He already knew of your white hating whiteness, Carleas.
Everyone has in group preference. That extends to culture, race, skin color, language, mannerisms, etc. it doesn’t mean you hate people who are different, it just means you have natural preference and comfort with those who are like you, who can relate to you and who you can relate to.
I don’t hate other families just because I put my own family first. Likewise with my culture and my race.
Race actually means something. Biologically, race is a collection of similar genes that are not too similar that they would lead to loss of variability and incest-like problems, but similar enough that they tend to perpetuate and reinforce each other phenotypically. Different races are ways of concentrating certain genetic tendencies and perpetuating them. And different races will obviously have different such tendencies. But remember that different race does not mean different species. We can all still breed cross-racially and mix up those racial genetic groups; Darwin wrote about how this causes a weakening of the gene pool, because it dilutes those particular genetic traits that the race had cultivated over so many thousands of years; he also wrote about his observations that race mixing leads the offspring to tend to be more aggressive.
I’m not saying race mixing is necessarily bad, but these are just things to keep in mind. Pure breeds can also have behavioral issues, ideally you want some balance of racial homogeneity with some relatively small degree of mixing. Think about Europe as a good example, and especially America, where most “white” Americans have racial heritage from different “white” European lineages. Race is not a bad thing nor is having an in group preference for your own race, or for your culture.
At the end of the day the individual bears responsibility for him or herself. Placing race on a pedestal and calling yourself a white or black supremacist is simply abnegating your individual self-responsibility. Racism is bad not because race isn’t important, but because racism is a tribal collectivist socialist ideology that places the group above the individual and judges individuals more based on their membership in such groups than on the individual themselves.
Racism is stupid. But so is the Leftist race denialism and stoking hatred of “white people” and shaming them for simply valuing their own racial heritage. No other race on the planet gets shamed by leftists, except “white” races. This is what pisses us off. It is simply more cultural Marxist creep into western civilization, and we strongly oppose that.
Don’t tell me I can’t value my own race or my own culture above other races and cultures. I don’t tend to think that way normally, but if pushed I will certainly not go along with denigrating and shaming my own race and culture based on these absurd radical leftist dogmas. And I want my own race and culture to keep existing, as I’m sure every person anywhere (except white leftists of course) want their own race and culture, whatever it is, to keep existing. Nothing wrong with that. Again, valuing your own race or culture doesn’t mean you hate other races and cultures.
No, I am saying people like you don’t care about things generally because you profit from globalism and are insulated away from its negative effects.
Typically self hating white liberals stem from the cities or college campuses where your entire outlook is one indocrinated by globalist ideology.
You’re so removed from reality on the street that you’re unfamiliar with the negative effects of globalization. It is no surprise you only see things from an economic profit based vantage point as that is a view held by people of privilege everywhere.
Yes these have been my observations as well. Liberals defending globalization tend to work for the government in some direct or indirect capacity, such as being teachers or college professors or working for non-profits that receive government funding. Bottom line is that liberalism-leftism in America is just a way for certain people to try and keep profiting. It is sycophantism, even if only at a more unconscious level (i.e. they intuitively know that if they do not support more state powers and globalist expansions then this will end up hurting them personally somehow). It’s just narrow self-interest masking as some kind of weird altruism, with a fair dose of psychological issues such as resentment and mental laziness thrown in on top.
The primary reason anyone defends globalization and the massive expansion of the state and “elites” that it represents is simply the maxim, “don’t bite the hand that feeds.” These people are content to sell the future and their fellows down the toilet so long as their own personal status quo isn’t interrupted.
Pretty good analysis.
This is true, but it’s not what people mean when they talk about race. If you look at the history of human migration, you have waves of humans coming out of northern Africa into the rest of the world. Some species of homo came into Europe and Asia and the South Pacific prior to sapiens, and when sapiens came, some of the populations interbred. Some European populations showed convergent evolution towards pale skin and straight hair because of the climate in which they lived, even though genetically some populations were part neanderthal and others weren’t. Waves that went elsewhere mixed with different homo species, and then mixed again when they encountered other earlier waves, e.g. in Russia where groups that migrated through Europe and groups that migrated through Asia met in the middle.
That’s all just to say that the assumption that any given white person is more genetically similar to you than any give black person is likely to be wrong in some cases. Because similar climates drive similar adaptations, and later waves coming out of Africa diverged at the same rate as earlier waves and just for less time, gross morphology doesn’t map perfectly to genetics, and the social concept of race is not the same as the genetic clustering we can do on people. Of course there is some overlap, there are real genetic clusters and we can retrofit social race labels onto them. But that retrofit is by way of redefinition. It’s not as though we were talking about genetics all along and just didn’t know it, we were talking about gross morphology and superficial differences, and that is not the same thing. And the genetic clusters are not nearly as sharply defined as the social concept is. There’s no “one drop” rule of genetic race.
I find that the genetics of race is used as a motte-and-bailey tactic by both sides of the discussion, and that’s unfortunate. One side says, Look, genetics says race is real, therefore we are lying to ourselves if we don’t conclude that disparities in social race outcomes have nothing to do with environment. The other says, Look, social race doesn’t map perfectly to genetic race, therefore there’s no such thing as race and any reference to it is de facto racist. Both of these seem clearly wrong (though I’m sure I’ve been guilty of appeals to the latter).
The “particular genetic traits” of most races are things like adaptations to the average local intensity of sunlight, the ability to process lactose, and superficial morphological differences like height or limb-to-trunk ratios due to the availability of specific nutrients or just to sexual selection. I don’t think there’s much controversy in saying that those traits will be diluted by mixing, as can be seen in e.g. the skin pigmentation, height, and hair textures of mixed race people. I don’t think the kind of “particular genetic traits” that are often intended by claims like these actually exist (this, again, seems to be a motte-and-bailey).
I’m skeptical that any aggressiveness that Darwin observed has anything to do with genetics. Darwin lived in a deeply race-divided society, and that could have profound social implications for anyone who doesn’t fit neatly into the categorization, and we know that social exclusion has implications for behavior that include aggressiveness. Darwin was a keen scientific observer, but he was limited to the knowledge and beliefs of his time, and he wasn’t infallible.
Let’s take this as a given, and then note that 80% of the US population lives in cities, which must also includes most of the white population (since whites make up >70% of the population). Most white people are city white people. The “reality on the street” for them is the globalist ideology that prevents your “inevitable” ethnostate.
Thanks for the comments. I want to break down a few of the ideas here so I more clearly understand where you are coming from.
Convergent evolution in different groups doesn’t really bear upon what I am saying. Of course there will be some convergent evolution going on in so far as different groups are exposed to similar situations in the difference places and times in which they live. In so far as these different groups have a common ancestor (which they always do, in our case) then that convergent evolution will end up being built upon existing morphological genetic frameworks, namely on those genes coding for form and structure (as well as function) that the two groups do in fact share, simply because those groups do have a recent common ancestor and have not diverged so entirely that their convergent or parallel evolutions would be now taking place upon entirely different genetic structures.
That brings something else to my mind, which is that I do not understand your point about how you are using morphology. How can morphology be contrasted with genetics, as you say below “gross morphology doesn’t map perfectly to genetics”? After a brief lookup of the common definition, Morphology deals with forms and structures of the biological organism as opposed to functions, and of course the structures of a biological organism are genetically coded for, as are the possibilities that those structures can adapt and change to the environment (muscles can grow larger when exercised more often, for example).
From wiki, “The term “gross morphology” refers to the collective structures or an organism as a whole as a general description of the form and structure of an organism, taking into account all of its structures without specifying an individual structure.”
I would dispute this due to there being the three primary, anthropological racial groups, Caucasian, Negroid, and Mongoloid. I can’t see how convergent evolution would make it the case that a person from one of those groups can be more genetically/racially similar to someone in one of the other groups than to someone in his or her own group.
If it were really the case that, as you imply, any given white person could be more genetically similar to any given black person than to any other given white person, then ‘race’ wouldn’t mean anything at all, and we would not be able to note clear and persisting differences between races or between individuals of different races when it comes to traits. I agree that “what makes us who we are”, namely the subtler more mental and emotional traits we have, including our personalities, can end up being closer between two individuals of different races than is the case between one individual and another in his own race, but that is simply due to statistics and the fact that it is likely that from all the other numerous members of one’s own race you can always find someone who is very different from you in certain traits, likewise from all the other numerous members of another race than your own you can always find someone who is very similar to you in certain traits. This is alongside my point about how there is more genetic variability between individuals within one race than there is between different races each averaged as a racial group. But this is simply due to the statistical issue when it comes to how you can compare individuals to any other individual from very large numbers of people, and to the fact that when you average all the individuals within a given race you end up converging on the middle. If we simply compare racial groups by their individuals including individual differences within those groups, rather than averaging for each group, then it is obvious that you are going to find overall more genetic trait differences from yourself as you move away from yourself racially, generally speaking of course.
I am not concerned with the social concept of race. And I do not see what the fact of different diasporic waves having different morphologies due to later waves having less time to convergently evolve in similar climates has to do with or means that “gross morphology doesn’t map perfectly to genetics”. Please elaborate your point here.
One of my primary concerns with this whole conversation of race that is taking place today is that the destruction and denigration of the category of race and of the fact of race being real and meaning something may have the ultimate consequence of destroying or dissolving racial groups to such a high degree that, say in 100 years, the absence of strong genetic groups will mean that beneficial mutations and novel combinations of genes will not be able to perpetuate forward into the future.
I am distinguishing between superficial and significant differences, definitely. That is one of my primary aims.
Yes, both the far Left and the far Right are wrong on the issue, and using it for personal political and pathological reasons.
Well Darwin’s point or rather theory was that when you weaken racial groups, the genes of those more race-mixed offspring tend more to regress to more prior, ancestral and less evolved combinations. This makes sense, because the complex combinations of genetics that occur, are selected for and perpetuated by racial groups and as racial groups could not maintain themselves over many generations of those racial groups breakdown. And he linked this regression in the genetic combinations toward more ancestral combinations with an increase in aggressiveness and with greater inability or propensity for being civilized. Then of course we are getting into terrain that is not sufficiently explored yet, and not even researched as far as I can find-- the terrain of to what extent do genes allow and push us toward, or disallow and pull us away from, being what we call civilized (rational, thoughtful, able to suppress brute instinct-drives and sublimate them, use language to resolve conflict rather than resort to physical violence, etc.) as opposed to more brute instinct-driven, animalistic and uncivilized? This is a fascinating and necessary area of research that needs to occur, but since it is so politically incorrect I doubt it will take place any time soon (if you are aware of any such research already having been done, let me know where).
And again, I am certainly distinguishing between superficial and significant traits.
Exactly.
Furthermore, diversity includes white nationalists, xenophobic japanese, fanatical muslims, bigoted blacks and whatever else can be imagined.
Echochambers are not diverse.
Some whites will. Why should they not have the respect and support to do what they think is best instead of condemnation and demonization?
If some whites want to preserve their heritage, why is that not admirable? Any other race is allowed to pursue it without persecution.
City folks live in a beehive, a borg, where the collective is what matters and nothing is owned: taxis or public trans is utilized rather than owning a car, apartments are rented rather than proudly owning a home with intent to raise a family, etc, etc. The sense of individuality is lost more and more in cityfied folks. If people have no sense of individuality, they will gladly give their rights away for the collective. That’s why libs dominate in the city and conservatives in the country.
When I talk about “morphology”, I mean physical form and appearance. I distinguish it from genetics because similar morphologies can have distinct genetic origins. Light skin evolved at least twice, once in Europe and once in Asia. There, morphology is similar but the genetic origins are different, and that is almost certainly reflected in the modern genetics of skin color. There was convergent evolution, not common genetic origin. That’s why I suggest that two socially white people may be genetically weakly related: Western and Mediterranean Europeans may well be quite far removed genetically from far eastern Europeans (see also below my discussion of US blacks).
I do think you are eliding a distinct between the social concept of race and the genetic concept. Let me use a few examples.
Compare Europeans, Indigenous Australians, and Africans. Indigenous Australians arrived in Australia before Europeans arrived in Europe, >10,000 years. It’s likely, then, that modern Europeans and modern Africans are more closely than modern Indigenous Australians and modern Africans, even though morphologically modern Africans and modern Indegenous Australians may be described as more similar. Genetic divergence happens at roughly constant pace once populations are isolated from each other.
Next, compare modern Africans with what in the US we call African Americans or blacks. As evidence by the terminology, socially we treat US blacks as though they are genetically African. But many people who are identified (and self identify) as black in the US are genetically as much or more European as they are African. Discussion of race in the US, measurement of outcomes, tests of ability, etc. etc., aren’t referring to the genetic category of race, but to the social category. Most blacks in the US are mixed race as far as the genetic are concerned (i.e. in their recent family history, there were ancestors who belonged to distinct genetic clusters).
I don’t think the concept of “less evolved” has any meaning biologically. Sexual reproduction mixes traits from both parents, and those traits are not more or less evolved, they are equally evolved. It’s not as though the average of all modern humans is equivalent to whatever we evolved from, there was noise in the copying process, mixing and selection that preserved the beneficial noise.
And traits in offspring are also not neatly derived from one parent or the other. Eye color is a good example here: the genetics are complex, and different genes residing on different chromosomes affect different aspects of eye color and patterning. This applies many many times over to anything dealing with human mental ability, which affected by many many genes affecting the structure of our brains, the cells that compose them, the way we process nutrients, etc.
And on similar lines, it should be noted that none of use evolved to thrive in the modern world. The world in which the vast majority of our traits evolved is nothing like the world we live in. The selective pressures that led to our ability to have this conversation were not millions of years of people having typed philosophy conversations on computers, they were millions of years of people living in the woods and struggling to survive. We’ve been able to re-purpose our evolutionary niche in flexible and adaptive ways, but that we can apply it to new situations does not at all mean that it was evolved for that purpose. So even if it were the case that mixing across genetic clusters would lead to an offspring more similar to an earlier relative, there’s little reason to think that that earlier relative would be less at home in the modern world (after all, it was clearly adaptive enough to produce two distinct genetic clusters of descendants who thrived in different enough contexts to produce gross morphological differences).
Is that why unquestioning allegiance to churches, races, nations, parties is greater in the country?
Anyway, the topic of this thread is censorship and I was hoping to comment on that.
I agree with the view stated here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama
[i]Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court, in which it ruled that a state trespassing statute could not be used to prevent the distribution of religious materials on a town’s sidewalk, notwithstanding the fact that the sidewalk where the distribution was taking place was part of a privately owned company town.
In a 5-3 decision, the court ruled in favor of Marsh. The opinion, joined by three justices, was authored by Justice Hugo Black, with Justice Felix Frankfurter authoring a concurrence, and Justice Stanley Forman Reed authoring a dissent.
The Court initially noted that this would be an easy case if the town were a more traditional, publicly administered, municipality. In such a case it would be a clear violation of the right to free speech for the government to bar the sidewalk distribution of such material. The question became, therefore, whether or not constitutional freedom of speech protections could be denied simply because a single company held title to the town.
The State attempted to analogize the town’s rights to the rights of homeowners to regulate the conduct of guests in their home. The Court rejected that contention, noting that ownership “does not always mean absolute dominion.” The court pointed out that the more an owner opens his property up to the public in general, the more his rights are circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who are invited in.
In its conclusion, the Court stated that it was essentially using a balancing test, weighing the rights of property owners against the rights of citizens to enjoy freedom of press and religion. The Court noted, however, that the latter occupy a preferred position. Accordingly, the Court held that the property rights of a private entity are not sufficient to justify the restriction of a community of citizens’ fundamental rights and liberties.[/i]
I also like this: nytimes.com/1994/12/21/nyreg … ml?mcubz=1
In New Jersey, two lower courts had upheld the malls’ contention that they could limit noncommercial activity on their private property. But today the State Supreme Court sided with the protesters who had argued that [b]a mall constitutes a modern-day Main Street.[/b]
The internet, or parts thereof, are increasingly becoming modern-day mainstreet and I believe no one has the right to privatize a popular public gathering place for the purposes of profit and dictatorial control of public opinion.
I also see little distinction in government and corporatocracy, but if I did, I would fear the latter more.
Show me a church that agrees with another church and I will find your point.
Races? Racism is epitome of identity.
Nations? Explain the confederate flag in the south.
Parties? Well, there are two choices… what are you expecting?
The civil war was about nationalism vs globalism foremost and the war is being revived today because it is indeed neverending. The south stood for state’s rights while the north wanted confluence or the collective. The idea underpinning the formation of the US was that states should stand independently together and what would impede progression to dictatorial powers in government was the very fact that states were independent and could leave the union. The war still rages today between those who believe we should suck the collective tit or stand independently with a sense of identity outside of being a cog in a machine or brick in the proverbial wall.
So what you’re advocating for is the downfall of independence and return to the condition that prompted the formation of the US in the first place. Of course, it is inevitable since the rise and fall of empires is cyclic and prosperity breeds weakness as generations lose sight of why traditions existed until the point is reached that the very thing that guaranteed success in evolution is demonized, ensuring the collapse and eventual rebirth from the ashes of utopian aspirations.
Ah, I’d forgotten about Marsh v. Alabama, excellent point. It looks like the reasoning is pretty narrow, specific to “company towns”, and it’s apparently been rejected as applied to email (and to non-company-town malls; that NYT article says the case there was decided on the free speech clause in the NJ constitution, not the one in the US Constitution).
I do think there’s some difference from the current situation. The case in Marsh was such that certain speech could be effectively precluded unless it was allowed on private property. That’s not true when GoDaddy or Google deny your domain registration, since that market is pretty competitive, and even for .com domain there are dozens of registrars (if Tucows or ICANN itself blacklisted a domain it would be different). It isn’t clear that anything short of ICANN is really sufficient to effectively preclude internet speech.
Serendipper, do you have an idea of where we might draw the line? Surely a small site could ban people, so how big would a user base have to be before it would be subject to constitutional restriction? Obviously it will be fact-specific, but wondering what your thoughts are on factors that might apply.
I have no respect or sympathy for white Europeans traitors as they’re just as much the enemy also. Interracial relationships is way of effectively breeding out the weak gene pool and the minority of preservationist white Europeans left will be the future to rebuild European society.
Traitors can destroy their genetic own inheritance with their mulatto children for all I care, the faster they destroy themselves and usher in the rebellion all the better. The cities will eventually be taken over by foreigners of all kinds after the white liberal communist globalization traitors have allowed themselves to be breeded out of existence entirely overtime, we’ll fight from the rural countryside where all the food production resides that goes into the large urban areas.
What you say makes no difference at all and means nothing. I also notice you don’t defend your support of globalization here either because deep down inside you know it is indefensible.
I see public nudity in a similar vein. Such restrictions “should be” in the hands of jurisprudence, not private insanity. Such allows for higher and lower courts, including Congress, to contemplate the degree of restriction and restraint most suitable for the nation as a whole as well as more local situations.
The internet is a different form of countryside with its own version of estates and congregations. Just as with a physical nation, the more generalized the law (socialistically dictated), the worse suited. But on the other hand, anarchy of law (arbitrary private choice) demands conflict, political and insidious competition, and upheaval.
The internet has special considerations in almost every other sense. It only makes sense, that “internet-regional” (not physical-regional) jurisdiction and jurisprudence be enforced. Such would allow for “Iregions” to elect representatives for their situations and live by their democratically chosen standards. Putting media pressure on private companies to force hidden mind control agendas is worse than just letting the Pope make the decisions.
These globalists are all about getting rid of racial, cultural, ideological, social, and political diversity. That is their end game. Their end game is global uniformity and conformity by obliterating all opposition or dissenters, this is their long game going into the future.
They want to rule the world in a singular entity style fashion and never use the word diversity sincerely.
Two classes; Chosen humans (with their androids) and animal (the Unchosen).
I don’t consider the “elite” as one pole of the developing split in (perhaps mostly western only) humanity. The elites are a side effect and not a cause. The real split is between people who want to think (engage honestly with reality) and those who do not.