Love for a man's own nation must not make a man into a wild animal, which tears down and provokes revenge; it must make him more noble, so that he can gain the respect and love of other nations for his nation. Therefore love toward your own nation is not contradictory to love for the whole of mankind; they complement each other. All of the nations are children of God." (Source (http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=512))

Mentious
01-20-2007, 09:42 PM
If one takes a religious approach, racism is contrary to God´s most perfect will.
God made the races. So he must be one heck of a Racist. He appears to really love diversity. The whole idea of the Garden of Eden was about diversity and God's endless creative power. Christians who don't wish to preserve the earth's amazing diversity, which took aeons for God to create, truly affront the Lord. (Including those who don't care to protect ecological and species diversity.) You would be very poor Stewards of His creation. Since endless creativity is what most defines the "Creator," it seems to me those who don't cherish and preserve it are, verily, like haters of God.

Also, if one takes a religious approach, race-mixing is contrary to God's most perfect will. The religious scriptures of the world tend to forbid miscegenation in no uncertain terms. The Old Testament forbids race mixing. The Dharma Manu Shastra (ancient Indian "Laws of Manu") forbids it. The Bhagavad-Gita condemns it. Etc. Etc. I remember in the New Testament that Jesus definitely did consider the Samaritan woman to be of another caste, upholding in his own demeanor the cultural racial separation from her. So Jesus was not a diversity hater, either. Against the broad landscape of Religion, your "religion" seems quite novel and heterodox. Where'd you get your religion? Your 6th Grade Social Worker/Teacher?
Racism is only a particular manifestation of sin.
Then I guess God, the ultimate Racist (creator and lover of diverse races), is a Sinner, eh?

Boleslaw
01-20-2007, 09:46 PM
Here's what Monsignor Paul J. Glenn had to say about race-mixing:

"That there are lines between classes of people is a certainty that may as well be acknowledged at once, and the color-line is one of them. While it is entirely possible to ignore these lines, the social effect of such action is seldom happy. Just as a member of the true Church is earnestly dissuaded from marriage, by dispensation, with a non-member, so should a member of one race be dissuaded from marriage with a person of another color. In marriages of either type there is a definite injustice done to children, there are almost inevitable misunderstandings between the parties themselves, and there is sure to be some friction between the families so gracelessly united."
-- Sociology, p. 372)

Keystone
01-20-2007, 09:51 PM
Here's what Monsignor Paul J. Glenn had to say about race-mixing:

"That there are lines between classes of people is a certainty that may as well be acknowledged at once, and the color-line is one of them. While it is entirely possible to ignore these lines, the social effect of such action is seldom happy. Just as a member of the true Church is earnestly dissuaded from marriage, by dispensation, with a non-member, so should a member of one race be dissuaded from marriage with a person of another color. In marriages of either type there is a definite injustice done to children, there are almost inevitable misunderstandings between the parties themselves, and there is sure to be some friction between the families so gracelessly united."
-- Sociology, p. 372)
That's all well and good, but the organization he works for places more importance on human dignity...that is the right of people to immigrate where they choose to improve their lot in life, than national borders.

That's the official line of the RCC.

That puts races in very close proximity.

Boleslaw
01-20-2007, 10:03 PM
That's all well and good, but the organization he works for places more importance on human dignity...that is the right of people to immigrate where they choose to improve their lot in life, than national borders.

That's the official line of the RCC.

That's exaggerating it a bit. The Church is neither fully pro-immigration nor fully anti-. However, it nowhere near argues for open-borders.

It recognizes the right of individuals to immigrate to improve their lot, yes, but the Church has never elevated this to an absolute value. For example, the immigrants in question must be respectful towards the culture that accepts them. They must also be legal immigrants, as John Paul II himself stated. Also immigrants are also seen as the exception, not the rule.

Also, the Church still recognizes that a state has the right to protect its borders, and punish illegal immigrants. The state also has the obligation of looking out for the common good of its citizens.

Nice try Keystone!

We can also sense an anti-race mixing sentiment within these words of the late Pontiff:

"[S]maller social units -- whether nations themselves, communities, ethnic or religious groups, families or individuals -- must not be namelessly absorbed into a greater conglomeration, thus losing their identity and having their prerogatives usurped."
--John Paul II, Feburary 2000

Mentious
01-20-2007, 10:12 PM
Most Blacks and Whites just want to live in peace so I'll side with the people who intend to do that instead.
I have noticed that Blacks seem to be much happier among themselves than when mixed with Whites. When mixed with Whites they seem on edge, with a chip on their soldier, under pressure. Recently I saw a "public service" commercial that was supposed to be putting down "racism" and decrying the way things used to be. It showed Halle Berry and some Black women walking into a club or restaurant. The group walked past an area that was all White. You could see some White guys playing pool, some White women around, blondes. The scene was early '50's looking. The men had suspenders, white shirts. The women in dresses. The White people looked great together. It was a delicious scene.

Then they walk past a sign that says "Negro Section" or something. The Black women walk into this back room. It is full of Black people. Again, it was a wonderful scene. They all looked very happy together, with a real sense of fellowship. The women were greeted as they came in, and there was laughter. Then there was this voicever telling us how terrible this was, and 'who would want to go back to those times?' I also noticed that the Black men and women in were dressed much better than today.

The commercial had the opposite effect on me as intended. I realized how much more dignity both Blacks and Whites had when they had their own racial cultures, racial neighborhoods, and even towns. I think God desires that we go back to that saner, more dignified time, for both Blacks and Whites.

In the big scheme of things, it is much more interesting and moving when people's of very different cultures can interact, have a detente, show respect, etc. Forced respect is empty. The drama and intrigue in that moment, when a Black from a real Black society has an interaction with a real White, from a real White society, that is a much more interesting and dramatic moment. When they can show respect, or appreciation of one another despite their real differences, then something noteworthy is going on. Blacks who manage to get the respect of Whites, and vice-versa, are demonstrating real qualities and become much more interesting persons. I think that the Creator, who is the ultimate Dramatist, likes to create real differences and separations. It makes his drama much more interesting.

Boleslaw
01-20-2007, 10:20 PM
Hey Julian Lee, here's something you might like :)

A statement from the Catholic Association for International Peace:

"Men have always lived in groups. Apparently it is a part of God's plan that they should. And one of the things which have enabled them to live in groups has been the loyalty —the patriotism—which God has implanted in their very nature. This loyalty—this patriotism—this love of country'—involves a triple affection. It embraces an affection for familiar places, an affection for familiar persons, and an affection for familiar ideas. One's 'country' connotes all of these: the land itself, the persons on it, and the traditions associated with it. One's 'native land'—the terra patria, la patrie, das Vaterland—is an extension of hearth and home. It is the soil that has given life to one's forefathers and holds their tombs, and which in turn nurtures one's children and grandchildren. It is a link between generations, between families and friends, between common experience of the past and that of the present and future."(Source (http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=1125))

Doesnt mention race per se, but it is implied when it mentions a natural affection towards "familiar persons". In fact the article that cites this passage is interesting overrall.

Mentious
01-20-2007, 10:25 PM
That's beautiful. The Catholics have long been very inspired. Martin Luther was an infernal rotter who never had a clue. The splintering of the religion of the European Man is at the root of White weakness now.

Keystone
01-20-2007, 10:26 PM
That's exaggerating it a bit. The Church is neither fully pro-immigration nor fully anti-. However, it nowhere near argues for open-borders.
"Today the illegal migrant comes before us like that "stranger" in whom Jesus asks to be recognized. To welcome him and to show him solidarity is a duty of hospitality and fidelity to Christian identity itself."

John Paul II

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP950725.HTM

Nice try, Boleslaw. The Pope speaks for the Church, no?

They must also be legal immigrants, as John Paul II himself stated.
See above. JPII talked out of both sides of his mouth, just like any bureaucrat.

Petr
01-20-2007, 10:27 PM
Doesnt mention race per se, but it is implied when it mentions a natural affection towards "familiar persons".
Speaking of familial ties - here's a great parody of "Christian," quasi-Gnostic modernist anti-racism:


Our friend Ralph Watson just sent this to me:


Fight Familism

by Rev. Jack O’Kobian


Modern Christians have made great strides against racism. But much more needs to be done if we are to be true servants of Equality.

Now we must confront a form of racism that most people don’t even recognize as such. This is the sin of familism, the preference for one’s children over other children. Admittedly this seems natural, but in the fallen world most sins seem natural. Only as we follow the spiritual truth of Equality can we rise above this sinful material world.

Do you doubt that familism is racism? Consider how racists often justify their hate by saying that it’s really no different from preferring one’s child. And consider how familists often use such terms as “my flesh and blood.” The similarity to the Nazi’s “blood and soil” is obvious. Only a bigot would disagree.

In the words of no less than Martin Luther King, the only basis for judging another human being is the “content of character.” Thus if a “father” prefers his “son” to another child who is morally superior to that “son,” he is clearly a bigot because he values flesh more than morality. Such a “father” clearly views his “family”—physical traits, genes and all—as a miniature Master Race.

While it is true that the Old Testament affirms family lineage and says “honor thy father and thy mother,” the law of the OT no longer applies because now, under the New Testament, we are under grace instead of law. Jesus said, “call no man your father.” Grace is spirit and abolishes physical distinctions.

Throughout history we can see the evil caused by familism, wars of dynasty, family feuds, jealousy, and favoritism. Blood ties lead to bloodshed. It is the shame of the Church that Marxists have long understood the evils of familism better than Christians and have worked to attack this and other sins against Equality. Indeed, it was the Marxist Leon Trotsky who invented the term “racism.”

To fight familism, the Church must set the long-range goal of raising all children in common. In the words of Hillary Clinton, “It takes a village to raise a child.” As a preliminary step to that goal, Christian parents should make a practice of swapping their newborns with other “families.”

Some “mothers,” of course, will object, and they will play on the sentiments of a mother holding her infant child. Nevertheless, we must cut through this sentiment and understand the sin that motivates it. The extent to which a “mother” focuses on her child is the extent to which she tunes out other children—and that is hate.

Although abortion is a bad thing, it may be serving what is ultimately a good purpose. When a woman has the child in her womb killed, it desensitizes her to warmth and favoritism toward children of her own, and thereby opens her heart to impartial feeling toward all children. Gay marriage also may have a beneficial side by undercutting the prestige of familism.

We should never fail to denounce familism whenever we encounter it, even in tough cases. For example, if a couple has just lost its child in an accident, the moral response is to withhold sympathy for their grief. Tell the couple “to get over it” because there are plenty of living children around for them to love, many with a “content of character” superior to that of “their” deceased child.

Admittedly, the path to True Equality will not be easy, but it is the only way we can purge the sin of earth with the spirit of heaven. One day this love will trample out the vineyards of hate.


Before any of you scoff at this parody, keep in mind that kinists are called sinful for appreciating their connection to extended family. In our time, being a few generations removed makes all the difference between being a loving relative and a hateful racist.
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4375&page=2&highlight=familism


Petr

Petr
01-20-2007, 10:32 PM
See above. JPII talked out of both sides of his mouth, just like any bureaucrat.
Moments like this make me glad I'm not a Catholic.


Petr

Boleslaw
01-20-2007, 10:37 PM
Nice try, Boleslaw.

Nice try indeed, but in the end it's you whose pulling off the charade here!


The Pope speaks for the Church, no?

Yes he does, and this is what he had to say within the same fucking document you cited:

"Illegal immigration should be prevented, but it is also essential to combat vigorously the criminal activities which exploit illegal immigrants. The most appropriate choice, which will yield consistent and long-lasting results is that of international cooperation which aims to foster political stability and to eliminate underdevelopment. The present economic and social imbalance, which to a large extent encourages the migratory flow, should not be seen as something inevitable, but as a challenge to the human race's sense of responsibility."

So again Keystone, nice try!


JPII talked out of both sides of his mouth, just like any bureaucrat.

May I suggest you convert to Protestantism, probably to Lenny's church(where you would be welcolmed with open arms), and be done with it!

Your little charades here have become tiresome. And yes, I await your response to that detailing how you're a supposed better Catholic than me, because you grew up in the faith, go to church every week, and Im only Catholic because of cultural reasons, and blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah!!!!

Keystone
01-20-2007, 10:40 PM
Moments like this make me glad I'm not a Catholic.


Petr
Well, yes.

His Holiness didn't appear infallible on occasions. Of course, he gets to choose which moments he is infallible.

Very convenient.

Micaelis
01-20-2007, 10:40 PM
Moments like this make me glad I'm not a Catholic.


Petr

This is unfortunate, Petr.

Boleslaw
01-20-2007, 10:41 PM
Well, yes.

His Holiness didn't appear infallible on occasions. Of course, he gets to choose which moments he is infallible.

Very convenient.

Infallibility has only been used twice within the entire history of the Church, and neither of those incidents had anything to do with immigration. But hey, you've never been one to miss an opportunity to slander a Pope!

Keystone
01-20-2007, 11:16 PM
Nice try indeed, but in the end it's you whose pulling off the charade here!



[Yes he does, and this is what he had to say within the same fucking document you cited:

"Illegal immigration should be prevented, but it is also essential to combat vigorously the criminal activities which exploit illegal immigrants. The most appropriate choice, which will yield consistent and long-lasting results is that of international cooperation which aims to foster political stability and to eliminate underdevelopment.
Blah, etc...

You see? The words come out, but they really aren't saying anything.It's all meaningless. "Embrace the illegal. Prevent illegals. Everybody have a great government and lots of money so we can all be happy wherever we are"---and other such utopian BS.

Popes have been droning on safely like that for years and years, and no one pays any attention to them, and no wonder. They are PR guys, nothing more.
May I suggest you convert to Protestantism, probably to Lenny's church(where you would be welcolmed with open arms), and be done with it!
I doubt it. It's too late in the game for me. I like ritual. Although I respect some Prots for choosing the Bible and sticking with it.
Your little charades here have become tiresome. And yes, I await your response to that detailing how you're a supposed better Catholic than me, because you grew up in the faith, go to church every week, and Im only Catholic because of cultural reasons, and blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah!!!!
You put too much emphasis on the institution, the bureaucrats. The pope and his cardinals have been marginalized for a long time.

Helios Panoptes
01-20-2007, 11:29 PM
"Illegal immigration should be prevented, but it is also essential to combat vigorously the criminal activities which exploit illegal immigrants. The most appropriate choice, which will yield consistent and long-lasting results is that of international cooperation which aims to foster political stability and to eliminate underdevelopment. The present economic and social imbalance, which to a large extent encourages the migratory flow, should not be seen as something inevitable, but as a challenge to the human race's sense of responsibility."

Translation: it is your responsibility to throw your money away to help third-worlders. :thanks: The pope can go screw himself...or an altar boy. I don't care what the senile, decrepit fool has to say.

Keystone
01-20-2007, 11:43 PM
Translation: it is your responsibility to throw your money away to help third-worlders. :thanks: The pope can go screw himself...or an altar boy. I don't care what the senile, decrepit fool has to say.
That was the previous senile, decrepit old fool.

The new one says the same things, so no foul.

Richard Parker
01-21-2007, 01:34 AM
My young cousin, who is working on an MBA at the University of Toronto, had to participate in a student-run business consulting operation, which is like an internship and part of their studies.

Because it is student-run, the projects charge very low rates and the clients tend to be non-profit orgs. One of their assignments was planning a marketing / PR campaign for the United Church of Canada.

Among the first feedback comments they received from the Church execs was that their proposal needs to do more in order to attract non-whites and same-sex couples.

I also noticed during my own university years, in the 1980s, that there was no shortage of race-mixing in the various Christian student groups. I almost thought that joining one might be a fast-track for an Indian dude to get laid, but chose instead to continue focusing on pub nights and dorm parties for that particular quest.

Keystone
01-21-2007, 01:46 AM
I also noticed during my own university years, in the 1980s, that there was no shortage of race-mixing in the various Christian student groups.
Lots of Evangelical churches insist on being "equally yoked" by faith and not race. The Pentacostal churches here are fully-stocked with bi-racial couples. At least most of them stay married and are good parents.
I almost thought that joining one might be a fast-track for an Indian dude to get laid, but chose instead to continue focusing on pub nights and dorm parties for that particular quest.
You chose well, grasshopper.

Dances with Wolves
01-21-2007, 02:00 AM
Many racists are simply insecure about their own beliefs and identity but wish desperately to cast those asperations onto others.



On the contrary, I find many raceless people insecure about their identity and beliefs. People are not racist because they are unsure of their beliefs, but because they believe what their eyes and history tell them.

Mentious
01-21-2007, 04:48 AM
The last pope was a really great man, and he was never decrepit. He became even greater with age. The present pope is also a great man. Gay racist baseball historians like Key Bone can't possibly comprehend such men, and will never be great, even when they become decrepit. They are decrepit even now.

Micaelis
01-21-2007, 04:59 AM
The last pope was a really great man, and he was never decrepit. He became even greater with age. The present pope is also a great man. Gay racist baseball historians like Key Bone can't possibly comprehend such men, and will never be great, even when they become decrepit. They are decrepit even now.

More rep headed Julian's way. :dance2:

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Julian Lee again.


Bah!

Helios Panoptes
01-21-2007, 06:45 AM
The last pope was a really great man, and he was never decrepit. He became even greater with age. The present pope is also a great man. Gay racist baseball historians like Key Bone can't possibly comprehend such men, and will never be great, even when they become decrepit. They are decrepit even now.


I prefer Keystone to both popes. At least Keystone doesn't sound like a disingenuous CEO who talks out of the side of his mouth. At least when Keystone says something, he doesn't mince words. At least Keystone doesn't think it's my responsibility to combat illegal immigration by rebuilding the third world.

Fuck the pope, that feeble, demented child molester!

Mentious
01-21-2007, 07:02 AM
Keybone is a macho-posing, anonymous blowhard, dirt-mouthed racist, hiding behind photos of baseball heroes, with an unhealthy relationship with his mother. This kvetching priss doesn't have the stature, spiritually or as a man, of a Pope's middle toe.

Helios Panoptes
01-21-2007, 07:06 AM
Keystone does not have an unhealthy relationship with his mother, as far as I am aware. It is not right that you slander him across the forum with accusations of sexual dysfunction. You don't like it when others do it to you.

Arrow Cross
01-21-2007, 07:48 AM
That's beautiful. The Catholics have long been very inspired. Martin Luther was an infernal rotter who never had a clue. The splintering of the religion of the European Man is at the root of White weakness now.
I disagree. By the time of the XVIth Century, Catholicism completely went out of the way it was meant to be, it became worldly and corrupted over the millenia of its existance as a 'world religion'.
So it had to be reformed, true believers needed to return to the beautiful core teachings of Christianity, the Bible itself.
In that age, masses were presented in Latin, of which the majority of the people didn't understand a single word. What is the meaning of church service, when the believers cannot understand the word of God?
But they went even further with the "redemption tickets", when Rome made business of the peoples' sins and demanded money in exchange for heavenly forgiveness.
The utterly wordly Catholic church clung to its dogmas, while it long ago forgot its role as Christ's body on Earth. Then Luther and Calvin came, remembering them of this role. God bless their names!

Mentious
01-21-2007, 07:58 AM
Those are all useful points. But some babies got thrown out with the bath water there. Christianity lost power. It lost its monastic vigor, the devotional mysteries, and the culture of spiritual transcendance. No more saints. "Ministers" became more-or-less conventional men.

The metaphysical law may be that God gives prosperity and wealth to the Godly and the pure. ("Seek ye first the Kingdom of Heaven...and all this shall be added unto you.") The Catholic Church could not help but attract wealth. It was not evidence of through-and-through corruption. The long history of such a Church is bound to have some foibles and Strange Days.

Sulla the Dictator
01-21-2007, 08:31 AM
The last pope was a really great man


I agree with this. He did monumental things without worldly power.


The present pope is also a great man.


This is false. I have nothing against Benedict, but he hasn't done anything yet remotely comparable to John Paul II.

Mentious
01-21-2007, 08:34 AM
O.K. You have good points. But according to my values, the new Pope has shown early signs of having integrity and courage, from a Catholic point of view. (Which I don't expect you to share.) Except when he apologized to the Jews. :) So I want to express "support", partly because he is so new. This is one of the rare times when I can agree with you, what with your sobriety and all. (Except you sound like Helios now: "This is false.")

Sulla the Dictator
01-21-2007, 08:34 AM
Here's what Monsignor Paul J. Glenn had to say about race-mixing:

"That there are lines between classes of people is a certainty that may as well be acknowledged at once, and the color-line is one of them. While it is entirely possible to ignore these lines, the social effect of such action is seldom happy. Just as a member of the true Church is earnestly dissuaded from marriage, by dispensation, with a non-member, so should a member of one race be dissuaded from marriage with a person of another color. In marriages of either type there is a definite injustice done to children, there are almost inevitable misunderstandings between the parties themselves, and there is sure to be some friction between the families so gracelessly united."
-- Sociology, p. 372)

Ooooh, a MONSIGNOR said that? That carries a lot of weight. :rolleyes:

There is no room for racism in the Catholic church, Perun. These days the only TRUE BELIEVERS of the Faith are the people you guys don't like. When I was in the Philippines they were VERY proud of the fact that they were not only a "Christian country in Asia", but a Catholic one. Mass attendance is regular and USED to be almost mandatory.

Sulla the Dictator
01-21-2007, 08:37 AM
O.K. You have good points. But according to my values, the new Pope has shown early signs of having integrity and courage, from a Catholic point of view. (Which I don't expect to share.)


I was raised Cathoilc, and like the Church a great deal.

Mentious
01-21-2007, 09:16 AM
I give you new respect, Sulla. I was raised Catholic too, and grateful of it.

Scryllak
01-21-2007, 09:53 AM
I don't think so, its motivation is mainly socially driven when in a real world context.

Most people know nothing about the political views of "racialists". I myself had never even heard of White Nationalism or even made a connection between Hitler, White Supremacy and Nationalism before encountering SF and other hate sites, and I can guarantee you this is still true for the vast majority of society.

Most people oppose racism because it is considered to be socially unacceptable.

I don't disagree with anything you've said here. But my focus is on the racial debate, not on the mainstream terminology. I can only encourage debaters of the issue to adopt neutral terminology in the interest of a level playing field, so that the topics at hand can be approached as fairly and unemotionally as possible. It ought to be a universal goal.

I was saying that they are both ideological labels. It just so happens that racist is inherently negative. You do not seem to have a problem with ideological labels unless they are negative and that was the point I was making.

Yes, of course--I said as much. Loaded terms are to be avoided.

To use an equivalent example: I don't refer to Black people as "niggers" (grossly negative), and I don't call them "African Americans" (smacks of modern positive correctness, though it's much better than "nigger"). I say "Black." It's descriptive without being derogatory.

I don't believe that definition to be the most accurate as in a real world context being a supremacist (i.e. believing your race to be best in every way)
is generally not a prerequisite to regard someone as a racist.

It is simply one who advocates racism.

Question: I'm more comfortable around White people than Black people. I'm also more comfortable around Americans than foreigners, English-speakers than non-English speakers, humans than monkeys, dogs than cats, Earthlings than aliens. This is all simple familiarity, not "hate" or "intolerance."

Am I still a "racist" in this context? I don't advocate slavery, supremacy, superiority, exportation, repatriation, or government interference of any sort with personal racial matters. Do I deserve the full force of an intentionally negative smear when I don't maintain the breadth of associated beliefs that lend their verbotenism to the manifest negativity of the smear itself?

"Racist" became inherently negative long ago, when the legacy of slavery, the Nazi regime, and Jim Crow became associated to the term. The word cannot now be withdrawn to apply to far less severe beliefs, because the momentum of the past associations is still evident.

If someone espouses a view that I identify with negative connotations I will ascribe the appropiate label to them.

Is it fair and honest to refer to a man as a "nigger?" Why or why not?

For instance racists use racial epithets against certain groups to express their contempt for that group.

They use labels to describe people who do not support their ideology.

Racist is simply a word to express contempt for racism and identify a person who espouses racism.

Exactly. "Racist" is functionally equivalent to "nigger," "spic," "kike," "dumbass," "poo-poo head," and on and on and on. We all know what they mean, and we all have the freedom to use them, but willingly honest debaters avoid such loaded terminology as a matter of course.

Hermetic
01-21-2007, 02:03 PM
While the catholic organization became rich because they taxed the life out of the poor, got to love all those darkage towns and cities that are full of shacks with the manson like churches in the middle filled with gold when the average person is dirt broke. Same today with guys like Benny Hinn lives in a few million dollar manson with a billion dollar bank account when most of the world is broke and hungry. The pope lives in a palace while claiming poverty as a virtue.lol Dispite the constant flow of apologists most people who can see past the persona of the christian religion are aware it is a corrupt scam.

Burrhus
01-21-2007, 02:28 PM
Originally Posted by Scryllak
It's not a term I like using. Political labels are useful to the extent that they are (1) accurate, and (2) morally neutral in connotation. Otherwise the term is mired in ideological ambiguity and becomes a propagandic crutch. I'm not even fond of "conservative" or "liberal"--too often they're code words for "good" or "bad," depending on the audience. "Racist" is far, far beyond that pale. I don't ascribe it to myself, and I won't ascribe it to others unless they adopt it themselves.

Language can be used to facilitate or hinder communication. "Racist" does the latter. The egalitarian need to apply it is evidence enough of its negativity.

Burrhus: So what word would you use to describe someone such as myself who does not hate blacks or wish them ill but believes that both blacks and whites would be better off if they lived in separation?

Still waiting for a response, Scryllak.

Burrhus
01-21-2007, 02:31 PM
Originally Posted by San Rosello
Racism is only a particular manifestation of sin.
If one takes a religious approach, racism is contrary to God´s most perfect will.


Burrhus: High-speed highway to hell, SanR. Arrogance in presuming to know god's will.

If god exists and he separated homo sapiens into races, might not YOU be going against his will by advocating policies that may eliminate those races?

To be consistently christian, young man, a bit more humility would be in order.

Still waiting for a response, SR.

Scryllak
01-21-2007, 02:45 PM
Still waiting for a response, Scryllak.

Sorry, I didn't see your post. 16 pages, this topic.

I don't have a neutral catch-all for race-based thinkers. "Racialist" is easily safer than "racist," but unfortunately it means different things to different people.

I prefer to let individuals label themselves.

Helios Panoptes
01-21-2007, 02:53 PM
Still waiting for a response, Scryllak.

Racial separatist? That's pretty specific.

delete
01-21-2007, 04:39 PM
Racial separatist? That's pretty specific.

I would qualify as that, but I also think I might be what most people consider a racist.

Of the different groups I have met, I like the ethnic Scandinavians from the countryside the best, and I think that they are superior in creating the culture I want my children to grow up in.

It might not be the most advanced high culture in Europe when it comes to intellectual traits, but you do get to know your neighbour, and you do get to learn do to stuff, because you have to do it yourself.

Burrhus
01-21-2007, 04:53 PM
Sorry, I didn't see your post. 16 pages, this topic.

I don't have a neutral catch-all for race-based thinkers. "Racialist" is easily safer than "racist," but unfortunately it means different things to different people.

I prefer to let individuals label themselves.

Helios Panoptes: Racial separatist? That's pretty specific.

The problem is that no matter what words or phrases we use to describe the rational, positive position on race they will be demonized and given a negative connotation by the so-called anti-racists.

Consider the following etymology:

racist: 1932 as a noun, 1938 as an adjective, from race (n.2); racism is first attested 1936 (from Fr. racisme, 1935), originally in the context of Nazi theories. But they replaced earlier words, racialism (1907) and racialist (1917), both often used at first in a British or South African context.

At some point we have to stop letting the so-called anti-racists define the term that describes our position with a negative connotation and force them to present a rational argument in support of theirs. That is to say, we cannot let the debate revolve around the label we ascribe to our position but rather around the facts of the case. Any label we choose will be demonized as an emotional propaganda device for avoiding rational debate.

That said, I am willing, as HP suggests, to abandon the word segregation in favor of separation even though there is little to distinguish between them semantically. Racial separation sounds good but I doubt that the so-called anti-racists will allow it to remain value neutral. They will demonize that phrase too.

I am a racist of the positive kind. I do not hate, wish ill upon nor consider absolutely inferior non-white peoples. I seek only separation and voluntary association (commensurate with community standards).

At some point we must stand firm and defend some word to describe ourselves and not let the so-called anti-racists simply use the negative connotation of the word to serve in lieu of an argument on the issue.

I am a racist. I will defend that word.

MrAngry
01-21-2007, 05:04 PM
The problem is that no matter what words or phrases we use to describe the rational, positive position on race they will be demonized and given a negative connotation by the so-called anti-racists.

Consider the following etymology:



At some point we have to stop letting the so-called anti-racists define the term that describes our position with a negative connotation and force them to present a rational argument in support of theirs. That is to say, we cannot let the debate revolve around the label we ascribe to our position but rather around the facts of the case. Any label we choose will be demonized as an emotional propaganda device for avoiding rational debate.

That said, I am willing, as HP suggests, to abandon the word segregation in favor of separation even though there is little to distinguish between them semantically. Racial separation sounds good but I doubt that the so-called anti-racists will allow it to remain value neutral. They will demonize that phrase too.

I am a racist of the positive kind. I do not hate, wish ill upon nor consider absolutely inferior non-white peoples. I seek only separation and voluntary association (commensurate with community standards).

At some point we must stand firm and defend some word to describe ourselves and not let the so-called anti-racists simply use the negative connotation of the word to serve in lieu of an argument on the issue.

I am a racist. I will defend that word.

The definition for racist is regarded as negative due to its association with race hate and race superiority. Race/colour preference is a form of racism that,IMO, isn't negative, if that race/colour happens to be similar to your own then that's fine.


The key point you make is voluntary separation, rather then forced seperation.

Micaelis
01-21-2007, 09:02 PM
Still waiting for a response, SR.

I'm unaware of advocating any policy designed to eliminate racial distinctions. And if anybody is in need of humility, it is he who believes himself superior to others for merit of his phenotype.

Omniel
01-21-2007, 09:05 PM
I'm unaware of advocating any policy designed to eliminate racial distinctions. And if anybody is in need of humility, it is he who believes himself superior to others for merit of his phenotype.
The issue is a matter of risk, not superiority. I really couldn't care less who is better, it's who is worse that worries me. Which are the phenotypes that exhibit criminal tendencies? Who is most likely to cause me or my family harm?

Petr
01-21-2007, 09:23 PM
Here's what Monsignor Paul J. Glenn had to say about race-mixing:

"That there are lines between classes of people is a certainty that may as well be acknowledged at once, and the color-line is one of them. While it is entirely possible to ignore these lines, the social effect of such action is seldom happy. Just as a member of the true Church is earnestly dissuaded from marriage, by dispensation, with a non-member, so should a member of one race be dissuaded from marriage with a person of another color. In marriages of either type there is a definite injustice done to children, there are almost inevitable misunderstandings between the parties themselves, and there is sure to be some friction between the families so gracelessly united."
-- Sociology, p. 372)
It is very modernist to assume that individuals have the moral right to form unions that defy the norms of their own collective (like the wishes of their parents) :


Reformer Martin Bucer on the invalidity of marriages made without parental consent

"Therefore, the laws of the early church and of pious emperors define it as rape if anyone joins a woman to himself in matrimony without the knowledge and consent of parents, even if the woman consents."

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=11871&highlight=bucer

And the practical conclusion following from such principle:

"Since there have never been more than two or three white men in the history of the world who want their daughters to marry blacks, we could eradicate miscegenation immediately if children were taught to obey their parents."


Petr

Sulla the Dictator
01-21-2007, 09:25 PM
It is very modernist to assume that individuals have the moral right to form unions that defy the norms of their own collective (like the wishes of their parents) :


Petr, did God ever stop the sun from moving across the sky?

Petr
01-21-2007, 09:30 PM
Petr, did God ever stop the sun from moving across the sky?
Channeling Fade, eh? :offtopic:


Petr

Sulla the Dictator
01-21-2007, 09:37 PM
Channeling Fade, eh? :offtopic:


Eh? I have no problem with religion. I'm just saying that even YOU, as religious as you are, are almost certainly not a true fundamentalist. And if not, I would like to know why you pick and choose.

Because we know that the sun does not revolve around the Earth. Thus it is impossible for God to stop the sun.

Petr
01-21-2007, 09:40 PM
Eh? I have no problem with religion. I'm just saying that even YOU, as religious as you are, are almost certainly not a true fundamentalist.
Unbelievers like you are emphatically not the ones who get to define just who are "real Christians", "true fundamentalists" or whatever empty labels you've got.


Petr

Sulla the Dictator
01-21-2007, 09:43 PM
Unbelievers like you are emphatically not the ones who get to define just who are "real Christians", "true fundamentalists" or whatever empty labels you've got.


Petr, you do not believe that God stopped the sun. Nor do you deny that the bible says he did. Can you explain to me why you find it necessary to defend Creationism, BIBLE SLAVERY, and undoubtedly other assorted oddities contained within but NOT believe in God doing this act?

Petr
01-21-2007, 09:55 PM
Petr, you do not believe that God stopped the sun.
Why not? I'm not dogmatic about it, but not excluding that possibility either. It's theoretically and philosophically entirely possible, once you accept the possibility of supernatural miracles.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/5felled.html

Anyways, this is :offtopic:


Peyr

Mentious
01-21-2007, 10:20 PM
Petr, did God ever stop the sun from moving across the sky?
The Bible is chock full of metaphors and allegories, and the recounting of spiritual experiences which happen for saints in the field of consciousness. Only mental midgets read it all as literal.

In fact, the Bible, like all literature you happen to encounter out there, is just a projection of your own personal mind.

Sulla the Dictator
01-21-2007, 10:23 PM
Why not? I'm not dogmatic about it, but not excluding that possibility either. It's theoretically and philosophically entirely possible, once you accept the possibility of supernatural miracles.


No. It is not theoretically possible.

Sulla the Dictator
01-21-2007, 10:23 PM
The Bible is chock full of metaphors and allegories, and the recounting of spiritual experiences which happen for saints in the field of consciousness. Only mental midgets read it all as literal.


I agree with you.

delete
01-21-2007, 10:37 PM
Petr, did God ever stop the sun from moving across the sky?

I agree with Petr. :hijacked:

I call that trying to pick a fight in order to derail a thread.

Kriger
01-21-2007, 10:53 PM
While I do not believe that anyone needs to display their racial awareness like some type of gay parade, I do think that there is nothing wrong with expressing racial views, whether of a certain race or of a mixed race.

Racism can be carried to detrimental extremes, but then so can a number of things be carried to these extremes such as anti-racism, anti-racism, and anti-racism, just to name a few.

If someone asks am I a racist, I say yes. I have found that people on a whole are more comfortable with this, as they do not have to wonder, and I do not seek to force my views on them. But I will discuss race issues if the topic is broached.

If an anti-racist can admit to being one, I know I can admit to being a racist.
And feel good about my balanced racial views. In a racist way. In an anti-racist society.

Keystone
01-21-2007, 10:58 PM
While I do not believe that anyone needs to display their racial awareness like some type of gay parade, I do think that there is nothing wrong with expressing racial views, whether of a certain race or of a mixed race.
Blacks are free to live racially. It's encouraged, as a matter of fact.

Petr
01-21-2007, 11:07 PM
Many non-Christians may not realize just how rich and relevant doctrine Trinity really is. It is not a small matter - it is fundamentally related to the basic way men view their relation to the Divine and towards other men.

Actually Trinity is a sublime example of the principle "separate but equal (before God)" in action!


First a piece from just "averagely" conservative (but non-racialist) Christian blog, followed by an un-PC commentary from Little Geneva blog:



Feminism and the Trinity

One of the central idolatrous ideologies of our day is feminism. Although it is just one of the hydra heads (the monster being egalitarianism), it is nevertheless one of the most important hydra heads. This is because God created us male and female, and our sexual identity is right at the center of the image of God in us. Therefore, even though egalitarianism is the general error, when the error is applied to something as important as sexual identity, the results can be disastrous. Apply egalitarianism to something like money, and you get the inequities and imcompetencies of socialism. Apply egalitarianism to sexual identity and you get Michael Jackon.

So feminism is the one of idols of the day that must be toppled, an idol that must come down. Every faithful Christian must oppose feminism, root and branch.

But unfortunately, many traditionalist Christians have assumed that feminism can be effectively opposed with something that might be called "not feminism." A moment's reflection should reveal the problem here. There are many things that are "not feminism" that are also "not biblical." Take the Saudi view of women for just one example. Take rape for another.

Feminism is actually a Trinitarian heresy, but unfortunately many of the Christian world's "not feminism" reactions are equally heretical. Within the triune Godhead, we learn that authority and submission on the one hand, and equality on the other, are ultimately harmonious. At the point of ultimate reality, the Son of God is begotten by the Father and submits to His will. At the same time, Paul tells us in Philippians that Jesus did not consider His equality with God something to be grasped. Consequently, for the Trinitarian Christian, submission and equality together are not examples of trying to square the circle.

Our gender heretics feel like they have to pick one or the other. The feminists choose equality and so they think they must reject submission. The "masculinists" choose submission and so they think they have to reject equality. The feminists are modalists, who think that all the persons of the Godhead are the same, morphing into one another, depending on the circumstances. Whenever we hear of sex change operations, we should understand it as an idolatrous attempt to mimic a false understanding of god. Psalm 115 makes it very clear that we become like what we worship.

The so-called traditionalists are Arians, believing that if Jesus Christ was submissive to his Father, He must therefore be created, and ontologically inferior to the Father. This is why Unitarian cultures (like the Muslim world) are so readily hostile to women, and contemptuous of them. And this is also why any "Christianized" form of contempt for women is evidence of a functional Unitarianism in our midst. It is not enough for our answer to feminism to be "anything but feminism." Sabellianism is not Arianism, but they are both heretical.

Posted by Douglas Wilson - 6/18/2004 12:10:46 PM


http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=257


///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////


Here Doug Wilson rightly calls feminism a trinitarian heresy because it is sexual egalitarianism. His problem is in understanding that another form of biological unitarianism that we like to call neo-Babelism is also a trinitarian heresy; it is racial egalitarianism. Recall that race is not accepted by the Babelists as a legitimate divider among men because of their interpretation of Galatians 3:28, which is the very interpretation that logically undercuts their rejection of feminism and sodomy.

Because they have twisted themselves into a logical pretzel, it is not surprising to read rubbish like this from Dougs Wilson and Jones. Quite frankly, this is one of the most bizarre articles ever printed in Credenda (and that’s saying a lot). It even surpasses the sophistry that emanates from CCL, but it shouldn’t be surprising to any of us. Sodomite marriage is the latest chapter in anti-Christian debauchery, but its logical progression is not what most would expect. Most Christians would like to connect it to another great act of judicial tyranny, Roe v. Wade. They forget about the Loving v. Virginia decision which outlawed the ban against miscegenation, and they forget about it precisely because they think it was just. Badonicus points out that the Massachusetts court cited Loving 25 times in their decision but mentioned Roe in passing only four times. The very heart of the decision was based on the illegal Fourteenth Amendment, which was cited 13 times. So if you’re looking for a logical progression, it is to be found in the religion of Equality: citizenship was granted to ex-slaves, therefore interracial marriages may not be forbidden, therefore sodomite marriages may not be forbidden. It all makes perfect sense if you have the courage to open your eyes.

If you don’t open your eyes, you might find yourself nodding in agreement with the Dougs. They say that homosexuality "is not a typical sin that cultures face like theft, lying, or murder" but is "the sign of God’s abandonment of us," that it "is primarily a judgment against the Church… God’s curse of homosexuality is a special judgment against His people… Christian fathers are a primary cause of the curse of homosexuality… We should, therefore, ‘own’ homosexual sin… So we openly accept homosexual marriage in the civil realm as God’s means of undermining that civil realm, and we accept that He has done this in judgment for wicked fathering within the Church." They even go so far as to say that "we mean we must accept the fact of [homosexuality] as just… we should own the curse of same-sex marriage and not fight it so far as it concerns them." In other words, we should not proclaim biblical law. We should pretend that God has not prescribed the means of dealing with this particular sin. Instead, I should gaze at my navel and cry that Jimmy and Steve are down at the courthouse getting married because I’ve been a poor father. We must accept this state of affairs "as a just judgment on us and our culture"! "In the brewing culture wars, we ought not to stand with those seeking to ban same-sex marriage (or with those seeking to impose it). We ought to declare publicly (frustrating both sides) that we embrace this curse." They actually say that "gay-baiting" (whatever that is) is as bad as sodomy! When punishment is severed from the crime, it shows that we don’t really believe there is a crime. All Christians pray that sinners will repent of their sin, but God told us how we are to deal with certain sins. Christ Church is apparently content to ignore these commands. They have abandoned every pretense of theonomy.

Perhaps the most ironic passage of all: "At its root, homosexuality is a love of sameness rather than difference. Jehovah teaches us to love difference, and in this fallen world obsessed with finding ways to deface God, homosexuality rejects difference in order to spite God." If only they could extend this principle to miscegenation. God created a diverse and beautiful world. Why are so many people trying to destroy that diversity, and why are ministers of the gospel assisting them? The Dougs complete their metamorphosis by lapsing into utter absurdity at the end of the article, calling true marriage "queer" because men and women are different. Actually, this is the most ironic statement: "we confess our disobedience in refusing to see the world in Trinitarian ways." Amen!

http://littlegeneva.com/?p=169


Petr

Lieutenant William Bligh
01-21-2007, 11:10 PM
No, again who I deem to be racist has nothing to do with my ideological views it has to do with what I percieve to be racism.


Your ideological views include your perception of what is "racism." Clever, but not clever enough. No one is fooled. :bitchfight:

Lieutenant William Bligh
01-21-2007, 11:22 PM
[/B]

Rather than simply acknowledge the term racist Julian advises to:

(1) Pacify the word itself as a condition of its acceptance.



The word "racist" has already been conditioned into Whites as being an unacceptable immoral thing. How can you complain when someone advocates reverse-conditioning?

Honesty? Sugar-coating? You've got to be kidding me. Since when were multiculturalists ever honest to me in school. Since when do the diversity freaks ever practice honesty in relation to the effect of racial diversity upon Whites. Sugar-coating you say. Well... you would know all about that don't you.

Honesty? No, I'm not going to attempt to advocate my beliefs by telling someone, "Hey I'm immoral so agree with me." What I tell people is that my beliefs are moral. Yes. Indeed. Honesty. Up Yours. :mad:

Burrhus
01-22-2007, 04:49 PM
I'm unaware of advocating any policy designed to eliminate racial distinctions. And if anybody is in need of humility, it is he who believes himself superior to others for merit of his phenotype.

Originally Posted by San Rosello
Racism is only a particular manifestation of sin.
If one takes a religious approach, racism is contrary to God´s most perfect will.

Burrhus: High-speed highway to hell, SanR. Arrogance in presuming to know god's will.

If god exists and he separated homo sapiens into races, might not YOU be going against his will by advocating policies that may eliminate those races?

To be consistently christian, young man, a bit more humility would be in order.

Still waiting for a response, SR.

SR: "I'm unaware of advocating any policy designed to eliminate racial distinctions"

SR: "racism is contrary to God´s most perfect will"

1) Racism is a policy designed to prevent the elimination of racial distinctions. According to you this is contrary to god's will (if he exists). So either you oppose god's will (if he exists) or you favor the possible elimination of racial distinctions.

2) Please explain to me how it is not arrogant of you to presume to know god's will (if he exists).

3) It is said by some that I have vices but be that as it may, humilty is not one of them. For you as a christian humility is a virtue.

Geist
01-22-2007, 05:57 PM
This has always been a truly complicated issue for me. From life experience I am fairly sure almost everyone I know discriminates based on race, and class although they go to extraordinary efforts to hide it sometimes. For my thesis last year I had to do some research on Anglo-Indian relations, and quite honestly it shattered the previous notions I had on race-relations. It was shocking to discover how recent the notion that white men were noble types sticking to their own truly is. Even more interesting was the general rejection of Indian men of European imported prostitutes. Racial hygiene is one of those ideals practised far less than it is espoused. Adding to this a general interest in the notion of latent desires and feelings it becomes obvious that racial purity is firmly rooted in sexual competition. In other words most men don't want anyone outside the tribe fucking their women. Sometimes blunt language works best.

The reason race interests me at all is that it is taboo, and taboo attracts me. Not being allowed to say nigger makes me want to say nigger, but I have no desire to inflict that word upon any black person ever. Why? Well because I've seen Punch cartoons from the 18-1900's in England, No blacks, no dogs, no Irish, and all that jazz. In that sense I'm partial to giving the benefit of the doubt to any race no matter how horrifically they are portrayed. I don't avoid black people on the road home at night, and I've never been abused by one. Often they are better dressed than the local chavs I grew up with.

Then there is the issue of civil rights. In Northern Ireland Catholics had to fight for the same rights and at the same time as MLK was delivering his 'I have a Dream' speech. Failing to make the connection would be disingenuous on my part. Do I particularly support black rights? No. They are not my community, and I have problems with their ability to blame every else but themselves on their problems. I am sure some of you have seen my sig regarding an Irishman getting the Presidency twenty years after an Irishman couldn't get a job. They advice is simple: If you want something, you fucking take it. Stop whining.

Perhaps growing up in a modern European city at this age there is no previous memory of an all-white country. The notion doesn't really exist for me anymore. The gangsters are still the scumbags from my childhood, the people to avoid are still pale as lilies, and the nicest bouncers are Nigerians. The music I listen to is often the result of the multicultural city of note: London. Its still a fascinating place for me and part of that is its history of immigration.

So would I call myself a racist? No. Do I have problems with immigration? Yes. Do I find the notion of peaceful multiculturalism in the long time likely? Hell no, but sometimes the world refuses to drag you along with its energy and you learn to make do with what you've got.

Dances with Wolves
01-23-2007, 06:41 AM
Racism is only a particular manifestation of sin.
If one takes a religious approach, racism is contrary to God´s most perfect will.

That is hands down, the most idiotic statment ever made on this board. God himself is a racist. I can quote you verse after verse in your Christian bible refuting your statement, beginning with the creation. You're stoned.

Your statement is just another sign of the serious doctrinal error the Judeo- Xtian church are in.

Micaelis
01-23-2007, 08:25 AM
1) Racism is a policy designed to prevent the elimination of racial distinctions. According to you this is contrary to god's will (if he exists). So either you oppose god's will (if he exists) or you favor the possible elimination of racial distinctions.

Racism is not a policy. It is an attitude. As has been mentioned by others, the end of racism -entailing a change of projected energy (behaviour) towards those members of other races- does not logically correlate with the end of racial distinctions. The preservation of a particular phenotype requires breeding within that particular phenotype. It is in no way consistent with, or dependent upon, racism.

2) Please explain to me how it is not arrogant of you to presume to know god's will (if he exists).

We know God's will through the gospels of the Apostles in the perfect manifestation of Christ.

3) It is said by some that I have vices but be that as it may, humilty is not one of them. For you as a christian humility is a virtue.

Yes, humility is a virtue. Arrogance is a vice. We are social creatures, not fortified islands.

Janus
02-11-2007, 06:27 PM
And if anybody is in need of humility, it is he who believes himself superior to others for merit of his phenotype.Do you know the defintion of "phenotype"?

EDIT: I remember already posting this response in this thread.

Starr
02-11-2007, 11:17 PM
From life experience I am fairly sure almost everyone I know discriminates based on race, and class although they go to extraordinary efforts to hide it sometimes

this is correct. I think you would find that most people are racist on different levels, but they have been taught that this is wrong and bad. This is probably why any kind of racial topic or racial incidents make people so uncomfortable, always thinking, for example "am I going to say the wrong thing?" Since it is something that is said to be so terrible, they will also do what they can to try to reassure themselves that they are not racist. It is not super difficult to bring people like this out of their shell in a one on one conversation since you are not condemning them for believing certain things.