Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

it is my right of freedom to vote bnp watch

Announcements
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pavlik)
    Modern white man won't be around for very long. Either he will be restored to kin altruism, or he will be replaced by non-white kin altruists - this is how the world works.
    And, again, I need only question: so what? You have never actually answered this question. Why should I care? You've always failed to answer this, so rather than pick holes in your huge multiquote (which I lack the time to analyse), I'll focus on this. Why should I care to the extent that I surround myself with white chavs who I don't get on with? What? Just because they're white. White people are not my family - I feel no connection with them. That science can demonstrate genetical similarities isn't meaningful to me because it neglects the socio-cultural aspects which make up human interests. I'd much rather have an honest Jamaican neighbour who I respect living next to me than some rowdy white kid. I don't extend racial generalisations into anything meaningful on that front.

    Ideally I also want Australia, Canada etc. to remain mostly white, as well - not just Europe. If you can't see that Britains, who are obviously not Indians or Vietnamese, being replaced constitutes a loss, then you are clueless.
    And that essentially is your argument? Isn't it? I'll bring you back to this question. Why are people clueless just because they don't see the white race as a group worthy to be forcedly maintained?

    You just have a value system which is at odds with the idea of leaving descendants. There is little point in us arguing over the ethics of race-replacement, bearing this in mind.
    Is this, therefore, an acceptance that your argument relies on the premise that leaving white descendants is desirable, thus making your argument wholly circular?

    ...surely overridden by the desire of 'racist' white people who currently have nowhere to go that is not multiracial or potentially multiracial...
    Why should we interfere to specifically accomodate these racists? Their house, their property and their personal space need not be multicultural or multiracial. I'm not forcing white men to allow black people into their homes and beds. That they have a problem with people, regardless of race, living in land near to them is hardly my concern, nor the government's.

    So what - you are for free speech for 'racists'? Good, that's progress.
    I'm not actually in favour of absolute free speech, but if you mean "do I support your ability to convey these racist views?" Then my answer would be yes.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pavlik)
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...ty-401968.html

    http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...oms/article.do

    Go into an old folks home, and they will be almost all white. However, what matters is the younger population, which is increasingly non-white.
    :nah:

    You said that they were taking over. When you say taking over, you imply that they are ruling. I wasn't on about minorities or majorities at all.

    Not only that, your "darkies" slur nullifies your claims almost immediately; in resorting to this, you have showed yourself up as being unable to present a rational argument, like most who make such claims.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pavlik)
    That is what governments do, they interfere. Say if a group of white people who lived in a town wanted to secede and keep it as their own white town, they would be interfered with, even though they owned the land.
    Indeed, but my question was 'why should the government interfere?' Are you going to reconsider your answer or just leave it that - that 'interfering' is "just what governments do"? Okay, but I don't think many students are going to accept that argument as decent. Should the government interfere when I demand that they make my land a private country independent of Britain's legal system? That my backgarden can secede? Why should the British government merely be accountable towards white people as a race rather than people who were born and currently live in Britain?

    If we weren't being interfered with, then white ethnostates would emerge naturally. Actually, non-whites might be cleared out of a lot of places - perhaps not in Britain where the numerical advantage is not too great, though.
    You've let yourself down here. The government has not interfered in the labour market here - people haven't been forced by our government to live here.

    If you justify race-replacement on the basis that the British people, who are silenced by the law and mass indoctrination, do not tend to express their dissent in public nowadays, then I can justify secession based on the fact that across the white world there are a lot of people who would like to secede and live in a white ethnostate - for example, the many thousands of people on Stormfront.
    I don't think states have an obligation to grant independence for any Tom, **** and Harry who asks for it, for very much the same reason that Scotland can't just claim its independence. White people can stop race-replacement in real terms relating to them merely by reproducing with another white person to produce a white baby. Indeed, under British law you are allowed to buy your own property and thus create your own personal space where no 'black' people are allowed to enter. You have that right. Unfortunately, you can't harm the rights of others to reproduce with black people and allow black people into their homes. Racial-replacement is not a physical threat to anyone's rights. Racial-replacement thus becomes merely an empty word in this debate.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pavlik)
    Did I recall you saying that you are not hell-bent on racial replacement? Because to say that you have no consideration for the views of someone who really hates the idea of being wiped out and replaced by a bunch of unrelated aliens - not exactly remarkable, by the standards of normal human beings - is a total understatement.
    Your first paragraph simply is not well thought out, Pavlik! You really ought to sit down and consult your views here. I am not hell-bent on racial-replacement, Pavlik. I don't really care either way if babies are largely being born with different genes in this country. I have no considerations for people who hate the idea of other people reproducing with different races. If you were forced to have sex with a black person, then I may consider that to be sexual harrassment or rape (if not technically rape). If you were being wiped out as an individual (i.e. murdered), then I would be concerned. However racial-replacement is not an attack on you, so why should the government intervene? Just because a white person wants to have sex with a black person? Racial-replacement means very little to me as an individual. No individual is being killed or wiped out. There is simply less white people being born. Do you want to continue the white race or your family? Go on then. I shan't interfere with you having sex with another white person to have a white baby. I do object, however, to you telling other white people who they can and can't have sex with. That there are less white people being born really shouldn't be a matter which concerns you. Nobody is literally being killed, nobody is dying, nobody is forced into sex... There's no justification for government interference here. Your use of 'wiped out' is most sensational - for no individual is affected nor harmed nor murdered, nor even wiped out nor forced into any arrangement.

    Furthermore, I didn't say that you shouldn't have a right to protest - I'm arguing the case that you have no justification for crying over the idea that the less white people are being born and thus that you should force people to change their partners just to extend the white race. All you can do is create a white family - you can't force other white people to do the same.

    Furthermore, racial-replacement cannot occur if a white person produces a white family and has the means to purchase space for that family to live. You can do that buy all means - but equally you can't deny white people from having families of mixed race on their own land, in their own homes, on their own property. If I, as a white person, want to employ a highly intelligent Jamaican or Asian friend of mine, I don't think you have any grounds on which to deny me that. Of course, a freer labour market produces better economic results for Britain - with the most efficient workers collected from the greater human capital/resources invested into our huge labour market. The simply matter of fact here is, quite simply Pavlik, that my position is not inconsistent here; whereas I really fail to see any merit in your racist ideology.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pavlik)
    Salter shows that I have every justification to complain about this state of affairs - as much justification as I do to raise, protect and extend preferential behaviour towards my family. There is no difference between family nepotism and ethnic nepotism - they are both adaptive behaviours, as I have shown, and I (along with many other white people, if some of them were knocked out of their induced stupor) wish to pursue both of them.
    Unfortunately, genetical similarities are not enough to show that there is an emotional connection between us all. You would not marry your close family, however you would marry anther white person. There is a difference between family and race. Beyond family, however, I feel no connection to members of a certain race because genetical/blood/chromosome similarities do not take into account the socio-cultural factors which make me much more similar to a Jamaican football player than a young white chav who I would rather have nothing to do with. Why not let people choose their own friends and family, regardless of race - and why don't you purchase your own property to live in with people of the colour you prefer?

    I can't force anything at the moment, because we have a treacherous, free-riding elite.
    Is that meant to be a shame?

    Just like the genocide of the indigenous Americans produced better economic results for the USA. The economy exists to serve the people. not vice versa.
    Genocide usually implies that a race is being physically wiped out. Who is literally and physically dying as a result of multiculturalism?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    You have not demonstrated that a link, like a family link, exists between races. Family links are more than mere genetics. I feel no link to other white people purely because we are genetically similar. Indeed, I feel no need to place an arbitrary line on how genetically similar people must be to me. Even if it was natural, there would be no justification for infinging on the liberty of other white people to make friends with people from other races and adopt them under their roofs, just like you can build your own white empire on your own land. Do I hear a naturalistic fallacy from your end here? That something is natural does not entail that it is at all desirable. That something is natural does not mean it is rational. Racism is irrational.

    Ask white people to reproduce with other white people if you desire - but you have no justification for enforcing your white nationalist belief upon others. You're entitled to free speech - I didn't say this was the issue - but I do demand that, because you have free speech, you then allow people to make up their own minds, thus making your ideology of forceably segregating races rather redundant.

    No American was actually dying as a result of multiculuralism (you conceded that)... Why wouldn't they celebrate higher standards of living? Just because more babies are being born with a different skin colour because of the voluntary intercourse between a man and a woman? I fundamentally do not see living with other races as being a problem.

    And I'm hardly anti-white, considering I support the ability of all people (including white people) to make friends, reproduce and live with whoever they want under their roof (regardless of race), in lands which they own.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    It's desirable because you desire it? And based on the assumption that intelligent white people will do in the years to come (and still, I see no justification for the majority to tell the minority that they can't keep a black wife under their roof...)? Riiight; that's about all I need to hear - I'm obviously not going to be gaining the discussion I was looking for here. I shan't waste my time any longer. I'll agree to disagree that racism is at all natural to humans who would sooner associate with people based on their character rather than the colour of their skin. Agree to disagree?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    So it would seem that you're going back on our arrangement? To be quite frank and honest, I have no desire to go over my points yet again, but I'll rest easy in the knowledge that I've made my case and that the BNP will not play an important role in British politics in the foreseeable future.

    Your post merely explains why, in no uncertain terms, the white race would prosper in certain conditions; but it does not challenge my main criticism that forceably maintaining a white race at the expense of multiculturalism (including the white person's wish to allow his Asian wife on his property in Britain) is not desirable for all parties involved. If I fancied my black girlfriend (if she was black), I would want her to live in my property without you forceably denying it just because you, as an individual, have a warped idea that maintaining a white race is a good thing. Others and I (white people) do not agree with that fundamental premise. You and your, potentially, racist friends can have "all-white" parties any day of the week in the lands that you own. Just don't think you should have the ability to say who other white people can reproduce with and be friends with.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pavlik)
    It is rather amusing that you refer to 1934 when claiming that the Daily Mail of today is 'racist'. I don't believe a Briton transported from 1934 to today would believe his eyes. And to me the Daily Mail is just another, slightly less PC, pro-race-replacement rag.
    I suppose it was foolish of me to try and demonstrate to you that The Daily Mail was, and still is, racist. I forget that people who are racist tend to not recognise that they're prejudiced and just think that they're right. You think what you like about the Daily Mail. Quality reading material for you.

    (Original post by Pavlik)
    Something to add:

    I do not have a 'racist ideology'. You have an 'anti-racist', or rather 'anti-white' ideology, because that is its effect. The wish for an individual to see his race prosper is not based upon an ideology, it arises from within. On the other hand, only an ideology can cause a person to wish replacement upon his people - this is not a natural state.
    Yes, you do have a racist ideology. And none of us have an "anti-white" ideology, we just don't have a particularly pro-white ideology. And that would be because we're not small minded bigots, who realise that, ultimately race doesn't matter.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Pavlik)
    If mating was at random, rather than assortative, then most of Britain would be (significantly) mixed-race by now, after three generations of non-white immigration.

    On the other hand, a) miscegenation in itself is not the problem
    b) miscegenation within an ethny does not imply consent to be racially replaced

    For example, if Europeans slaughtered half of Pakistan and settled there themselves, then come 100 years time, there would surely be many mixed-race Pakistani-Europeans there - however, this does not imply that the Pakistanis were complicit in their replacement. For one thing, women are not naturally inclined to defend territory, that is the role of men - if the European men wanted to take Pakistani women, then that would be quite easy for them, even if the Pakistanis resented the genocide and occupation.

    I would be happy for black people or other non-whites to disregard their genetic interests - it is a matter of self-interest, my reproductive interests being tied to those of other whites. However, in reality it is white people who are being replaced, whilst the other races do further their own interests - they would not permit mass immigration of racial aliens, without a fight.



    If the science of race and racial kinship is utterly erroneous and unscientific, then even a bonehead like you should be able to refute it. However, your total achievement so far in this regard has been to post a few links to a nit-picking criticism at a race-realist blog, which I addressed anyway.

    Losing a fight is not a reason to give it up - it is not as though nothing is salvageable, even if it takes 50 years for some action to take place.
    It's pretty plain to me that these 'genetic interests' you invest with such importance are nothing more than a subjective attachment to an arbitrarily constructed boundary of 'relatedness'. Given that this 'genetic interest' idea is the centre point of your 'argument' you're thus not really saying anything of substance. It simply is the case that mainstream scholarship has, at the least problematised, and for the most part discarded, the biological race concept, though I can appreciate that to save face you might have to a) cite the work of those on the periphery who might still cling to the idea, and b) present the mainstream rejection of biological race as mere 'political correctness' or the dark forces of Marxism at work in science (or some such conspiracy theory, maybe it's the Jews?).

    I don't know where you take your reference to 'mating at random' from, it's not something that I've offered up - fighting a strawman? I have, however, suggested that historically there's no lack of evidence to show people from different ethnic origins 'getting it on' with each other, though we should appreciate that the differences of social and cultural life which are often associated with differences of ethnicity might easily represent a barrier to otherwise 'colour-blindness'; it's simply easier to pursue romantic engagement with those who speak the same language, follow the same religion, eat the same food and so on - this, not simple difference of skin-colour, is likely to be the biggest barrier, though I don't really expect you to understand the subtle difference there.

    As far as you 'losing the fight' is concerned I think you, and the other racists here, are trapped by your own rhetoric. On the one hand you cry out that in a matter of decades there'll be no white people left, on the other you want us to believe that white people are somehow going to suddenly and magically become concerned about their skin colour, or more accurately, the skin colour of their offspring several generations into the future. It must be painful for you to be so trapped between pessimism and optimism, not knowing which to represent most forcefully.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Darkel)
    Oh, your platform is "race war". Good luck with that, I can imagine people flocking to your party as soon as they break away from the ZOG propaganda and realise the darkies and queers are a burden on society. I hear the electorate is quite keen on Nationalistic Socialism.

    Seriously, you lot are a joke. From a strategic standpoint you might as well give up now. :shifty:
    Oh, your platform is "race war". Good luck with that, I can imagine people flocking to your party as soon as they break away from the ZOG propaganda and realise the darkies and queers are a burden on society. I hear the electorate is quite keen on Nationalistic Socialism.
    :rolleyes: :rolleyes: you really don't get it do you? At all...even a bit.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Pavlik)
    I think I have made it clear that relatedness, or kinship, is not arbitrary. Also, I do not perceive there to be a simple distinction, kin vs. non-kin - it is a gradient. However, for the purposes of fitness maximisation some kind of solid distinctions are necessary - as I tried to show in my last but one post.

    Furthermore, if I were to consider all caucasoids to be kin, then I expect you would still object, despite the fact that there is a discontinuity between caucasoids and other races, hence no arbitrary element here.



    Oh please, if you are going to quote 'mainstream scholarship' as being in denial of race, then show me the relevant scientific studies - otherwise it is just words.

    As for the issue of 'why?', Jewish influence is an important consideration. However, it is one among many possible, and probably co-acting, causes.

    Actually, Frank Salter has written a very good article specifically on the subject of why there was a 30 year delay in quantifying ethnic kinship, if you are really interested in this subject.

    Summary here: http://www.mankindquarterly.org/spring2008_salter.html

    Buy it here: http://direct.bl.uk/bld/PlaceOrder.d...m=searchengine



    You said that people mingle happily - however, the level of interbreeding in Britain is far lower than would be expected if people did not take race into consideration when mating (and even then the level of exogamy in Britain is high compared to e.g. America)



    Most importantly though, there is no historical precedent for people voluntarily submitting to their own replacement, via territorial invasion, by aliens. Clearly it could not be so, because any such people would be very short-lived.
    All you've done is promote an arbitrarily determined barrier of 'genetic relatedness' as if something other than arbitrary and then claimed that this barrier is 'important', or that it should be, simply because you feel it to be the case.

    The fact is that we are all related through ancestry and there are any number of ways we might choose to group our degree of relatedness to others such that there is no degree of relatedness which has an essential value above any other degree. You could just as easily call your immediate family a 'race' or 'ethny' (or whatever buzzword happens to float your little boat) as any other wider degree of relations. It's no coincidence, of course, that you choose a degree of relateness that corresponds to the traditional folk conceptions of race, whereupon one of these races is the 'white' one. A classic case of a racist tail wagging a pseudo-science dog.

    Beyond all this, however, is the fact that, real or imaginary (and I say imaginary) the race concept does not (and nor does your 'genetic interest' concept) compel us to behave in any particular way. As ever you try and make legitimate an is/ought fallacy - no matter how genetically related I might be, or believe myself to be, to you, I don't have to consider myself interested in that fact, indeed I can give it zero value if I choose. Moreover, the fact that racists such as yourself have to scream at us over what you think we should be doing to 'protect our whiteness' itself demonstrates with devastating irony the absolute weakness of your assertions; if we really were at the mercy of evolutionary forces which were compelling us to behave in a racist way, you wouldn't need to tell us to do it!

    And, as I thought, you are incapable of understanding how ethnic difference is associated with social and cultural differences which themselves can constitute substantive barriers, rather than skin-colour itself. Hopefully, however, we'll reach the 'tipping point' soon whereupon places like Britain will be filled with sufficient 'mixed' people to render your 'interests' utterly destroyed.

    The attached article is from Nature, 2004.
    Attached Images
  1. File Type: pdf CONCEPTUALIZING HUMAN VARIATION article.pdf (101.5 KB, 39 views)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    Beyond all this, however, is the fact that, real or imaginary (and I say imaginary) the race concept does not (and nor does your 'genetic interest' concept) compel us to behave in any particular way. As ever you try and make legitimate an is/ought fallacy - no matter how genetically related I might be, or believe myself to be, to you, I don't have to consider myself interested in that fact, indeed I can give it zero value if I choose
    This is spot on - even if (and it's a big if) it was true that the concept of race turned out to match exactly what racists like Pavlik think it does, there's still absolutely no valid reason why we should care about it. The fact that some people are genetically closer to me than others has absolutely no moral upshot unless I choose to give it one - and luckily most people agree with me that it's utterly irrelevant.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Haha, perhaps the first time myself, DH and Oswy have all been in agreement in one thread!
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Apagg)
    Haha, perhaps the first time myself, DH and Oswy have all been in agreement in one thread!
    :eek:
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I wonder if Pavlik is P.M.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    I'm not entirely sure what you're suggesting here. I don't see Marx as a reductivist in materialist terms, though I think some following have presented Marxism in these terms. I don't think that acceptance of ourselves as social animals means we need think of ourselves as utterly at the mercy of evolutionary forces in some mechanistic moment-by-moment sense. I take plenty of my Marxist inspiration from E.P. Thompson too - a historian ever to understand the complexities of human agency within the context of social and economic forces.
    I wasnt attacking what you said - I agree entirely. I was trying to say that, if applied to the rest of society, your logic would leave you a libertarian.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Considering the effort people put in to preserve species of animals is it really wrong to want to conserve races of people? I for one am saddened by the loss of diversity, such as the extinction of ethnic groups such as the Tocharians and would be very disappointed if everyone ended up being one uniform colour (which is the way the world is going).
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Collingwood)
    I wasnt attacking what you said - I agree entirely. I was trying to say that, if applied to the rest of society, your logic would leave you a libertarian.
    Well, if it weren't for the way the concept of libertarianism has been mostly co-opted by what should really be called right-libertarians, anarcho-capitalists or, my favourite term, 'propertarians', I'd actually be open to consider myself one in a qualified sense. Where libertarianism is a general spirit of live and let live with regard to social and cultural life I'm not its enemy, where this spirit becomes an agent for the emergence of structural inequalities and exploitations I am. I've got a feeling, as it happens, that E.P. Thompson, famous Marxist historian and activist that he was, also considered himself a 'libertarian', but time has moved on and the meaning of this term has taken on associations which now render it much less appealing to socialists and Marxists.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Yuffie)
    Considering the effort people put in to preserve species of animals is it really wrong to want to conserve races of people? I for one am saddened by the loss of diversity, such as the extinction of ethnic groups such as the Tocharians and would be very disappointed if everyone ended up being one uniform colour (which is the way the world is going).
    Races aren't species, firstly. Secondly, this is mostly about human choice. How do you propose to stop people reproducing with the people they want?

    And finally, what's wrong with people being the same colour?! Race does not have any essential relation to culture - the separate languages and cultures of just the British Isles, let alone wider Europe, are pretty much a testament to that. The extinction of an ethnic group implies the extinction of that group's distinctive culture with all the people that practise it. If the culture of an "ethnicity" has not been lost, I don't see how anything has been lost. This is related to the point people often make that relationship choice is made more on shared cultural preferences rather than shared races. I have far more sympathy for people who feel Britain is losing a distinctive culture than with people who feel "race replacement" is occuring (even though there is nothing much to necessarily put one culture at a higher value than another, people tend to value their own cultures).
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
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.