Is nature opposed to racism?

[Longinus]

By favoring simple and almost immortal entities (such as genes) over the complex and temporary entities such as individuals>extended families>nations>races the very nature is anti-racial. Races appear as permanent, eternal and "natural" from the perspective of a shortlasting mortal, but in the eyes of Chronos they are like passing, morphing, interacting, constantly changing clouds in the windy sky.

The forces of 'Kali-yuga' are universal and eternal. These forces ruled this world before the first Aryan/Jew/Negro/Balkano/English/Chinese.. was conceived and they shall be present after these protagonists change or die.

Debate.

[Geist]

Nature is not opposed to anything. Men oppose things. Nature just is.

"War is father of all, king of all. Some it makes gods, some it makes men, some it makes slaves, some free."

[Longinus]

Nature is not opposed to anything. Men oppose things. Nature just is.

Naturally not in human, willing sense of the word, but as "opposed" to some phenomenon by making this phenomenon less probable and less frequent.

[Longinus]

"War is father of all, king of all. Some it makes gods, some it makes men, some it makes slaves, some free."

Death/change makes it equal. As the same philosopher said: "Everything flows and nothing abides; everything gives way and nothing stays fixed."

Also, war doesn't produces the "best" individuals, if that's what you meant. It actually destroys them since the altruistic, selfless and young individuals who are most eager to sacrifice their lives for collective benefit are more likely to die, giving the advantage to the more selfish, the cowards and the less competent to reproduce.

[harjit]

By favoring simple and almost immortal entities (such as genes) over the complex and temporary entities such as individuals>extended families>nations>races the very nature is anti-racial. Races appear as permanent, eternal and "natural" from the perspective of a shortlasting mortal, but in the eyes of Chronos they are like passing, morphing, interacting, constantly changing clouds in the windy sky.
Absolutely.

The inability to clearly define and delineate races is one of the factors that hobbles racists. The best they can cough up is the "if it looks like a duck..." analogy. There have also been comparatively few regimes in history that are run on truly committed scientific (or even merely pretending to be scientific) racism/racialism, and where race defines the nation. Of these Nazi Germany is held up as one of the notable and successful ones, but it was about German ethnicity, not race.

Our Ameritard WNs friends like to say they want to restore society to the way it was; on the contrary they are trying to accomplish something with very little precedent - forging a racial state out of a pluralistic one. The increasing spuriousness of race is flummoxing them before they're out of the gate, and they don't even know it.

[Count Sudoku]

Are you guys high? Nature favours racism. It is a law of nature that birds of a feather flock together. It is very unnatural to have multiracial societies and they are inherently unstable and only "work" when economic times are relatively good. If they worked so good it wouldn't be necessary to restrict freedom of speech under the guise of banning "hate".

[Longinus]

Nature favours racism.

One group over another? Hardly. Overall it's more like one individual's gene over another individual's gene.

It is a law of nature that birds of a feather flock together.

Cannibalism amongst birds is also not unusual. It's a common practice for a certain sort of birds to swallow newly born birds of the same sort from a neighboring nest.

It is very unnatural to have multiracial societies and they are inherently unstable and only "work" when economic times are relatively good.

Place any two species capable to produce mixed offsprings close to each other and it shall happen. Place a reservoir of water next to a reservoir of tint and remove a membrane...

If they worked so good it wouldn't be necessary to restrict freedom of speech under the guise of banning "hate".

Freedom of speech is usually restricted in cases not related to racial issues - such as insulting someone on personal level for example.

[Count Sudoku]

One group over another? Hardly. Overall it's more like one individual's gene over another individual's gene.

Bullshit. It is common for groups to prefer and protect those similar to them than dissimilar. Even babies prefer people of their own race than people of other races.

Cannibalism amongst birds is also not unusual. It's a common practice for a certain sort of birds to swallow newly born birds of the same sort from a neighboring nest.

It is not common otherwise those birds would be extinct.

Place any two species capable to produce mixed offsprings close to each other and it shall happen.

Yeah exactly. And one group will eventually replace the other. Place an equal number of Whites with an equal number of blacks in an aread and eventually you'll have nothing but niggers. That's why "we" want our own territory.

Freedom of speech is usually restricted in cases not related to racial issues - such as insulting someone on personal level for example.

Bullshit. If I say blacks have inferior intelligence I'll either be hassled by the law for "hate crimes" or fired from my job because Jesse Jackass will protest outsdie by employer. BTW, the more multiracial the society, the more of a police state it has to become to retain order.

[raven]

Are you guys high? Nature favours racism. It is a law of nature that birds of a feather flock together. It is very unnatural to have multiracial societies and they are inherently unstable and only "work" when economic times are relatively good. If they worked so good it wouldn't be necessary to restrict freedom of speech under the guise of banning "hate".I think nature favors some sort of in-group bias to some extent. Though I can say with all honesty that nature doesn't favor racism whenever I see or think about a good looking non-white chick and get aroused. Muh Dik doesn't discriminate by race except for Black women and East Asian women (just don't get off on them). Muh Dik has been more attentive of female beauty native to parts outside of the west as my mind expanded its horizons. The first time I looked at a beautiful Arab girl, I was shocked that she wasn't ugly. I once thought all women in the Middle-East and South Asia were ugly and hairy but yet now I get aroused just thinking about having the expereince one day with a good looking chick from the near-east, south-asia (even more rare) or even a eurasian mix. Women who have a mix of the occidental and the oriental have a rare, exotic look that I find appealing (probably because their genes are unique, which would be good for diversifying the gene pool). And No I haven't yet, I've had all white or olive chicks so far. Muh Dik likes some races in general more than others though (with my main preference being Europeans, especially Med.)

[President Barbicane]

Before you can say that nature is opposed to racism you must first define what racism is. What is racism? The dictionary at dictionary.com says racism is:


1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

The first definition (belief that differences in races determine cultural achievement) is as far as I can see obviously true. In this way I am a racist, and so should everyone else be. If nature were against racism why would races ultimately created by nature differ in ways so important for cultural achievement? Obviously nature intends for us to be racists; if nature intended otherwise she would not have made races with different average IQs.

The policies of government in the second definition are a natural outgrowth of acceptance of the facts presented in the first definition. The races do differ in many important ways; for a government to be most effective it should heed this fact. Nature so far seems to be on the side of racism.

Now we come to the third definition: Hatred of other races. This is the only definition in which I do not qualify as racist. I do not hate people of other races, and I don't think that it is in any way necessary to hate people of other races. But it is not necessary not to hate people of other races. Some people hate people of other races and prosper; nature is fine with it. Nature is neither for nor against hatred of other races.

All things considered I think nature herself is racist. Of course for a different definition of racism a different conclusion may follow (I don't entirely agree with this definition of racism). How do you define racism?

[Longinus]

Bullshit. It is common for groups to prefer and protect those similar to them than dissimilar.

Wrong. It's common for individuals within groups to sexually prefer and selflessly protect the group in order to protect their own individual survival. In the same way its common for individuals to save their own skin and work for their own benefits even if it is against the group.

Even babies prefer people of their own race than people of other races.

Babies prefer things they are accustomed.

It is not common otherwise those birds would be extinct.

Quite opposite, the blackheaded gull who practices this lives in prodigious numbers.

Yeah exactly. And one group will eventually replace the other. Place an equal number of Whites with an equal number of blacks in an aread and eventually you'll have nothing but niggers.

I don't think so, but let's suppose for a second you're right about this (and ignore the fact that a mulatto is 50% 'white' in terms of genetic heritage), It would simply mean that females (who are natural eugenicists) see black males as sexually more appealing.

That's why "we" want our own territory.

What people really want they usually get. Lots of people amongst "us" also need members of other races for a variety of purposes.

Bullshit. If I say blacks have inferior intelligence I'll either be hassled by the law for "hate crimes" or fired from my job because Jesse Jackass will protest outsdie by employer.

It all depends upon the context and phrasing. You can state that blacks statistically have inferior intelligence according to some researches but it is bigoted to say some people have inferior intelligence because they are black.

BTW, the more multiracial the society, the more of a police state it has to become to retain order.

Yes, the nanny-state prefers having multiracial situation/divided population in order to control subjects more efficiently. That's a good reason to question usefulness of racial segregation.

[Starr]

Place any two species capable to produce mixed offsprings close to each other and it shall happen.

Of course it will. The desire to reproduce is very strong. What are the percentages of people who actually choose a person of another race over their own when both options are there, though? Also when given the option how many people tend to self segregate, choose friends of their own race, choose to live in neighbhorhoods populated by a majority of people of their own race,etc. It is really undeniable that a preference for one's own is pretty strong. If this was not the case there really would not be this need to force diversity on people at the point of a gun and put all kinds of taboos on race related issues to keep people in society in line. We wouldn't see many instances of one race related event or another being able to stir up tensions, leading people to side with their own in a society that has so strongly attempted to do away with all of this.

[harjit]

Of course it will. The desire to reproduce is very strong. What are the percentages of people who actually choose a person of another race over their own when both options are there, though? Also when given the option how many people tend to self segregate, choose friends of their own race, choose to live in neighbhorhoods populated by a majority of people of their own race,etc. It is really undeniable that a preference for one's own is pretty strong.
We don't know if this seeming preference is rooted biologically or not.

Either way, it certainly can't run very deeply. The fact that levels of race-mixing varies greatly depending on the society (e.g. Puritan North American vs. Spanish South America) indicates that socialization plays a major role. Or in the case of the British in India, apparently there was a great deal of intermarriage between the men of the British East Indian Company and Indian women in the 1700s. However after the 1857 Sepoy Mutiny the high command cracked down and enforced barriers between the British colonialists and the natives. Of course intermarriage plummeted.

Putting aside socialization and politics (which are enormous factors in America), simple proximity also weighs heavily. For example the vast majority of American college students go to U.S. schools, not British or Canadian or Australian ones. However this is different from a deeply inherent preference, in most cases the existence of the choice itself is not even entertained. Among the races this is what happens in a socially and economically segregated society. But if you saw some suburban high school in Canada, race seems nearly transparent and non-existent.

[Count Sudoku]

Wrong. It's common for individuals within groups to sexually prefer and selflessly protect the group in order to protect their own individual survival. In the same way its common for individuals to save their own skin and work for their own benefits even if it is against the group.

Okay, I can agree with that.

Babies prefer things they are accustomed.

Exactly.

Quite opposite, the blackheaded gull who practices this lives in prodigious numbers.

Perhaps it has evolutionary value. The strong kill off the weak ones. However, generally speaking animals usually get along with members of its own species.

I don't think so, but let's suppose for a second you're right about this (and ignore the fact that a mulatto is 50% 'white' in terms of genetic heritage), It would simply mean that females (who are natural eugenicists) see black males as sexually more appealing.

It means that blacks reproduce far more than Whites or Asians so eventually they'll dominate whatever area they live in (as long as Whitey feeds them). You can look at South Africa as an example where the black population exploded while the White one gradually increased. Nevermind that some inevitable race mixing reduces White procreation and increases black.

Females are "natural eugenisists"? I almost fell out of my chair. I'm sure women are "picky" in the sense that they don't bang every guy that wants to bang them but they'll usually figure out what kind of guy they can get and settle for that. Typically people date those who are approximately their own intelligence so White women who date black men are either dumb or have mental issues.

What people really want they usually get.

Define "really want". I really want to not starve to death and acquiring food isn't that difficult yet. I also really want an all White country but that is almost impossible to obtain by my own efforts.

Lots of people amongst "us" also need members of other races for a variety of purposes.

Like who and why?

It all depends upon the context and phrasing. You can state that blacks statistically have inferior intelligence according to some researches but it is bigoted to say some people have inferior intelligence because they are black.

We all remember Dr. Watson getting crucified in the media and fired from his job for mentioning the possibility that Africans were biologically less intelligent. This guy wasn't a racist, he's a liberal who donated money to Obama's campaign. Because of our multiraical society we now have thoughtcrime laws, freedom of association restrictions and more government to enforce it.

Yes, the nanny-state prefers having multiracial situation/divided population in order to control subjects more efficiently. That's a good reason to question usefulness of racial segregation.

That's why I'm not in favor of segregation. I'm in favor of separation which entails political and physical separation for those White people who want it.

[Jett]

Place any two species capable to produce mixed offsprings close to each other and it shall happen.


Not true with Deer, Birds, or Fish. Probably many more.

[Count Sudoku]

And here's an article about free speech restrictions outside of the USA.

http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Temp/Temp-JohnDeNugentOnFrance'sBurningCars,Censorship&TraitorousWomen-Tony.htm

I received this email today from a conservative French journalist in Paris, Emmanuel Ratier, and the website Altermedia.info:

Americans need to understand from the article below one thing:

You have no idea how quickly a country can go downhill once "hate-speech laws" are in place and accepted -- much faster than any American can possibly imagine, protected as we are by OUR First Amendment and OUR freedom of speech.

The U.S. Constitution was signed on September 17, 1787 and ratified on June 21, 1788. However, on December 15, 1791, WE WHITE AMERICANS FORCED THE BILL OF RIGHTS TO BE ADDED, including freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom to bear arms.

The turning point for every white nation has been when Jew-created "hate-speech laws" prevent any discussion of the race of the gangs that perpetrate the crime.

Someday, if I, JOHN DE NUGENT, am not supported fully by you, it will be a felony for you -- a PRISON sentence for you -- to criticize illegal immigrants, or queers, or Jews, as you do on this forum now, just as it is already in France, Germany, England, Belgium, Holland, Spain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc.

In fact, Vincent Reynouard predicts that unless the trend is interrupted, eventually political heretics will be extradited to Israel itself for prison or hanging.

And this is why I say in my video: If they touch the First Amendment, WE WILL FIGHT. And I will lead this fight.

===============

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOrk0EVYli4

While patriotic Frenchmen were celebrating on July 14 my birthday (and also the national holiday , which commemorates the storming of the royal Bastille prison in 1789), hundreds of racist, white-hating, and supremely ungrateful immigrant psychopaths, many illegals, mostly blacks and Arabs, were trashing this white nation's property -- on its national holiday!!! -- to demonstrate their bigotry and hate for the white nation that foolishly had listened to the Left and to the Jews, foolishly disbelieved the White Wing, had been browbeaten by Jew screams of "xenophobia" - and welcomed these savages in.

Cars burned: "20 Minutes" is obliged
to censor reactions

[i.e., this newspaper's website must prevent all "racist" commentary against the real racists among the blacks and Arabs]

[In the original French: Incendies de voitures: “20 Minutes” est obligé de censurer les réactions]

[source: http://fr.altermedia.info/general/incendie-de-voitures-20-minutes-est-oblige-de-censurer-les-reactions_14964.html]

By Altermédia

[JdN explains: In France or Germany, if the webmaster of a website leaves "racist, antisemitic, xenophobic ["anti-foreigner"] or homophobic" comments by the public on a website, and does not censor or delete them immediately, he or even the site owners can go to prison as the Jews cackle.]

THIS WILL COME TO AMERICA UNLESS JOHN DE NUGENT GETS YOUR SUPPORT

And now to the article from Altermedia, a pro-white website:

* * *

The free newspaper 20 minutes has published on its website an article on the arson of cars during the weekend of July 14.

While [all French] governments minimize these facts, this newspaper very conscientiously reported these criminal acts throughout the territory [of France] and announced a total of 592 vehicles burned, a gymnasium of 8000 square meters half-destroyed and a police officer injured.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cP3BI...eature=related

This effort at transparency still does not go as far as allowing readers to speak freely; a warning at the bottom of the article['s online version] ended all discussion:

Quote:"Once again, insults, racism, and dubious amalgamations force us to close this article to comment."

Should we understand by this comment that even INFORMATION about the outrages of this weekend could "incite racism"?

[Nota bene: "Inciting racism" is a felony all across the European Union. My friend Vincent Reynouard, father of seven, is facing TWO YEARS in prison and a 90,000 euro fine for "inciting racism" -- and has gone underground to finish the final issue of his magazine Sans Concession. He could be YOU in two years!!]

[Petr]

One of the sturdiest and most competitive species out there seems to be surprisingly egalitarian outfit...


Cockroaches live in a democracy

"Cockroaches govern themselves in a very simple democracy where each insect has equal standing and group consultations precede decisions that affect the entire group, indicates a new study."

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1607034.htm

(Many anti-modernist, pro-hierarchy writers in the 19th and early 20th century actually argued that the egalitarian ideologues were seeking to transform mankind into an impersonal insect-like society.)


Petr

[Longinus]

No, I would say that racism is the natural course for all evolutionary paths.

Revolutionary step forward in evolution takes place accidentally and is not related to racial purity. Offspring of a mixed couple can posses a mutation that will make him more fit to reproduce and eliminate less successful opponents of 'pure' race. It's not impossible to imagine a successful mutt possessing Asiatic intelligence, Negro masculinity, white innovativeness, med charms ect. It in not impossible to imagine this individual passing his genes more successfully. Globalism shall increase the probability of such mutations.

Only through discrimination can two groups split apart, one will evolve into the future of humanity and the other will die off, as it always has done and always will do.

Mixed couples are a group. If their offsprings are successful they'll make a distinctive race.

The fact that levels of race-mixing varies greatly depending on the society (e.g. Puritan North American vs. Spanish South America) indicates that socialization plays a major role.

It's realistic to say even the puritan anglo 'elite' will appear more brownish in about 200 or 300 years. Even now by looking at some of Americans that are socially accepted as Whites I've spotted some features uncommon for Europeans of any sort. And these folks weren't even products of urban areas but some god-fearing pastors, rednecks and cowboys.

I also really want an all White country but that is almost impossible to obtain by my own efforts.

Some of your neighbors who run some industry really really want their cheep Chinese workers.
Your old neighbor really wants to be placed in dippers by a Negro.
Your teenage offspring might want to date a big-ass Latina.
Some of your neighbors already have some non-white ancestry
(...)
All these people have a natural right to interact with whom they like - just as you have the right not to.

I'm in favor of separation which entails political and physical separation for those White people who want it.

You said you want an all White country, but here you're saying its just for those Whites who want it...

[Count Sudoku]

Some of your neighbors who run some industry really really want their cheep Chinese workers.
Your old neighbor really wants to be placed in dippers by a Negro.

Fuck those neighbors.

Some of your neighbors already have some non-white ancestry
(...)

No doubt.

All these people have a natural right to interact with whom they like - just as you have the right not to.

I don't have the right to refuse to rent my property to blacks.

You said you want an all White country, but here you're saying its just for those Whites who want it...

Split the country up and make part of it all White and the rest of it mixed.

[harjit]

It's realistic to say even the puritan anglo 'elite' will appear more brownish in about 200 or 300 years. Even now by looking at some of Americans that are socially accepted as Whites I've spotted some features uncommon for Europeans of any sort. And these folks weren't even products of urban areas but some god-fearing pastors, rednecks and cowboys.
In Japan over the years in gaijin-oriented bars and pubs I've notice that wave after wave of younger Americans who arrive, either as English teachers or as newly-minted MBAs working in multinationals at the bottom of the food chain, seem to be becoming more and more ethnically varied, and even ambiguous in many cases. The numbers of those with Latino backgrounds and names ending with "z" are also increasing. I notice this for both girls and guys. In fact it seems the number of girls arriving overall is increasing, and nowadays they seem more inclined to date Japanese guys than the Anglo types who predominated in the 90s. I wonder if at some point the visual image of an "American" for the Japanese will change.

Some of your neighbors who run some industry really really want their cheep Chinese workers.
Your old neighbor really wants to be placed in dippers by a Negro.
Your teenage offspring might want to date a big-ass Latina.
Some of your neighbors already have some non-white ancestry.
:rofl:
I would love to see Sudoku's reaction if his kid (Junior Count?) brings one of those chicks home.

[Count Sudoku]

I would love to see Sudoku's reaction if his kid (Junior Count?) brings one of those chicks home.

I can sort of sympathize with that. I suppose one draw of living in an all White community is you don't have worry about your idiot daughter bringing home some nigger.

[Kriger]

I can sort of sympathize with that. I suppose one draw of living in an all White community is you don't have worry about your idiot daughter bringing home some nigger.

As one who lives in a majority White county (94% or so), I can honestly say that this was of no concern in the raising of our children. Between their White upbringing and the lack of minorities, bringing home a black boyfriend to shock the family was not a teenage rebellious option.

On the other hand, it is still a quiet battle to keep the youngsters from adopting the drug/thug/skank culture as their own. There is much monitoring over tv in the early years here so at least the youth have developed thinking capabilities of their own before being exposed to all that trash.

Living a White life needs to be started from infancy and continued through the informative years. Emphasis on self-respect and responsibility. If someone is going to wait until the world is 'right' again to raise their children in a White culture manner, there are going to be even more generations of Whites living minority cultures.

[Vindex]

States the non-White, race mixer.

Absolutely.

The inability to clearly define and delineate races is one of the factors that hobbles racists. The best they can cough up is the "if it looks like a duck..." analogy. There have also been comparatively few regimes in history that are run on truly committed scientific (or even merely pretending to be scientific) racism/racialism, and where race defines the nation. Of these Nazi Germany is held up as one of the notable and successful ones, but it was about German ethnicity, not race.

Our Ameritard WNs friends like to say they want to restore society to the way it was; on the contrary they are trying to accomplish something with very little precedent - forging a racial state out of a pluralistic one. The increasing spuriousness of race is flummoxing them before they're out of the gate, and they don't even know it.

[Vindex]

Looking at White history it seems there are two currents in our race one the chaft and the wheat. The natural racialist which seems to make up a large part and is the wheat. And the other part is that dross or chaft that is the downward current of people who will race mix on the drop of a hat and sell the race out for personal profit.

It seems the answer is simple as you stated the creation of a White Traditional Nation and a healthy Aryan leadership who culls out the chaft and allows the wheat to spread.

As one who lives in a majority White county (94% or so), I can honestly say that this was of no concern in the raising of our children. Between their White upbringing and the lack of minorities, bringing home a black boyfriend to shock the family was not a teenage rebellious option.

On the other hand, it is still a quiet battle to keep the youngsters from adopting the drug/thug/skank culture as their own. There is much monitoring over tv in the early years here so at least the youth have developed thinking capabilities of their own before being exposed to all that trash.

Living a White life needs to be started from infancy and continued through the informative years. Emphasis on self-respect and responsibility. If someone is going to wait until the world is 'right' again to raise their children in a White culture manner, there are going to be even more generations of Whites living minority cultures.

[Kriger]

Looking at White history it seems there are two currents in our race one the chaft and the wheat. The natural racialist which seems to make up a large part and is the wheat. And the other part is that dross or chaft that is the downward current of people who will race mix on the drop of a hat and sell the race out for personal profit.

It seems the answer is simple as you stated the creation of a White Traditional Nation and a healthy Aryan leadership who culls out the chaft and allows the wheat to spread.

True enough. I would also add that the chaff and the wheat have a tendency to separate themselves from each other as the chaff are no more interested in leading a wheat life than the wheat are interested in leading a chaff life. There are areas where the chaff live, and areas where the wheat live. It is to be noted that chaff does not refer to income level. It refers to a lifestyle.

Yes, a healthy White leadership is important. The corruption levels in the leadership ranks is downright disgusting, to say the least.

[harjit]

States the non-White, race mixer.
:rolleyes:

So... I assume you have nothing to comment on the post itself?

[Helios Panoptes]

By favoring simple and almost immortal entities (such as genes) over the complex and temporary entities such as individuals>extended families>nations>races the very nature is anti-racial. Races appear as permanent, eternal and "natural" from the perspective of a shortlasting mortal, but in the eyes of Chronos they are like passing, morphing, interacting, constantly changing clouds in the windy sky.

The forces of 'Kali-yuga' are universal and eternal. These forces ruled this world before the first Aryan/Jew/Negro/Balkano/English/Chinese.. was conceived and they shall be present after these protagonists change or die.

Debate.

Atoms are less complex than cells and have been been around far longer, so nature is 'anti-cellular' in your terms, relative to atoms. And? What is the significance of this thread?

[Longinus]

Atoms are less complex than cells and have been been around far longer, so nature is 'anti-cellular' in your terms, relative to atoms. And?
Yes, it can be argued that dead matter shall outlast life in the same way as individual genes shall outlast the races.

What is the significance of this thread?

Is it not obvious? A comfort to know that probability is not on the side of racism! What better encouragement for free spirits and cosmopolitan, anarchic motherfuckers opposed to boundaries such as society/race/nation can there be than a sweat notion that their own selfish genes shall probably outlive these collective entities? It's like the Ninth Symphony to my ears. :)

[Count Sudoku]

Racism is natural, most people prefer and like people of their own race more than people of other races. That's why many cities have ethnic ghettoes.

[Longinus]

Racism is natural, most people prefer and like people of their own race more than people of other races. That's why many cities have ethnic ghettoes.

If racism is natural than brown countries such as India, Egypt or Brazil would not exist. Most of places would appear racially uniformed like Sweden, Congo or Mongolia.

[Count Sudoku]

If racism is natural than brown countries such as India, Egypt or Brazil would not exist. Most of places would appear racially uniformed like Sweden, Congo or Mongolia.

There's a non sequtior.

[NeoCornelio]

Racism is natural, most people prefer and like people of their own race more than people of other races. That's why many cities have ethnic ghettoes.

Physical racism has never existed throughout history. It was born in the XIX century when the metaphysical starts to fade (after the Enlightment and the French Revolution). Traditional societies shared a bond that depended not on race (a physical trait) but on adherence to certain values. As an example, in Herodotus' Histories you will not find any emphatic reference to race: when the author speaks about a nation he tells us about their gods, their customs, their art, their architecture... all the information that mirrors the spirit of that nation. Only a civilization oblivious to Spirit, totally immersed in "cold matter", like ours, could spawn an ideology that values a physical trait over moral or spiritual values.

People who feel kinship only with those of their race are ignorant peasants, in my opinion. Personally, I feel more kinship with a Zulu that still keeps in contact with his Gods and retains the immortal traditions of his fathers than with the average greedy and empty europeans of today. Physical racism is igualitaristic (and therefore anti-aristocratic) and materialistic.

By the way, there's a flaw in your argument: as you say, many cities have "ethnic guettoes", which is not the same as "racial guettoes". This can be better observed in south-american communities, where people belonguing to different races (europid, amerindian, negro, mestizo, mulatto) live together because they share a common cultural bond.

[Count Sudoku]

Physical racism has never existed throughout history.

Jesus Christ what a load of horseshit.

It was born in the XIX century when the metaphysical starts to fade (after the Enlightment and the French Revolution). Traditional societies shared a bond that depended not on race (a physical trait) but on adherence to certain values. As an example, in Herodotus' Histories you will not find any emphatic reference to race: when the author speaks about a nation he tells us about their gods, their customs, their art, their architecture... all the information that mirrors the spirit of that nation. Only a civilization oblivious to Spirit, totally immersed in "cold matter", like ours, could spawn an ideology that values a physical trait over moral or spiritual values.

When Whitey showed up for the first time in Africa he looked at the niggers and didn't think they were human.

People who feel kinship only with those of their race are ignorant peasants, in my opinion. Personally, I feel more kinship with a Zulu that still keeps in contact with his Gods and retains the immortal traditions of his fathers than with the average greedy and empty europeans of today. Physical racism is igualitaristic (and therefore anti-aristocratic) and materialistic.

In English this time.

By the way, there's a flaw in your argument: as you say, many cities have "ethnic guettoes", which is not the same as "racial guettoes".

This can be better observed in south-american communities, where people belonguing to different races (europid, amerindian, negro, mestizo, mulatto) live together because they share a common cultural bond.

The exception if this is even true proves the rule. Toronto is divided up into dozens of ethnic areas. During the World Cup you'll see every flag but Canada's. I'd like to see Canada reach the World Cup just to see all these fucking wogs rooting against Canada.

[Helios Panoptes]

Is it not obvious? A comfort to know that probability is not on the side of racism!

What probability?

[Longinus]

What probability?

The probability of having racialist creating and maintaining a racially pure state in a significantly longer period of time. It is more probable than the forces of chaotic diversity shall triumph over the forces of purity and racism.

[Count Sudoku]

The probability of having racialist creating and maintaining a racially pure state in a significantly longer period of time. It is more probable than the forces of chaotic diversity shall triumph over the forces of purity and racism.

I'd say probability favors us. What is happening now is unnatural and being imposed with force. It requires lies, censorship, propaganda and jooooooooooooooo ownership of the media as well. Oh, it also requires relative economic prosperity. When America economically collapses, just watch how long it takes before the fireworks begin.

[harjit]

The exception if this is even true proves the rule. Toronto is divided up into dozens of ethnic areas. During the World Cup you'll see every flag but Canada's. I'd like to see Canada reach the World Cup just to see all these fucking wogs rooting against Canada.
It's not just wogs, every European ethnicity is out in force in Toronto whenever their country does well. Ever attempt driving through the downtown area when Greece or Italy wins a match?

This is a very positive kind of ethnic pride, one that I personally applaud.

I remember when Germany won the Cup, and how Yonge Street was awash with German flags flying from car windows, with celebratory honking everywhere. This is probably something our Ameritard WN friends would find inconceivable, a mass expression of German ethnic pride and it not being considered "racist".

I'm sure everyone would support Canada more if only they would do remotely OK. That is the problem.

[Longinus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9ffO9mLlEo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnBN0trSE3c&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y13DzxfrjY&feature=related

[Count Sudoku]

It's not just wogs, every European ethnicity is out in force in Toronto whenever their country does well. Ever attempt driving through the downtown area when Greece or Italy wins a match?

Fuck no and you're correct.

This is a very positive kind of ethnic pride, one that I personally applaud.

Fine.

I remember when Germany won the Cup, and how Yonge Street was awash with German flags flying from car windows, with celebratory honking everywhere. This is probably something our Ameritard WN friends would find inconceivable, a mass expression of German ethnic pride and it not being considered "racist".

It is a miracle.

I'm sure everyone would support Canada more if only they would do remotely OK. That is the problem.

Long before I was "racist" I remember hearing about Greece playing Canada at some sporting event and on the scoreboard Canada was the "visiting" team.

[Count Sudoku]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9ffO9mLlEo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnBN0trSE3c&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y13DzxfrjY&feature=related

I'll watch these later, I've seen Penn & Teller's stuff before and I wasn't totally outraged.

Watching the first bit of the first clip with him reading that Goddamn jew BS on the Statue of Liberty made me remember that if we ever manage to liberate ourselves we need to replace that plaque with

"No jews or niggers"

[Longinus]

I'd say probability favors us. What is happening now is unnatural and being imposed with force. It requires lies, censorship, propaganda and jooooooooooooooo ownership of the media as well. Oh, it also requires relative economic prosperity. When America economically collapses, just watch how long it takes before the fireworks begin.

You have to police your borders, you have to maintain prejudices, you have to indoctrinate population with complex racial theories and conduct so many similar futile efforts to prevent something as simple and available as interracial fucking. Yes, it's noticeable from a skyscraper that you're going to loose.

[Count Sudoku]

You have to police your borders,

That more then pays for itself.

you have to maintain prejudices,

As opposed to brainwash Whites into accepting their own displacement and eventual genocide.

you have to indoctrinate population with complex racial theories

It's not that complex. What is complex is liberals giving a million changing reasons why niggers are failures instead of the obvious reason.

and conduct so many similar futile efforts to prevent something as simple and available as interracial fucking. Yes, it's noticeable from a skyscraper that you're going to loose.

The non-White world does a pretty good job keeping their countries pure. If those idiots can do it, so can we. If the jooooooooooooooooos in Israel can do it, so can we.

[Longinus]

As opposed to brainwash Whites into accepting their own displacement and eventual genocide.

Displacement by mixing? That's how it's going to happen most probably - since not so many people really care about racial fetish. A genocide!? As harjit noticed, your folks are in the state of apathy and are already living intermixed with other races so it's not very probable they'll buy this sort of fearmongering.

It's not that complex. What is complex is liberals giving a million changing reasons why niggers are failures instead of the obvious reason.

'Dumb nigger' strawman is not going to help because you're about to be displaced by a 'BROWN' race - a variety of intermediate races such as Latin Americans, various Asians, Southern Europeans, Balkanos, Middle Easterners...all sorts of types diverse to North-Western Europeans.

The non-White world does a pretty good job keeping their countries pure. If those idiots can do it, so can we.

If you would call areas as Southern America, Northern Africa, Middle East, Southern Europe, Southeastern Europe, Asia Minor, Southeastern Asia and Southern Asia pure than I'd say you're definitely going to end up as pure as those areas. :D

If the jooooooooooooooooos in Israel can do it, so can we.

Israel is just a small dot on the map, US and Canada are huge.

[Helios Panoptes]

The probability of having racialist creating and maintaining a racially pure state in a significantly longer period of time. It is more probable than the forces of chaotic diversity shall triumph over the forces of purity and racism.

Non sequitur. Why does that follow from the OP? Your argument is a mishmash of statements with no logical connection to one another.

[Count Sudoku]

Displacement by mixing?

Mixing is genocide. Displacement is when Whites are forced out of areas because of nigger influx.

That's how it's going to happen most probably - since not so many people really care about racial fetish.

It's going to happen because our countries import millions of non-Whites. It won't happen in Israel because they don't let non-jews immigrate. See how simple that is?

A genocide!? As harjit noticed, your folks are in the state of apathy and are already living intermixed with other races so it's not very probable they'll buy this sort of fearmongering.

Well no shit but no one can predict the future. We are not defeated until we all give up. The South in the Civil War could have kept fighting a guerilla war after 1865 and who knows how that might have changed history. General Lee said if he knew how the South was going to be treated he would have kept fighting.

'Dumb nigger' strawman is not going to help because you're about to be displaced by a 'BROWN' race

Ah, so you admit we are being displaced.

- a variety of intermediate races such as Latin Americans, various Asians, Southern Europeans, Balkanos, Middle Easterners...all sorts of types diverse to North-Western Europeans.

Even in a worse case situation like Brazil or Mexico there is a racial hiearchy based on color of skin. Oddly enough in every single one the lightest are at the top and darkest at the bottom. The only exceptions I can think of are nigger run hellholes like Zimbabwe and South Africa and even then I would argue that Whites are stil the elite as those countries would totally fall apart without them as Zimbabwe has demonstrated.

If you would call areas as Southern America, Northern Africa, Middle East, Southern Europe, Southeastern Europe, Asia Minor, Southeastern Asia and Southern Asia pure than I'd say you're definitely going to end up as pure as those areas. :D

Shitholes one and all.

Israel is just a small dot on the map, US and Canada are huge.

And if Israel acquired way more territory do you seriously think they would change their immigration policy?

[Longinus]

Mixing is genocide.

There is no such definition of genocide and even if we define natural extinction of Anglos as genocide it is not the reason for oversensitivity. Other groups such as Native Americans were displaced in far worse manner.

Displacement is when Whites are forced out of areas because of nigger influx.

You mean Anglos shall end up like wondering Jews? Now that's really paranoid. The smart amongst Anglos shall adapt to the new situation. Even if something more extreme happens to the racists percentage of the Anglo population, so fucking what...you can always call it a new Völkerwanderung or something to make it sound better. lol

It's going to happen because our countries import millions of non-Whites. It won't happen in Israel because they don't let non-jews immigrate. See how simple that is?

How many average folks would like to live in a police state like Jews?

Ah, so you admit we are being displaced.

I'm just saying the odds are against you in preserving racial purity.

Even in a worse case situation like Brazil or Mexico there is a racial hiearchy based on color of skin. Oddly enough in every single one the lightest are at the top and darkest at the bottom. The only exceptions I can think of are nigger run hellholes like Zimbabwe and South Africa and even then I would argue that Whites are stil the elite as those countries would totally fall apart without them as Zimbabwe has demonstrated.

It's a small comfort for an Anglo-Germanic puritan to end up as a lightest brown amongst browns, like some Indian Rajah amongst his slightly darker subjects. lol

Shitholes one and all.

Think what you like but these are huge chunks of the inhabitable globe and most of folks there are doing ok without racial purity.

And if Israel acquired way more territory do you seriously think they would change their immigration policy?

No but they would have more problems controlling it more efficiently.

[Count Sudoku]

There is no such definition of genocide

Yes there is you idiot. Why the fuck do you post such ridiculous nonsense?

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

and even if we define natural extinction of Anglos as genocide it is not the reason for oversensitivity.

Sure. Let's not get excited over our own genocdie.

Other groups such as Native Americans were displaced in far worse manner.

Well no shit. The AI let White people immigrate to North America and see how well that worked?

The Great Immigration Debate of 1621

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhEl6HdfqWM

You mean Anglos shall end up like wondering Jews?

If we're lucky.

Now that's really paranoid.

Yeah, see how well immigration worked for White South Africans?

The smart amongst Anglos shall adapt to the new situation. Even if something more extreme happens to the racist percentage of the Anglo population, so fucking what...you can always call it a new Völkerwanderung or something to make it sound better. lol

Blow me.

How many average folks would like to live in a police state like paranoid Jews.

My guess is all of them are going to get that whether they like it or not.

I'm just saying the odds are against you in preserving racial purity.

We'll have racial purity among some White people as long as we aren't forced to fuck niggers.

It's a small comfort for an Anglo-Germanic puritan to end up as lightest brown amongst browns, like some Indian Rajah amongst his slightly darker subjects. lol

What are you BTW?

Think what you like but these are huge chunks of the inhabitable globe and most of folks there are doing ok without racial purity.

So?

No but they would have more problems controlling it more efficiently.

Our goal is not "racial purity". Our goal is to secure our own lands for ourselves.

[Keystone]

Nature is not opposed to anything. Men oppose things. Nature just is.


That about wraps it up. Very taoist, that is.

[harjit]

Long before I was "racist" I remember hearing about Greece playing Canada at some sporting event and on the scoreboard Canada was the "visiting" team.
Believe it or not I can kind of see how that works.

Years ago I knew a bunch of expat Canadians in Tokyo who had a street hockey league going. A few curious Japanese joined in. They were welcomed but they mostly sucked at the sport and definitely looked like the "guests" in the relationship.

When human beings aren't posting on the Phora but just naturally doing fun stuff they enjoy, it's not as if people have an overarching consciousness about "whose" country it is. Everything's situational, man.

[Keystone]

When human beings aren't posting on the Phora but just naturally doing fun stuff they enjoy, it's not as if people have an overarching consciousness about "whose" country it is. Everything's situational, man.
The stuff I consciously do everyday---like avoiding violent urban black people lest they hurt me---is overarching. Help me with this.

[harjit]

The stuff I consciously do everyday---like avoiding violent urban black people lest they hurt me---is overarching. Help me with this.
I wish I could, believe me.

TNB in Pittsburgh or any large American city is too big an issue to get my enfeebled brain around. Sudoku and I were discussing something lighter.

Alas, the best I can do is just be your pal Harjit on these boards.

[Keystone]

I wish I could, believe me.

TNB in Pittsburgh or any large American city is too big an issue to get my enfeebled brain around. Sudoku and I were discussing something lighter.

Alas, the best I can do is just be your pal Harjit on these boards.
That will be fine.

[NeoCornelio]

We'll have racial purity among some White people as long as we aren't forced to fuck niggers.

With this kind of victimism you will go far. I'm against multiculturalism, but seeing the distress it causes on people like you is very amusing.

In fact, you prove my point: you might be europid in the outside, but spiritually you are a jew: victimistic, obsessed with appereances, materialistic, whining, you choose quantity over quality, you are paranoid and evade your responsabilities, you have no values.

You are part of the very cancer that has destroyed Europe.

[Petr]

One of the sturdiest and most competitive species out there seems to be surprisingly egalitarian outfit...

Cockroaches live in a democracy

"Cockroaches govern themselves in a very simple democracy where each insect has equal standing and group consultations precede decisions that affect the entire group, indicates a new study."

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1607034.htm

(Many anti-modernist, pro-hierarchy writers in the 19th and early 20th century actually argued that the egalitarian ideologues were seeking to transform mankind into an impersonal insect-like society.)
I recall that in his famous sci-fi novel "Starship Troopers," Robert Heinlein described "The Bugs" (who are opposing his fictional futuro-fascists) as "the perfect Communist society".

Also, one of the occult symbols for totalitarian, perfectly anti-individualist society employed by egalitarian conspirators ever since Illuminist Adam Weishaupt was beehive:

The revolutionary Circle of Philadelphians founded in 1784 by Moreau de Saint-Mery, a member of the famed Masonic Lodge of Nine Sisters in Paris, also used "a hive of swarming bees as a symbol." [JB: 108, 545]

The Beehive is "symbolic of the lodge itself as only the bees in the hive are aware of the activities inside. … under the guidance of the queen bee, the worker bees cheerfully and industriously perform their duties."
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_illuminati_30a.htm


Petr

[Ahknaton]

Also, one of the occult symbols for totalitarian, perfectly anti-individualist society employed by egalitarian conspirators ever since Illuminist Adam Weishaupt was beehive:
Heh, I wonder if that was the inspiration for the most famous addition to New Zealand's Parliament Buildings:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beehive_(building)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6d/SIF-Beehive-3-Cropped.jpg/501px-SIF-Beehive-3-Cropped.jpg

[Petr]

I recall that in his famous sci-fi novel "Starship Troopers," Robert Heinlein described "The Bugs" (who are opposing his fictional futuro-fascists) as "the perfect Communist society".
In Alan Clark's famous book on Operation Barbarossa (which has been translated into Finnish), there is an anecdote about German officer comparing the Wehrmacht in Russia as an elephant that attacks against myriad hordes of ants.

The elephant may stomp millions of ants to death, but eventually the ants eat away its flesh down to the bare bones.

I wonder if Rammstein boys have heard of that metaphor as well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5dm7AYZ-tg


Petr

[Petr]

Heh, I wonder if that was the inspiration for the most famous addition to New Zealand's Parliament Buildings:
Could very well be. That beehive building also looks like an unfinished Tower of Babel (as in the famous painting by Pieter Brueghel), or vice versa. Undoubtedly a mere co-incidence:

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Illuminati/tower_of_babel.htm
http://biblelight.net/Tower-of-Babel.htm


Petr

[Count Sudoku]

With this kind of victimism you will go far. I'm against multiculturalism, but seeing the distress it causes on people like you is very amusing.

Well I'm very happy for you.

In fact, you prove my point: you might be europid in the outside, but spiritually you are a jew: victimistic, obsessed with appereances, materialistic, whining, you choose quantity over quality, you are paranoid and evade your responsabilities, you have no values.

And to think we just met.

You are part of the very cancer that has destroyed Europe.

Nigger please.

It was people like you who stoicly said nothing when the government started shipping in niggers that destroyed Europe. Instead of "whining" they kept their mouth shut and let it happen. Since the jews are so successful, maybe we Whites should take note and start "whining" instead of meekly accepting the dailiy outrages committed against us.

[Longinus]

The stuff I consciously do everyday---like avoiding violent urban black people lest they hurt me---is overarching. Help me with this.

Tribalism is a mark of rural, primitive, macho individuals. These blacks are problematic because they cannot tolerate your otherness, not because they are blacks.

[Count Sudoku]

Tribalism is a mark of rural, primitive, macho individuals. These blacks are problematic because they cannot tolerate your otherness, not because they are blacks.

Bullshit. Even decent black people don't want to be near niggers.

[Longinus]

Even decent black people don't want to be near niggers.

This is true. Decent people often avoid racial or religious bigots because they are not a very pleasant society. Talking to folks such as Petr or you is as pleasant as talking to a pack of niggers in a dark parking lot.

[Count Sudoku]

This is true. Decent people often avoid racial or religious bigots because they are not a very pleasant society. Talking to folks such as Petr or you is as pleasant as talking to a pack of niggers in a dark parking lot.

I'm sooooooooooo sure you'd rather live among niggers than White people who say the word nigger.

[Petr]

I'm sooooooooooo sure you'd rather live among niggers than White people who say the word nigger.
Yes, Longinus is a play-acting phony without an ounce of sincerity. Just like the smirking guy in his avatar was. Do not take anything he says too seriously.


Petr

[Longinus]

I'm sooooooooooo sure you'd rather live among niggers than White people who say the word nigger.

It's a matter of social contract. The one who respects his personal freedom should prefer the society of pleasant and liberal non-whites to the society of proscriptive, restrictive, authoritative and otherwise malevolent amongst Whites. Who in the right mind would prefer to choose the society of malevolent fascists and priests such as your selves instead of society of tanned young ladies with right sizes.

...without an ounce of sincerity. Just like the smirking guy in his avatar was.

Ridiculous. Who can beat the Great Marie Arouet when it comes to sincerity: "The true God cannot have been born of a girl, nor died on a gibbet, nor be eaten in a piece of dough".

[Count Sudoku]

Who in the right mind would prefer to choose the society of malevolent fascists and priests such as your selves instead of society of tanned young ladies with right sizes.

Me for starters.

So go live with the niggers and let me and and those of like mind live separately.

[Longinus]

Me for starters.

More space for the rest.

So go live with the niggers and let me and and those of like mind live separately.

Sure, that right was never questionable. May punkish rallies and redneck camps be your new fatherland.

[Count Sudoku]

More space for the rest.

Great.

Sure, that right was never questionable.

It is questionable motherfucker. I'm not talking about moving to the middle of nowhere and living like a fucking hermit, I'm talking about complete physical and political separation i.e. our own country.

May punkish rallies and redneck camps be your new fatherland.

May Detroit be yours.

[Longinus]

It is questionable motherfucker. I'm not talking about moving to the middle of nowhere and living like a fucking hermit, I'm talking about complete physical and political separation i.e. our own country.

Don't you think such separation would threaten the territorial integrity of the American Republic? Instead of plotting treason why don't you simply move to Canada and bow to some queen along with other loosers of American Revolutionary War?

[Byssus]

You're inconsistent with your definitions of "natural," at some points arguing for "prevalent or on the rise within the human species," and at others taking it to mean "present or found in other species of animals or in the world at large." Interspersing these are some allusions to "permanency" or "historicity," accompanied by the injunction not to struggle against racism's inevitable defeat.

Races appear as permanent, eternal and "natural" from the perspective of a shortlasting mortal, but in the eyes of Chronos they are like passing, morphing, interacting, constantly changing clouds in the windy sky.
If the constriction of fleeting lifespan distorts human outlooks to such an extent, why do we trust you, short-lasting mortal, to paint for us the canvas of eternity? Are you Methuselah, to rise above the rest of mankind's station and know such things so surely? And if you are correct about the illusory optics of the mortal perspective, from what lofty vantage point and with what unrivaled genius do you elude the traps that ensnare the rest of your species?

What is Nature, Longinus? Does it not encompass human nature? If recent centuries' spike in race-mixing attests to the naturalness of the behavior, why aren't the venerability and expansion of racist beliefs admissible as evidence to the contrary? Groups living in isolation can hardly maintain any beliefs about each other; there’s little cause for racism in mono-racial societies. If escalated contact between human populations has increased the frequency of interracial mating, so too has it increased the pervasiveness of racism. The Columbian exchange, to wit, allowed not only for mestizos but also European subjugation and denigration of indios. What’s more, even the sublimation of pure races into hybrids does not eliminate racism. Triracial Brazilians still express contempt for Negroes and Amerindians, Peruvian castizos regard Andean tribesmen with disgust, mestizos trumpet the temperamental inferiority of zambos.

Naturally not in human, willing sense of the word, but as "opposed" to some phenomenon by making this phenomenon less probable and less frequent.
Your qualification makes "opposition" a mere byword for rarity or diminution, yet you seem to ascribe it some sort of moral significance. Why should we confer prescriptive power to the fact that something is on the decline? If human agency can increase the probability or frequency of a phenomenon, what does that say about Nature's "intent"?

Let's consider the case of tropical rainforests. Their acreage is diminishing with each passing day, largely due to human encroachment (e.g., commercial logging and population growth). Is Nature thus opposed to their existence? Are they unnatural? Ought we prohibit reforestation initiatives or hasten the destruction of the Amazon by fire-bombing? If your response is "no," on the grounds that the destructive agencies in question are entirely anthropogenic, then why shouldn't the same apply to human races? If the acceleration of human populations to panmixia is the product of long-range transportation technology and relaxing social mores (and not just biological possibility), and these conditions can be negated – also by human action – why shouldn't they be?

Is Nature "opposed" to visibility of the lunar surface from Earth when the moon wanes, and "in favor" of the same when the moon waxes? Was Nature opposed to the existence of European man during the years of the Black Plague? Why did it change its mind during the subsequent rebound? Does the ongoing erosion of the Himalayas make the existence of mountains between the Indian and Eurasian plates unnatural?

And isn't Nature as ultimately opposed to the existence of genes (however you define them) as it is to races? I direct your attention to the expansion of our Sun into a red giant some billion years hence.

Let’s turn to your points about the animal kingdom.

First things first: aren't naturalness and normality determined by taxonomic context? In other words, aren't these terms species- or even species-variant-specific? Just as it's typical for star-nosed moles to hunt by olfaction and dive into streams in pursuit of minnows, so too would such behavior be decidedly atypical (not to mention anatomically impossible and most likely fatal) for a naked mole rat. Why should condemnation or promotion of interracial breeding in human beings hinge on the mating behavior of other species? What if there is no universal pattern but rather a medley of contradictions?

If your answer to my first question was "no" or "only in part," then why don't you ever mention racial differentiation within animal species? Are you even aware that it exists?

So what's the case for human beings? As you would have it: interracial mating whenever the occasion crops up, full stop. So what about the innumerable instances of extremely rigid endogamy (epitomized today by the Samaritans)? What about the fact that, with time, some interracial contact zones have seen increasing, rather than decreasing, strictness on the issue of mongrelization? Compare the prevalence of intermarriage between male Dutch settlers and Khoi or imported Indian Ocean women in the 17th century Cape Colony with the frequency of interracial marriage in Apartheid South Africa.

Place any two species capable to produce mixed offsprings close to each other and it shall happen. Place a reservoir of water next to a reservoir of tint and remove a membrane...
I thought we were talking about races, not species, but what's your warrant for this claim? Second, why do you deem "natural" the annihilation of geographic barriers to reproductive contact – the "removal of the membrane"?

By favoring simple and almost immortal entities (such as genes) over the complex and temporary entities such as individuals>extended families>nations>races the very nature is anti-racial. Races appear as permanent, eternal and "natural" from the perspective of a shortlasting mortal, but in the eyes of Chronos they are like passing, morphing, interacting, constantly changing clouds in the windy sky.Since you later reference the struggle between one individual’s "gene" and that of his fellows, I take you to mean this in the colloquial sense (allele or gene variant). All human beings (… and fruit flies, and soybeans), have the coxIII gene, but there is intra- as well as interspecies variance in the specific sequence of nucleotides within this genomic region.

Tell me this: How are genes "favored" above the individuals, populations, and species defined by their combination and expression? The morphing, interaction, and extinction of populations is concomitant with the morphing, interaction, and extinction of the genomic sequences that distinguish them.

Are alleles as well-nigh immortal as you make them out to be? No – directional selection against them as well as genetic drift can cause them to go extinct. At some genomic loci, alleles are fixed, precluding competition between multiple variants. Besides, if it's in the interests of an individual that his offspring be as genotypically similar to him as is feasible, reproducing with racial strangers might be a poor choice. To give an extremely simplified example: Conceive of a population made up entirely of recessive homozygotes for a particular gene (aa). There is no possibility of bearing aa offspring if such an individual breeds with a representative of an invariably AA population. They will all be Aa and (assume classic Mendelian inheritance) appear identical to their AA parent for whatever trait the gene in question encodes.

In a world of mutation and genetic recombination, banking on the possibility that a specific sequence of base pairs will remain perpetually unchanged through a line of descent is a poor bet.

One group over another? Hardly. Overall it's more like one individual's gene over another individual's gene.
The most basic evolutionary unit is the population – not the individual.

Wrong. It's common for individuals within groups to sexually prefer and selflessly protect the group in order to protect their own individual survival.
If their membership in the group is the only reason they protect it, I think you’re misusing "selfless."

It’s also common for individuals to protect their group at the near-certain expense of their own life, or at substantially increased risk to their survival, which throws a wrench into your model of purely egocentric self-interest. Even from the perspective of the Selfish Gene, you ought to recognize that it’s sometimes in your genetic interest to sacrifice yourself if this allows for the preservation of those who are genetically similar to you (and thus share a good deal of your genotype).

It all depends upon the context and phrasing. You can state that blacks statistically have inferior intelligence according to some researches but it is bigoted to say some people have inferior intelligence because they are black.
This isn't the same thing as saying all blacks have inferior intelligence, I note. Is it also bigoted to say that some people are dark-skinned because they're black?

Yes, the nanny-state prefers having multiracial situation/divided population in order to control subjects more efficiently. That's a good reason to question usefulness of racial segregation.
To the contrary, doesn’t the presence of multiple groups of distinct abilities, physiologies, and psychological qualities pose an impediment to streamlined control of a subject populace?

You're talking about "playing one race against the other," correct? But how is encouraging miscegenation not advocating "multiracial situations"?

Revolutionary step forward in evolution takes place accidentally and is not related to racial purity. Offspring of a mixed couple can posses a mutation that will make him more fit to reproduce and eliminate less successful opponents of 'pure' race. It’s only through human belief and eugenic action that evolution "acquires" a forward objective. Leaving that aside, I see a contradiction – you claim evolutionary "progress" is accidental but in the next breath speak of interracial breeding as a desirable catalyst for such change.

Further, mutation is not the same thing as beneficial assortment of parental traits, and its frequency is not related to racial variance of parental stock – unless mixed couples are disproportionately exposed to gamma radiation or other mutagens.

It's not impossible to imagine a successful mutt possessing Asiatic intelligence, Negro masculinity, white innovativeness, med charms ect. It in not impossible to imagine this individual passing his genes more successfully. Globalism shall increase the probability of such mutations.
It's also "not impossible" to imagine an imbecilic mutt possessing Bantu intelligence, Negrito stature, Dayak work ethic, Red Indian alcoholism, and Shqiptar hygiene. But what's the point? A human being is not some Mr. Potatohead amalgamation of stick-on intellect, physique, and personality. Qualities we judge beneficial, insofar as much that they have a genetic basis, can't necessarily be disentangled from the negative characteristics with which they have a common basis (the nomad's zest for novelty and exploration and his listless inability to function in sedentary settlements may be parallel branches of the same bough, just as with hormonal masculinity and predisposition to the brutal and thuggish).

So how to settle the question? Ask yourself this: Have large-scale experiments in global miscegenation yielded marvelous new super-races? If so, how did they escape regression to the mean of their ancestral stocks?

All these people have a natural right to interact with whom they like - just as you have the right not to.
Where does all this talk of "natural rights" come from? What other species has such notions? Would increasingly frequent "rights violations" in totalitarian regimes make them more and more "unnatural"?

Even if we concede all your points and deem racism "unnatural," on what grounds did you establish "unnatural" to mean undesirable or morally proscribed?

[Count Sudoku]

Don't you think such separation would threaten the territorial integrity of the American Republic?

Lol, like I care about that. The territorial integrity of the American Republic was destroyed when we started shipping in millions of muds.

Instead of plotting treason

Treason?!? The only treason I see is our elites like McKane and his bum chum Kennedy plotting to fill our country with mud and joining it with Mexico.

why don't you simply move to Canada

I already am in fucking Canada. We have the same BS here except we have way less illegals and the immigrants in general are of higher quality.

and bow to some queen along with other loosers of American Revolutionary War?

I hate the Queen and the Royal Family in general. A bunch of traitors who at best said nothing while the UK was flooded with niggers and pakis.

BTW, only losers spell loser as looser.

[Empress Cheesatine]

Nature is not opposed to anything. Men oppose things. Nature just is.

I agree. Nature is morally neutral. Nature is no more or less against race mixing than it is murder.

[harjit]

I agree. Nature is morally neutral. Nature is no more or less against race mixing than it is murder.
I thought Mother Nature was this big warm black mama. You are viewing things too scientifically and are clearly in need of further indoctrination.

(Then again one of those black mama types would likely be against race-mixing, if anything).

[Kriger]

It's not nice to fool with Mother Nature....

http://images.smarter.com/blogs/lightning.jpg

*******

[Osmium14]

Read the book, The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins, he explains why he believes that the gene is the sole unit of natural selection and evolution; and not nations, race, ethnicity, family, individuals, or even species.

I disagree with him, but it's an interesting book to read.

[Longinus]

I regret I was prevented to reply sooner.

You're inconsistent with your definitions of "natural," at some points arguing for "prevalent or on the rise within the human species," and at others taking it to mean "present or found in other species of animals or in the world at large." Interspersing these are some allusions to "permanency" or "historicity," accompanied by the injunction not to struggle against racism's inevitable defeat.

I do not tautologically misuse the expressions "natural" and "nature" in order to provide myself with an excuse that everything that is is natural or in harmony with nature.

If the constriction of fleeting lifespan distorts human outlooks to such an extent, why do we trust you, short-lasting mortal, to paint for us the canvas of eternity? Are you Methuselah, to rise above the rest of mankind's station and know such things so surely? And if you are correct about the illusory optics of the mortal perspective, from what lofty vantage point and with what unrivaled genius do you elude the traps that ensnare the rest of your species?

I advise sceptics not to take my word for it and check these things for themselves. One interested in scientific racialism like your self probably knows about details related to evolution of races, related archeological data, skull measurements, related recorded history better.

What is Nature, Longinus?

It can be described as the order of things, logos, fatum, the innevatibility, perhaps even world's universal mind or philosopher's deus...

Does it not encompass human nature?

By all means. It takes wisdom to accept natural necessity and a virtue to live and act in harmony with this necessity.

If recent centuries' spike in race-mixing attests to the naturalness of the behavior, why aren't the venerability and expansion of racist beliefs admissible as evidence to the contrary?

Recent expansion of racism proves only that the fear of the unknown and the fear of the otherness is allpresent in human subconsciousness and exploited by political forces of division. Fear is the killer of reason and mother of fake morality. This is why race-mixing is regarded as a moral taboo amongst simpleminded.

Groups living in isolation can hardly maintain any beliefs about each other; there’s little cause for racism in mono-racial societies.

Take Japanese for example: they are traditionally a very racist society - and they lived in a greater isolation than Europe. And in Europe the most obvious racists are the English, another nation separated by geography.

If escalated contact between human populations has increased the frequency of interracial mating, so too has it increased the pervasiveness of racism. The Columbian exchange, to wit, allowed not only for mestizos but also European subjugation and denigration of indios. What’s more, even the sublimation of pure races into hybrids does not eliminate racism. Triracial Brazilians still express contempt for Negroes and Amerindians, Peruvian castizos regard Andean tribesmen with disgust, mestizos trumpet the temperamental inferiority of zambos.

Causes for this disharmony are cultural and economic differences and the insufficient frequency of interracial mating that prevents all these people to look and act alike.

Your qualification makes "opposition" a mere byword for rarity or diminution, yet you seem to ascribe it some sort of moral significance.

Racists are usually those who ascribe (a negative) moral significance to the interracial mating. Good example for this is Cheesypie comparing race mixing with murder. For me the act of interracial mating per se is a morally neutral act. I do however tend to regard it as a socially beneficial act in the same way as Alexander the Great regarded mixed marriages between Greeks and Persians.

Why should we confer prescriptive power to the fact that something is on the decline?

It would be whose to do so because it's childish to realize the historical necessity and to work against it. By doing so racists cause pain to them selves and humanity without accomplishing their goal.

Let's consider the case of tropical rainforests. Their acreage is diminishing with each passing day, largely due to human encroachment (e.g., commercial logging and population growth).

Environmental hysteria is largely caused by anti-globalist efforts of the leftist agitators, just as anti-immigration hysteria is caused by the anti-globalist efforts of the right-wing agitators. The first tend to oppose capitalism and property, the second wish to reserve it exclusively for them selves.

Is Nature thus opposed to their existence? Are they unnatural? Ought we prohibit reforestation initiatives or hasten the destruction of the Amazon by fire-bombing?

Laissez-faire...

[Count Sudoku]

I agree. Nature is morally neutral. Nature is no more or less against race mixing than it is murder.

While this is true, things that are "unnatural" don't survive or surivive long enough to reproduce successfully in the long run.

Those races which are the least "racist" (us unfortunately) are least likely to survive (let alone thrive) in the future.

[Longinus]

The most basic evolutionary unit is the population – not the individual.

Populations split and evolve in several directions and therefore are not basic evolutionary units much more than individuals are. For example, ancestors of human population were indistinguishable from the population of common ancestor of all hominids (Australopithecus africanus). Yet this Australopithecus population did not survived the test of time. Australopithecus survived neither as a group, nor as individual. What survived were just some genes inherited from some Australopithecus males and some Australopithecus females. These genes we share with other humans (of any race) and other hominids (chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans).

Non-Darwinian alternatives to this explanation can be creationism and various mythical, mystical or pseudoscientific theories ... such as extraterrestrial origins of the Nordic race (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_aliens). lol

[ogenoct]

Nature is not opposed to anything. Men oppose things. Nature just is.

Man is not separate from nature. Man is an integral part of nature. Hence, everything that man does is natural. Even when he "opposes things"...

Constantin

[cyborg]

These forces ruled this world before the first Aryan/Jew/Negro/Balkano/English/Chinese.. was conceived and they shall be present after these protagonists change or die.

Debate.

Argumentum ad antiquitatem :indifferent: