PDA

View Full Version : What Criteria Justify Racial Superiority?



Aryan NS
Monday, January 20th, 2003, 07:27 PM
Do you think one race is superior to other races?

Aryan NS
Monday, January 20th, 2003, 07:30 PM
I believe that Aryans are superior to negros. Blacks are more closely related to an ape then human. Theyre brains are 14 percent smaller too :rolleyes:

So yes I do believe that we are superior to negros. But Im not sure about other races.

Ominous Lord Spoonblade
Monday, January 20th, 2003, 07:31 PM
I think that it is quite obvious that caucasians are far superior to negroes! Asians are also superior to negroes...hell, negroes are at the bottom of the chain! :D

I believe that in many ways the white race is superior, but I do not doubt that Asians/Arabs/Jews are capable of many of the things whites are, but the white race has shown over time to accomplish much more. The only rival I would say are the Japanese who have developed their own culture and civilization that can keep up with white civilization. Arabs and the Chinese have had good moments in their history, but were not able to keep up with white civilization. That's why all the white nations are pretty much first world countries and non-whites from the third world flock to them!

GreenHeart
Tuesday, January 21st, 2003, 08:14 PM
Australoids are inferior to negroids by almost as much as negroids are to us. It's pretty easy to forget about the Australoids, since they live on the other side of the world but they do exist and have an average IQ of something like 50!

GreenHeart
Tuesday, January 21st, 2003, 08:17 PM
Another aborigine (This one's a woman! x_rofl)

Ominous Lord Spoonblade
Wednesday, January 22nd, 2003, 06:55 PM
It's a woman!? WTF?

They only have an average IQ of 50? Oh man....so the Australoids are the lowest of the low then!? And to think I imagined they would be the same as African blacks!

GreenHeart
Wednesday, January 22nd, 2003, 07:43 PM
Originally posted by Vanessa
It's a woman!? WTF?

They only have an average IQ of 50? Oh man....so the Australoids are the lowest of the low then!? And to think I imagined they would be the same as African blacks!

Yes, it ranges from 50-60. Some white australians have compared them to walking vegetables x_hehe

golfball
Wednesday, January 22nd, 2003, 10:19 PM
When one does research about ungodly unions between animal and negro, the name Julia Pastrana pops up.

Who is this bastard creation between negro aborigine and ape?

http://phreeque.tripod.com/julia_pastrana.jpg

There are many stories about this unholy creation and this one here is the general politically correct story.

http://phreeque.tripod.com/julia_pastrana.html

Julia Pastrana, "The Female Nondescript", was an American Indian born in the Sierra Madre mountains of Mexico Mexico in 1834. She had a full beard with dark, thick eyebrows, a hairy forehead, coarse black hair all over her body, overdeveloped jaws, thick lips, a wide nose and abnormally large ears. As an adult, she stood four feet, six inches tall and weighed 115 pounds. She also had two rows of teeth.
Until April of 1854, Julia worked as a serving girl for Governor Pedro Sanchez of the state of Sinaloa. She was brought to New York in December of 1854 and examined by numerous doctors, who considered her a hybrid of human and ape, or human and bear. Julia had a lovely singing voice and sang songs in English, Spanish and her native Indian language; she was also a fine dancer.

http://phreeque.tripod.com/julia_pastrana2.jpg

In 1857 Julia came under the management of Mr. Theodore Lent, who promoted her heavily as a human-ape hybrid. He wrote that she, unlike the rest of her tribe, who were stubborn, was sweet and agreeable and eager to learn, and that she had learned to sew, cook, iron and wash while she had lived with Governor Sanchez. She was examined in private by P.T. Barnum, among others. As a singer, dancer, and freak, Julia was a sensation. In Germany, she acted in a play, which was only performed once on the grounds that it was obscene. In Poland, she even learned to perform acrobatic stunts on horseback.

Julia was forbidden to leave her apartment during the day, so she occupied her time by reading (although her pamphlets claimed she was illiterate). In the evenings, when she didn't perform, she and Lent went to the circus, Julia's face covered by a thick veil. Many men evidently expressed romantic interest in this extraordinary lady, but none so much as Lent, who married her in 1858. The marriage seemed to be a publicity stunt, though Lent clearly had some physical attraction to Julia, since, while touring Moscow in 1859, she became pregnant. Julia hoped the child would look just like her husband.

Julia began labor in March of 1860. Because of her small size, she had great difficulty in childbirth, and the baby was delivered by forceps. Julia suffered a severe laceration and died, though not before seeing her son, who was hairy and had facial deformities like her own. The baby lived three days.

Mr. Lent took the bodies of his wife and child to a Professor Sukolov at the University of Moscow, in order to have them preserved. Sukolov's unique method of preservation was so successful that a famous photo (above left), often thought to be taken during Julia's life, is actually of her body. Six months later, Lent was back on tour with the "mummies", which still drew huge crowds. He married another bearded woman, Zenora, whom he claimed was Julia's sister, or sometimes even Julia herself. Lent and Zenora, along with the mummies, made quite a fortune, but Lent suffered a mental breakdown and threw much of the money in the river. He was committed to a Russian insane asylum and never heard from again. Zenora gained possession of the mummies and continued to travel with them, in order to prove she and Julia were not the same person. The mummies finally ended up in Norway.

Julia's body, dressed in an embroidered Russian dress she had made herself, continued touring Norway throughout the 20th century, constantly being traded between anatomical institutes and curiosity collectors. Her infant son was mounted on a pedestal beside her. In 1976 the mummies went on a final tour before being confined to a warehouse. They fell victim to some vandals, who knocked the child off his pedestal and threw him in a ditch outside, where he was eaten by mice. Julia herself was vandalized in 1979; her arm was knocked off and later found in a city dump, where the police investigated and uncovered the rest of the body. Her dress had been torn off and her face slashed open. Only then was Sukolov's unique preservation method revealed: the bodies were not mummified, but stuffed.

[.....]



As far as I know, there have never been offspring between White man and monkey.

But, there are depraved idiots that would try such a thing in existense today.


One thing that we know of, there are no more Julia Pastranas running around, unless of course, it is in Africa.


By the way, there is no such thing as equality. It is a jewish concept.

Fool
Monday, April 12th, 2004, 05:29 AM
Will you all cease fighting? :~(

It is not IQ that determines superiority... Niether is it strength or health... Nor beauty... Nor wealth... Nor technology... Nor spirituality.

It is the feeling... The feeling that can not even possibly be described by words... This feeling is what determines superiority.

And that is all I know, For now...
Stop arguing or you will only destroy yourselves...
One day, I hope, all questions will be answered.



http://www.digikitten.com/playhousev2/files/Fool/Sunset2.jpg

Razmig
Monday, April 12th, 2004, 10:30 AM
Who is superior? Those of your own kind of coarse...its a method of survival...this doesn't mean that you cannot come to the reality when approached by a different individual, that he too, is superior to you. You cannot respect yourself or your own race, unless you respect another. But when that race threatens to destroy yours, you cannot display tollerance.

Awar
Monday, April 12th, 2004, 10:55 AM
Sure, but I only act as a Serbian/Montenegrin supremacist in real life... I don't see a point to fight flame wars on the internet, and I especially don't see a point in lies and falsifications of science, just to prove to 'someone' that I'm 'superior'.

A warrior will prove his superiority by defeating the enemy, not by boring him to death with inane talk and whinning.

Razmig
Tuesday, April 13th, 2004, 08:25 AM
Sure, but I only act as a Serbian/Montenegrin supremacist in real life... I don't see a point to fight flame wars on the internet, and I especially don't see a point in lies and falsifications of science, just to prove to 'someone' that I'm 'superior'.

A warrior will prove his superiority by defeating the enemy, not by boring him to death with inane talk and whinning.
Who is the enemy? How can "acting like a supremacist" solve a thing in real life? I was once an open racist, and all it does is make people think you're an idiot and ignore your every word. Intelligent discussion is just about the best solution to any problem.

Northern Paladin
Thursday, October 28th, 2004, 09:07 PM
What Criteria Justify Racial Superiority? What traits make one Race Superior to others?

Which traits are most important in determining the value of a Race?
Think Intelligence,Beauty,Diligence,Morality,e ct.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Friday, October 29th, 2004, 03:39 AM
Black vs White:
By any measue of a person or race other than the 100 meter dash and/or the playing of bongo drums, Whites exceed Blacks.

Blood_Axis
Friday, October 29th, 2004, 10:34 AM
I think there is one objective standard to support the argument for racial superiority, and that does not have to do so much with the causes but with the outcomes :)

Roughly speaking, one can say that beauty, intelligence and so on are subjective criteria, but the products of each race are tangible and objective.

Therefore, IMO there is one undoubtable standard and that is CIVILIZATION..
Thus, a race can be judged as to the quality of culture, its progress and the quantity of monuments and other works its people have achieved, such as contributions in science, literature, art and so on and so forth.

No person in his right mind can doubt or deny the superiority of the White Race upon these grounds. ;)

Marius
Friday, October 29th, 2004, 11:13 AM
It is a disputed subject, this question of your's. I think in order to be able to find the criteria you speak about, one must think on the objective ones, in the first place. In the same time, one must have to take into account, different other aspects like favouring or non-favouring geographical position. Another important element is the level of the study: individual or general.

I think that on the individual level, what matters most is a good time and action management, the capacity of concentration for thorough and constant hard-working, the ability to satisfy different tasks, over the same time slot, all with good end results (and I do no refer only to work here).

On the general level, the number of individuals with the above-defined characteristics may be influenced by the geographical position of the place where his population lives. If it is at the contact zone between different cultures or races, then during history, the individual development may have been slow down, changed or even stopped by wars or conflicts.
But as criteria, one may observe the ability of creating durable and constructive issues, like a social system and its consequences at all levels, usually in terms of general and individual development.

So, in my oppinion, there is a bidirectional link between the individual and the general development, through the social system. I fact a very important criteria for defining racial superiority is the produced social system and its capacity to insure long term general and individual development.

As a conclusion, the two most important criteria are, in my view: the attitude of an individual towards himself and his keen and second, the external influences over this attitude due to the geographical position that particular individual belongs to.
The other said criteria: dilligence, morality, number of monuments, degree of civilisation, economic development and so on, are natural consequences of the above.

The intelligence and beauty are attributes and not criterias and they are equally distributed among races. The attribute "beauty" is also a subjective issue. Not everybody have the same notion of "beauty", because there is no objective definition of this term, at least as far as I know.

Marius
Friday, October 29th, 2004, 11:38 AM
The whole notion of which race is superior hinges on whether The Curse is an Asiatic Alpine or not.

It was not about "which race is superior", but about "what criteria justify racial superiority". And I do not see what is the connection between "the curse" (cosmocreator?), his race and the requested criteria...

Triglav
Friday, October 29th, 2004, 12:43 PM
No inherent standards of racial superiority exist. Who establishes the standard and what are they in the first place? What makes them absolute? If there is one plausible criterion, then it is the ability to survive. According to that, the so-called "White" race is the most inferior.

Awar
Friday, October 29th, 2004, 12:54 PM
IMO, the notion that any race is inherently superior to another in the absolute,
is just a type of lazyness, neuroticism, a refuge for those who don't work on themselves.

Everyone should hold their own dearest, and only procreate with their own.

Humans are born 'racist'. It's a natural mechanism which protects,
but, being a 'racial supremacist' is just lazyness, relying on the achievments of others from your group, an inane sort of boasting, a lame attempt at boosting one's self-confidence with fragile and unrealistic standards.

Marius
Friday, October 29th, 2004, 01:57 PM
In order to apply criteria that justify racial superiority, racial superiority must exist.

I see. So, I understand you do not think racial superiority exist, only individual superiority.



A race that brings forth The Curse and permits him to exist without more qualified restraints such as prison walls, dungeons, straight-jackets, the arena of the Colosseum Maximus, or crocodile-filled castle moats, despite his consistently exposed limited intellect, borderline pedophilia and sadsacking -- just to name a few of his nearly uncountable abhorrent traits -- must be considered manifestly irresponsible and inferior.

And why do you think Alpine race is all that? Just because of one individual? Isn't that a pure proof of closed-mindedness? I think such individuals exist in all races. Remember, a very important number of Europeans are Alpine. I would say it is a relative majority. So, I must understand you believe all these Europeans have all the adjectives you used... Or perhaps I got it all wrong and I am sorry if I voted for his return, but I really do not know the person, but only his bad reputation and I usually want to understand things, not to swallow them as given.

Marius
Friday, October 29th, 2004, 04:10 PM
A general superiority obviously doesn't exist in nature.

I'm not talking about an "Alpine" sub-race whose existence I actually don't acknowledge but about The Curse.

The Curse is hopefully unique. Imagine there would be two of them. :shoot

I reckon. Well, read The Curse's 4,000+ posts on Skadi, or ask folkish for a second opinion. :D

Ok. Why don't you acknowledge the Alpine sub-race?

Odin Biggles
Friday, October 29th, 2004, 04:54 PM
AWAR sums it up very well.

Ive never proposed any race is superior, each race has its own history & values.

Just like a business man in london may have a more technological approach to life i doubt he would survive long if he took the place of a native African who has the knowledge to survive in primative surroundings.

Jack
Friday, October 29th, 2004, 04:57 PM
Agreed. The curse is indisputably evil. There is no objective standard to justify racial supremacism.

Beren
Friday, October 29th, 2004, 09:18 PM
Agreed. The curse is indisputably evil. There is no objective standard to justify racial supremacism.
Did this thread actually inspire you to change "Western Supremacist" (which stood there for quite a long time) to "Western Nationalist" or why that sudden move? ;)

Awar
Friday, October 29th, 2004, 10:35 PM
Alpinoids IMO are a sort of process which happens to some population.
Not really a subrace. However, the mechanics of the alteration of phenotype ( and pigmentation ) should be studied much more. Until now, I've only seen
some inconclusive data about brachycephalization, depigmentation and other processes that form the thing we call 'subrace'.

StrÝbog
Friday, October 29th, 2004, 10:38 PM
Just like a business man in london may have a more technological approach to life i doubt he would survive long if he took the place of a native African who has the knowledge to survive in primative surroundings.

Native Africans seem to be surviving well in London, though... :-O

Japetos
Friday, October 29th, 2004, 10:39 PM
What Criteria Justify Racial Superiority? What traits make one Race Superior to others?

Which traits are most important in determining the value of a Race?
Think Intelligence,Beauty,Diligence,Morality,e ct.
Who believes in Racial Superiority? :P

Evolved
Friday, October 29th, 2004, 10:40 PM
Racial superiority is a myth which total losers like to hang their hat on.

Japetos
Friday, October 29th, 2004, 10:44 PM
Racial superiority is a myth which total losers like to hang their hat on. ;)

Awar
Friday, October 29th, 2004, 10:56 PM
Native Africans seem to be surviving well in London, though... :-O

Without the infrastructure already built by the ...err... Caucasoids, the
negroes wouldn't do so well. Not to mention they wouldn't even get all the way to Britain without them silly transportation thingies ;)

Jack
Saturday, October 30th, 2004, 04:29 AM
Did this thread actually inspire you to change "Western Supremacist" (which stood there for quite a long time) to "Western Nationalist" or why that sudden move? ;)No, no, the West is still supreme. I'd intended to change to 'Western Nationalist' for about a month now, I'd just been lazy. I felt like changing my profile a bit, so I did :)

Edit: 'Postmodern Western Nationalist' doesn't sound a cool as 'Postmodern Western Supremacist'. I'm going back :D

Dr. Solar Wolff
Saturday, October 30th, 2004, 07:19 AM
No inherent standards of racial superiority exist. Who establishes the standard and what are they in the first place? What makes them absolute? If there is one plausible criterion, then it is the ability to survive. According to that, the so-called "White" race is the most inferior.

Fine. Let's go the whole orang then. Let the yardstick be "culture". It that big, broad, and wide enough for everyone? Let's quantify culture. Let's define culture as an idea pool just like we define a species as a gene pool. Shall we compare any Black culture to any White culture in terms of total ideas or have I already made my point.

Triglav
Saturday, October 30th, 2004, 09:28 AM
Fine. Let's go the whole orang then. Let the yardstick be "culture".
Why would culture justify racial superiority? I'd be curious to know what makes culture the crucial factor.