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

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.

There is nothing supremacist saying there are different subspecies of human beings. There is nothing supremacist speaking of dogs, cats, birds, and fowl either.

Honestly the left is fucking retarded when it concerns subjects on race, culture, and ethnicity.

Yes. Usually when a race is called sub-human it is because there are some traits which are characteristic of humans (compared to other animals), so if one race is called sub-human it means that race on average embodies some typically human traits, like intelligence, to a lesser extent than some other race, or to a lesser extent than what is average for all races.

And just to clarify, despite of everything I said here I’m not a white supremacist, though I do prefer whites to other races it is because they are more like me, not because they are supreme, just like I prefer my own brother to a stranger regardless of who is supreme. What Sam Dickson said definitely has some truth to it too:

Shouldn’t preference be grounded in superiority?
Do you not have respect for excellence?

Egoism, tribalism, nepotism, etc are symptoms of too much testosterone. Typical for nomads (e.g. gypsies, Jews, negroes, Muslims, etc)

There is no objective answer to questions of what should or should not be - what should or should not be itself is a matter of preference.

From what I see, regardless of what people say and their pretenses, ultimately all their preferences are based on unconditional self-love. I’m not saying I think it’s good or bad, just how things are. I already wrote a lengthier post about this elsewhere, I’ll paste it into tab to avoid cluttering the thread:

[tab][youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HQ90iSGpJM[/youtube]

About the recent debate between MGTOW and Alt-right. I haven’t been keeping up with it too much, haven’t even watched the video yet ( Embarassed ) but I read the comments in my free time and these are my thoughts so far, mostly from the comments I left on the video.

Two comments I made in response to the MGTOW argument that goes along the lines of ‘If white nationalists claim to value high IQ, then they should let Asians immigrate into their countries and breed with them’. This was an interesting argument to me because it is something I have been thinking about for a while.

Comment 1:

I think that ultimately there are 2 reasons for our preferences:

  1. subjective reasons - an emotional/instinctive preference we have little to no control over. This is because it was present in humans for much longer through our evolutionary history, back when humans were animals. Essentially, it is unconditional self-love and, by implication, a love of everything that reminds us of self to the extent it does remind us of self. It had to evolve because an organism that doesn’t love self despite objective reasons, will by necessity do worse and be less likely to reproduce self, than an organism that does love self despite objective reasons.

  2. objective reasons - this is a more rational preference formed due to our more recently developed parts of the brain dealing with higher mental faculties such as the capacity for abstract thought. This is a preference based on some objective facts regardless of our self - IQ, strength, beauty, to name three.

This is not an absolute distinction, since with regards to 2) it is again the subject who is doing the judging and valuing, but I think it will do.

One of Colttaine’s point is that since white nationalists claim to value high IQ, then why not prefer other groups, like Ashkenazi Jews or Asians, who embody that high IQ even more so than white people?

And I do think it is true that ultimately, every race’s preference for itself is primarily based on subjective reasons - unconditional self-love. If my race is among the highest IQ ones, or the more beautiful, stronger ones, these objective reasons surely add to why I prefer my race, but they are not the foundation of the preference. They act more as an ideal that I strive to drive my race towards without changing my race on a subjective level too much (basically making it less of my race by diluting it with genes of other races).

Honestly, I think that NOBODY is capable of having their life choices based purely or even mostly on objective reasons. Following the idea that objective reasons should overcome subjective reasons to its end, it means that Colttaine, if he was attacked by somebody with a higher IQ, who is stronger than him, and more beautiful, wouldn’t defend himself but would let himself be killed instead, since that person embodies his favored values more than he does himself. Of course, that’s absurd.

In conclusion, I agree that ultimately our preference for our own race is primarily based more on subjective reasons, but so what? Again, I highly doubt that Colttaine himself would follow the logic of 2) to its end.

Comment 2 (addressing Colttaine)

When white nationalists claim they value IQ, I doubt that they mean that they value IQ above all. I do agree that ultimately, my preference for my race is subjective in the sense that it is based on unconditional self-love. But don’t we all function according to that principle in the end?

For example, I presume you too value high IQ Colttaine, right? So if a person with a higher IQ than you attacked you, and your options were to die or to kill in self-defense, what would you do? If your ultimate value is high IQ, then you ought to let yourself get killed, since that person has a higher IQ than you. If your ultimate value is unconditional self-love, then you ought to defend yourself.

So yes, I would agree that ultimately the preference for one’s own race is based more on a subjective (particular to each individual) unconditional self-love, but… so what? Does it take away from it in some relevant way? As I said, and I believe I proved this point with my example above, ultimately 99.99% of humanity (and I’m not even shy using such a statistic in this circumstance) acts in accordance with the principle of self-preservation first, value-preservation second. So there may be somebody who embodies some things we value more successfully than we do ourselves, but that usually means we strive to improve ourselves to the extent we can so that we (or our offspring) can eventually overcome them, not that we just decide to self-destruct by race-mixing and/or assisted suicide.


Aside from that, there are 2 additional problems I can perceive with allowing the immigration of other races:

Since we have established that every race works in its own interest, if we import another race, they would necessarily also work in their own interest, which can sometimes conflict with the interest of our own race. For example, Asians might earn money in our countries, then give it to their families in their countries instead of spending it in the country they work in. Also, they might simply begin advocating for the kind of ideals that benefit them over whites. It would create all kinds of unnecessary problems and tensions that can be simply avoided.[/tab]