Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pavlik)
    I don't know what your point is here (sympathetic?) However, let me say this: even if whites were the inferior race in all respects, the kinship, the genetic interest they represent would still be the important thing. The value of a nephew to his uncle is in their genetic similarity in excess of random gene-sharing i.e. kinship, not supremacy over other children.
    To be honest I haven't heard that before and I like to research all this sort of thing.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DrunkHamster)
    (Original post by numb3rb0y)
    I wasn't talking about banning expression or parties. If the direct result of their vote is the implementation of fascistic governmental policy, then it's that vote is a violation of the non-aggression and it's damn well my business.
    To be fair, this applies equally well to any party which wants to form government, not just the BNP.
    Quite. The thought of MPs who vote for tax increases being carted off in police cars to await trial for theft and anti-terror laws for common assault, kidnap and unlawful imprisonment brings a warm glow to my heart.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Collingwood)
    Quite. The thought of MPs who vote for tax increases being carted off in police cars to await trial for theft and anti-terror laws for common assault, kidnap and unlawful imprisonment brings a warm glow to my heart.
    LOL. ^5
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    :O but racism = white supremacy! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
    And the BNP =/= a racial issue.

    Why do people (left, right, liberal, not..) all get so stuck on the whole 'race' thing even when it's not particularly important?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Invictus_88)
    And the BNP =/= a racial issue.

    Why do people (left, right, liberal, not..) all get so stuck on the whole 'race' thing even when it's not particularly important?
    I was being sarcastic, but, to be fair; they do bring up race quite often.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    They the people here, or they the BNP?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    The BNP. Incidentally does the 88 in your name stand for what I think it does?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Hell no.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    LOL, okay, just checking.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Goddess Fury)
    Yes.
    :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pavlik)
    Not really in question nowadays, in the scientific world - although you are forgiven for thinking this, based on the politically motivated rubbish that gets fed to the public.



    Supremacy of caucasians and most groups of east asians over negroes in intelligence is blindingly obvious, I'd have said. Just as obvious as West African supremacy in sprinting, although more significant.

    Separatism is the only stable and non-loss-incurring strategy for an adaptively minded (i.e. normal) European human, at this time. I am not necessarily opposed to mixing in itself.
    I've literally not read anything in a long time that made me as angry as this. Absolutely no question about it, you are a racist nit.

    The reason there is even any sort of inequality or supremacy between caucasians/east asians/black people/whoever else you want to include in your patently ridiculous theorizing, is because of the ignorant self-interest of the people who, hundreds of years ago, thought that it would be a good idea to subject people they decided were inferior to slavery, segregation and humiliation. No matter what you say, it's undeniable that people are still people (i.e. homo sapiens and therefore part of the same race) no matter what colour their skin is, or where they're from.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I've gleaned from what you've said, is that essentially, you think that white people are superior. Do you agree with any other neo-Nazi propoganda, or is it just the white supremacy?

    Unfortunately, I agree with numb3rb0y that it is completely your right to have these, frankly, disgusting views. However, because I believe that everyone has a fundamental right to express themselves, I can tell you that I think what you've contributed thus far has been nothing more than unintelligent, un-informed, baseless and revolting dross. If you genuinely hold the views that you claim to, then I can't think of anything more to say to you, other than to call you a disgrace. An absolute disgrace.
    Offline

    13
    I note Pavlik (the current champion of racist rhetoric at TSR it seems) is making use of the ideas of Frank Salter to defend his ideas about 'genetic interest' so I thought I'd post some resources for those who need an introduction as to why Salter talks 'nonsense on stilts':

    Critique of Salter Part 1 (LINK).

    Critique of Salter Part 2 (LINK).

    Salter's Fallacy (LINK).

    Beyond all this it's worth bearing in mind that Pavlik argues from what is widely recognised in the humanities and sciences as a completely false assumption; the 'real' existence of biological races.

    Variation in human populations are real but biological 'race' has been abandoned for some time by mainstream science. The problem is that people recognise the former and make an unjustified leap into the latter. Human genetic variation is complex and manifest in a myriad of clines (variations which are gradual not discontinuous). The problem with biological race models (there have been several of them since they emerged in the 18th/19th centuries) is that they try to fit variation into something akin to distinctive 'race boxes' where every individual, or population, are labelled as belonging to this 'type' of human, or that 'type'; and there are usually only a small number of these boxes, three, four or five is typical. Just as we might recognise that someone looks Chinese or European (variation) we might also recognise that the point at which populations stop 'looking' Chinese and starts to 'look' European is an arbitrary matter, notwithstanding that appearances represent only a fraction (and thus arbitrarily privileged portion) of the genetic phenotype which variation is constituted by.

    Again, here are some scholarly resources which help demonstrate the problem of what is sometimes termed 'race realism':

    http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/

    http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/k0305muk.htm

    http://www.greeninformation.org/The%...0of%20Race.htm

    http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/inte...Baltimore.html

    This is just a sample of course.

    The biological categorisation of humans into 'races' was a pseudo-scientific endeavour of the nineteenth century much like the 'science' of phrenology, both persisting in the popular imagination after being scientifically discredited - the former has especially shown staying power because it is used to further the political agendas of racist groups, 'white nationalists', 'ethnonationalists' and their ilk. The important thing is not to get swept up into the assumptions or pseudo-scientific jargon of the racists when debating them. Mainstream science agrees; there are no biological races, there are variations and those variations are complex, clinal, diffuse and non-coterminous; in short, we're all related to each other and we're all one race.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Slice)
    I've literally not read anything in a long time that made me as angry as this. Absolutely no question about it, you are a racist nit.

    The reason there is even any sort of inequality or supremacy between caucasians/east asians/black people/whoever else you want to include in your patently ridiculous theorizing, is because of the ignorant self-interest of the people who, hundreds of years ago, thought that it would be a good idea to subject people they decided were inferior to slavery, segregation and humiliation. No matter what you say, it's undeniable that people are still people (i.e. homo sapiens and therefore part of the same race) no matter what colour their skin is, or where they're from.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I've gleaned from what you've said, is that essentially, you think that white people are superior. Do you agree with any other neo-Nazi propoganda, or is it just the white supremacy?

    Unfortunately, I agree with numb3rb0y that it is completely your right to have these, frankly, disgusting views. However, because I believe that everyone has a fundamental right to express themselves, I can tell you that I think what you've contributed thus far has been nothing more than unintelligent, un-informed, baseless and revolting dross. If you genuinely hold the views that you claim to, then I can't think of anything more to say to you, other than to call you a disgrace. An absolute disgrace.
    Read the wikipedia article I posted earlier? I agree with difference in intelligence between races but this doesn't make me racist (in the meaning of other races). I am part hispanic and they don't do too well in the rankings, so I'm hardly biased.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    In answer to the thread title: yes, it most certainly is.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Yuffie)
    Read the wikipedia article I posted earlier? I agree with difference in intelligence between races but this doesn't make me racist (in the meaning of other races). I am part hispanic and they don't do too well in the rankings, so I'm hardly biased.
    I don't believe there can be a difference in the intelligence of different races as a result of them being different races. That's not very well worded, but you know what I mean? Certainly there may be a difference in levels of how well-educated people are, which makes them appear less or more intelligent, but in reality that's to do with the educational systems and various other factors in play in different countries. I don't think that it can be right that someone is less intelligent because they are of a different race.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Slice)
    I don't believe there can be a difference in the intelligence of different races as a result of them being different races. That's not very well worded, but you know what I mean? Certainly there may be a difference in levels of how well-educated people are, which makes them appear less or more intelligent, but in reality that's to do with the educational systems and various other factors in play in different countries. I don't think that it can be right that someone is less intelligent because they are of a different race.
    IQ tests aren't really to do with education though. If they were comparing regular exam results then maybe, but IQ?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Yuffie)
    IQ tests aren't really to do with education though. If they were comparing regular exam results then maybe, but IQ?
    But even an IQ test isn't fair to be used as a judge of intelligence, because someone who has had a better education will a) be able to understand questions more fully and b) be able to answer questions more quickly as less thought will be required to work out the answer. I, for instance, would almost certainly have a higher IQ than someone the same age as me who had never been educated. Not, I hasten to add, because I am anymore intelligent than them, but because I have been taught things that they have not!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I love how BNP threads always end up with BNP supporters arguing for the racial superiority of whites. Oh no, they're not racist at all. :shifty:
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Pavlik)
    Yes, GNXP (which I should add is run by individuals who *ahem* have a personal interest in trying to deny white kinship interests) was very unsympathetic to Salter.

    However, this stuff has been ably dealt with by JWH at MR (over several posts) and I believe Dienekes also replied at his site.

    Such as:

    http://majorityrights.com/index.php/...ts_by_david_b/

    http://majorityrights.com/index.php/...defense_of_us/

    To address some of this myself, 'Salter's Fallacy' is only a fallacy if you ignore the reality of unidirectional immigration. IF a hypothetical complete reciprocity of immigration and birth rates is achieved, then intermarriage does not cause indirect harm to anyone's genetic interests. However, the reality of the situation is not this, by a long shot.

    David B is also confusing or mixing up parental fitness with relative fitness here, which are totally different things. Parental fitness is always reduced by exogamy (since offspring are less related to the parent), whereas miscegenation is just a compounding problem (contributing harm to relative fitness) in circumstances of uneven interracial migration, such as is occurring now - since it reduces the ability of the invaded ethny to recover its losses or strategise.

    I don't believe the sentence that appears at the top of the article even came from Salter, incidentally - it is just this guy's own mistaken (or contrived) interpretation.

    As for his critiques: well, his philosophical objections are equivalent to 'don't care' - this cannot be argued with, suffice to say that the idea 'life has no interests' is stupid to me, based on being a normal human being. However, this is separate from the scientific question of what a hypothetical fitness maximiser would do.

    His point about distinctive gene frequencies, as opposed to distinctive genes, is correct, and Frank Salter himself actually mentions this correction in the second edition of 'On Genetic Interests'. This does not at all change the fact that races represent a genetic reproductive interest to their constituents - if distinctive gene frequencies are 'footling' then parent-child kinship is utterly 'footling'.

    Other than that, his arguments are a sophism - his attempts to wriggle out of the simple truth that a race is like an extended family, with the inherent genetic interest that this entails.



    Phenotype is a very good indication of genotype. This is why self-identified race corresponds almost 100% of the time to race as identified by genetic testing.

    Choosing Chinese and European is a poor example, because these are clearly separate populations, with no genetic and very little phenotypic overlap (as shown by Witherspoon 2007).

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Ish7688voT.../globalsim.png

    A genetic map of the world. Note that whilst caucasians are indeed a fairly continuous population, the continental races do not merge continuously.

    Furthermore, kinship interests are not nullified by the lack of concrete distinctions. An Indian is almost certainly less related to me than a German, although both lie on a caucasoid genetic continuum - just as orange and red are separate colours. On the other hand, Chinese and Europeans, mixed-race individuals of varying degrees aside, are more like red and blue.
    But none of your defences wriggle out of the arbitrary construct that is 'genetic relatedness', we're all genetically related given that we've all evolved as the same species. Where you choose to make a degree of relatedness significant is a matter of political or aesthetic choice, ultimately, and hence the widespread scientific critique of the very notion of 'race'.

    Beyond this, however, all you and your like do is try and shift putative facts about relatedness in the direction of your subjective valuing of such relatedness as if one requires the other. It would seem you're not familiar with the is/ought fallacy. In short, my "race's", or ethnic group's 'inbreeding' is only, only, as important as I choose (or choose not) to make it. No, evolution does not have a mind or will, it does not care about whether at some future point in time white populations existing today will still exist some thousands of years from now. Nature doesn't 'care' about anyone's genetic relatedness, evolution is a blind process. Consequently, the only grounds you have for wanting to 'save' your white 'race' is your subjective valuation of that idea. If the rest of us aren't bothered about the 'white race' then, we simply aren't bothered. And, to repeat, neither evolution, genes nor nature have a mind with which to actually care about that. Racists such as yourself screaming at us to give a damn about our whiteness doesn't change anything; if you don't want to have your children or grandchildren 'mixing' then that's your concern (though you might find that as you get further and further away from your successive generations this is harder for you to police). The rest of can give our skin colour or genetic 'interest' as much or as little (or no) importance as we choose - and most of us choose the little or no importance options.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pavlik)
    Crikey.



    Slavery is not unique to historic European-negro interactions. Anyhow, I would like to know exactly how this is giving rise to the consistent measured IQ gap between negroes and other races, as well as the uniform failure of negro-run states, the absence of negro geniuses and the universal tendency of negroes to sink to the bottom of multiracial societies.



    White people are not the race with the highest IQ, that would be NE Asians - with Ashkenazi Jews being the single most intelligent ethnic group, however.

    This has nothing to do with Nazism or Hitler, at least not necessarily.



    Perhaps you are a negress?
    I don't believe I said that slavery was unique to "European-negro" relations. I merely used the example of slavery to illustrate my point. The point, which I think you may have missed, was that the reason white people have any superiority, is because we pushed everyone else so far down below us that only in recent years have they begun to claw their way back up! Segregation was only abolished in the 60's for heavens sake! Black women (just to use the example about which I know the most) are still paid on average $4 an hour less (I think that was right) than white women in the US. If these inequalities still exist, it's easy to see that inequalities within the educational systems and so on, will still exist. It is this massive flaw (which has come about as a result of the terrible way ethnic minorities used to be treated by white peopl i.e. slavery) which is to blame for any apparent superiority in intelligence white people may have over black people (or other ethnic minorities). I don't think it fair to say that any race is more or less intelligent than another. It's a sweeping generalization.

    That^^ may not have anything directly to do with Nazism, but certainly white supremacy (which is what I mentioned) does. Are you one who feels that white supremacy is neccesary?

    No, I am not a negress. I am in fact white. White and British. I find it very offensive that you enquired whether I was black because I argued with your assertions. Did it not occur to you that I just be a firm believer in equality?

    Like I said, your racist views genuinely disgust me.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

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

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