Anti-White genocidalists stir up hatred - "Abolish the white

[Totalitarian]

http://racetraitor.org/



The white race is a historically constructed social formation. It consists of all those who partake of the privileges of the white skin in this society. Its most wretched members share a status higher, in certain respects, than that of the most exalted persons excluded from it, in return for which they give their support to a system that degrades them.

The key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the white race, which means no more and no less than abolishing the privileges of the white skin. Until that task is accomplished, even partial reform will prove elusive, because white influence permeates every issue, domestic and foreign, in US society.

The existence of the white race depends on the willingness of those assigned to it to place their racial interests above class, gender, or any other interests they hold. The defection of enough of its members to make it unreliable as a predictor of behavior will lead to its collapse.

RACE TRAITOR aims to serve as an intellectual center for those seeking to abolish the white race. It will encourage dissent from the conformity that maintains it and popularize examples of defection from its ranks, analyze the forces that hold it together and those that promise to tear it apart. Part of its task will be to promote debate among abolitionists. When possible, it will support practical measures, guided by the principle, Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity.

[Dhul Fiqar]

Your point (or lack thereof) being?

[Dhul Fiqar]

We mean that we want to do away with the social meaning of skin color, thereby abolishing the white race as a social category.

Consider this parallel: To be against royalty does not mean wanting to kill the king. It means wanting to do away with crowns, thrones, titles, and the privileges attached to them.

In our view, whiteness has a lot in common with royalty: they are both social formations that carry unearned advantages.

[Dhul Fiqar]

OK, read through much of the site and here's my two cents.

They chose a fucking stupid name for a great movement. It's a movement with the aim of abolishing the correlation between race and social status, yet they call it "eliminating the white race" which is a total mis-nomer. It's "eliminating race", period.

The idea is great, but if they can't present it better than that, it will not get off the ground.

--- G.

[Totalitarian]

Quote: from Dhul Fiqar on 1:18 pm on May 17, 2003
We mean that we want to do away with the social meaning of skin color, thereby abolishing the white race as a social category.

Consider this parallel: To be against royalty does not mean wanting to kill the king. It means wanting to do away with crowns, thrones, titles, and the privileges attached to them.

In our view, whiteness has a lot in common with royalty: they are both social formations that carry unearned advantages.



There's only one thing wrong with this: being white is not simply a matter of "skin colour", it is based on european ancestry. Whites differ on average from other populations in a number of ways such as skeleton structure, facial features, skull shape. Also, whites are the only population to have significant numbers of people with blonde/red hair, and green/blue eyes.

It's not apparent why they wish to "abolish the white race" apart from a vicious desire to destroy.

[Dhul Fiqar]

Eh, YES it's more than skin colour, that's what the whole site is about. It aims to reduce it back to being just a skin colour or a barely perceptible genetic difference.

Identifying race from skeletal remains is possible but takes a lot of work, if there was any significant difference between races it would not require such work, not the best argument I know, but I do not want to go reading through medical literature to refute you more specifically.

Suffice to say, any basic medical/scientific text on 'race' will make the absolute insignifigance of racial charastics in a genetic sense, quite evident.

The whole point is to stop thinking about people's god damned cheekbones, skincolour or whatever the hell you want to focus on, and focus instead on what unites us all.

If you really believe in the absolute superiority of one race over another you're not only poorly informed but probably beyond salvation, at least I won't waste my time on this thread any further.

--- G.

(Edited by Dhul Fiqar at 1:13 am on May 18, 2003)

[Moskitto]

there are some regional genetic variations in metabolism of toxic compounds, although this is only to the extent of having the reduced or increased ability and effectiveness to metabolise certain foreign compounds.

[Totalitarian]

Quote: from Dhul Fiqar on 5:11 pm on May 17, 2003
Eh, YES it's more than skin colour, that's what the whole site is about. It aims to reduce it back to being just a skin colour or a barely perceptible genetic difference.

That's impossible. You can't just wave a magic wand and make racial variation go away.



Identifying race from skeletal remains is possible but takes a lot of work, if there was any significant difference between races it would not require such work, not the best argument I know, but I do not want to go reading through medical literature to refute you more specifically.

My biology teacher said forensic scientists could tell a person's subspecies from skeletal remains alone in most cases.

Here's a picture of a Tiwi island Aboriginal. Note the skeletal differences. (only the head is visible)
http://www.saintmarys.edu/~rjensen/austral.GIF


Suffice to say, any basic medical/scientific text on 'race' will make the absolute insignifigance of racial charastics in a genetic sense, quite evident.

Humans know almost nothing about the genome. We can only guess whether something is "insignificant" or not.


The whole point is to stop thinking about people's god damned cheekbones, skincolour or whatever the hell you want to focus on, and focus instead on what unites us all.

I agree we should think about what unites us. The human race has a common destiny, and we should not squabble amongst ourselves. We should find out what is the best way to reduce racial hatred.


If you really believe in the absolute superiority of one race over another you're not only poorly informed but probably beyond salvation, at least I won't waste my time on this thread any further.

I never said that one race was superior to another. I said i disagreed with "abolishing the white race" as proposed by Professor Ignatiev and his fellow bigots.




(Edited by Totalitarian at 3:43 am on May 18, 2003)

[hazard]

I tend to agree, although my skin colour is also "white" with the idea behind the destruction of the white race.

KILL WHITEY!

[Totalitarian]

Quote: from hazard on 4:02 am on May 19, 2003
I tend to agree, although my skin colour is also "white" with the idea behind the destruction of the white race.

KILL WHITEY!


That's really sad. I wonder what motivates people to destroy rather than to heal.



(Edited by Totalitarian at 10:52 am on May 19, 2003)

[Dhul Fiqar]

If you break someone's gun in two, is that destruction or healing? I'd argue disposing of social correlation to race is the same thing, all it destroys is a tool of misery and oppression.

--- G.

[hazard]

dhul is absolutely right. to accuse revolutionary thinking of being hypocritical is far more hypocritical than that which is being accused.

[Totalitarian]

Quote: from Dhul Fiqar on 1:05 pm on May 19, 2003
If you break someone's gun in two, is that destruction or healing? I'd argue disposing of social correlation to race is the same thing, all it destroys is a tool of misery and oppression.

--- G.



There will always be a social correlation to race, because race is an extension of family and operates through social networks. It is by destruction of those social ties that genocide occurs.

Hazard; when the actual physical genocide of the white people begins do you think you will be somehow spared because you are a trendy Marxist? You don't think "KILL WHITEY!" will apply to you?

I, for one, would not like to see my people (or any people for that matter) destroyed by such brutal hatred.

(Edited by Totalitarian at 6:34 am on May 20, 2003)

[hazard]

what you describe as genocidal tendencies I describe as propaganda. where do you get the idea that the "other" races will rise up against white "purity" to exterminate it? you have obviously read Mein Kampf four or five dozen times too many.

and, assuming for an instant that in some screwball, bizarro universe, I was to be a victim of genocide for being white, no, I don't think I would be spared. although I would personally not be responsible for the racism and hatred that would inspire the arguably justifiable extermination of the "white" "race", I would understand the motivations behind the extermination and the crimes of all white people before myself and living beside myself.

who knows, maybe the freak show world of racial genocide you live in would allow for some individuals of that race to survive the doom it has done nothing to prevent. in this alteration of the alternate reality, I would expect to survive genocide because I would be an exceptoin to the rule.

I don't think such an extreme prospect is very likely at the outset is what I guess I'm trying to say.

[Anonymous]

Just like class, race can never be destroyed. They're what make us human. To destroy them is to destroy part of ourselves.

Sadly, this is something marxists will never understand.

[Totalitarian]

Quote: from hazard on 6:42 am on May 20, 2003
what you describe as genocidal tendencies I describe as propaganda. where do you get the idea that the "other" races will rise up against white "purity" to exterminate it? you have obviously read Mein Kampf four or five dozen times too many.

Whites are internationally hated, in case you didn't notice. Our people is also projected (based on current immigration and birthrate trends) to become a minority in new zealand (2020), USA (2050) and europe (2100-2150) as well as the rest of the west.

In 1900, whites were 30% of the world's population. This has now fallen to around 10% or less. In the next few generations, it is projected to decline to about 2%.

and, assuming for an instant that in some screwball, bizarro universe, I was to be a victim of genocide for being white, no, I don't think I would be spared. although I would personally not be responsible for the racism and hatred that would inspire the arguably justifiable extermination of the "white" "race", I would understand the motivations behind the extermination and the crimes of all white people before myself and living beside myself.

And what crimes are these, that merit extermination?

I don't think such an extreme prospect is very likely at the outset is what I guess I'm trying to say.


Given enough pressure, even the toughtest nut will crack.



(Edited by Totalitarian at 7:13 am on May 20, 2003)

[hazard]

dc:

you should say UNLIKE class, race can never be destroyed. this IS something marxists DO realize.

totalitarian:

"whites" are internationally hated? I don't quite understand. America is hated, yes. I don't see any evidence to support your racist idea that whites are hated.

the crimes are plunging the world into a century of warfare, scratch that, a MILLENIUM of warfare starting with the crusades that have never actually ended. those wars have involved genocide, biological, chemical, nuclear and other types of war. slavery and whites go hand in hand, especially the slavery of the racial minorities. these are some of the crimes you may claim never occurred. then again, in such a bizarro world, any crimes may or may not have occurred.

your final statement is in reference to you, no? you ARE the only nut around here currently.

[Reuben]

Totalitarian, you are confusing the concept of human genocide with that of cultural and social assimilation. I do not believe that assimilation should necessarily be supported, however to describe the idea that the white race should not as a social formation continue to exist as distinct from society as a whole, whether you agree with it or not, is not an argument which is advocating genocide. On this basis those who said that national minorities in RRussia should assimilate were genocidal. Gewnocide refers to the mass human slaughter of a social fgrouping, not the social or structural assimilation of that grouping

[Dhul Fiqar]

Well put :)

[Guest1]

Seems like a good site. About time we got rid of our labels in my opinion. And no, whites are not a race. They're a melting pot of races, with guns.

[Umoja]

I don't think whites are internationally hated. They are largely looked at with suspicion by many other cultures, but that's about it. Most people aren't extremely "Kill whitey!" or about anything like that. At least from experience.

[maumau]

I spit on the rat gentile.

[Urban Rubble]

Someone ban this idiot.

[black sheep.]

No, we should not destroy the white race. In the future

the white race will make up less than 2% of the world's

population. So, why is everyone out to destroy it? What are we scared of? Anyways, white racists only
consider those with the "Northwestern European" look as white. If you consider that fact then less than 1% of the world's population may be white in the future.

Anyways, It don't mean anything to me because I'm 25% Cherokee Indian. Anyways, I don't think that being white is evil. If you feel threatened as a white person than you can go live in Sweden or Minnesota. The best thing to do with these white racists is to ignore them. They are too small to do anything harmful.

Your belief in destroying the white race is against Marxist teaching. Marx said racism is the result of capitalism. He did not say that white people were the source of racism. Anyways, this "white destroying" belief does not take into account the fact that people of other races are also racist. Anyways, if we rid the world of white people then there will be no more white women. If we saw a beautiful unique animal or plant near extinction, would we destroy it? I hope not.

[synthesis]

No one's out to destroy the white race... well, except maybe that lunatic Mugabe.

Regardless, Race Traitor does not aim to destroy the white race, merely remove the privileges associate it. Poor wording on their part accounts for this misunderstanding.

[Anonymous]

Anyways, white racists only
consider those with the "Northwestern European" look as white.


That's dead wrong. WNs will except almost any type of caucasoid including Italians, Spaniards, Greeks, Slavs, Russians, people's of the Asian steppe, Iranian aryans, some Afgahns, and a few heavily isolated high caste villages in India. They've also been known to except those that are at most 1/3 Amerindian or Asiatic, however it depends on which part of the movement your involved in. As far as I know almost all branches are fine with 1/8 or 1/16 Amerindian/Asian, though when it comes to negroid blood 1/32 is the most you can have.

Genes and ancestry matter more to WNs than looks.

[Totalitarian]

Hazard:"whites" are internationally hated? I don't quite understand. America is hated, yes. I don't see any evidence to support your racist idea that whites are hated.

Well, America is mostly white. Many anti-american terrorists have been targeting westerners in general, and in an IR lecture recently i was told that the recent Riyadh bombers were going after anyone with a "white face" in case they were americans. Maybe i'm wrong, but the general perception i get is that whites are hated almost as much as jews.

Hazard:the crimes are plunging the world into a century of warfare, scratch that, a MILLENIUM of warfare starting with the crusades that have never actually ended. those wars have involved genocide, biological, chemical, nuclear and other types of war.

I agree that whites have committed many terrible atrocities. But i don't think we deserve extermination because of crimes of our ancestors.

Hazard: slavery and whites go hand in hand, especially the slavery of the racial minorities.

Slavery existed all around the world in ancient times. White nations were amongst the first to abolish slavery. In parts of Africa (e.g. Sudan), blacks are still enslaved by arabs and their fellow blacks. Your claim that "slavery and whites go hand in hand" is disproved by the fact that there is currently no significant slavery in the world done by whites.



(Edited by Totalitarian at 8:51 am on May 24, 2003)

[Totalitarian]

Quote: from Reuben on 8:48 am on May 20, 2003
Totalitarian, you are confusing the concept of human genocide with that of cultural and social assimilation. I do not believe that assimilation should necessarily be supported, however to describe the idea that the white race should not as a social formation continue to exist as distinct from society as a whole, whether you agree with it or not, is not an argument which is advocating genocide. On this basis those who said that national minorities in RRussia should assimilate were genocidal. Gewnocide refers to the mass human slaughter of a social fgrouping, not the social or structural assimilation of that grouping

Ok yes there is a difference between physical genocide and assimilation. Both can lead to eventual extinction, however.

You say that whites exist distinct from society as a whole, i dispute this. Whites are the dominant ethno-racial group in western societies, therefore they are central to those societies. Also there is no segregation anymore, so the past distinction between ethnic groups has pretty much disappeared.


(Edited by Totalitarian at 8:53 am on May 24, 2003)

[Totalitarian]

Quote: from DyerMaker on 1:54 am on May 23, 2003
Regardless, Race Traitor does not aim to destroy the white race, merely remove the privileges associate it. Poor wording on their part accounts for this misunderstanding.

I don't think it's a misunderstanding. I think the words "abolish the white race" make it very clear what their end goal is. Once white social and political power in the west has been abolished, how are whites to defend themselves against attack?

I do not see how being born white automatically gives me "privileges". What is the nature of these privileges and where can i apply to get some?

Here's a quote from their magazine, with the URL below:
http://www.postfun.com/racetraitor/feature...newsociety.html (http://www.postfun.com/racetraitor/features/newsociety.html)

"Although we have said that our aim was not racial harmony but class war, we have not managed to project effectively our view that whiteness was the key "internal barrier² to be overcome in the process of proletarian self-development and that our abolitionism was directly connected to our revolutionary vision"


They don't want racial harmony, they want blood and guts. Interesting....

[black sheep.]

Quote: from Dark Capitalist on 2:10 am on May 23, 2003

Anyways, white racists only
consider those with the "Northwestern European" look as white.


That's dead wrong. WNs will except almost any type of caucasoid including Italians, Spaniards, Greeks, Slavs, Russians, people's of the Asian steppe, Iranian aryans, some Afgahns, and a few heavily isolated high caste villages in India. They've also been known to except those that are at most 1/3 Amerindian or Asiatic, however it depends on which part of the movement your involved in. As far as I know almost all branches are fine with 1/8 or 1/16 Amerindian/Asian, though when it comes to negroid blood 1/32 is the most you can have.

Genes and ancestry matter more to WNs than looks.


No, not really. Hitler wanted blonde haired blue eyed people. Also, the Ku Klux Klan makes it clear on thier website ( www.kukluxklan.org ) that they seek to ban immigration to the USA.
Immigration from all countries except those in Northwestern Europe. While these WN groups might tolerate half breeds for awhile. They ultimatley want weed out all non-whiteness from the white race.
Anyways, why would half-breeds want to be in the WN
movement anyways? Do they suffer from self-hatred?
How would you feel if someone said you were "less than perfect" for some genetic reason?

[Urban Rubble]

Ha ha, my girlfriend is Cambodian and Chinese. These guys would be so pissed to learn that I'm intentionally "diluting" their race.

[Urban Rubble]

What do you guys think about the skinhead movement ? I'm not talking about nazi skins I'm talking about regualr non-racist skins. Their whole thing is that they don't mind people immagrating here but they just want penalties for people who imagrate here then leech off of the system.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Totalitarian on 10:50 am on May 19, 2003

Quote: from hazard on 4:02 am on May 19, 2003
I tend to agree, although my skin colour is also "white" with the idea behind the destruction of the white race.

KILL WHITEY!


That's really sad. I wonder what motivates people to destroy rather than to heal.



(Edited by Totalitarian at 10:52 am on May 19, 2003)


You are aware that the creator of that site and concept is white?

Besides There really is no such thing as race.

If it wasn't for blacks there wouldn't be a "white race"

there would just be Italians, English, French, etc.

Race is totally based on skin color

everything else is culture.

Now when you say white you can reffer to White AMericans signifying their culture if you want to.

But in actuality race is nothing but color

[Ymir]

"Race" isn't just color. There is an AIDS vaccine but so far its success has been..

1% success on Whites
something like 70% on Blacks and some other race, I think Blacks and Asians.

Besides, I can look at a Negro and there are physical differences besides just the color of our skin. A typical Negro has a fatter lip than most whites.

Racial differences are heightened alot by culture though.

It angers me that this website says "abolish the white race", "the white race is the root of all our social problems". If that website was against racism it would have said "destroy racism" or "destroy the races". It shouldn't single out one group and call for their destruction. THAT is what angers me.

Imagine if that site said "ABolish the Jewish race. We want nothing more and nothing less than the abolishment of the priviliges that come with being Jewish."

How exactly would they go about taking away my priviliges for being white? Affirmative action? That is just racism on the majority.

[synthesis]

You are aware that the creator of that site and concept is white?

He's Jewish. That makes him non-white to Totalitarian.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Ymir on 4:36 am on May 29, 2003
"Race" isn't just color. There is an AIDS vaccine but so far its success has been..

1% success on Whites
something like 70% on Blacks and some other race, I think Blacks and Asians.

Besides, I can look at a Negro and there are physical differences besides just the color of our skin. A typical Negro has a fatter lip than most whites.

Racial differences are heightened alot by culture though.

It angers me that this website says "abolish the white race", "the white race is the root of all our social problems". If that website was against racism it would have said "destroy racism" or "destroy the races". It shouldn't single out one group and call for their destruction. THAT is what angers me.

Imagine if that site said "ABolish the Jewish race. We want nothing more and nothing less than the abolishment of the priviliges that come with being Jewish."

How exactly would they go about taking away my priviliges for being white? Affirmative action? That is just racism on the majority.


First off I'm not justifying the site

however I think he meant abolish it in the sense that it wouldn't be a choice anymore on forms.

If your italian you put Italian, if your of Irish descent you put irish.

And another thing who the hell says negro anymore?


And good for you for pointing out "racial stereotypes"

Next thing you know you'll be telling me how good I am at basketball.

If a group of Red eared turtles from South Carolina has a darker underbelly than a group of Red Eared turtles from Florida does that mean they are a different race?

No they are both red eared turtles but one's features are different.

Babe Ruth had characteristics similar to that of what a black person is percieved as....but he was German.

Explain that.

All race is , is the amount of pigment in one's skin

I happen to have more melanin than others and less than others.

THose features are passed onto us through genetics.

So if I came from a white family with curly hair I could have an afro just as big as the one I have now.


The difference between teh white "race" and other "races" is that the white "race" is really just a group of people with similar skin color.


People from England have different characteristics than Italians, who have different characteristics than Americans.


However when it comes to Blacks, asians, and Latins we are all grouped together in one big lump.


Do you realize ethiopians and Kenyans have different features from one another just like Italians and Americans do?


But no one ever thinks about that.

It's all based on what genes where passed down to you.

I may be black but I can make a safe bet I don't look Jamaican.


"The average negro" where the hell do you get this shit from?


and to you and Dyer Maker....Jews "racially" are white, ethnically they are jewish.


There is no jewish race, "jewish" is an ethnicity.

[Hampton]

Besides, I can look at a Negro and there are physical differences besides just the color of our skin. A typical Negro has a fatter lip than most whites.

Ugh. Negro? Thanks for bringing us back about 7 decades. What the fuck does a typical "negro" look like anyway? Afro, broad nose, and big lips? You lump a whole peoples by the color of their skin and not where orginate from not knowing that there might be physical diffrences between a black man born in America and one born in Africa.

There's a lot of talk about the priviliges that white people get, what privilege did the "negro" ever have? I don't think it's about eliminating privilege as much as it is about making the playing field for people of all level, so they all get the same chance, weither it be at trying to get into a college or applying for a job.


That is just racism on the majority.

Isn't the other way racism on the minority, which by the way, is slowing becoming the majority?

[Totalitarian]

black sheep:
No, not really. Hitler wanted blonde haired blue eyed people.

Hitler was primarily a German Nationalist. He opposed some White races including Slavs. He did not have blonde hair or blue eyes, nor did alot of Germans.

Also, the Ku Klux Klan makes it clear on thier website ( www.kukluxklan.org ) that they seek to ban immigration to the USA.
Immigration from all countries except those in Northwestern Europe.

The KKK does not represent all White Nationalists.


While these WN groups might tolerate half breeds for awhile. They ultimatley want weed out all non-whiteness from the white race.

Look at it this way: they want white people to speciate (branch off)

[Totalitarian]

Lardlad95:You are aware that the creator of that site and concept is white?

It makes no difference to me whether he is white or not. Would you feel okay with a Jew writing a publication called "Abolish Jewry" ?


Besides There really is no such thing as race.

Tell that to a biologist.

If it wasn't for blacks there wouldn't be a "white race"

Interesting. How exactly did blacks help whites to evolve?

there would just be Italians, English, French, etc.

These are white ethnic groups or races. Just as the term "black" actually includes many diverse races (e.g. pygmies, bushman, bantu, somali)

Race is totally based on skin color

But you just said "there really is no such thing as race". Why are you trying to explain what a non-existent concept is based on?

everything else is culture.

Culture is a label humans give to patterns of behaviour in large social groupings.

Now when you say white you can reffer to White AMericans signifying their culture if you want to.

But in actuality race is nothing but color

Would you apply this argument to any other species of animal?

[Totalitarian]

Quote: from DyerMaker on 6:02 am on May 29, 2003
You are aware that the creator of that site and concept is white?

He's Jewish. That makes him non-white to Totalitarian.



There are some jewish whites.

[James]

Interesting. How exactly did blacks help whites to evolve?

I thought humans evolved from black africans.
?

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Totalitarian on 12:59 pm on May 29, 2003
Lardlad95:You are aware that the creator of that site and concept is white?

It makes no difference to me whether he is white or not. Would you feel okay with a Jew writing a publication called "Abolish Jewry" ?


Besides There really is no such thing as race.

Tell that to a biologist.

If it wasn't for blacks there wouldn't be a "white race"

Interesting. How exactly did blacks help whites to evolve?

there would just be Italians, English, French, etc.

These are white ethnic groups or races. Just as the term "black" actually includes many diverse races (e.g. pygmies, bushman, bantu, somali)

Race is totally based on skin color

But you just said "there really is no such thing as race". Why are you trying to explain what a non-existent concept is based on?

everything else is culture.

Culture is a label humans give to patterns of behaviour in large social groupings.

Now when you say white you can reffer to White AMericans signifying their culture if you want to.

But in actuality race is nothing but color

Would you apply this argument to any other species of animal?




If the Jewish guy brought forth a compelling arguement I would atleast hear him out.


A biologist? Sir we aren't different species, it's skin color.

THose attributes you claim belong to certain races can be found amongst other "races"

I have met white people with slanty eyes, black people with slanty eyes.

now are you told me that features is a component in race. So your telling me that black kid dow the street with slanted eyes is asian?

Characteristics are based on genetics not this thing you call race.


First off regarding the there would be no white race without a black race arguement.

What do you mean how did blacks help whites evolve.

For teh last damn time we aren't a seperate species man. Whites didn't evolve from blacks, we are all the same species with differnt skin colors.

What I meant was that without a contrasting skin color there would be no need to devide by skin color.


Race is a label, based on skin color thats what I meant. Thats all it is.

In my opinion there is no such thing as race really. It's jsut a label to seperate people.

I believe culture is a better seperater but it seems people like you just love pushing people apart because I'm darker than you or your lighter than me.

With the exception of skin color there is no difference whatsoever between me and you...except maybe in political views.

It's a shame that these labels have such an incredible hold on your life.

Why does this matter to you so much.

There is no way they are abolishing the white race.

So I don't see why you care so much.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from James on 3:36 pm on May 29, 2003
Interesting. How exactly did blacks help whites to evolve?

I thought humans evolved from black africans.
?



Question...how exactley can humans evolve from other humans james?

Africans aren't a different species than you.

The Human Species originated in Africa this is true...but humans didn't evolve from Africans

they evolved from earlier hominids

[Ymir]

"The average negro" where the hell do you get this shit from?

From what I see on the television, my town, basically everywhere I can see people with signifigant African heritage. I don't find anything wrong with admitting what I see.

"I believe culture is a better seperater but it seems people like you just love pushing people apart because I'm darker than you or your lighter than me. "

Wow, maybe you ignored the part of my response that acknowledged cultural factors.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Ymir on 9:56 pm on May 29, 2003
"The average negro" where the hell do you get this shit from?

From what I see on the television, my town, basically everywhere I can see people with signifigant African heritage. I don't find anything wrong with admitting what I see.

"I believe culture is a better seperater but it seems people like you just love pushing people apart because I'm darker than you or your lighter than me. "

Wow, maybe you ignored the part of my response that acknowledged cultural factors.



No i mean the term negro is obsolete, no one uses it anymore, except for what I've seen you. Most people say black

And I'm sorry I didn't mean to knock you like that I was already angry from something else

[Ymir]

I hope I didnt offend you.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Ymir on 2:26 am on May 30, 2003
I hope I didnt offend you.


No not at all

[Totalitarian]

Lardlad95:If the Jewish guy brought forth a compelling arguement I would atleast hear him out.

His argument seemed to rest on the concept that there is no biological significance to race. This goes against every scientific fact i have read or been taught on the subject, and yet he provided NO evidence to back it up.

A biologist? Sir we aren't different species, it's skin color.

All species have a drive towards speciation, because that is how new species form. When different populations of a species inbreed, then over many generations those populations become genetically distinct from one another. They are then called "races" or sub-species. A race is an extended family which has inbred over x generations.

Skin pigmentation is the most superficial of racial differences. Are you telling me you haven't noticed the differences in body shape between people of different racial heritage?


THose attributes you claim belong to certain races can be found amongst other "races"

That is true.


I have met white people with slanty eyes, black people with slanty eyes.

Races have different average traits, but there are always individual exceptions to any trend.

now are you told me that features is a component in race. So your telling me that black kid dow the street with slanted eyes is asian?

No, because having slanted eyes doesn't make you asian. Having an asian bloodline does.

Characteristics are based on genetics not this thing you call race.

The differences between human, chimp and gorilla are RACIAL differences and yes, they are also genetic.


First off regarding the there would be no white race without a black race arguement.

What do you mean how did blacks help whites evolve.

I think i misunderstood your statement. What exactly did you mean?

For teh last damn time we aren't a seperate species man. Whites didn't evolve from blacks, we are all the same species with differnt skin colors.

We are the same species, yes. So are coyotes, wolves and dogs.


What I meant was that without a contrasting skin color there would be no need to devide by skin color.

Race is a label, based on skin color thats what I meant. Thats all it is.

In my opinion there is no such thing as race really. It's jsut a label to seperate people.

See my point about racial variation above...

I believe culture is a better seperater but it seems people like you just love pushing people apart because I'm darker than you or your lighter than me.

I see the human races (black/white/yellow) as being like coyote, dogs and wolves.

With the exception of skin color there is no difference whatsoever between me and you...except maybe in political views.

Everybody is unique in so many ways. Why would you want to be not different from someone else?


It's a shame that these labels have such an incredible hold on your life.

Why does this matter to you so much.

Well, i think there's a danger in thinking that race is only skin deep because that implies that racial feelings of kinship can be modified and changed by education and indoctrination. In my opinion the obliteration of a racial group is not just a loss of a certain skin tone but an example of GENOCIDE, something which i take seriously.


There is no way they are abolishing the white race.

So I don't see why you care so much.

That is their stated objective, but of course they haven't carried it out yet. However with the help of mainstream media, academia and government they are slowly getting closer.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Totalitarian on 3:41 am on May 30, 2003
Lardlad95:If the Jewish guy brought forth a compelling arguement I would atleast hear him out.

His argument seemed to rest on the concept that there is no biological significance to race. This goes against every scientific fact i have read or been taught on the subject, and yet he provided NO evidence to back it up.

A biologist? Sir we aren't different species, it's skin color.

All species have a drive towards speciation, because that is how new species form. When different populations of a species inbreed, then over many generations those populations become genetically distinct from one another. They are then called "races" or sub-species. A race is an extended family which has inbred over x generations.

Skin pigmentation is the most superficial of racial differences. Are you telling me you haven't noticed the differences in body shape between people of different racial heritage?


THose attributes you claim belong to certain races can be found amongst other "races"

That is true.


I have met white people with slanty eyes, black people with slanty eyes.

Races have different average traits, but there are always individual exceptions to any trend.

now are you told me that features is a component in race. So your telling me that black kid dow the street with slanted eyes is asian?

No, because having slanted eyes doesn't make you asian. Having an asian bloodline does.

Characteristics are based on genetics not this thing you call race.

The differences between human, chimp and gorilla are RACIAL differences and yes, they are also genetic.


First off regarding the there would be no white race without a black race arguement.

What do you mean how did blacks help whites evolve.

I think i misunderstood your statement. What exactly did you mean?

For teh last damn time we aren't a seperate species man. Whites didn't evolve from blacks, we are all the same species with differnt skin colors.

We are the same species, yes. So are coyotes, wolves and dogs.


What I meant was that without a contrasting skin color there would be no need to devide by skin color.

Race is a label, based on skin color thats what I meant. Thats all it is.

In my opinion there is no such thing as race really. It's jsut a label to seperate people.

See my point about racial variation above...

I believe culture is a better seperater but it seems people like you just love pushing people apart because I'm darker than you or your lighter than me.

I see the human races (black/white/yellow) as being like coyote, dogs and wolves.

With the exception of skin color there is no difference whatsoever between me and you...except maybe in political views.

Everybody is unique in so many ways. Why would you want to be not different from someone else?


It's a shame that these labels have such an incredible hold on your life.

Why does this matter to you so much.

Well, i think there's a danger in thinking that race is only skin deep because that implies that racial feelings of kinship can be modified and changed by education and indoctrination. In my opinion the obliteration of a racial group is not just a loss of a certain skin tone but an example of GENOCIDE, something which i take seriously.


There is no way they are abolishing the white race.

So I don't see why you care so much.

That is their stated objective, but of course they haven't carried it out yet. However with the help of mainstream media, academia and government they are slowly getting closer.



No wolves, cyotes, and dogs belong to the same genus, not species.

Whites are not subspecies of humans, they are a specific type of human that lacks a signifigant amount of Melanin C.

I have seen white people with hair curlier than mine, I'd seen white people with bigger lips than myself.

The only difference really is skin color. If my mother and father both have thin lips and their family has a history of thin lips but both are black then I'll have thin lips but still be black.

Body characteristics are based on family genetics not "race"



So if slanted eyes don't make you asian that body features isn't what makes up "race" it's skin color

Race in the sense which you were explaining chimps, gorillas, and apes isn't the same as the Race which seperates me from you.

Race can either mean species or having to do with skin color.

Skin color and ,if youwant to include it, body characteristics isn't what seperates us from apes, it's DNA

Why do you want to be seperate from me?

I can see that you are not a racist...atleast I don't think you are.

But I wonder why does that matter?


I honestly could care less about this entire matter, except for the fact that you seem to be catergorizing races as seperating into different species.

But as a whole this really isnt interesting to me.

Personally I don't see why race should even exist, it's just culture to me.

But thats only my opinion.

Personally I don't see it as genocide because these people wont be dead.


If we got rid of all race labels would it really make a difference in your life? And if so why would it?


Also by there wouldn't be a white race if not for blacks I meant there wouldnt be a label of white.

Anyway good luck to you on your fight to preserve the white race.

Just make sure that you don't join the Aryan nation because then me and you would have to hate each other and I don't want that to happen.

[James]

Lardlad, yeah i didn't understand what i wrote when i read it just then. It was one of those posts that get posted whilst you'r doing 101 jobs,thus often make poor understanding.

I'll revise the post; what i meant was that "modern man" evolved from a less developed ancestor which moved out of Africa.

Apparently humans were split into two during a period o climate change. Some went north (V cold), whilst the others went south (V dry and hot).

From those in africa, our ancestors developed. Whilst the other group, developed into neanderthals (however its spelt).

"Our" group came out on top because we developed the notion of a future, and to prepare for it. As we needed to secure food and water supplies for the future.

After this period of climate change, the two groups mixed again (this is a couple thousand year gap i think), and "ours" came out on top due to natural selection.
"we" were characterised by long limbs, tall, slim, fast and thin. Whilst "they" were short, stocky, tough and slow.

etc etc, you can read about this more if you want on line i imagine.

Anyway, thats what i wastaling about. That modern day humans evolved from a group from Africa. Modern day humans of course developed then in accordance to different sourondings. etc etc etc, thus some differences in apperences. But these are becoming "mixed" as such due to "cross breeding" etc brought about by improved communication.

[Anonymous]

Races are like breeds of dogs. A poodle and a great dane are the same species, yet they're obviously much different physically.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from James on 3:55 pm on May 30, 2003
Lardlad, yeah i didn't understand what i wrote when i read it just then. It was one of those posts that get posted whilst you'r doing 101 jobs,thus often make poor understanding.

I'll revise the post; what i meant was that "modern man" evolved from a less developed ancestor which moved out of Africa.

Apparently humans were split into two during a period o climate change. Some went north (V cold), whilst the others went south (V dry and hot).

From those in africa, our ancestors developed. Whilst the other group, developed into neanderthals (however its spelt).

"Our" group came out on top because we developed the notion of a future, and to prepare for it. As we needed to secure food and water supplies for the future.

After this period of climate change, the two groups mixed again (this is a couple thousand year gap i think), and "ours" came out on top due to natural selection.
"we" were characterised by long limbs, tall, slim, fast and thin. Whilst "they" were short, stocky, tough and slow.

etc etc, you can read about this more if you want on line i imagine.

Anyway, thats what i wastaling about. That modern day humans evolved from a group from Africa. Modern day humans of course developed then in accordance to different sourondings. etc etc etc, thus some differences in apperences. But these are becoming "mixed" as such due to "cross breeding" etc brought about by improved communication.


You are on the right track.

Humans Evolved from Cro Magnun which was a group that evolved from a certain group of Neanderthals

a group of Neanderthals was isolated from their brethren and evolved into Cro Magnun

later this Cro magnun spread and over ran neanderthals, The cro magnun became us


There is no difference in DNA between us and Cro magnun

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Dark Capitalist on 8:02 pm on May 30, 2003
Races are like breeds of dogs. A poodle and a great dane are the same species, yet they're obviously much different physically.



That is a better analogy though not totally accurate.

Breed of Dog and race are based on the same concept.

However race differences aren't as drastically differnt as dog breed

[Totalitarian]

Lardlad95:

No wolves, cyotes, and dogs belong to the same genus, not species.

Oh sorry, you're right. They are part of the genus Canus. A more accurate analogy is that of dog breeds.

Whites are not subspecies of humans, they are a specific type of human that lacks a signifigant amount of Melanin C.

I know this is a matter of debate amongst scientists. My personal opinion is that whites/caucasians/euros are a subspecies (race) of Man because they are a physiologically unique group which has inbred for thousands of years. The low melanin is only one feature of being white, in fact the most obvious visual marker of white ancestry is facial features. Whites are also the only group to have red/blonde hair in significant amounts.

The low melanin actually proves my point because since light skin is a recessive trait, it could only have developed so much amongst white people from many generations of reproductive isolation. It also implies that there would be average behavioural differences because behaviour is something that evolves faster than physical features.

I have seen white people with hair curlier than mine, I'd seen white people with bigger lips than myself.

These are exceptions to the trend. Also, keep in mind that some whites have small amounts of black ancestry and in the USA black people have about 30% white ancestry on average.

The only difference really is skin color. If my mother and father both have thin lips and their family has a history of thin lips but both are black then I'll have thin lips but still be black.

Okay, i'm not saying that all black people will have certain traits, just that there are average morphological differences. If you had your skin colour changed to white, do you think you would be unrecognisable as someone of African ancestry?

So if slanted eyes don't make you asian that body features isn't what makes up "race" it's skin color

Well, i'm telling you that about 99% of the time i can look at someone and accurately guess their racial background.

Race in the sense which you were explaining chimps, gorillas, and apes isn't the same as the Race which seperates me from you.

It's the same but on a vastly bigger scale. Way back in history the common ancestor species divided into several races. One of these races eventually evolved into humans, the other became the ancestor of chimps, gorillas etc. (I think that's how it went)

Race can either mean species or having to do with skin color.

Great danes and labradors are part of the same species but differ racially. The difference is more than fur colour, wouldn't you agree?

Race=
Biology.
An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=race

Skin color and ,if youwant to include it, body characteristics isn't what seperates us from apes, it's DNA

Human populations also differ according to DNA.

Why do you want to be seperate from me?

Personally, i don't mind interacting with people of different race and cultural background. It can be very enlightening. But i also wouldn't want my own people to be destroyed.

I honestly could care less about this entire matter, except for the fact that you seem to be catergorizing races as seperating into different species.

They're not separate species because they can still interbreed with other humans.

Personally I don't see it as genocide because these people wont be dead.

The RaceTraitor people say they want to destroy the social networks that keep white people going as a community. The end result of that is extinction as far as i can see, and that's what i consider genocide.


If we got rid of all race labels would it really make a difference in your life? And if so why would it?

Well if we got rid of labels then the race differences would still be there, it's just that they would be referred to differently i suppose.


Also by there wouldn't be a white race if not for blacks I meant there wouldnt be a label of white.

Oh, i see what you mean. Well as far as i know caucasian people evolved from a population that got isolated in a certain place thousands of years ago by a whole lot of glaciers. So they probably wouldn't have known about anyone else but each other during that time.

I live in new zealand, i know that the maori never used to refer to themselves as "maori" but only by the particular tribe (iwi) that they belonged to. As far as they knew maori were the only people around. I guess it was the same for whites back in the day.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Totalitarian on 4:59 am on June 2, 2003
Lardlad95:

No wolves, cyotes, and dogs belong to the same genus, not species.

Oh sorry, you're right. They are part of the genus Canus. A more accurate analogy is that of dog breeds.

Whites are not subspecies of humans, they are a specific type of human that lacks a signifigant amount of Melanin C.

I know this is a matter of debate amongst scientists. My personal opinion is that whites/caucasians/euros are a subspecies (race) of Man because they are a physiologically unique group which has inbred for thousands of years. The low melanin is only one feature of being white, in fact the most obvious visual marker of white ancestry is facial features. Whites are also the only group to have red/blonde hair in significant amounts.

The low melanin actually proves my point because since light skin is a recessive trait, it could only have developed so much amongst white people from many generations of reproductive isolation. It also implies that there would be average behavioural differences because behaviour is something that evolves faster than physical features.

I have seen white people with hair curlier than mine, I'd seen white people with bigger lips than myself.

These are exceptions to the trend. Also, keep in mind that some whites have small amounts of black ancestry and in the USA black people have about 30% white ancestry on average.

The only difference really is skin color. If my mother and father both have thin lips and their family has a history of thin lips but both are black then I'll have thin lips but still be black.

Okay, i'm not saying that all black people will have certain traits, just that there are average morphological differences. If you had your skin colour changed to white, do you think you would be unrecognisable as someone of African ancestry?

So if slanted eyes don't make you asian that body features isn't what makes up "race" it's skin color

Well, i'm telling you that about 99% of the time i can look at someone and accurately guess their racial background.

Race in the sense which you were explaining chimps, gorillas, and apes isn't the same as the Race which seperates me from you.

It's the same but on a vastly bigger scale. Way back in history the common ancestor species divided into several races. One of these races eventually evolved into humans, the other became the ancestor of chimps, gorillas etc. (I think that's how it went)

Race can either mean species or having to do with skin color.

Great danes and labradors are part of the same species but differ racially. The difference is more than fur colour, wouldn't you agree?

Race=
Biology.
An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=race

Skin color and ,if youwant to include it, body characteristics isn't what seperates us from apes, it's DNA

Human populations also differ according to DNA.

Why do you want to be seperate from me?

Personally, i don't mind interacting with people of different race and cultural background. It can be very enlightening. But i also wouldn't want my own people to be destroyed.

I honestly could care less about this entire matter, except for the fact that you seem to be catergorizing races as seperating into different species.

They're not separate species because they can still interbreed with other humans.

Personally I don't see it as genocide because these people wont be dead.

The RaceTraitor people say they want to destroy the social networks that keep white people going as a community. The end result of that is extinction as far as i can see, and that's what i consider genocide.


If we got rid of all race labels would it really make a difference in your life? And if so why would it?

Well if we got rid of labels then the race differences would still be there, it's just that they would be referred to differently i suppose.


Also by there wouldn't be a white race if not for blacks I meant there wouldnt be a label of white.

Oh, i see what you mean. Well as far as i know caucasian people evolved from a population that got isolated in a certain place thousands of years ago by a whole lot of glaciers. So they probably wouldn't have known about anyone else but each other during that time.

I live in new zealand, i know that the maori never used to refer to themselves as "maori" but only by the particular tribe (iwi) that they belonged to. As far as they knew maori were the only people around. I guess it was the same for whites back in the day.





Sure why not

Really I'm sick of disscussing race..it isn't fun

I'd much rather disscuss religion, politics, or education


the only thing I really care about regarding race is fixing the Black American community to the point where we no longer use crutch social programs

besides that it doesn't matter to me if you are green, yellow, orange, fuscia, pink, or a frankinstien type being.


Thats not to say I agree but

1. I respect your opinion

2. I'm tired of talking about race

3. I'm tired as hell

(Edited by Lardlad95 at 5:13 am on June 2, 2003)

[Millennium]

Really I'm sick of disscussing race..it isn't fun

(Between you and me, I agree; but there are lots of people who keep directing posts at me on the subject and I'd rather not ignore them.)

--Mark

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Millennium on 5:16 am on June 2, 2003
Really I'm sick of disscussing race..it isn't fun

(Between you and me, I agree; but there are lots of people who keep directing posts at me on the subject and I'd rather not ignore them.)

--Mark


Yes mark I definitely agree it's hard to annoy.


I'm about to got o sleep but then I've seen you reply...and I'm like

[i] should I go to bed or reply to him......it can wait to tomorrow...but then i'd have to do it later instead of sooner.......damn it let me reply real quick, maybe by the time I'm done he'll be in bed and I can wait until he replies in the morning [i]

[Irish Republican]

Quote: from Totalitarian on 7:12 am on May 20, 2003

Our people is also projected (based on current immigration and birthrate trends) to become a minority in new zealand (2020), USA (2050) and europe (2100-2150) as well as the rest of the west.

You know what they say - 'what goes around, comes around'. I cant help thinking about the Native Americans being over-run by invaders, I dont think you have as much a problem with that now, do you? But when the shoe is on the other foot its a different story. Yep, what goes around comes around.

[Xvall]

Yeah; Ethnicities aren't exactly the same as 'dog breeds'. I've never met a person of a certain ethnicity who happened to be roughly 275% times are large as another, as the case can be seen between Ciuwawas (I don't care about spelling, so ***k off!) and Great Danes.

[Hampton]

(Between you and me, I agree; but there are lots of people who keep directing posts at me on the subject and I'd rather not ignore them.)

Err, no offence but you were the one who dedicated a whole thread to it, if you're tired of it you shouldn't have created it in the first place.

[Totalitarian]

Quote: from Irish Republican on 10:29 pm on June 2, 2003
You know what they say - 'what goes around, comes around'. I cant help thinking about the Native Americans being over-run by invaders, I dont think you have as much a problem with that now, do you? But when the shoe is on the other foot its a different story. Yep, what goes around comes around.


Actually, i did not agree with the mass extinction of the american indian peoples triggered by white colonisation. But i can't do anything about that now (except help the indians keep the land they still have) but i CAN do something about the survival of european peoples.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Totalitarian on 8:01 am on June 3, 2003

Quote: from Irish Republican on 10:29 pm on June 2, 2003
You know what they say - 'what goes around, comes around'. I cant help thinking about the Native Americans being over-run by invaders, I dont think you have as much a problem with that now, do you? But when the shoe is on the other foot its a different story. Yep, what goes around comes around.


Actually, i did not agree with the mass extinction of the american indian peoples triggered by white colonisation. But i can't do anything about that now (except help the indians keep the land they still have) but i CAN do something about the survival of european peoples.


I have a question...what in the hell are you worried about?

The white "race" has been on top of the game for centuries

you made that evident through colonialism and fucking up every other inhabited continent(by the way this is off topic but hw is Europe a continent?)

The only time Europe has really been beaten shitless was when the Mongols were fuckin yall up (unfortunately they had to turn back to attend a funeral of an important general, if not Europe wouldnt exist as we know it)

And also the crusades

besides that you have been destroying native peoples for centuries

yall aint goin no where don't get worried.

[Totalitarian]

Lardlad95:

The issues are...

*Whites have declining birthrate
*White population of West is decreasing
*Whites are worldwide minority of 8%
*The percentage of White women of child-bearing age is 2% of world's popuation
*Whites have no stable homeland

I am in favour of racial harmony; no more exploitation and conquering of other races. I do not want white people to exterminate or harm others, just have an independent homeland (preferably Europe).

That sound ok to you?