Refutations of White Nationalist Arguments

[the debater]

7) Intelligence is still mostly hereditary.

This is a very, very, very, very complex and complicated issue, and in this argument, I will not necessarily seek only to contradict this statement, but also, to shed light on errors that are associated with studies proposing "nature" as being the winner of the nature vs nurture debate as it pertains to the heritability of IQ. In this link, I recommend not necessarily reading the article provided by the link, but rather, going to the comments section and reading the comments made by Jay Joseph, Ken Richardson, Susan Clotfelter, and Alison Cantor. I am NOT saying that these people were 100% accurate in their arguments, but rather, that I believe that they were more intelligent and less biased than the author of the article in making their points, and that they did a good job of referencing legitimate studies/sources in their comments. Here is the article: http://www.slate.com/articles/life/t...inanity.2.html

And some important quotes from the commentators whose names I mentioned:

Once again, the highly stochastic nature of chromosomal aneuploidy and resulting chromosomal mosaicism insures that MZTs [identical twins] will have differences in their neuronal chromosomes, and that siblings will depart from a presumed 50% possession of the parental nuclear genome.

-from comment by Alison

well-known interactions at various levels confound the model of simple additive effects on which the classical twin method is predicated and results are interpreted. For example, at a socio-cognitive level, DZ twins may respond to treatments differently from MZ twins. This interaction may further explain MZ–DZ correlation differences. There is abundant evidence for such interactive effects in published twin data. We suggest that there is a need for a more thorough examination of these problems.

-from comment by Susan, taken from a study that was mentioned in the British Journal of Educational Psychology

1. In no study to date of twins raised apart is it the case that all of the twins being studied were separated at birth; most often, in fact, they have not. In some well-known studies, twins who have been raised together up until ages 4, 6, and 11 were held to be “twins raised apart” for the purposes of the study. This astonishing (and oddly unnoticed) fact means that so-called studies of twins raised apart are in fact no such thing; at best, they are studies of twins raised partially apart. This leaves open the possibility of many years of confounding environmental influ- ences during the most formative period of development in a child’s life.
2. In no twin study to date is it the case that all of the twins studied have had no contact after separation. Often, many of the twins have had ongoing relationships lasting for many years. The potential con- founding effects here are significant because given the demonstrated greater levels of contact between MZ as opposed to DZ twins—“MZAs [“monozy- gotic twins raised apart”] are more likely to be aware of each others’ existence and to have had more pre- study contact than DZAs [“dizygotic twins raised apart”]—there is a greater opportunity for MZ twins to influence each other’s attitudes.
3. Studies of twins raised apart depend upon the assumption that the environments in which the separated twins are raised are “dissimilar.” But over thirty years ago, researchers found this not to be the case:
Kamin found that twins who were placed in new homes by adoption agencies tended to end up in similar environments; for example, the adopting families tended to be from the same social class. Second, in many cases the separated twins were placed by family members in the homes of relatives, so that they often went to the same school, and interacted with each other frequently.

-from comment by Susan, in reference to some objections that have been brought up against "twins reared apart" studies

Although Palmer's article has problems, his conclusion that "twin studies are…fundamentally flawed" is absolutely correct, and this position finds further support in the ongoing decades-long failure to identify genes for psychiatric disorders, personality traits, and IQ.

-from comment by Jay

Actually, adoption studies of personality and twin studies of personality find strikingly different results, at least when we speak of far-and-away the most carefully performed and least biased of these studies: The Colorado Adoption Project (CAP) performed by leading behavioral geneticists headed by Robert Plomin. Their 1998 study found no personality test score correlation between birthparents and their 245 adopted-away biological offspring. These results suggest that there are no genetic influences on personality. See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9686459 . However, the genetically-oriented authors did not interpret their results this way, and tried to explain them in the context of "triangulating" the results with the alleged evidence supplied by twin studies. By the way, the results of this Plomin et al. 1998 personality adoption study completely overturn the claims of the Minnesota TRA researchers that their studies demonstrated the importance of genetic influences on personality. Amazingly, the CAP zero personality correlation is rarely mentioned in the behavioral genetic literature.

-from comment by Jay, in reference to a study that contradicted the Minnesota TRA study

Loehlin and Nichols themselves say that their results do ‘not altogether exclude a completely environmentalist position’, adding that the environment seems to operate ‘in remarkably mysterious ways’ (p. 94).

-from comment by Ken, in reference to a 1976 twin study.

This post was pretty beastly, I have to admit. I may have missed a few things here and there by accident, so to any Revlefters here, don't be afraid to re-examine these claims that I have collected. (If you're brave enough.) This post is by no means meant to be a final, once and for all refutation of anything, so tread cautiously.

[the debater]

I hate to say it, but I don't think racists, or for that matter anyone who takes racist arguments seriously, are persuaded by logic or science.

You could give them all the evidence in the world that humans are the same basically and they will refuse to believe it.

What I seem to notice with white nationalist types is that they latch onto studies that may support their viewpoint, but they don't investigate those studies further, and many of them don't even look up opposing/contradictory studies. But what do you expect from these people? Pride and objectivity are like oil and water.

[4MyNation]

I think it's funny how WNs get butthurt when a white dies, but when a non-white dies they celebrate.

[the debater]

I think it's funny how WNs get butthurt when a white dies, but when a non-white dies they celebrate.

I personally am beginning to wonder how many trolls are on Stormfront, and not obvious ones, but more intelligent, stealthy ones. There's one person I'm starting to suspect may be a troll, maybe an informant or something. But yeah, getting back to how biased racial nationalists can be, there was a thread on SF talking about how white men were the most masculine, apparently because they had the most body hair? Of course, the painfully obvious question to ask afterwards was whether white women were thus the least feminine? There were obviously various opinions expressed on that thread, but the main theme at the beginning seemed to be body hair, as far as I can remember.

[the debater]

8) White nationalism is still gaining ground throughout Europe.

Perhaps in some countries. While a lot of attention has been paid to the rise of Islam in certain parts of Europe, we also shouldn't forget about white, Eastern European immigrants arriving in countries like Britain: http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/380...se-our-streets

Some statistics on London crime waves:

Shock figures show that the *Metropolitan Police made 27,725 *arrests over the past five years for offences including rape and *murder. This is despite just 68,000 *Romanians living here at present – a figure set to soar when Britain has to open its borders next January under an EU directive.

The Met’s figures show the 27,725 arrests of *Romanian suspects were in connection with 142 rapes, 10 murders, 666 sex crimes, 303 robberies, 1,370 burglaries and 2,902 offences of violence.

The 34,905 arrests in London among Polish citizens in London were for suspected involvement in 84 murders, 129 rapes, 866 sex assaults, 480 robberies, 2,094 burglaries and nearly 7,500 violent crimes.

Lithuania was in third place on the list with more than 18,500 arrests, followed by Nigeria on 15,600, India with 15,200 and Jamaica with 14,072.

At least for the city of London, I would imagine that the natives are more concerned with ethnicity rather than race as it pertains to immigration patterns. Likewise, in the U.S., crime rates for African-Americans have fallen significantly according to a previous post of mine, post #11: https://www.revleft.space/vb/showthread.php?t=182912

Likewise, we shouldn't forget about college-educated immigrants who are not trouble-makers, and who do contribute to their respective countries of destination in countries like the U.S.:

http://www.bet.com/news/national/201...n-the-u-s.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3446441.html

This argument is meant to show that WN will probably not succeed on a large scale. There may be exceptions, such as for Greece and Hungary. However, with Golden Dawn, Ilias Kasidiaris's race is questionable, and many WNs probably will not accept him. The nationalists in Golden Dawn will have contradictory opinions with WNs who have stricter "purity standards". Likewise, other nationalist movements in Eastern Europe will probably be more active at the local level, rather than at the international level.

[Ultra-Imperialist]

One can simply note that they are wrong according to DNA Polymorphic studies.

[the debater]

9) The races are still very different from each other physically, so they should still be separated.

I need to give credit to ConsulPrinceps over on Stormfront for highlighting this link, in addition to the SF guest who provided the link on the 7 racial IQ studies that I highlighted earlier in the second argument. The link provided by ConsulPrinceps: http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/site...m_Section1.pdf

And an excerpt:

If our eyes could perceive more than the superficial, we might find race in chromosome 11: there lies the gene for hemoglobin. If you divide humankind by which of two forms of the gene each person has, then equatorial Africans, Italians and Greeks fall into the “sickle-cell race”; Swedes and South Africa’s Xhosas (Nelson Mandela’s ethnic group) are in the healthy hemoglobin race. Or do you prefer to group people by whether they have epicanthic eye folds,
which produce the “Asian” eye? Then the !Kung San (Bushmen) belong with the Japanese and Chinese. . . . [D]epending on which traits you pick, you can form very surprising races. Take the scooped-out shape of the back of the front teeth, a standard “Asian” trait. Native Americans and Swedes have these shovel-shaped incisors, too, and so would fall in the same race. Is biochemistry better? Norwegians, Arabians, north Indians and the Fulani of northern Nigeria . . . fall into the “lactase race” (the lactase enzyme digests milk sugar). Everyone else—other Africans, Japanese, Native Americans—form the “lactase-deprived race” (their ancestors did not drink milk from cows or goats and hence never evolved the lactase gene). How about blood types,
the familiar A, B, and O groups? Then Germans and New Guineans, populations that have the same percentages of each type, are in one race; Estonians and Japanese comprise a separate one for the same reason. . . . The dark skin of Somalis and Ghanaians, for instance, indicates that they evolved under the same selective force (a sunny climate). But that’s all it shows. It does
not show that they are any more closely related in the sense of sharing more genes than either is to Greeks. Calling Somalis and Ghanaians “black” therefore sheds no further light on their evolutionary history and implies—wrongly—that they are more closely related to each other than either is to someone of a different “race.” (Begley, 1995:67, 68) ]

[RedAnarchist]

In 10,000 years we most likely won't have the same "races" as we do nowadays. Even if you separated white people, black people, Asian people etc and made them unable to procreate with someone from another group, eventually genetic differences and societal constructs will create new "races" within humanity. Also, if they wanted to preserve their precious white skin so much, they would have to make sure whites lived only in the colder parts of the world.

[Red_Banner]

I seriously don't think you know anyone on welfare if you think in this brash right-wing logic.



Are you implying people on welfare are leeches? What about, you know, capitalists? The people who own the tools of production? The people who make more money off what you create than what you get paid for working under them? The people who are sitting in their luxury yachts and getting their secretaries to promote 'company growth' when an impoverished labourer in Addis Ababa is paid less than a dollar a day for backbreaking work on long hours with no health and safety coverage?

I think those people are the 'leeches' you're looking for, not someone who can barely get by and would probably starve and die if a welfare system wasn't in place. Hell, I wouldn't even have been able to go to the school I did if there was no social safety net and welfare where I was. Honestly, the racist ray-gun derived myth of the welfare queen needs to be slaughtered where it stands. I'm surprised sections the left doesn't jump on this shit more thoroughly.

I'll try and get up some works on dispelling dole myths.

I don't think you know anyone who's ever been on welfare.
There are people on welfare that are actually lazy.
Not everyone is, but it is common enough.

[Red_Banner]

Also the term 'Hispanic' is a misnomer. Inhabitants of native America come from many different ethnic groups and backgrounds (there was large ethnic variation throughout pre-Spanish Mexico alone), and this was even more intensified by the entrance of Spanish people and slaves from Africa (which has some of the largest ethnographic variation of any place on earth). So even in the realm of genetics and anthropology that these faux-biologists like to prance around in, they fail miserably at their little game by generalizing millions of different ethnic groups as a single 'other', before attributing their racist mythology to this other and subsequently coming out as a dignified little 'racial realist' for all the modern world to see.

Here's a map by Luca Cavalli to demonstrate the ludicrous notion of a 'Hispanic' person.



Edit: Images don't seem to be working so i'll post a link instead.

Here

Well what about this name "Latino"?

How are Mestizos "Latin"?

What do they have in common with the Roman Republic or Empire?

Why should they have the monopoly on the term "Latin American"?

Why shouldn't the French and Italians be able to use this?

[the debater]

10) But Jews control everything, the media, the banks, the sports organizations, etc. They're still a threat to European nations.

It's not quite that simple. White European Jewish people may be overrepresented among ultra-wealthy individuals, but that does not mean that Jewish people are genetically hardwired to be rich and greedy. There are cultural and historical reasons for why Jews may be overrepresented in white collar professions. And besides, plenty of wealthy people, especially in America's past, were not Jewish, but rather Gentile European: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_...dustrialist%29

The industrial robber barons mentioned in this article appear to be for the most part, all Gentile European. John D. Rockefeller, considered to be one of the richest people of all time, is himself non-Jewish. The Rockefeller family is German.

Now some white nationalists may still claim that Jews are overrepresented in the music industry, the media, and in finance. Maybe. But apparently, Jews are also overrepresented among chess champions and among Nobel prize winners. So it seems the "issue" so to speak, is not Jewish over-representation in a specific area, but rather, Jewish over-representation in any field or industry that requires a lot of intelligence, regardless of whether that field/industry is a respectable one such as physics, or a non-respectable one such as music or finance. (I use the term "non-respectable" in an informal manner in regards to the music industry in reference to some music industry executives who may peddle inappropriate content in popular songs.)

It's important for me to state that I am not trying to label Jews as being great and wonderful people who never commit any crimes. That is not the purpose of this argument. I am simply trying to say that they are not any better or worse than any other group of people. If anything, I support being wary of people who are exceedingly wealthy and/or powerful, regardless of whether they are politicians, businessmen, music executives, media moguls, Jewish, Gentile, Black, White, Asian, Extraterrestrial, etc.

An interesting question that I have for anti-semites, (not anti-Zionists) is this: Is it possible that Jews are not out to take over the world, but rather, are intended to serve as a sort of scapegoat to distract attention away from the people who are the real bad guys? If the Jews truly are the bad guys that people sometimes make them out to be, then why have they not kept their identities more of a secret? Wouldn't villains seeking global domination seek to keep their identities as secretive as possible? This is something to ponder over for people who may be too quick to blame Jews for all of the world's problems.

[the debater]

Bump. Could this thread be made a sticky, by any chance?

[cyu]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/do-races-e...35/index4.html

1. Discussing the usefulness of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_and_rule as a tactic for the ruling class to control both racists and non-racists.

2. Disputing "Darwinian" concepts of competition as a mistake in interpretation, as opposed to the use of cooperation in human civilization. Presenting arguments as to why ideologies based on competition (like Nazism) are in fact less fit to survive than ideologies based on cooperation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

Simon, Karl, Jared, and Brett are all friends of Josh, and they are all petty criminals. Jill is a friend of Josh; therefore, Jill is a petty criminal.

My opponent for office just received an endorsement from the Puppy Haters Association. Is that the sort of person you would want to vote for?

Citizens of Country X won more Nobel Prizes, gold medals, and literary awards than citizens of Country Y. Therefore, a citizen of Country X is superior to a citizen of Country Y.

All dogs have four legs; my cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat is a dog.

[Alonso Quijano]

If the Jews truly are the bad guys that people sometimes make them out to be, then why have they not kept their identities more of a secret?

Like Marx and Luxemburg? Jews tried their best to assimilate, to counter arguments that we were not loyal enough. Then we were blamed for trying to hide our intentions. And then Jews gave up on European Politics and turned Zionist, unfortunately.

Marx's youngest daughter, Eleanor ("Tussy"), for example, declared herself a proud Jew, learnt Yiddish and worked with Jewish immigrants from Russia to Britain. And that was the only difference between her and her father, I think. Basically, Karl and Tussy were part of a not-so-unique story for European Jews - trying to hide your Judaism, then growing tired of it and realising that probably doesn't work. Herzl was in favour of assimilation, and so was the father of both modern Communism and Zionism, Moshe Hess, who introduced it to Karl.

Don't forgot that even in the left (Bakunin, for example) people assumed Marx of a Jewish conspiracy. Basically, if Marx wouldn't have hidden his Jewishness (that was known nonetheless), there would be no Communist movement. But there also would be no Communist movement if he didn't have to apologise for his origins. Engels saw what happens in his family business - but didn't you ever wonder how come a son of a petit-bourgeois man, who could have succeeded his father, decided that his goal is creating one social class with no distinctions or divisions? Given that even the left then was antisemitic? Hess himself claimed that Communism should be the solution for Jews, before he grew tired of antisemitism, and started embracing some Jewish pride.

The original Jewish communists weren't conspiracists, and they were also not better, they just suffered racism that made them appreciate only money, because that's all they could have, or stay in the ghetto, even if they renounced Judaism. That's why Marx was the first to see that money and occupation aren't enough. Contrary to Christian belief that the Jew was happy with the situation, and was the one that gained the most, they knew how degrading that is, and understood the need for a unified society.

That's my interpretation, but not only mine. I've ran into other Jewish Marx scholars who claimed so. I say that it's not only mine because it'll seem weird to most of you. You have to be Jewish, or to have a very exceptional understanding of Jews and their history I think, to understand.

[Alonso Quijano]

Well what about this name "Latino"?

How are Mestizos "Latin"?

What do they have in common with the Roman Republic or Empire?

Why should they have the monopoly on the term "Latin American"?

Why shouldn't the French and Italians be able to use this?

Mainly because there is no Italian America
It's obviously in reference to English-speaking America.

They speak latin languages, that are continuation from vulgar dialects of Latin. Take in account that one of the names for the Judaeo-Spanish language is Ladino, which means the same. I also heard that the Spanish in New Mexico is called by local Spanish speakers Ladino.

A lot of those definitions relate to language. Otherwise, Egyptians are not Arab (as the Copts claim not to be), and so are Palestinian who live in the Levant, and developed the notion of Palestine as something different from the rest of the Levant (i.e Syria, Lebanon) thanks to British colonialism, and you still don't accuse them for that, even though they have nothing to do with the ancient Phillistine people.

You can also ask how come the Spaniards have a monopoly on the term "España" which historically includes also Portugal, why is Castillian called Spanish, why are Germans the only Germanic people called so, etc., etc.

For me as long as there isn't any other group who claims they stole their identity or something, it doesn't really matter. It's interesting as an anecdote, and for research, but that's usually mostly it.

[RevolucionarBG]

Really, explaining the idea of racism today is just unproductive work, withouth any need.

Every normal person understands that conditions of living, and some genetical predispositions are main reason why some people are good at this, and someone aren't and vice versa. And it's not connected to the races, but to people as individualists...

[the debater]

I went to the link for argument #7, and apparently, the comments that originally followed after the article are now gone. So, this means that those quotes I put up in argument #7 are going to have to be re-verified somewhere else.

On a side note, what the heck are you guys waiting for? There's nothing wrong about online debating. Unlike violence, when we use intellectual arguments, we actually get taken more seriously by potential Leftist "recruits," if you will. It's fast, it's easy, it's convenient. No blood, no loss of life. So why the hell am I the only one who seems to care about online debating?

[FreedomForAll]

The easiest way is to tell them that if they want to preserve certain genetic features, there's no reason they cannot do that in a society that supports the rights of workers. A lot of these people are sadly misguided proletariat who would gladly side with their own oppressive corporate boss, just because they share the same genetic traits as them, over siding with someone who would directly improve their existence.

Basically if they want to preserve a race, it is up to them to do it. What really boggles my mind though is that they act as though they are going to be forced into procreating with people they don't want to in a communistic or anarchistic ideal world, when in reality, nobody would be forcing anyone to procreate.

I don't even accept the argument that racial traits would die out, as trends tend to gravitate that people of similar genetic traits end up with other people like them anyways, which really nullifies this argument. The whole race argument is just a way to keep the workers from ever posing a threat to their masters.

What better way then to divide and conquer those who could otherwise pose a threat to you if you were such a person?

It really is tragically sad...

[Bolshevik Sickle]

No one fears the White race anymore. In movies and in TV shows White people are constantly depicted as nerdy, socially awkward, wimpy, timid, shy, cowardly, etc. If we were a feared people, then such media attacks would not be so prevalent.

If Whites were so feared, then why all of the "White privilege" courses taught in every major college around the nation?

The TRUTH is that we ARE hated. We are the most hated group of people on the planet, especially the White males. Deny it all you want, but you're living in a delusion if you seriously think otherwise. However, I don't truly believe that you do think otherwise. I think that this post of yours is just another attempt to play your little psychological parlor tricks on pro-White people.

Let's break this down, shall we?

No one fears the White race anymore.

No one: No person, Nobody. Which means nobody on the planet.
fear: to be afraid of (something or someone)

Unless you have sat down and had an interview with every person on the planet, to say no one fears the white race is a hasty generalization. Although google searches tend to suffice as nice pseudo-interviews.

Godlikeproductions: "I'm scared of White people"
Y!A: I'm scared of white people

In movies and in TV shows White people are constantly depicted as nerdy, socially awkward, wimpy, timid, shy, cowardly, etc.

What would be the opposite of nerdy, awkward, and wimpy? It would definitely be someone witty, confident, and strong. A perfect person to fit that persona would be a superhero. Let's roll up a few superhero movies with White Protagonist shall we.

• Superman; Man of Steel (2013)

• Bruce Wayne; Dark Knight Trilogy (2005-2012)

• Tony Stark; Iron Man trilogy (2008-2013)

I'm pretty sure none of these characters (played by White men) were portrayed as being "Beta Males".

• The Lord of the Rings trilogy had a 100% mayonnaise-flavored cast. Killing dragons and slaying orcs (who all had black skin, hmmm...) isn't exactly nerdy, it's also far being anti-white.

More of the "Anti-White Jew Media grrr"

Minorities always portrayed as nice!

Are non-white peoples portrayed the opposite of "nerdy and socially awkward" in movies?

• Cookie (Ned's Declassified School Survival Guide)

>He is a cybernerd and is usually in some kind of crisis.
>He is shown to be the mostly unlucky character in the series, usually being harmed or giving wrong
>he is shown to be very troublesome
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ned%27s_Declassified_School_Survival_Guide _characters#Simon_.22Cookie.22_Nelson_Cook

• Steve Urkel (Family Matters)

>Steve is the epitome of a geek/nerd, with large, thick eyeglasses, "high-water" or "flood" pants held up by suspenders, multi-colored cardigan sweaters, and a high-pitched voice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Urkel

then why all of the "White privilege" courses taught in every major college around the nation?

http://collegeprowler.com/majors/
Not one college major is literally called "White Privilege". People have the option of studying European history in college, how one interprets it is ambiguous.

The TRUTH is that we ARE hated.

Fear and Hate are two sides of the same coin. People tend to hate what they fear, and fear what they hate. Mankind fears what it does not understand. One can assume this is why the Ku Klux Klan was anxious to get the ropes and hang black people on trees back in the day. They didn't know who they were, they feared them, so in turn they ended up hating them.

http://www.circleofa.org/question/what-is-the-relationship-between-fear-and-hate/

• Unfortunately, this google search would suggest a 995,000 people do infact have a hatred for white people...

• As opposed to a good 13,700,000 people who stated they did not have a hatred for white people. A very staggering contrast.

We are the most hated group of people on the planet, especially the White males.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Persecution_complex

"The central belief of every moron is that he is the victim of a mysterious conspiracy against his common rights and true deserts. He ascribes all his failure to get on in the world, all of his congenital incapacity and damfoolishness, to the machinations of werewolves assembled in Wall Street, or some other such den of infamy."
—H.L. Mencken

[Bolshevik Sickle]

2. "White people can not take pride in their heritage without being labeled a racist

• While the term "white" and "White Pride" has in fact gained negative connotations, practically synonymous terms such as "European", "Australian", and "American" have not.

• Saint Patrick's Day and Oktoberfest are two examples of holidays that celebrate European heritage (Irish and German respectively), and are by default exclusively White orientated holidays.

List of European festivals and Holidays
If White people were actually taught to hate themselves and their culture, these holidays wouldn't exist.

• If you go around wearing Swastikas and preforming Hitler salutes of course you are going to be called a racist (because in that case you most likely are). Don't try to sugar-cote it with "sun wheels" either.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• On a personal note, I do not approve of nationalism. It is a poisonous and diving system, that starts off as "pride" and "joy" but usually leads to arrogance, narcissism and conflict.