Strictly speaking, no I don't. There are many what we might term "subraces" within the general folds that are referred to by the terms "white" and "black." Mostly, statements made regarding "whites" will broadly apply to most groups falling under the appellation "white," with varying degrees of accuracy, and the same is the case with "black." Where do those Caucasians come from if not from other Caucasians? As some wag has put it (crudely), "Two Wongs don't make a white."
<i>What has this to do with anything? I mean, really, I want to know, Rearden.</i> --->You attempted to portray non-whites as people who are relatively violent & barbaric, and I provided you with a little reality check. How is that <i>not</i> relevant? <i>You've bypassed every single substantive point I have raised -- and there have been many</i> --->I freely admit that Aryans have a higher mean IQ score than most other peoples... which makes it even <b>more</b> shameful when they perpetrate more murders and thefts than anyone else over the long term! You already know that I strongly support Ron Paul, and oppose wide-open U.S. borders, as well as gov't programs that incentivize stupid people to breed (irregardless of their ethnicity). <i> and zeroed in on what, I presume, most riles you: the threat that whites may think of themselves as a people with a real history and legitimate interests -- the way Jews, blacks, Chinese, Mexicans etc do. Isn't this what it comes down to, that you'd rather have them eternally penitent than acting in their own interests?</i> --->The problem is, you & I both know what usually comes right <i>after</i> chants of "White Pride!". It's the same exact thing that tends to follow exclamations of "Allah-hu Akbar!"... and it means you'd better duck, fast! <i>It's not a question of whether it's laughable, it's a question of whether it's provable or substantiated. Why don't you give that a whirl?</i> --->I already have. The fact remains, throughout recent history as well as the vast majority of recorded history, white people have not shown themselves to be the least bit more civilized than their darker counterparts. The state of the world today is but a historical anomaly, proving absolutely nothing regarding the supposed 'superiority' of any one race.
lo and behold, this is the opposite of what current genetic science has shown. I already mentioned this, but you conveniently ignored it. That's okay; since it reduces your arguments to a shambles, we can expect you to desperately avoid the facts. Oh, I never denied it. I just said that skin tone and other physical characteristics doesn't reflect race as clearly as white supremacists wish it would. As an Anti-Semite, surely you have an idea in your head of what a Jew looks like? Sure you do. And yet most Jews don't look anything like the image in your head. This thread is about generalizing according to facial and other physical characteristics. From Hitler on down, many of the most virulent modern Anti-Semites have had Jewish blood in them. spect8or is likely one of them. It's an interesting psychopathology; self hate in a strange form. But then I suspect that those who hate others almost always suffer from some form of self-hate or the other. You don't find too many tranquil racists. Most of them are like the garden variety racists here - made as hell but too cowardly to do anything about it.
Your "reality check" was entirely beside the point. The only relevant reality check would a side-by-side comparison of groups living in the same territory, subject to the same laws at the same point in time. And the only possible "reality check", used in the sense you intend, would be a refutation of the assertion that non-whites are more violent than whites. To that end, I'll provide you with it: Eastern, especially northeastern Asians, are less violent than whites. Your broader point that whites have been conquerors, imperialists and enslavers is understood but it covers very well worn ground and ignores the fact that every group has also been, thus I find your point redundant. That seems an empty assertion. I should like to see you back this up, providing full context. To your credit, you do. But you also know that most Jews do not. And you also know that if most Jews did, Paul would have a far easier time of getting his message across. As it stands, he is ignored and marginalized. Ah, the crux of the matter. Yes, you're quite right to include me alongside yourself. Let me ask you, Rearden: do you seriously not feel more comfortable around whites than you do around, say, Indians, or Samoans, or Africans, or Chinese or any variety of Muslim? I am betting that you do. Even fearing that at any moment silent white rage may awaken and do you in, I am betting you feel that way. (So do I.) And I bet that if you could draw a circle just wide enough around a majoritarian "we" that includes you in it you'd be quite willing to dispense with all that dreck about diversity being any sort of strength; you'd be manning the border right next to Jim Gilchrist; you'd stand right alongside David Duke demanding segregation; you'd be calling for the repatriation of every Mexican and Muslim in the country. But there's always that risk that the white man doesn't want you, won't accept you, might run you out of his country. And therefore he must be destroyed. Not directly, of course. But his daughters must be married off to negroes; his lands given over to hispanics, asians and whoever else can sneak into his country; his religion, his traditions, his history, his art mocked, mocked mercilessly, until he himself shuns them; and he must always, always be reminded of his unique evil, to the point where if he dare raise but a finger in protest over his dispossession, we should unleash all our fury on him. Perhaps this is what Ben Wattenberg (a jew, needless to say) had in mind when he wrote, "If you believe, as the author does, that the American drama is being played out toward a purpose, then the non-Europeanization of America is heartening news of an almost transcendental quality." A transcendental quality. My, my. I wonder what he'd think of the non-Judaization of Israel by tens upon tens of thousands of the poorest, dumbest and essentially useless Africans, Arabs and, say, Pakis (which isn't to say all such people are dumb and worthless, only that those who are the ones who typically traipse across borders in search of betterment)? I know that for me the non-Europeanization of Australia (essentially, the Asianization of) or the non-Serbianization of Serbia or the non-Macedonization of Macedonia would not be quite so "transcendental" as it would be, say, "profane." Where do you stand, Rearden? Are you a budding transcendentalist? Do you look forward to cities and towns all across America one day resembling Lagos or New Delhi? If not, don't you think that maybe, just maybe, and at oh so great risk to ourselves -- to our own temporary and ultimately meaningless existence (according to you) -- we should maybe alert whites to the fate that awaits them? Alert them to the fact that they deserve a continued existence here on this earth just as all groups do? And alert them that securing such an existence is both moral and necessary? To be sure, they may well wonder why, if we knew what has taking place, we didn't speak up sooner. And they may well wonder at our role has been in what has taken place. I'm afraid I don't have ready answers to those questions. Yet I would rather attempt to answer them than to be a party to the destruction I witness.
Yes, you "mentioned" something along those lines. You certainly did not demonstrate it, or even attempt to. I would like to see you do so, however. It's quite apparent which side exhibits desperation here. Hint: it's those chomping at the bit to declare victory. I'm not on record as wishing anything. Phsyical characteristics and skin tone are very reliable guides to racial ancestry; indeed, many argue that since physical characteristics -- phenotypes -- are how the vast majority of us make racial determinations, they are sufficient, regardless of small inaccuracies which may arise. Sure I do, yep, sure I do. Thanks man. When you want my opinion you'll give it to me, right? As a matter of fact, I do have a good general idea of what jews look like, and no, in case you're wondering, it's typically nothing like that depicted in antisemitic cartoons (the beady eyes and big, hooked noses). Moreover, my problem has never been with what jews look like; it's certain jewish behavior that rubs me the wrong way. Actually, it's about whether blacks, in general, a dangerous, unruly lot, and if so, why. There have been rumors, I'll grant, that my maternal ancestry is partly jewish. I'm not sure how much stock to put in it, but I'm certainly not bothered that it might be true. And that's because "hate", in the sense that you mean it, is not remotely my motivation. Lol. Anything else you'd like to add? I mean, you're on a roll, don't stop now.
Interjection, that likely has never in fact occured, property changes, ethnic majorities wax and wane. North east asians, being....what? Have you forgotten, the influence of powerfull, and COMPLETE government, over tribal conflicts and influences? If i recall correctly, china was unified by a certain dynasty....over vast tribal opposition, crushed into oblivion, but golly, the tribal conflict sure stopped in a hurry. Ok, so australian aborigines, should be judged exclusively by high crime rates, despite the same laws, in the same co-existent time frame? Those were not their laws, if you get my drift, nor their society-is it really a fair comparison?
Thanks. You just saved me the trouble of taking anything you have to say seriously, ever again. Heil Hitler!! (On Ignore)
What a bizarre response. Lol, as though it were simply not possible to identify likely jews by certain features, be they ashkenazim or sephardim. No one gets it right every time, but it seems my great sin is that I've even tried at all. Again, bizarre.
It isn't about what occurred in China a thousand years ago. The Chinese may have been peaceful and cultured or they may have been violent and barbaric. The point is how groups compare with each other here and now, in our time and place. We're not trying to construct some high theory that explains how every group has behaved at any point in time; we're interesting in the factors that contribute to a smoother functioning society in the societies that we inhabit. It's beside the point whether they fail to comply with the laws and standards of the modern state they live in because they don't want to or because they're unable to. The only relevant question is whether they do or do not. In my experience, they do not.
The USA, where the majority are whites, has a murder rate per 100,000 of about 6. By contrast, Bermuda is majority black and has a murder rate of 1.5. Of top 10 most murderous countries in the world, only 2 have a mainly black population. Doesn't this contradict your statement that "Crime follows blacks as surely as night follows day"?