Shouldn’t there be a ban on racist threads/posts?

How am I irrational? What about me is irrational?

You even admit many of my truths, the truth that the Holocaust was an inside job by the Jews to reduce their own population so they could have more power and victimization for themselves. Who funded Hilter but George. W. Bush’s family? George W. Bush has the genetic traits of a Jew, has a jew nose, even if the internet says he is not a Jew the internet is probably lying. WW2 was the best thing that ever happened to the Jews, now the world has to bend over and have sympathy for the insane and ridiculous jews.

You do know this is a pointless argument, right? That I literally have a well-organized and idetic memory when it comes to certain things. I could claim to remember having read a lot of what you’ve written. I don’t remember reading anything you wrote in terms of jews or other races that hasn’t been largely insulting and based more in unfounded hatred and ‘truths’ that clash with reality, than in any actual truth pertaining fully to our reality. I never cited any belief that the holocaust was an inside job to reduce their population. What I cited, if indeed I cited anything openly on the matter was that I believed that the holocaust was an inside job out of jealousy that the bloodline of Christ flowed through a German, than one of them. Alongside of that, the jews were equally interested in the capabilities of that bloodline, if it did indeed create superhumans. At the same time, I believe they subjected their own to subjugation of the holocaust for anything other than Hitler’s growing hatred of them and the rest of blind world.

Hated for 2,000 years for the death of Jesus Christ; made to endure 2,000 years worth of guilt, hate, prejudice and extreme bias. But, through it, they gained sympathy, so slaughtering their own that began to catch on to the twisted nature of their own ‘power elite’; i.e., those with dark secrets to hide; and blaming it on the blind hate of a halfbreed pursuing the goal of a perfect race. Very similar to Voldemort and complete bullshit. The rational mind eschews it no matter how much the irrational mind may claim to fully triumph over a body. To not even be pure of blood himself and then toting a perfect race of blonde hair and blue eyed ones, which coincides with worldwide beliefs held by many species, which the rational mind also eschews as ridiculous, he had to know when it came to his mind and most of his furiosity that he brought to the fore to make himself as master of war was due to his knowledge that all the world was making him into a fool, that he would do nothing but right, but would be labeled as a demon, an antichrist.

The jews eventual goal was another parcel that the rational mind eschews: somewhere along the line, they had begun to believe their own lies that they were the chosen ones of God with Jesus as their King, what they knew was a lie enough at the time that Jesus lived and it was thrown in their faces by the rest of the world that Jesus was their King and their Savior.

You are irrational because you know that what you post in twisted humor and jest, or so your claims go when you feel that you should make those claims, when you remember them and don’t struggle with the deeper underlying source of it, is what a lot of people would believe just because it was said as such, jest or not. That, the underlying and deeper source of it is that it is an indicative marker of ptsd and abuse and a darker ‘evil’ that purposefully denies the issuance of actual good work.

You continue to post what you post no matter how much it is pointed out to you what it is and how it plays into our reality and refuse to accept that it is not a vital part of the overall philosophy of life more than, oh, this shit exists and we need to have a counteractive agent to neutralize it for the rest to exist.

Hitler had to say what needed to be said to rile up the population of Cows. Yes, germany was full of Cows, gentiles, and barbarians, but the propoganda had to be made to get the wheels rolling.

Of course, the rational mind knows what a true Aryan is, that Hindus are Aryans as much as any white. Jews run the media and run america, they got America to attack the middle east which is full of Aryan middle eastern people and Aryan American soldiers fighting each other. I don’t like it anymore than you do, but the facts are the facts. America has been jewed for 50 years, WW2 was the best thing that could have happened to the jews because it gave them the victim ticket to invade Palestine. Of course Jews are not the only one who I would castrate, I would castrate anyone who believes and preaches circumcision. The goal is to be beautiful Aryan princesses, like Disney princesses. Alladin is Aryan as fuck and not white, I have never taught white elitism, only that Scottish are my favorite race but other Aryan races have beautiful qualities as well. The Japanese are Aryans too.

The Jews are the master of money and genocide, since the days of the bible they have brainwashed Xians to accept their genocide as Yahweh’s work. Jews have genocided pagans and gentiles day in and day out. Jews run the world and control money and society. Jews plan on genociding us all, they are working on a genetics weapon to kill all non-jews.

The DNA machine is a non-violent machine to convert us into aryan princesses, i am no jew.

Your both speaking nonsense, the Jews like any minority have simply done what they can to survive. Not to mention that there are many factions of them, so some will side with one party or another. When you put human beings into such situations that they either side with their enemies [e.g. Nazis] or against other factions and other - here Jews, that’s not their fault. They are merely trying to survive in a world which largely hated them. When you put people into severe situations they will do what they can to survive, but I don’t believe there were anything but a tiny minority who actually sided with a known enemy. Some did side with the early Nazi regime apparently, same as they sided with British colonials before them, I can only assume that they were looking at a long term vision ~ like they do. I also don’t believe they are at all jealous of Christ and his followers, as far as I know they simply don’t believe he was the son of God. European powers turned the philosophies of Jesus to their own gain, matching their birth-line and family tree to Christ as the originator of their line. In so doing they merely used religion to prop up their own little power manifestos and stratos.

Name one thing that is different about them and any other historical minority factions? Then state why specifically the Jews are any different to anyone else. They are just people.

Take for example the idea that the British and Americans rejected Hitler’s letters asking for us to take them from him. How do we know that wasn’t Hitler trying to denote blame, when the simple fact is that if we gave into that we’d be siding with his policies. No surprise then that such proposals were rejected by both Jews and their allies.

What else is it you deny?

btw CLEARLY you are BOTH NAZIS or otherwise racist and prejudice. so you have clearly pointed out why I made this thread!

trolling and spamming Nazis lies and propaganda is not acceptable anywhere, its bad enough that there are Nazi forums, without them coming to philosophy and history forums etc, just to spout their bullshit.


_

Actually, I aired a reasonable side to the Holocaust and World War II that does jive even with what a lot of people know of the paranormal and supernatural. Trixie here is the one that took it beyond to say that the Jews have been guilty of far worse than they’ve actually been guilty of.

All the jews are, as a race, are just another faction of humanity, another human, another living and breathing entity. This is how I see everything.

You can say all you want that clearly I’m a nazi, but even to your own mind, you know that to be a lie with me at the least for having seen me over time perform actions on these boards and give my arguments. I’m the same tough asshole with everybody, have shown to be unbiased and unprejudiced, but will take note of differences at times such as transgenderism in generating user-specific insults. If she had never told me she was transgender, it would never have come into play. That has nothing to do with hating on transgenders, but that insults can be come up for them, too.

At the very least, me saying what I said about the Holocaust and having it be believable should be reminiscent of the idea that there is absolutely no part of history that you can take to be fully 100% true based on what you know of how people tell their one-sided stories and that even if they told a story two-sided doesn’t mean a damn thing at all. So, what is it about history that you can actually claim when you can no longer prove that Hitler actually existed and all of the effects in society could be seen as the memorabilia of a prominent figure in the fanfic that people have labeled as history where they just made people up and hated them worldwide. Big fancy roleplay, realistic fantasy.

fair enough, I suppose your post reminded me of countless Nazi propaganda posts over the net. perhaps you need to give a more unbiased perspective ~ both sides of the story if you don’t want it to look like that. the net has only appearances, one can’t tell your post is not Nazi if you don’t give it that appearance.

Concerning physical traits…

What evidence exists that subspecies of human beings don’t exist?

My views on race are pretty moderate.

  1. Different races are subspecies of one primary specie of homosapians. This doesn’t negate the fact that we’re all human.

  2. Different physical traits exist in different races.

  3. I do not have an opinion on different intelligence forms concerning different races of people because I view it to be irrelevant, unproven, and possibly falsified. I don’t believe in that whole superiority/ inferiority mental dynamic.

  4. Different races of people are also formed by environment concerning evolutionary adaptation.

  5. While race is evolutionary and biological there are also a lot of cultural constructs we associate with it.

  6. Everybody has the privilege to racial or ethnic preservation concerning culture and the ability to free-assembly. You cannot expect everybody not to be ethnocentric and then cry racist when you don’t get your way with them.

  7. People I think need the option or choice of living in an ethnocentric cultural environment and a multicultural one. People don’t have to be forced into choosing either where instead they can make those decisions independently on their own. People can choose for themselves.

  8. If we accept that race is a kind of sub species even then amongst nature it is not unknown or unheard of concerning different subspecies cross breeding with one another.

Polar bear and grizzly bear hybrid.

Invasive subspecies. Asian carp introduced to the North American ecosystem destroys and kills off domestic (indigenous) fish in a variety of ways. Exhibit A.

The cuckoo bird doesn’t build its own nest but instead takes over the nests of other birds displacing them. Exhibit B.

That’s one way for sure. The other is to give state entitlements (economically) to all races of people except the host race (domestic or indigenous race) and then slowly overtime that host race with less advantages diminishes.

One more thing: sub-species does not mean subhuman. It just implies genetical difference, that’s it.

What makes you think at that time that the word sub wouldn’t still have the psychological effect of being thought of and seen as lesser. At any given time you label them as a sub-species instead of part of the main species with their genetic malfunctions having the blame put largely where it should be, on us all as we all war in the mind, it becomes so much bullshit beyond bullshit. To say sub-species, or sub-human is to think of them as lesser just for not being able to endure the savagery of the war within, that it brutalizes them from before birth in obvious physical ways and yet, mentally, many of them may be stronger then those seen to be physically strong and fully-abled.

It’s just a matter that regardless of what part of language you use that you know, whether it’s intended to be racist or not, it’s like the combined male and female ability to turn everything into an innuendo. Almost anything you can say can be taken any number of ways; but when it does come down to using words like ‘sub’, our growing human school for the scoundrels of eternity has been too effective at its teachings. We’re all beginning to see all of the worst that is there, all of what lays behind the illusions we’ve been thrust into.

Concerning the Canidae the Red Fox and Snow Fox are a part of it.

They’re both subspecies of the Canidae but this doesn’t mean the Red Fox is inferior to the Snow Fox or vice versa.

All ugly, but the aryan one gives the vibe of being a kind person, probably would give you lunch. 1 and 3 would rob you of lunch, and 4 would just make up excuses to decline your offer of lunch.

Yeah, it sucks to refer to different subspecies of humans, it makes a person feel like a Nazi. But nevertheless, that’s reality. It’s not a reality that has to be said very often, but if politically correct elements are going to insist on declaring “There’s no such thing as race!” and other such ridiculous horseshit…well, they have to be corrected, and that’s how you correct them.

Imagine if some retarded feminists started insisting the periods weren’t real, and menstruation was a myth invented by the patriarchy to make women seem weak and unclean. Well, such a discussion would inevitably lead to a bunch of pictures of bleeding vaginas posted everywhere. It’s not like anybody wants to spread pictures of bloody vaginas with tampon strings hanging out of them, but that would be the one and only way to confront the idiocy.

Women have periods and humans have subspecies. The sooner the left stops being retarded, the sooner we can stop talking about it.

From what I’ve read, modern humans (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) are already a subspecies group of Homo Sapiens. Although the terms race and subspecies have been used interchangeably in some instances, it seems that race is not a widely used term in biological taxonomy, though it has become a prominent term in the classification of human beings. For humans, racial classifications seem to signify something other than subspecies groups. I looked at a few research papers to get a better understanding, but I don’t know whether the articles I found are representative of the biology/genetics/evolution scientific communities. If anyone is interested, they could look around at the research to see for themselves. Anyway, some of the key points I found:

That’s interesting. SUbspecies are defined in relation to each other (i.e., you need at least two), so I’m not sure how that works when only one subspecies still exists. If you count extinct populations when defining subspecies, I’d have to imagine virtually every existent species is a subspecies. The other thing to ask is, what’s the difference between homo sapiens sapiens and other (former?) subspecies in homo sapiens, such that we can justify calling them different subspecies without calling, say, african blacks and eskimos two different subspecies. I can’t imagine what it would be, even in theory- geographic isolation? Check. Morphological differences due to a lack of interbreeding? Check.

I can’t find a reason other than civics: i.e, it seems more polite to refer to human races than to human subspecies. I’d like to know what the actual material difference is.

My experience with turtle subspecies tells me this holds for other creatures as well, though. It’s a well-known trait of subspecies that their populations will often border each other, and along that border you have interbreeding. It’s called a subspecies margin or something like that. I’m going by the definition cited in Wikipedia so far:

“A taxonomist decides whether to recognize a subspecies or not. A common way to decide is that organisms belonging to different subspecies of the same species are capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring, but they do not usually interbreed in nature due to geographic isolation, sexual selection, or other factors. The differences between subspecies are usually less distinct than the differences between species.”

I think the fact that humans cover the whole world also complicates things, because it makes population borders so much less distinct. If there were only two groups of humans- the ones who live in Japan and look Japanese, and the ones that look in Sweden and look like Vikings, no unbiased observer would have any problem at all concluding that there are two human subspecies. If you then transplanted the Japanese subspecies to, say, Norway, so that interbreeding becomes more common, I suppose the question then becomes at one point, if any, do their cease to be multiple human subspecies? Is it when the interbred population exceeds either of the two ‘pure’ populations, or is it when one of the two ‘pure’ populations goes extinct? If you’re right that homo sapiens sapiens is considered a subspecies even with all others extinct, the answer may well be never.

My problem here is that I can’t find any reliable source that says percentage of genetic population has anything, anything at all to do with how subspecies are defined. From what I can tell, genetic variation has fuck all to do with subspecies, and fuck all to do with traditional understands of race. This will sound crass,and I only have a minor in anthropology, but it really seems to me that anthropologists started to treat percentage of genetic variation as a determinate factor in these things purely to justify saying race isn’t a real thing.

So, to take the classic example: two islands, one species of bird on both islands. On Island A, the birds are blue, and on Island B, the birds are green. It’s established that they are one species- this is the only real difference between them, they can interbreed, and when they do interbreed the offspring are healthy and fecund (and teal). Would a biologist really have to decode their genome and measure the percentage of genetic variation between the two populations before deciding whether or not that is an example of subspecies? And what exactly are they looking for- what’s the objective criteria that such analysis will reveal, such that just looking at the birds and their color may be decieving? That seems silly to me, and I see no evidence that it is done this way. I could be wrong though, I’m no biologist.

Now this bit I agree with. It’s pretty obvious that racial distinction is not/was not done with any attention to science in mind. We look at people, see they are physically different, note that that physical difference corresponds to where they come from, and we have a word for that phenomenon. Guys from Boston have a way they talk, we note the ‘Boston accent’, most of us know what that sound like, I’m told linguistic experts can tell where somebody came from down to the neighborhood based on their accent- and at no point is science involved or consulted in any of this. Difference being that racial differences are genetic, of course.

[/quote]
That’s a great point about the Amish; are they a subspecies? They certainly are an isolated breeding population. There is certainly some subjectivity there: how different the Amish have to be before it would be right to call them a subspecies is not going to have a precise answer. I suppose what it would come down to is, could a taxonomist look at a human corpse and reliably determine that it was the corpse of an Amish person, in the way that they could determine it was an oriental or a sub-saharan African or what have you. My impression is no, but I am uncertain.

Ultimately what I am looking for is consistency. Here are the subspecies of Canis Lupus:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies_of_Canis_lupus

What is the consistently applied methodology that tells us Canis Lupus has 37 subspecies, and Homo sapiens sapiens has zero? My wager is that in the absence of politics, there isn’t one. Are Steppe Wolves and Eurasian Wolves really so different from each other in a way that people from Okinawa and people from Brazil are not?

I think they can, but through genetics (although polydactyly, dwarfism and microcephaly also happen in their populations). Amish population is affected by Founder effect, so I suspect that genetic testing can isolate them from general population:
biochemgenetics.ca/plainpeople/view.php

Though, I think a breed would be a better term for them, rather than subspecies, since this population with their particular genetics is produced by artificial manipulation, not natural environment.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breed

Yeah, breed makes sense. Hell, maybe all the human races are more properly defined as breeds than as subspecies for all I know. But race is certainly something, it’s not just an idea evil people got in their heads like progressive anthropologists want to say.