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

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]

Not always. You can prefer your family without thinking they are superior to other families. It’s enough that they are yours.

Probably because it is inappropriate to do so given that there is only one race. The human race. All of us are in that sense the same race because all of us are human. But words are descriptive not prescriptive and through usage can over time acquire different meanings. So it is with race. Which outside of taxonomic classification means something else. Namely ethnicity or nationality

Since the development of genetic sequencing, many species have been reclassified. As of now, it appears to be mostly plants, birds and insects, but some animals also have been noted: like manatees (genetically closer to elephants than walruses) and red pandas (closer to raccoons than pandas or bears). I can see a possible switch to classification based on genetic grouping in the future, which could mean that some things may get re-grouped. Interesting to note that genetic sequencing of a specie can change its legal status, as many protected and endangered species have become protected under law on the account of their sequenced genetic code (rare birds). This method of classifying may also influence cultural and political views, as was seen in the controversial case of genome of king Tut.

Sure. You can do anything you want.

I just think that higher people have respect – they value – any kind of excellence.

I love everything beautiful, healthy, strong, etc whether it belongs to my tribe or not.

That is always a factor for me when making decisions.

I don’t just go “I just love what I am and nothing else”. My love has breadth. I don’t fixate on one thing, one person, one group.

Too much self-love and you turn into a cannibal ready to devour his own children when it becomes necessary to do so.

After all, one’s self is more important than everything else.

You can say that. But what is relevant is that different people make decisions in different ways. Possibly because they possess different information regarding the external world.

There are people who see no value in other people. Not because they are so strong they have no need to cooperate. But quite simply because they perceive no benefit/hope in cooperation, only cost/threat.

These are usually people who grew up in dysfunctional families, or no families at all, where every attempt at social interaction was frustrated, punished, discouraged. Consequently, they learn not to trust other people, build a huge wall to protect themselves, lose all of their social skills due to atrophy, and soak themselves in testosterone soup.

They go on to become homeless, travellers, criminals, anarchists, etc.

In one word, nomads.
Over-protective, selfish, arrogant, self-indulgent, brutal, rebellious, over-independent, tribalistic, nepotistic, etc.

How many people on this forum live a nomadic lifestyle?
Turd, Merlin, Zoot . . . that’s three of them.
And they pride themselves on it.

They pride themselves on unbecoming human.

Maybe we are using two difference senses of ‘preference’ or maybe we just disagree. I think a person ought to show preference to their own family regardless of how excellent they are by some objective measure compared to other families- though of course there are extremes of abuse and neglect and so on where this wouldn’t apply. You brought this up as a normative thing “Shouldn’t we…” so that’s what I’m responding to. One can acknowledge that some other family is superior by some standard or another while still believing they ought to show loyalty towards their own.

I think there are some white nationalists that are that way; they believe they ought to show some loyalty to the white race because that’s who they are, not because they think white people are superior to other kinds of people (though certainly plenty of white nationalists think that as well.)

So how does one become superior? Do you start by creating yourself, then the conditions required to manifest that superiority. Like the family you’re born into, the schools, culture etc, etc, that you go to, not to mention that everything in this world is situational!
Can anyone tell me what specifically they think makes them or anyone superior?

Concerning species/race[?]…
Species can be widely divergent but they can also be almost the same, basically you take some humans from africa and put them in scandinavia, then the lips and nostrils will thin out [to resist the cold]. Then take them back to africa and they become wide again [to disperse heat]. I don’t get how that or any other adaptations can make one group superior to another? You simply move people around and you get the inverse of the same thing. None of us have anything whatsoever to do with that, its all down to the ancestors and evolution.
Such reasons are why race is nonsense, and why superiority [luck of the draw] is also nonsense.

I.e. not philosophy!

You can go to skadi or stormfront etc if you want to talk endless nonsense between yourselves.

We are born into random bodies and minds, some of which are superior. Being born into a genius’s mind and hot lesbians body would be superior to be born into some fat sexually frustrated retards body.

And yes, some of us having hot lesbian superior bodies is inherently unfair. Conceited cunts randomly born into hot female bodies say that they “chose” their body to be born into or that God blessed them. Rational people like me says God doesn’t exist. We are born into bodies due to an unknown reincarnation equation of which we don’t know the outcome or probabilities.

Noone of us know the reincarnation equation, yet we sit here and waste time idling and feminizing our minds with delusions of political correctness. I was once like you, argent defender against racists, used to hate racism to my very bones, now I realize what it is, you are a child pen pusher of the system. Its time to be an outsider and see the true facts and free yourself from delusion. The facts are that most blacks are dumber than most whites, and if you cant see that you aren’t a scientist or a philosopher.

I believe that some blacks do have souls, the ones that strive and climb from the pits of their blackitude approaching the white heights. But for a black person that continually listens to and enjoys rap music day in and day out…they show no evidence of a soul striving or reaching to exceed its own neuronal tendencies. Ask yourself, could you really be sentient and feel content with rap music your whole life? It would be like saying you could be sentient listening to continuously white noise, or sentient cutting off your toes everyday. Hell may be a place where the soul goes to no longer attach itself to the mortal coils. Rap music is a form of hell.

Ergo nothing we have done to make that so then.

They wouldn’t be born fat nor sexually frustrated, something in and of the world and not them made them that way. What is it about causality that you don’t understand? If you were born into their lives and bodies you would be them.

Well that sounds rational #-o . First you say god doesn’t exist, then that reincarnation does. So what you’re saying is that the reasons which have nothing to do with you by which we become what we are, are the reasons why we get a better hot lesbian body in the next life. That’s reasoned is it? The causality and all information in the system of a given life, is entirely different to that of another - there is no information outside of the system [hence rebirth and not reincarnation].

_

Top A level academic reply. //sarcasm Stop wasting my time.

on the contrary, you are wasting your own time, if you ask questions, get replies, and then don’t see it through by actually answering. simple reasoning doesn’t require elaborations, it is what it is.