Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eyeofthetiget)
    Nick Griffin said that he won't slate gays and he has some in his party but its something private, not something to be promoted publicly. En mass it is against society. Can gays have children. Should a kid have 2 dads.

    Most British people are against immigration. Why hate for that?

    All these imbeciles must hate themselves otherwise they would not hate the people saying the same things that they are thinking.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Theres evidence to show that makes no difference. Some people are against immigration because they newspapers and see they are just taking benefits when actually they are a benefit to the economy not costing us anything its completly irrational to simply believe something just because some newspaper told you or its popular opinion when actually its a very different story and particularly to dislike/hate people because of that like alot of BNP members seem to
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alex_Jones)
    Theres evidence to show that makes no difference. Some people are against immigration because they newspapers and see they are just taking benefits when actually they are a benefit to the economy not costing us anything its completly irrational to simply believe something just because some newspaper told you or its popular opinion when actually its a very different story and particularly to dislike/hate people because of that like alot of BNP members seem to
    Some people are pro traditional society because they see a downfall taking place, therefore they are against promoting homosexuality.

    Some people do not just consider economic merits or demerits or immigration. They consider the social and cultural aspects. Some people are not happy with the vastly changing demographics. If you look at
    the latest Labour Party advert, it would indicate that most people are not happy with the fast changing ethnic and cultural demographics. Therefore most people who say they hate the BNP should take a look in the mirror before hating someone else.

    As Jesus said, take the Plank out of your Eye before you attempt to remove the splint out of your Brother's eye.

    Don't you think that when people are openly talking about white genocide and white people simply ignore you if you mention it, its time to take a serious look in the mirror?

    We live in a society that is so dishonest that honest people are slated and hated just for being honest.

    You shouldn't hate people just because you disagree with them. How do you think World War I, World War II, the First Gulf War, the Second Gulf War stated, and a potential war with Iran might start?

    Because of people being programmed that someone is a madman and people being so blinded that they cannot see that if they step into their shoes those people are rational like most people are.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    How anti whites think :

    They say the white race doesn't exist.
    They say everyone is mixed.
    They say race doesn't exist.

    They have no problem admitting black, asian and other races exist.
    They have no problem with black, asian and other groups having race based organisations.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by democracyforum)
    How anti whites think :

    They say the white race doesn't exist.
    They say everyone is mixed.
    They say race doesn't exist.

    They have no problem admitting black, asian and other races exist.
    They have no problem with black, asian and other groups having race based organisations.
    And they have been so brainwashed for so long that their brains are too washed out even to notice if the hunter is out with the gun for them. Any normal animal would either fight or take flight but these brainwashed whites have their minds too washed out to even see it. A Jewish professor can now openly call for white genocide;

    Washington Times: "A Harvard professor wants to abolish the white race. Noel Ignatiev, a founder of a journal called Race Traitor and a fellow at Harvard's W.E.B. DuBois Institute, a leading black-studies department, argues in the current issue of Harvard Magazine that "abolishing the white race" is "so desirable that some may find it hard to believe" that anyone other than "committed white supremacists" would oppose it."

    All these semi-moron brainwashed whites can probably say is "Oh how anti-Semitic" to say that because the Prof is Jewish!

    Are their brains ever going to start firing. Are they ever going to regain consciousness? Or are they just forever brain dead?

    And then they want to attack people who point this out. How sick. How misguided and how disgusting. Teachers marching with their unions etc. against the BNP calling it naked racism. This is vile, disgusting and dangerous. These people might hate themselves and they think we need to be hated and bullied because we don't buy into the brainwashing scheme by which they have been brainwashed and we don't hate ourselves. Its sickening beyond belief, and all these kids are being brainwashed by these maniacs.

    I don't blame them because they have been emotionally manipulate by an education system with an emotive political agenda brainwashing scheme and mass media, but I expect them to at least have the intelligence and the courage to question this.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by democracyforum)
    How anti whites think :

    They say the white race doesn't exist.
    They say everyone is mixed.
    They say race doesn't exist.

    They have no problem admitting black, asian and other races exist.
    They have no problem with black, asian and other groups having race based organisations.
    Keep on spitting that mindless propaganda they convince you edgy teens into believing.

    Race is not separated like a pretty little colour by numbers book where everything is kept between the lines due to some integral societal order. Anyone who has ever studied basic Biology could quickly learn that. You aren't British any more than you're Polish-German-Danish-French-Swedish-Icelandic-Spanish mixed. Somehow we think the piece of land that we were born on makes us more a member of that aforementioned mongrel race than someone born in another country.

    "White" is not a race. This is another fallacy. White is a skin colour which, again, if you had the effort to research, is simply the amount of pigment the body has developed to prevent UV radiation from damaging skin cells. If you were to look at a map, you'd quickly learn that countries in the northern hemisphere, where there is less sunlight and therefore less UV, the skin hues are lighter than in countries hit with more sunlight. Easy enough to grasp?

    Sad that in ancient societies, bereft of the understanding and scientific research we have today had more advanced beliefs than this: "According to classical scholar Frank Snowden, skin color did not determine social status in ancient Egypt, Greece or Rome." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_s...ism_and_racism citation [87]

    The notion of "white" as a race is both stupid and dangerous.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by guezelkuecuek)
    Keep on spitting that mindless propaganda they convince you edgy teens into believing.

    Race is not separated like a pretty little colour by numbers book where everything is kept between the lines due to some integral societal order. Anyone who has ever studied basic Biology could quickly learn that. You aren't British any more than you're Polish-German-Danish-French-Swedish-Icelandic-Spanish mixed. Somehow we think the piece of land that we were born on makes us more a member of that aforementioned mongrel race than someone born in another country.

    "White" is not a race. This is another fallacy. White is a skin colour which, again, if you had the effort to research, is simply the amount of pigment the body has developed to prevent UV radiation from damaging skin cells. If you were to look at a map, you'd quickly learn that countries in the northern hemisphere, where there is less sunlight and therefore less UV, the skin hues are lighter than in countries hit with more sunlight. Easy enough to grasp?

    Sad that in ancient societies, bereft of the understanding and scientific research we have today had more advanced beliefs than this: "According to classical scholar Frank Snowden, skin color did not determine social status in ancient Egypt, Greece or Rome." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_s...ism_and_racism citation [87]

    The notion of "white" as a race is both stupid and dangerous.
    Oh rubbish, you could take anything and deconstruct it scientifically an argue its not what it is. A banana is not a banana. It is some vit A plus vit B plus x y z plus some rot plus some water etc. And one banana is not the same as another banana, its a sliding scale.

    Why do you only argue this for the white race. Do your prejudices not stretch to other races?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eyeofthetiget)
    Oh rubbish, you could take anything and deconstruct it scientifically an argue its not what it is. A banana is not a banana. It is some vit A plus vit B plus x y z plus some rot plus some water etc. And one banana is not the same as another banana, its a sliding scale.

    Why do you only argue this for the white race. Do your prejudices not stretch to other races?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I don't believe that 'Black' or 'Slightly Brownish' or 'Darker Brown' are races because "race" isn't measured by a Dulux colour chart.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by guezelkuecuek)
    I don't believe that 'Black' or 'Slightly Brownish' or 'Darker Brown' are races because "race" isn't measured by a Dulux colour chart.
    What about the Native Americans or the Aborigines?

    We all know that race can be a sliding scale and globally is a sliding scale but there are very defined clusters in this scale called races. Please find below a paper I wrote on the subject some time ago.



    Does race exist?

    This paper by Nick Spires intends to settle the debate on whether race exists using observation, empirical facts, commonly used arguments and genetic research.

    Observation

    Arguments against the significance of race

    It has been shown that all races have members which are capable of a wide range of achievements. If you look at the highest calibre of employee for example; doctors, scientists, bankers and lawyers, one will find representation from all races. Race therefore does not play a part in one’s achievements and in it one’s individual ability and effort that determines the outcome. Arguments against the significance of race tend to state that if a situation exists whereby people of a certain race tend to achieve professional employments more frequently, this is down to prejudice as opposed to natural capability. Also with regards to criminality, these arguments state that the propensity for certain races to commit more crime and be overrepresented in the prison population is derived from firstly poverty due to social prejudice against the race, and therefore lack of provision of opportunity, and secondly prejudice in the criminal justice system.

    Arguments for the significance of race
    Simply observation seems to suggest that races exist given the vastly different appearance of people of different races. Similarly races seems have commonalities in behaviour and traits, suggesting that there is a natural propensity of racial difference. There are numbers amount of statistics which indicate racial differences, and studies for example those that have been performed by Richard Lynn show a similar patters across all the continents of the world which is that in terms of most performance metrics, whites and Asians tend to rank at the top, people of mixed race between white and black in the middle and black at the bottom. The following statistics are extracted from Richard Lynn’s work.

    Conclusion

    The arguments against the significance of race are firstly at odds with empirical statistics. While all races are represented among the higher achievers, there are clear patterns of performance with certain races consistently outperforming others across all continents.

    This assertion that this is caused by prejudice needs to be tested. In Western nations the underperformance of certain races for example in 1970 in Britain, the poor performance of black students was so prevalent that the government set up an enquiry to look into it’s causes. “Positive Discrimination” measures (conversely and colloquially known as ‘anti-white racism’) were undertaken so give black communities a “lift up” but this has made little or no difference. In the U.S., the state has bent over backwards to implement the ideas of “equality” and “social justice” by providing lower entry standards to universities for black students, and programmes to encourage blacks into the workplace for positions across the spectrum. These policies have been in effect for 3 generations, and yet they seem to have had little or no effect. Richard Lynn finds the same pattern in the United States today as is represented worldwide. In fact in the United States of today, despite all of the efforts of government, media and concerned individuals, large black areas are neighbourhoods of anarchy with frequent crime, delinquency, high unemployment, prostitution and drive-by shootings.

    Genetics

    Geneticists seem to have split people into two camps on the genetic arguments as to whether race exists, and I intend to examine both sides of the argument. I will first examine the argument that race does not exist in genetics.

    Argument against the existence of race.

    In Guido Barbujani’s 2005 (Dipartimento di Biologia, Università di Ferrara, Italy) study, Barbujani’s abstract includes that:
    “The available studies show that there is geographic structure in human genome diversity, and that it is possible to infer with reasonable accuracy the continent of origin from an individual’s multilocus genotype. However, clear-cut genetic boundaries between human groups, which would be necessary to recognise these groups as relatively isolated mating units which zoologists would call races, have not been identified so far.”

    http://utenti.unife.it/guido.barbujani/pdf/31.pdf

    Barbujani defined the common idea of race (which he rejects) as follows: “In classical human genetic or physical anthropology textbooks, races are envisaged as large populations of individuals who evolved together, share a significant fraction of their genes, and hence can be distinguished from other races by their common gene pool.”

    Barbujai’s assertion is that in a situation shows on the left pattern in figure 2, where there are 4 groups of human beings for which each have a majority of DNA patters which do not overlap, then it could be said that they are of a distinct, race, however if an individual is subject to an array of categories which overlap for the most part, then the individual cannot be said to be part of any of these distinct categories. This is the premise on which Barbujai’s argument is based.

    Barbujai uses the results of several 3 race and 7 race, DNS coloration studies, and states that “Individual differences between members of the same population accounted for about 85% of the global human variance; belonging to different populations added between 3% and 8% to that value, and to different races or continents between 6 and 11%.”
    “Overall, 4199 different alleles are documented in the 377 loci of Ref. 43. Of those alleles, 66% are shared at least by Africa, Asia and Europe, whereas only 7.4% are continent-specific.”

    Barbujai ‘s conclusion is that one can estimate the probability of every individual genotype to belong to each of the inferred clusters by the genetic variances between regions and races, and because the majority of DNS is in common as opposed to distinct, the majority of people sit in the right hand categorisation in figure 2 and therefore race does not exist.
    Argument for the existence of race
    In 2004 Lynn B Jorde & Stephen P Wooding of the University of Utah School of Medicine, Department of Human Genetics, produced a research known as Genetic Variation, classification and ‘race’. It was sponsored by pharmaceutical companies which wished to assess whether ancestry or race is useful in a biomedical setting i.e. for disease treatment.

    This study commenced with the fact that most human DNS has patterns in common, as opposed to distinct, however it decided to concentrate only on studying the parts of the human DNA which varied.

    The study found that "Of the 0.1% of DNA that varies among individuals, what proportion varies among main populations? Consider an apportionment of Old World populations into three continents (Africa, Asia and Europe), a grouping that corresponds to a common view of three of the 'major races'. Approximately 85−90% of genetic variation is found within these continental groups, and an additional 10−15% of variation is found between them....The largest genetic distance is seen between African and non-African populations.” The conclusion of the study states that “Genetic variation is geographically structured, as expected from the partial isolation of human populations during much of their history. Because traditional concepts of race are in turn correlated with geography, it is inaccurate to state that race is ‘biologically meaningless.’”

    The study produced data from a neighbour-joining tree of individual similarities across Asia, Europe and Africa and the results were transformed into diagrammatic scheme using computer software modelling, see figure 3.

    The Conclusion from the Jorde Wooding study is that genetic variation is geographically structured and that because the traditional concepts of race are geographically based, it is inaccurate to say that the idea of race is biologically meaningless. Therefore the concept of race is a very real and tangible thing.

    Conclusion

    There has been a politically motivated trend in the universities to argue that race is a social construct, and this has been argued in order to try to enforce “positive discrimination” in order to attempt to counterbalance racial differences. These attempts have failed and therefore it is time that they are exposed for what they are.

    The arguments have tended to infer that the DNA of people amongst people of different races is 99%+ similar and therefore there is no concept of race. It is in fact true that genome-wide variation from one human being to another can be up to 0.5% (99.5% similarity). Up to this point the argument that race does not exist sounds solid. However, the argument starts to break down when you consider that Chimpanzees are 96% to 98% similar to humans, depending on how it is calculated and Cats have 90% of homologous genes with humans. 90% of the mouse genome could be lined up with a region on the human genome and 99% of mouse genes turn out to have analogues in humans. Therefore genetic distance must be measured on a logarithmic scale (a scale consisting of points whose distances from a fixed point derive a mathematical power for each point, as opposed to a series of points of fixed distance) which allows the differential part of the DNA, rather than the fixed part to be measured.

    Barbujai’s idea of a requirement of mutually discrete spheres to define race is a logical impossibility given the nature of the logarithmic nature of the DNS similarity scale. All (or almost all) phenotypes will fit into the right hand model in Barbujai’s figure 2, however this does not negate the concept of race. The concept of race is embedded in what would be minute differences in the diagrammatic structure in right hand model in Barbujai’s figure 2, but nevertheless minute differences which are in common.

    The Jorde Wooding study has shown a consistency of the minute differences which define race, which correspond with the traditional geographical regions and the traditional ideas of race. The minute differences in DNS are significant enough to define the difference between a human being and a rat, and therefore consistencies in them are sufficient to prove the existence of race in the traditional concept.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by guezelkuecuek)
    Keep on spitting that mindless propaganda they convince you edgy teens into believing.

    Race is not separated like a pretty little colour by numbers book where everything is kept between the lines due to some integral societal order. Anyone who has ever studied basic Biology could quickly learn that. You aren't British any more than you're Polish-German-Danish-French-Swedish-Icelandic-Spanish mixed. Somehow we think the piece of land that we were born on makes us more a member of that aforementioned mongrel race than someone born in another country.

    "White" is not a race. This is another fallacy. White is a skin colour which, again, if you had the effort to research, is simply the amount of pigment the body has developed to prevent UV radiation from damaging skin cells. If you were to look at a map, you'd quickly learn that countries in the northern hemisphere, where there is less sunlight and therefore less UV, the skin hues are lighter than in countries hit with more sunlight. Easy enough to grasp?

    Sad that in ancient societies, bereft of the understanding and scientific research we have today had more advanced beliefs than this: "According to classical scholar Frank Snowden, skin color did not determine social status in ancient Egypt, Greece or Rome." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_s...ism_and_racism citation [87]

    The notion of "white" as a race is both stupid and dangerous.
    Why do you only apply this to the white race ?

    Why not say this to black people, black organisations, or Chinese only organisations ? Technically they wouldn't exist either ?

    Is your reason for not criticising them, because you are anti-white ?

    Why are the white British people a bunch of mongrels who don't exist ? What is the proof of this ?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Logically:

    • There are minute differences in DNS
    • These minute differences stop us being a rat
    • We are not rats
    • Therefore "white" is a race


    I never disputed the fact that populations are shaped by the environment, in fact, I actually agreed with this when I discussed skin pigments. What I disagree with is the absurd notion that "White" is a race.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by guezelkuecuek)
    Logically:

    • There are minute differences in DNS
    • These minute differences stop us being a rat
    • We are not rats
    • Therefore "white" is a race


    I never disputed the fact that populations are shaped by the environment, in fact, I actually agreed with this when I discussed skin pigments. What I disagree with is the absurd notion that "White" is a race.
    what's wrong with basing a political party on the idea that white people are a race ?

    Answer.

    There's nothing wrong with it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by democracyforum)
    Why do you only apply this to the white race ?

    Why not say this to black people, black organisations, or Chinese only organisations ? Technically they wouldn't exist either ?

    Is your reason for not criticising them, because you are anti-white ?

    Why are the white British people a bunch of mongrels who don't exist ? What is the proof of this ?

    It is not necessary to criticise one thing to justify my criticism of the other. Let me amend this so you can't find any grounds to logically disagree with me:

    Any race based organisation is based on myth, fallacy and blind nationalism. Whether it be white supremacy, black supremacy or Chinese. It's irrelevant. The Black Panthers exist, so do the KKK.

    This "anti-white" nonsense is all copied from the same word document and I'm sure you're both just deliberately repeating it to beget a response.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by democracyforum)
    what's wrong with basing a political party on the idea that white people are a race ?

    Answer.

    There's nothing wrong with it.
    Because white people are not a race.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    White race
    Nordic race
    European race
    Indigenous Briton

    Really all the same thing, stop playing with words and being silly .
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by guezelkuecuek)
    It is not necessary to criticise one thing to justify my criticism of the other. Let me amend this so you can't find any grounds to logically disagree with me:

    Any race based organisation is based on myth, fallacy and blind nationalism. Whether it be white supremacy, black supremacy or Chinese. It's irrelevant. The Black Panthers exist, so do the KKK.

    This "anti-white" nonsense is all copied from the same word document and I'm sure you're both just deliberately repeating it to beget a response.
    Identifying an anti-white is based on fact.

    I have never seen immigrants in Japan, Korea, or another country start telling their hosts, that they don't actually exist as a group.

    They only do it in places like Britain , Sweden. Basically only white countries.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    You really believe you're an "indigenous" Briton. Islands which have faced invasions for centuries and you're one of the "indigenous" populations not affected by this.

    Thought you were slightly more intelligent than that to be honest.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by guezelkuecuek)
    You really believe you're an "indigenous" Briton. Islands which have faced invasions for centuries and you're one of the "indigenous" populations not affected by this.

    Thought you were slightly more intelligent than that to be honest.
    Indigenous is synonymous with being white, European, or generally Western European.

    Also, based on your logic, no one in the world is an indigenous person.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by democracyforum)
    Identifying an anti-white is based on fact.

    I have never seen immigrants in Japan, Korea, or another country start telling their hosts, that they don't actually exist as a group.

    They only do it in places like Britain , Sweden. Basically only white countries.
    Another country. So much research and depth in your arguments. The mystical "other" countries which you have visited and performed extensive research on. The evidence provided for these "other" countries, which I'm sure you've extensively surveyed. Stay off the Stormfront and the Daily Mail, they're like cancer for intelligence.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by democracyforum)
    Indigenous is synonymous with being white, European, or generally Western European.

    Also, based on your logic, no one in the world is an indigenous person.
    This doesn't even deserve a response.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by guezelkuecuek)
    This doesn't even deserve a response.
    Why ? Because you are wrong ?
 
 
 
Poll
Should MenACWY vaccination be compulsory at uni?
General election 2017 on TSR
Register to vote

Registering to vote?

Check out our guide for everything you need to know

Manifesto snapshots

Manifesto Snapshots

All you need to know about the 2017 party manifestos

Party Leader questions

Party Leader Q&A

Ask political party leaders your questions

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.