White Race Unnatural, Descended from Brown Hindoo, says Schopenhauer

[Bronze Age Pervert]

This is Schopenhauer on the white race, from On the Metaphysics of Sexual Love from part two of his main work.

It's interesting that Schopenhauer was Hitler's favorite philosopher. Hitler carried a copy of The World as Will and Representation in World War I (where other German soldiers were equipped with Nietzsche's Zarathustra) and he quotes Schopenhauer in his speeches and in Mein Kampf. But this is what Schopenhauer has to say about the white race.

White nationalists and others obsessed with interracial sex should love it :rofl:

We now come to those other relative considerations which depend on each individual trying to eradicate, through the medium of another, his weaknesses, deficiencies, and deviations from the type, in order that they may not be perpetuated in the child that is to be born or develop into absolute abnormities. The weaker a man is in muscular power, the more will he desire a woman who is muscular; and the same thing applies to a woman....Nevertheless, if a big woman choose a big husband, in order, perhaps, to present a better appearance in society, the children, as a rule, suffer for her folly. Again, another very decided consideration is complexion. Blonde people fancy either absolutely dark complexions or brown; but it is rarely the case vice versâ. The reason for it is this: that fair hair and blue eyes are a deviation from the type and almost constitute an abnormity, analogous to white mice, or at any rate white horses. They are not indigenous to any other part of the world but Europe,—not even to the polar regions,—and are obviously of Scandinavian origin. En passant, it is my conviction that a white skin is not natural to man, and that by nature he has either a black or brown skin like our forefathers, the Hindoos, and that the white man was never originally created by nature; and that, therefore, there is no race of white people, much as it is talked about, but every white man is a bleached one. Driven up into the north, where he was a stranger, and where he existed only like an exotic plant, in need of a hothouse in winter, man in the course of centuries became white. The gipsies, an Indian tribe which emigrated only about four centuries ago, show the transition of the Hindoo’s complexion to ours. In love, therefore, nature strives to return to dark hair and brown eyes, because they are the original type; still, a white skin has become second nature, although not to such an extent as to make the dark skin of the Hindoo repellent to us.

[Petr]

Schopenhauer seems to have had somewhat Lamarckian views about inheritance of acquired traits...

He was a completely uncritical Indophile in any case.


Petr

[Kriger]

And why should the wanderings of Schopenhauer's mind some 150 odd years ago be of concern?

[harjit]

And why should the wanderings of Schopenhauer's mind some 150 odd years ago be of concern?
The same thing can be said about anything posted on this board. If the topic doesn't interest you you're perfectly free not to reply, in case you didn't realize.

[Hadding]

This is Schopenhauer on the white race, from On the Metaphysics of Sexual Love from part two of his main work.

It's interesting that Schopenhauer was Hitler's favorite philosopher. Hitler carried a copy of The World as Will and Representation in World War I (where other German soldiers were equipped with Nietzsche's Zarathustra) and he quotes Schopenhauer in his speeches and in Mein Kampf. But this is what Schopenhauer has to say about the white race.

White nationalists and others obsessed with interracial sex should love it :rofl:
Nietzsche was popular with the Wandervögel, who did enlist enthusiastically for service in the Great War, but not with Germans in general. Most Germans were Christians.

Hitler evidently read Schopenhauer either critically or selectively, because Schopenhauer's ethic of denial of the will does not seem to represent anything that Hitler could have endorsed.

By the way, brown nipples are disgusting.

Why don't you quote Schopenhauer on the Jews now?

[harjit]

By the way, brown nipples are disgusting.

Speaking from experience? :D

[Kriger]

The same thing can be said about anything posted on this board. If the topic doesn't interest you you're perfectly free not to reply, in case you didn't realize.

What are you on about now. I asked a question in direct reference to the topic of this thread. Do you have an answer? If not, keep your ignorant lectures to yourself.

In case you didn't catch it the first time:

And why should the wanderings of Schopenhauer's mind some 150 odd years ago be of concern? Hyperion can state his case.

[harjit]

What are you on about now. I asked a question in direct reference to the topic of this thread. Do you have an answer? If not, keep your ignorant lectures to yourself.

In case you didn't catch it the first time:

And why should the wanderings of Schopenhauer's mind some 150 odd years ago be of concern? Hyperion can state his case.
I did give you an answer, the same thing can be said about any thread topic on this board.

Be thankful for my lectures, Shirt. You need a lot of advice.

[Kriger]

I did give you an answer, the same thing can be said about any thread topic on this board.

Be thankful for my lectures, Shirt. You need a lot of advice.

Just what does this have to do with Schopenhauer and his philosophical musings of 150 years ago?

[harjit]

Just what does this have to do with Schopenhauer and his philosophical musings of 150 years ago?
You didn't ask about the specifics of the musings, or any analysis thereof, but just what concern it is to the board membership.

My answer is that it is at least of interest to Hyperion and that's good enough. If anyone has something to add or debate (as Petr did) they will do so. The same thing can be asked of any thread topic. People don't need to launch a justification for each thread. If it's not interesting to anyone it will get no replies, end of story.

[Kriger]

You didn't ask about the specifics of the musings, or any analysis thereof, but just what concern it is to the board membership.

My answer is that it is at least of interest to Hyperion and that's good enough. If anyone has something to add or debate (as Petr did) they will do so. The same thing can be asked of any thread topic. People don't need to launch a justification for each thread. If it's not interesting to anyone it will get no replies, end of story.

I didn't say anything in reference to the board membership. That is your statement. I asked Hyperion a valid question in reference to the topic of this thread. Justification has nothing to do with it. This is your statement.

You can continue to derail this thread on your own. In the meantime, I would like Hyperion to state why the philosophical musings of Schopenhauer should be considered a concern. He is saying they are. I am saying I don't see how he came to this conclusion. It's the topic of this thread.

Get it?

[Bronze Age Pervert]

In reply to the posts so far, I would say to Petr that Schopenhauer was a critical Indophile (not uncritical) because he often compares Hinduism to Judeo-Christianity and other religions, including Islam and Buddhism, and draws conclusions you can argue with. Still, I thought his views on the white race were interesting.

To Hadding, Schopenhauer had no taste for the Jews, and I am compiling a list of the things he said, so I will post that. But his attack on the Jews was quite different from yours, it was the standard Enlightenment attack, and because it de facto includes an attack on nationalism and also on Christianity, especially Protestant Christianity, I don't think you would agree with it. On the other hand, you're likely to agree with anything bad that's said about the Jews, even if it contradicts your "more fundamental principles" (which presumably, you have). Regarding Nietzsche, this is not the place to discuss it. I will post another thread showing that Zarathustra was standard issue to German soldiers in WWI and Beyond Good and Evil in WWII. Your attempt to sideline Nietzsche in German history 1900-1945 is ignorant and absurd, but not the topic here. Regarding Hitler's attitude toward Schopenhauer's life-denying or ascetic philosophy, I don't think the matter is as clear-cut as you make it. Still, Hitler inherited his vegetarianism, his veneration for art, and much of his anti-Semitism from Schopenhauer (and from the Wagnerians who emulated Schopenhauer) and quotes him often in his speeches.

To Bamse something, please don't hijack my thread with your irrelevant comments that address nothing substantive. You're in an absurd pissing match with harjit, who merely asked you to address the substance of the passage I quoted. I've heard you ask someone else why you should care "what someone named Rousseau" had to say. It's not my fault you're ignorant and a vulgarian, please stick to threads that are more to your taste.

[Kriger]

In reply to the posts so far, I would say to Petr that Schopenhauer was a critical Indophile (not uncritical) because he often compares Hinduism to Judeo-Christianity and other religions, including Islam and Buddhism, and draws conclusions you can argue with. Still, I thought his views on the white race were interesting.

To Hadding, Schopenhauer had no taste for the Jews, and I am compiling a list of the things he said, so I will post that. But his attack on the Jews was quite different from yours, it was the standard Enlightenment attack, and because it de facto includes an attack on nationalism and also on Christianity, especially Protestant Christianity, I don't think you would agree with it. On the other hand, you're likely to agree with anything bad that's said about the Jews, even if it contradicts your "more fundamental principles" (which presumably, you have). Regarding Nietzsche, this is not the place to discuss it. I will post another thread showing that Zarathustra was standard issue to German soldiers in WWI and Beyond Good and Evil in WWII. Your attempt to sideline Nietzsche in German history 1900-1945 is ignorant and absurd, but not the topic here. Regarding Hitler's attitude toward Schopenhauer's life-denying or ascetic philosophy, I don't think the matter is as clear-cut as you make it. Still, Hitler inherited his vegetarianism, his veneration for art, and much of his anti-Semitism from Schopenhauer (and from the Wagnerians who emulated Schopenhauer) and quotes him often in his speeches.

To Bamse something, please don't hijack my thread with your irrelevant comments that address nothing substantive. You're in an absurd pissing match with harjit, who merely asked you to address the substance of the passage I quoted. I've heard you ask someone else why you should care "what someone named Rousseau" had to say. It's not my fault you're ignorant and a vulgarian, please stick to threads that are more to your taste.

In other words, you don't have an answer to my question other than talking around it.

*******

[Bronze Age Pervert]

Schopenhauer seems to have had somewhat Lamarckian views about inheritance of acquired traits...

He was a completely uncritical Indophile in any case.


Petr

Does anyone else want to address the main subject of this thread? It seems only Petr does so far. Please keep it to the topic.

As for Lamarck, Schopenhauer had much respect for him, but disagreed with him, see On the Will in Nature; maybe this is a topic for another thread, but I will quote a passage here,


This truth forces itself upon thoughtful zoologists and zootomists with such cogency, that unless their mind is at the same time purified by a deeper philosophy, it may lead them into strange errors. Now this actually happened to a very eminent zoologist, the immortal De Lamarck, who has acquired everlasting fame by his discovery of the classification of animals in vertebrata and non-vertebrata, so admirable in depth of view. For he quite seriously maintains and tries to prove at length, that the shape of each animal species, the weapons peculiar to it, and its organs of every sort destined for outward use, were by no means present at the origin of that species, but have on the contrary come into being gradually in the course of time and through continued generation, in consequence of the exertions of the animal s will, evoked by the nature of its position and surroundings, through its own repeated efforts and the habits to which these gave rise. Aquatic birds and mammalia that swim, he says, have only become web-footed through stretching their toes asunder in swimming ; moor-fowl acquired their long legs and necks by wading; horned cattle only gradually acquired horns because as they had no proper teeth for combating, they fought with their heads, and this combative propensity in course of time produced horns or antlers ; the snail was originally, like other mollusca, without feelers ; but out of the desire to feel the objects lying before it, these gradually arose ; the whole feline species acquired claws only in course of time, from their desire to tear the flesh of their prey, and the moveable coverings of those claws, from the necessity of protecting them in walking without being prevented from using them when they wished ; the giraffe, in the barren, grassless African deserts, being reduced for its food to the leaves of lofty trees, stretched out its neck and forelegs until at last it acquired its singular shape, with a height in front of twenty feet, and thus De Lamarck goes on describing a multitude of animal species as arising according to the same principle, in doing which he overlooks the obvious objection which may be made, that long before the organs necessary for its preservation could have been produced by means of such endeavours as these through countless generations, the whole species must have died out from the want of them. To such a degree may we be blinded by a hypothesis which has once laid hold of us ! Nevertheless in this instance the hypothesis arose out of a very correct and profound view of Nature : it is an error of genius, which in spite of all the absurdity it contains, still does honour to its originator. The true part of it belongs to De Lamarck, as an investigator of Nature; he saw rightly that the primary element which has determined the animal s organisation, is the will of that animal itself...



Still, remember that in the original post Schopenhauer does not say *how* the white race evolved in the north, just that it did so under the influence of the cold, so his general statements are not incorrect by the standard of modern science. His main statement seems to be that there is no white race because it is a deviation from the type, which is brown. You could say he gives an evolutionary-psychology explanation for why blonde people are sexually attracted to brown :rofl:

[delete]

In other words, you don't have an answer to my question other than talking around it.

*******

Do you think Hyperion will admit to knowing Lashoon hara?

The really funny part is that no jew I have met yet, wants to discuss this subject, and I think Hyperion is jewish enough to weasel out like the rest.

[Hadding]

Does anyone else want to address the main subject of this thread? It seems only Petr does so far. Please keep it to the topic.

As for Lamarck, Schopenhauer had much respect for him, but disagreed with him, see On the Will in Nature; maybe this is a topic for another thread, but I will quote a passage here,






Still, remember that in the original post Schopenhauer does not say *how* the white race evolved in the north, just that it did so under the influence of the cold, so his general statements are not incorrect by the standard of modern science. His main statement seems to be that there is no white race because it is a deviation from the type, which is brown. You could say he gives an evolutionary-psychology explanation for why blonde people are sexually attracted to brown :rofl:
Schopenhauer was a misogynist. You and he have something in common there.

[Raskolnikov]

Still, remember that in the original post Schopenhauer does not say *how* the white race evolved in the north, just that it did so under the influence of the cold, so his general statements are not incorrect by the standard of modern science. His main statement seems to be that there is no white race because it is a deviation from the type, which is brown. You could say he gives an evolutionary-psychology explanation for why blonde people are sexually attracted to brown :rofl:

He says white skin is "not natural to man", which is ridiculous. We adapted to less sunlight. So what? Also, blonde haired people being attracted solely to brown skinned people doesn't make much sense. Blonde hair spread so much around Europe because of sexual selection. If all blondes wanted darkies there would be no blondes in the first place.

[Kriger]

Do you think Hyperion will admit to knowing Lashoon hara?

The really funny part is that no jew I have met yet, wants to discuss this subject, and I think Hyperion is jewish enough to weasel out like the rest.

Everyone is strangely quiet on this topic.

[delete]

Everyone is strangely quiet on this topic.

I think most jews know perfectly well that no good will come out of it for their part, if this becomes mainstream knowledge. There is also probably some punishment from the jewish community for the ones that criticize "lashoon hara", as it seems the ones who follow it, are permitted to lie and cheat the ones who break it.

It would for instance be very hard to sell that jewish behaviour have nothing to do with people becoming anti-semitic.

[Jake Featherston]

By the way, brown nipples are disgusting.

That'd be an interesting test for Whiteness; what color are your nipples? Since we'd have to verify, I might enjoy a job in the post-revolutionary Ministry of Demography.

[Jake Featherston]

He says white skin is "not natural to man", which is ridiculous. We adapted to less sunlight. So what?

People get ridiculously confused about what is or is not "natural." If it exists, its natural. Nuclear reactors are just as natural as beehives.

[Jake Featherston]

I think most jews know perfectly well that no good will come out of it for their part, if this becomes mainstream knowledge. There is also probably some punishment from the jewish community for the ones that criticize "lashoon hara", as it seems the ones who follow it, are permitted to lie and cheat the ones who break it.

What is "lashoon hara?" Wikipedia has no entry (although Wikipedia is notorious, at least in my mind, for requring one to spell things correctly, so a spelling variant could be the issue).

[harjit]

Jake is a funny Natzee and a great Hindoo.

(At least in the sense that every person is a Hindoo, because it is a religion that allows for each person's subjective conception of the universe and selfhood/godhead.)

[Jake Featherston]

Don't make me go all VNN on your ass. :viking: :hitler: :viking:

[delete]

What is "lashoon hara?" Wikipedia has no entry (although Wikipedia is notorious, at least in my mind, for requring one to spell things correctly, so a spelling variant could be the issue).

"Lashon hara" seems to be the most common spelling, while what I wrote seems to be wrong.

It is very easy to see that this is where Hate-laws come from.

Words Are Powerful

Speech -- the ability to convey ideas and feelings through words -- is unique to human beings. It can be a tremendous blessing, but it's also ripe for abuse.

The words our children choose to use in expressing themselves help create their personal window on the world.

Positive forms of expression can help our children grow into positive, optimistic people who view the world around them with generous and hopeful eyes. Negative forms of expression, such as defamatory, mean-spirited speech, will cultivate in them a negative, cynical view of the world.

Speech That Is Evil

It's easy to fall prey to a destructive pattern of speaking badly about others and gossiping -- to the point where it becomes a recreational activity! In order to enjoy the many people in our lives, we have to stop verbalizing the negativity and focus on their positive virtues. This takes a lot of effort but is essential in raising happy children.

If we're always finding fault, we will naturally be dissatisfied, disappointed and displeased, and so will be our children.

Raising happy children requires us to impart to our offspring the ability to look at everything positively --situations, places and material objects. Most important of all is how they view people.
Torah calls "evil language" anything negative, even if it's true.



The Hebrew term for speaking badly of others is called lashon hara, literally "evil language." Interestingly, the Torah calls "evil language" anything negative, even if it's true. (Slander -- malicious, false information is called motzi shem ra, literally "giving another a bad name.")

In sharp contrast to the Western adage about sticks and stones not hurting, Judaism looks very gravely upon misuse of speech. Our tradition teaches that lashon hara can destroy many lives, even unintentionally, in one fell swoop:
the person speaking,
the person spoken about,
and the person spoken to.

Let's look at why.
The person speaking: Although you briefly become the center of attention when you dish out a juicy piece of gossip, in the long run people start mistrusting you. "Gee, I wonder what she says about me when I'm not around." People don't trust gossips and will avoid confiding in you. In the end, you're killing your own reputation. Furthermore, because you are misusing the gift of speech that God gave you, you are also lessened in His eyes.

The person spoken about: The person under discussion is, of course, being killed in everyone's eyes. Whether the information is true or false, it is hard to take back defamatory words already spoken and undo the character assassination already committed. That person's reputation is forever blemished.

The person spoken to: Interestingly enough, this is the person who is the most culpable, even though s/he is seemingly the innocent one. All s/he did was listen! But the Talmud says that listening to lashon hara is even worse than speaking it; the person had the power to stop it and didn't. Now the transgression is complete.

Exceptions to the Rule

Of course, there are times we are all owed to speak share negative information about others; in fact, there are times it is an obligation to do so. For example - when a friend is about to be become financially involved with a person we know to be unethical, or seriously dating a person we know to be abusive or otherwise unsuitable. Or when a child has information that will prevent harm from occurring.

Common Fallacies

Beware of the excuses children and adults often use for speaking lashon hara:
"But it's true!" Lashon hara specifically refers to sharing derogatory information when it is true. Spreading vicious lies is far worse!
http://www.aish.com/family/mensch/Stopping_Lashon_Hara.asp

[Ahknaton]

Jake is a funny Natzee and a great Hindoo.

(At least in the sense that every person is a Hindoo, because it is a religion that allows for each person's subjective conception of the universe and selfhood/godhead.)
Jake's a Superhindoo!

I like the spelling "Hindoo". It makes me think of a Dr Seuss character or something.

[Crowley]

I will post another thread showing that Zarathustra was standard issue to German soldiers in WWI and Beyond Good and Evil in WWII.

It say a lot that Germans would issue philosophy as standard gear to regular soldiers. They were indeed superior. Doubt if this is still so.

[Bronze Age Pervert]

It say a lot that Germans would issue philosophy as standard gear to regular soldiers. They were indeed superior. Doubt if this is still so.


Germany now has descended to the worst of Eurosocialist degeneracy. In Hamburg I hear that if you use a public bathroom and you pee and it makes a sound, an automated voice comes on to tell you to stop it (I'm not joking). There's supposedly even a book out now in German about men who "make a last stand" by standing while peeing---standing while peeing is now a big statement in the new Germany. Germany has also been keen to appease Russia and obstruct US aims in Iraq, clinging to a sort of suicidal pacifism (it got nothing for it, as there were attempts on the Berlin subway anyway). German elites have been among the most aggressive in pushing for the Islamization of Europe.


Anyway, I'm still hoping someone would like to comment on the skin type that is natural to man, and whether the white kind is a deviation from the normal type. Schopenhauer thought the Hindoos were although he concedes that by now they are a degenerate race. Of course the Brahmins prize white skin, so I don't know...

[Jake Featherston]

In Hamburg I hear that if you use a public bathroom and you pee and it makes a sound, an automated voice comes on to tell you to stop it (I'm not joking).

Yeah, well, I don't believe that for a second.

There's supposedly even a book out now in German about men who "make a last stand" by standing while peeing---standing while peeing is now a big statement in the new Germany.

About 18 months ago, someone posted an article here about how some middle-aged German housewives were trying to persuade their husbands to sit while they take a leak. I doubt that has since become the norm in German society.

[///M power]

That'd be an interesting test for Whiteness; what color are your nipples? Since we'd have to verify, I might enjoy a job in the post-revolutionary Ministry of Demography.

I think all Caucasoids have pink nipples so I don't think this will be a good criteria:rofl:
and yes- brown nipples are disgusting.

[Bronze Age Pervert]

I think all Caucasoids have pink nipples so I don't think this will be a good criteria:rofl:
and yes- brown nipples are disgusting.

Getting rather far from original post here, but how do Phorans enjoy orange nipples? Some tribes in Africa have these. From an article "Race without Color":

What's the function of these traits that differ so markedly between men and women? They certainly don't aid survival: it's not the case that orange nipples help Khoisan women escape lions, while darker nipples help European women survive cold winters. Instead, these varying traits play a crucial role in sexual selection. Women with very large buttocks are a turn-on, or at least acceptable, to Khoisan and Andaman men but look freakish to many men from other parts of the world. Bearded and hairy men readily find mates in Europe but fare worse in Southeast Asia. The geographic variation of these traits, however, is as arbitrary as the geographic variation in the color of a lion's mane.

The article is nothing special, you can find it at
http://discovermagazine.com/1994/nov/racewithoutcolor444

I tried to find a picture of a Khoisan woman, but we just have to do with an artistic rendering, no orange nipples, but a giant ass characteristic of these people,

http://hellonegro.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/hottentot.jpg

[Helios Panoptes]

Male urination is superior to female in various ways. For example, it is easier for males to survey their surroundings while urinating, reducing the chance that a predator will sneak up on them. It's much less likely that males will urinate on themselves in this situation. Further, in a public restroom, it is best to avoid making physical contact with the toilet because this is more sanitary. I'm sure I could think of more reasons if I put my mind to it.

I hope that others will take this conversation as seriously as I have.

[Tag]

Male urination is superior to female in various ways. For example, it is easier for males to survey their surroundings while urinating, reducing the chance that a predator will sneak up on them.

Plus you could always aim your stream at your predator. I keep that thought as a back up whenever I used public restrooms at Port Authority.

[Tag]

In talking about what race descended from which race and thinking about evolution, one must also keep in mind the population bottlenecks. We are talking a population of few thousand individuals that made up human clusters or 'cities' in say about 10,000 BC. Quite frequently, the whole population got wiped out by diseases etc leaving only a minuscule amounts of female with the right genes that was able to fight off the infection properly. This was the period when the environment shaped which kind of people survived.

Presently the situation is completely different. Technology has enabled humans to survive in environments in which they may have perished thousand of years ago. There are no evolutionary bottlenecks, which only allow a certain kind of people to develop. Technology will also cause some of the dullards to survive, and the 'dull' gene to flourish, whereby, Darwin would have taken out the 'dull gene thousand of years ago.

Arguing that there has been no change in skin pigmentation in whites living in Australia for last 200 hundreds is pointless. If a cluster of medium colored skin people arrived in australia 10,000 years ago, the ones that would survive and look healthy would be the ones that could tan and not get skin cancer. So the darker variety would be preferred and considered more attractive as it would look more healthy. Similarly if brown skinned people arrived in Europe, the lighter skin amongst them would flourish and look more attractive as vitamin D deficiency would hit darker skin variety. Also, light skin looks more healthy in cold climate with the rosy cheeks etc. In hot climate, the rosy cheek become shade of overcooked lobsters...and not so healthy looking.

Many breeds of dogs have come into existence by emphasizing sexual selection that emphasize a certain trait. Sexual selection plays a big part in emphasizing which trait would be passed on. Of course environmental factors play a big role too as evident by Negroid nose and hair, and the chinky eyes.