Racism

[Wizard22]

Ah yes it's all "trivial and boring" when you lose...got it.

I'll pop another question here so as to finish you off then? If America's NBA, National Basketball Association, dominates the world in terms of tall (black) basketball players, then what's more important...being tall, being black, or does it make a difference between height and race??

You see, this is how simple-minded you are, schizo-doll guy. You won't be able to answer, because your brain cannot distinguish a question that separates physical, intellectual, or aesthetic distinction outside of race.

Hmm, doesn't this make you a "racist" then??

[FlashDangerpants]

Award yourself all the imaginary victory parades you like you weird little nazi.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I wish to dedicate this post to the grumpiest vegetable I know! Very very grumpy!

Theme Song

Wizard wrote: There's a phenomenon lately in the US of liberals accusing Black or Hispanic people of being "white nationalists" for supporting Conservative policies. It's pretty funny. To me, it proves the hypocrisy. Only far-left liberals can be 'racist', but nobody else is allowed to, and especially not their political rivals. When I remark on this, Sculptor flips out, fearing that his stranglehold on social justice is waning. It's humorous, I laugh. And as you recently pointed-out, different races have different blocs of crime associated with them. Stating the facts does not make somebody "a racist", despite flash and sculptor's hyperventilations.

As with most of the strange exchange going on in this thread, what is observed here only glancingly gets to the real point of what is going on in the US. If I name it I think it will make everything that follows far more clear. The cause of a great deal of civil strife, and certainly all that we witness that involves *race*, has come to the fore because of a dramatic demographic shift in the racial composition of the US.

If one wishes to understand the so-called Far Right's views and arguments about this, and to understand the Left-Progressive opposition, one has to read the Far Right's arguments. One can refer to Wilmot Robertson and The Dispossessed Majority (1973) and, for example, this quote:

Is it not incredible that the largest American population group, the group with the deepest roots, the most orderly and most technically proficient group, the nuclear population group of American culture and of the American gene pool, should have lost its preeminence to weaker, less established, less numerous, culturally heterogeneous, and often mutually hostile minorities?

With all due allowance for minority dynamism ... this miraculous shift of power could never have taken place without a Majority "split in the ranks" - without the active assistance and participation of Majority members themselves. It has already been pointed out that race consciousness is one of mankind's greatest binding forces. From this it follows that when the racial gravitational pull slackens people tend to spin off from the group nucleus. Some drift aimlessly through life as human isolates. Others look for a substitute nucleus in an intensified religious or political life, or in an expanded class consciousness. Still others, out of idealism, romanticism, inertia, or perversity, attach themselves to another race in an attempt to find the solidarity they miss in their own.

In all the Far-Right or Fringe Right material that I have read -- and there is a great deal of it -- the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 is referred to disapprovingly.

One of the main components of the act was aimed to abolish the national-origins quota. This meant that it eliminated national origin, race, and ancestry as a basis for immigration, making discriminating against obtaining visas illegal. It created a seven-category preference system.

The 1965 Act was a major shift from a former policy: the Immigration Act of 1924:

The Immigration Act of 1924, or Johnson–Reed Act, including the Asian Exclusion Act and National Origins Act (Pub. L. 68–139, 43 Stat. 153, enacted May 26, 1924), was a federal law designed to uphold white supremacy and the dominance of Protestantism in the United States. It prevented immigration from Asia and set quotas on the number of immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe. It also authorized the creation of the country's first formal border control service, the U.S. Border Patrol, and established a "consular control system" that allowed entry only to those who first obtained a visa from a U.S. consulate abroad.

The term 'white supremacy' in that paragraph (Wiki is always slanted toward Left-Progressive rhetorical terms) means the demographic dominance of people of European descent. Note that prior to 1965, when it began to shift, those of European stock comprised about 90% of the US demographic. Now I think it is somewhere around 63%.

Now, both the American Progressive Left and the American Right (including Far Right or Dissident Right) is acutely aware that demographic shift is occurring, and indeed one can watch this video of Vice-President Biden as he explains, in thoroughly clear terms, just what has been engineered to happen (through policy shift) and that it is a good thing, a necessary thing, that must be encouraged.

What does this mean? In the context of a formerly chauvinistic America that could define itself in racial or cultural terms ("We are a country of predominantly European immigrants") what it means is that the very definition of what America is, is being reengineered. That is to say that if you choose to be on the right side of the moral question, today you must say that "American is a propositional nation" and not a nation composed of a specific people, of a specific background, and certainly of a specific race or a general race-grouping such as European (which is in reality extremely diverse even in its 'whiteness').

Therefore, today, and going on every day and directly in front of all of us, is the playing-out of the civil, cultural and demographic struggles related to this unprecedented demographic shift. If you refuse to see that this issue is predominant, or if you are ideologically incapable of recognizing what is actually going on, then it seems to me that you have your head in the sand.

Race-politics, therefore, very certainly comes to the fore among Left-Progressives. Beyond any doubt it is a central issue for them. But it -- the racial and cultural composition issue, and the remaking of the definition of what America is (and isn't) -- is an extremely potent tool for them to fight against their enemies. Just examine the issue closely:

Who could, and how would they, describe and defend a social policy of a) strengthening the white demographic of America through a limitation on immigration, and b) how could they gain or be given an legitimizing platform within the media and communication structure of America today?

Now there is a very curious thing: one of the strangest political flip-flops that could ever have been conceived: the Republican Party is now incorporating into itself a great deal of the ideological positions of the former Left-Progressives such as being anti-war, anti-state police (federal police), anti-corporate in the sense of complaining about the Military/Industrial Complex. And it is also redefining itself as uncommitted to those former race-conscious (or race-concerned) attitudes that formerly defined the Republican mind-set.

This is where Wizard's really strange *position* becomes almost absurd: he obviously has a 'racialist' position (which is not the same as being *racist* though for the Progressive Left it most certainly is) but he cannot and he will not come out and state his position directly and honestly. Instead, he pretends that the American Left and Progressive faction are really the racists.

My view is that this is in essence a false-narrative. What the Conservative/Republican faction seems to say is "Don't play so hard". That is, do not use the language of *systemic racism* and do not rile people up with charged rhetoric about inequality, racial prejudice, and reminders of the history of the American definition of itself as white and European (of the sort that Teddy Roosevelt et al would have held and believed in with all his being). Formerrly, these were attitudes that Wizard's parents or grandparents would have held without any self-doubt and without a moral twinge of guilt. They were allowed self-identity, they were allowed to identify with themselves culturally and also racially. That is, when to speak of one's *race* was not a thoughtcrime.

But today it is definitely a thoughtcrime and most especially if you are White and European. You are no longer allowed to have that *identity* and *identification*. In any case it is extremely suspect.

Note that Sculptor has made the position very clear indeed: if you identify your race as *important*; if you have a race-identity (which is always bound up with cultural and civilizational categories) that is *racism*. Really, when you examine it without prejudice it is pretty easy to see that the anti-racialist position is extremely ideologically-determined. But to dissect that ideology and lay it out so it can be seen and understood (even if one is in pro of the erasure of all race-distinction) has been made thoughtcrime and illegal. Not only might you be 'banned' for life but there are any number of other consequences. This is not theoretical it is actual.

Therefore the interesting thing -- if one is capable of gaining a position outside of the dangerous immediacy of the issue -- is to examine the function of extreme ideological tools and all that is connoted by the Orwellian term thoughtcrime. There are determined ways to think and perceive and if you do not toe those lines you are placed in the category of the Hitlerian immoral. It is really that simple.

For this reason even those who are mildly self-identifying in the former senses (Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan come to mind) are vilified as being of the Far Right and are excluded from *civil discourse*.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Bonus Note:

Flash and Sculptor and I think also Veggie (and everyone writing on this forum to be accurate) are exemplars of those Wilmot Robertson describes as among the *split ranks*. They turn against their traditional identification — that of their fathers snd ancestors — and embrace a non-identitarian posture they believe to be morally superior.

All of this *transvaluation of values* occurred in the Postwar Era and is thus relatively new. It is associated with a wide range of Liberal ideals which are not without their “internal logic”.

However, Liberal tenets (there are so many) have led to what some perceive as “liberal rot” and are seen as intrusions and impositions that are resisted — on moral grounds and with moral arguments.

Conservatism attempts to slow “Progressive” transformation but at a fundamental level does not — cannot — oppose its core ideological tenets. So Conservatism is dragged along by Radical Progressivism because it cannot, like Wizard I must say, develop an active and ideological grounded opposition to Left Progressive’s cultural and global machinations.

[I go into more detail in the 19th Chapter of my 19 Week Email Course. Consider signing up! Not cheap but you will come out the other end far less distorted and significantly less spiritually ugly — guaranteed!]

[iambiguous]

From my own frame of mind, we can go on and on discussing race and all of the various manifestations of "biological imperatives".

But the most crucial component revolves around whether "on average" and compared to other races, whites have a superior intelligence.

That, given this as the most crucial factor, is it reasonable to suggest in turn that whites might then be construed as the "master race".

And then, finally, for those here who think that this is the case, okay, if you were in a position of power in a community composed of many different races, what would be permitted and what would not be permitted in regard to social, political and economic interactions? What behaviors would be encouraged/rewarded and what behaviors would be discouraged/punished? For example, would interracial marriages still be legal?

And how would you compare yourself to, say, those who practiced apartheid in South Africa and those who practiced extermination in Nazi Germany?

What would your own "best of all possible communities" look like in regard to race?

Me? Well, I was brought up in white working class neighborhoods and was truly a committed racist as a youth. I hated blacks. And all of my friends did too. Then when I became a Christian all of that began to change. And then in the Army I met soldiers who completely turned me around in regard to race. I rejected racism and as a political activist sought to create a more integrated, color-blind society. And the science of race -- https://www.google.com/search?q=science ... s-wiz-serp -- seems to revolve around the conclusion that ultimately race has nothing to do with intelligence.

On the other hand, given the fact that racial prejudices are still so rampant around the globe [and in some places growing], sure, some insist that biologically we are genetically predisposed to set ourselves apart from those construed to be "other than ourselves". Skin color being one of those factors.

My own political prejudices are what they are. It's just that, as with so many other things, they are simply more problematic these days.

[Alexis Jacobi]

But the most crucial component revolves around whether "on average" and compared to other races, whites have a superior intelligence.

In fact that issue is not that relevant. It is generally understood that Europeans, on average, have slightly lower IQs than many Asians (on average). So what?

The racialist argument is not the “racism” argument it is described as. It might include elements of arguments normally understood to be “racist”, but not necessarily.

It is very possible to define a “white nationalism” that excludes and denies racial superiority or inferiority.

One can examine, today, European nations (Denmark comes to mind) that are redefining national integrity but with no resort to racist ideology.

[Alexis Jacobi]

South African apartheid and German National Socialism are incomparable.

However, to an idiot I suppose anything can be made to seem the same. Why not?

The idiot, by definition, invents his own categories.

[iambiguous]

But the most crucial component revolves around whether "on average" and compared to other races, whites have a superior intelligence.

In fact that issue is not that relevant. It is generally understood that Europeans, on average, have slightly lower IQs than many Asians (on average). So what?

The racialist argument is not the “racism” argument it is described as. It might include elements of arguments normally understood to be “racist”, but not necessarily.

It is very possible to define a “white nationalism” that excludes and denies racial superiority or inferiority.

One can examine, today, European nations (Denmark comes to mind) that are redefining national integrity but with no resort to racist ideology.

No, no, no. With you and wizard and those of your ilk, I'm more interested in taking racism here:

But the most crucial component revolves around whether "on average" and compared to other races, whites have a superior intelligence.

That, given this as the most crucial factor, is it reasonable to suggest in turn that whites might then be construed as the "master race".

And then, finally, for those here who think that this is the case, okay, if you were in a position of power in a community composed of many different races, what would be permitted and what would not be permitted in regard to social, political and economic interactions? What behaviors would be encouraged/rewarded and what behaviors would be discouraged/punished? For example, would interracial marriages still be legal?

And how would you compare yourself to, say, those who practiced apartheid in South Africa and those who practiced extermination in Nazi Germany?

What would your own "best of all possible communities" look like in regard to race?

[iambiguous]

South African apartheid and German National Socialism are incomparable.

However, to an idiot I suppose anything can be made to seem the same. Why not?

The idiot, by definition, invents his own categories.

Note to Wizard22...

Just out of curiosity, are you Satyr from KT? Or a member of his clique/claque? And is AJ one of your creations here?

Admittedly, I've never been particularly good at figuring these things out.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

It is generally understood that Europeans, on average, have slightly lower IQs than many Asians (on average). So what?

What are 'Europeans'? Does your claim apply specifically to people who live in Europe? I think not. Not sure what you actually 'believe' because your posts are too boring to read, but here's the thing. If you made the same claim that 'black people, on average, have slightly lower IQs than white people (on average)' then both Scalper and Flasher would throw up their hands in faux horror and screech the R & B words at you. They are absolutely fine with you saying that white people are stupider than Asians. And what are 'Asians'? Do you men Chinese people? What 'colour' are they? Why is Chinese a 'race' and not a Nationality? Do wonkers think that 'white' is the default human state of being, therefore anyone who isn't 'white' is a 'race' and not a 'nationality'?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

But the most crucial component revolves around whether "on average" and compared to other races, whites have a superior intelligence.

In fact that issue is not that relevant. It is generally understood that Europeans, on average, have slightly lower IQs than many Asians (on average). So what?

The racialist argument is not the “racism” argument it is described as. It might include elements of arguments normally understood to be “racist”, but not necessarily.

It is very possible to define a “white nationalism” that excludes and denies racial superiority or inferiority.

One can examine, today, European nations (Denmark comes to mind) that are redefining national integrity but with no resort to racist ideology.

No, no, no. With you and wizard and those of your ilk, I'm more interested in taking racism here:

But the most crucial component revolves around whether "on average" and compared to other races, whites have a superior intelligence.

That, given this as the most crucial factor, is it reasonable to suggest in turn that whites might then be construed as the "master race".

And then, finally, for those here who think that this is the case, okay, if you were in a position of power in a community composed of many different races, what would be permitted and what would not be permitted in regard to social, political and economic interactions? What behaviors would be encouraged/rewarded and what behaviors would be discouraged/punished? For example, would interracial marriages still be legal?

And how would you compare yourself to, say, those who practiced apartheid in South Africa and those who practiced extermination in Nazi Germany?

What would your own "best of all possible communities" look like in regard to race?

He's Wizard 22 and Satyr is Satyr. They are called usernames. Why the obsession with the Satyr username? I'm pretty sure you can still find his posts on here. Read over them and ask yourself, 'Does this resemble the username 'Wizrd'?' If the answer is 'no, not remotely so', then the humans (presumably) who are operating those usernames could not be one and the same.

[Alexis Jacobi]

No, no, no. With you and wizard and those of your ilk, I'm more interested in taking racism here.

One of your issues, putting aside compulsion and what I might label psychological over-heating, is that you blend categories together indiscriminately. I have no clear idea what Wizard is arguing for nor what against. And in my case I am more or less sharing *research notes* from my investigation of the actual views and beliefs of those who are in the Dissident Right or the so-called Far Right.

I am not proposing a racialist program nor recommending that you or anyone accept, believe in or act on any particular position, but rahter am working to clarify what, in fact, is being debated. Essentially what the issue is.

You make the mistake of confusing clarification and outlining (of an issue) as advocacy. But this is quite true all across the board today. That is, among those in Left or Progressive circles even to outline or to profess to understand the ideology of those in another camp is seen as advocacy.

I think you have made it clear, and always in that huge bold print, that you wish to see a racialist ideology applied, as for example it was in Germany under the National Socialists or under the apartheid government (that had a 300+ year root). You are sure that the German National Socialists were bad, and I gather you think the same of the Dutch and German South Africans, but to that I say that your entire argument will reduce to what it seems to be here: tirade after emoted tirade.

But topically the entire issue is far more complex and I'd even say it is more interesting when examined from a less determined position. For one example: how are we to examine Israeli determination to erase non-Jewish identity in Israel/Palestine? It sure seems to be a similar process. That is, one of recovery of one's chosen self-identity and absolute, if also concealed, determination to annihilate another, competing identity.

There are other areas where these issues and questions are relevant today, and a reductionist mind-set is not only boring and predictable but uninteresting and rather dull. Take for example France and the developing or strengthening French nationalist and identitarian movement. Is that movement *wrong*? I mean on a moral level? I am not sure that it is. It is definitely problematic though.

But the most crucial component revolves around whether "on average" and compared to other races, whites have a superior intelligence.

That, given this as the most crucial factor, is it reasonable to suggest in turn that whites might then be construed as the "master race".

When dealing with Obsessive/Compulsives I guess you just have to let them be what they want to be . . .

The actual question, though, if the question is posed fairly, is Would you allow any nation, and any people, to self-determine its membership? Take as an example *Nigeria* or *Japan*.

Or, in the name of some *higher value* must all such concern and identity-issue be seen and be transformed into a sort of mortal evil?

[Alexis Jacobi]

What are 'Europeans'? Does your claim apply specifically to people who live in Europe? I think not.

That is a moronic question. You describe yourself as *literate* and yet you ask the question of a cultural illiterate. If what you mean to say is that Australia, New Zealand, and the US and Canada fall outside of Europe the assertion does not hold. They are extensions.

If you made the same claim that 'black people, on average, have slightly lower IQs than white people (on average)' then both Scalper and Flasher would throw up their hands in faux horror and screech the R & B words at you. They are absolutely fine with you saying that white people are stupider than Asians. And what are 'Asians'? Do you men Chinese people? What 'colour' are they? Why is Chinese a 'race' and not a Nationality? Do wonkers think that 'white' is the default human state of being, therefore anyone who isn't 'white' is a 'race' and not a 'nationality'?

That claim is not only made but more or less proven -- at least if I refer to the research which I have attempted to read.

The issue is simply that comparing human beings on any level has been made to be a moral evil in and of itself. At that level it does not matter what is true or false. To think or see in those terms is a form of expressed evil.

It does not matter what Sculptor and Flash believe, think or say: according to the studies made by some researchers the data shows that on average Asians are more intellectually proficient -- have a higher IQ. You say you are invested in science categories. Well, there you have one. Is it absolutely true? I do not know. Is it ultimately relevant? It seems to have some relevancy but that is as far as I will go. The underperformance of so-called Sub-Saharan Africans is, however, an issue of consequence. Not because I want it to be such though. It is an issue.

If the *research* supports that conclusion is the conclusion morally wrong? What is your opinion you grouchy rutabaga?

The Asians referred to are Asians from the region of Asia. The Indian Sub-Continent and various countries in Asia where the testing was done.

Try to get this through your dull, hardened head: I am referring to studies nor revealing my own research. I tend to believe that their data is generally accurate but I cannot ultimately conclude that.

Why is Chinese a 'race' and not a Nationality?

I suppose it is because they, the Chinese, are predominantly Han Chinese.

Do wonkers think that 'white' is the default human state of being, therefore anyone who isn't 'white' is a 'race' and not a 'nationality'?

If you wish to continue to be thought of as somewhat smart I'd go to work on these dumb-ass questions, Granny.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Admittedly, I've never been particularly good at figuring these things out.

The journey of a thousand miles begins with that crucial first step!

[iambiguous]

In fact that issue is not that relevant. It is generally understood that Europeans, on average, have slightly lower IQs than many Asians (on average). So what?

The racialist argument is not the “racism” argument it is described as. It might include elements of arguments normally understood to be “racist”, but not necessarily.

It is very possible to define a “white nationalism” that excludes and denies racial superiority or inferiority.

One can examine, today, European nations (Denmark comes to mind) that are redefining national integrity but with no resort to racist ideology.

No, no, no. With you and wizard and those of your ilk, I'm more interested in taking racism here:

But the most crucial component revolves around whether "on average" and compared to other races, whites have a superior intelligence.

That, given this as the most crucial factor, is it reasonable to suggest in turn that whites might then be construed as the "master race".

And then, finally, for those here who think that this is the case, okay, if you were in a position of power in a community composed of many different races, what would be permitted and what would not be permitted in regard to social, political and economic interactions? What behaviors would be encouraged/rewarded and what behaviors would be discouraged/punished? For example, would interracial marriages still be legal?

And how would you compare yourself to, say, those who practiced apartheid in South Africa and those who practiced extermination in Nazi Germany?

What would your own "best of all possible communities" look like in regard to race?

He's Wizard 22 and Satyr is Satyr. They are called usernames. Why the obsession with the Satyr username? I'm pretty sure you can still find his posts on here. Read over them and ask yourself, 'Does this resemble the username 'Wizrd'?' If the answer is 'no, not remotely so', then the humans (presumably) who are operating those usernames could not be one and the same.

This has absolutely nothing to do with you. And with whatever it is about your life that pisses you off enough to prompt you to come here and take that outrage out on others. Something about men clearly.

Look, haven't I already agreed to discuss that with you?

As for Satyr, we go way back...10 years or so.

I'm just curious, is all. We're allowed to be curious here, right? Not only that but for our own personal reasons.

Hope that helped.