PDA

View Full Version : Is the Nordic race worth preserving in its own right?



Sigel
Friday, October 14th, 2005, 11:28 AM
Feel free to discuss.

Death and the Sun
Friday, October 14th, 2005, 02:12 PM
Not only the Nordic/Nordish race is worth preserving, all other races are worth preserving as well.

I'm especially passionate about preserving the race(s) in question here, because ... well, you get the idea.

But I have no desire whatsoever to see any other races wiped out either, and (excuse me while I do a little memetic appropriation here) I celebrate diversity. I do think all races have certain intrinsic value of their own.

Blood_Axis
Friday, October 14th, 2005, 02:27 PM
Not only the Nordic/Nordish race is worth preserving, all other races are worth preserving as well.

I'm especially passionate about preserving the race(s) in question here, because ... well, you get the idea.

But I have no desire whatsoever to see any other races wiped out either, and (excuse me while I do a little memetic appropriation here) I celebrate diversity. I do think all races have certain intrinsic value of their own.
I couldn't have phrased it better myself...I agree 100% ;)

Sigel
Friday, October 14th, 2005, 02:42 PM
Not only the Nordic/Nordish race is worth preserving, all other races are worth preserving as well.
Agreed. Thanks for pointing that out. Voters can, if they wish, apply the question to their group, or the general principle, if they feel it makes it more relevant.:)

Agrippa
Friday, October 14th, 2005, 03:55 PM
I want to repeat what I said elsewhere:

The Nordid racial type is the benchmark, but the progressive Europid types, and general progressive races are partly quite close, they are often just local adaptations with generally similar tendencies. F.e. (always generalised) Atlantomediterranids for the West-Southwest, Nordid-Cromagnoid for Northern-Central and Eastern Europe, Dinarid and Pontid for South Eastern Europe, Mtebid-Pontid for the Caucasus, Berberid for North Africa, Aethiopids for Eastafrica, Iranid (Northern) and Arabid (Southern) Near East, Nordindid for India, Sinid for Eastasia, Silvids and Pacifids (before colonisation) for America.
Finally, if you compare this groups with each other, you see certain similarities, and of course local-specialised differences. But finally, this progressive groups are the leading elements of the regions in question. The other types are just a weaker form of them or suboptimal specialisation. They can be progressive too, but they dont reach the niveau of the peak types for the region in question. Under the progressive racial types, its simple, Nordid is not made for the tropical climate, Indid and Aethiopid not for Northern Europe - why should we destroy the naturally evolved, efficient and balanced structures of the populations adapted to their given environment? It would be just idiotic to destroy something that works and is made for the area.

Eugenic is the only future mankind can have. I never said its really about having textbook racial types, but its about keeping populations homogenous and furthering those features as genetic frequencies which are positive.
Once I spoke with some friends what I would further furst, and I answered I want that those positive individuals which have now not enough children should have much more and we should eliminate with praenatal selection-gene therapy defects of the lines. Then we should learn and see which genes are really desirable and which not to further enhance the potential of the individuals, the group and finally species for the best of our group and mankind.

This two points, general and regional racial peak types and Eugenic goals sum it up for me. Natural human racial diversity is something good, but finally its especially about the progressive variants and anagenetic developments. The Nordid racial type is worth being preserved both as the current benchmark of the human species and as the leading type, the dominant race of the regions I mentioned. Furthermore this race is the base of the especially of Northern Europeas people and folks, and an important factor for all of Europe. Therefore if someone wants to preserve Northern Europes and the European character, culture and potential, to preserve the Nordic racial typ(s) must be a goal.

Sigel
Friday, October 14th, 2005, 08:49 PM
I never said its really about having textbook racial types, but its about keeping populations homogenous and furthering those features as genetic frequencies which are positive.
I agree wholeheartedly with this.

Frostwood
Saturday, October 15th, 2005, 09:26 PM
I fully agree that the Nordic race as a whole must be preserved, but in individual terms, I don't agree. The fact that a person belongs to the same race as I do doesn't make him/her sacred in such a way that he/she couldn't be violated in favor of some necessity. That is, if the survival of the whole group necessitates the abandoning of someone's personal rights/freedoms, then so be it. This does not mean that everyone but those belonging to an intellectual elite should be slaughtered or left to rot as there are many kinds of people whose powers must be harnessed the right way in order for the group to survive in a certain environment. I doubt a society that consisted only of intellectuals, philosophers and artists, could survive without the aid of workers and hunters in an environment that requires much physical effort to obtain food.

In summary: each class of people should hone and develop their respective abilities that make them useful to the society, and in so doing the whole prospers. Leaders lead, warriors do battle, those who can do nothing but swing pick, well, swing their picks. But if there is a situation that for some reason requires that all pick-swingers be removed, they will be dealt with accordingly. Dire situations need dire measures.

Also, I have nothing against the preservation of other races either but if they threaten our existence with theirs, I wouldn't mind if they disappeared from the face of the earth. Simple priorities.

Sigurd
Saturday, October 15th, 2005, 09:49 PM
It is obviously worth preserving the Norse Race, but it is also worth preserving the Slavic race, the Hellenic Race, and the Caucasian Race, etc. I couldn't care less for some races, though, amongst which the ones that originally bred the Judeo-Christian lie. They are free to die... :coffee:

With this goes, obviously, that always the creme de la creme and those who have features of it should be kept. The stupid, the weak and the irredeemably ill can go. So can the homosexuals... We don't need a society of meek and genetically defected... (sorry if this list goes to far...). Luckily these are all in the minority.

EDIT: Just realised that my mouse slid down...ummmm...the result should actually say 17-0 not 16-1...we should preserve the race at all. therefore...would be nice if somebody could "switch" the vote for me to "Yes" option ;)

Loki
Saturday, October 15th, 2005, 10:02 PM
EDIT: Just realised that my mouse slid down...ummmm...the result should actually say 17-0 not 16-1...we should preserve the race at all. therefore...would be nice if somebody could "switch" the vote for me to "Yes" option ;)

Fixed, and I added my vote too. ;)

Loki
Saturday, October 15th, 2005, 10:07 PM
The idea that a race is only worth preserving, because of some (or all) of its value-adding attributes, misses the point of preservation entirely. Even if the Nordic race was inferior, and of little value to the bigger picture, it would still be worth preserving.

People have the idea that we are trying to preserve the Nordic race, because we believe it is superior to others. This is simply not true.

You cannot, for example, argue that because some race or species should die out because we can do without them. Example: are tigers and lions essential to our survival on earth? No they are not. Does this mean they should be allowed to go extinct? Absolutely not!

RedJack
Saturday, October 15th, 2005, 10:25 PM
The idea that a race is only worth preserving, because of some (or all) of its value-adding attributes, misses the point of preservation entirely. Even if the Nordic race was inferior, and of little value to the bigger picture, it would still be worth preserving.


Yes, especially, IMO, because they are my kin.

lei.talk
Sunday, October 16th, 2005, 12:30 AM
...doesn't make him/her sacred in such a way that he/she couldn't be violated in favor of some necessity. That is, if the survival of the whole group necessitates the abandoning of someone's personal rights/freedoms, then so be it.
...if there is a situation that for some reason requires that all pick-swingers be removed, they will be dealt with accordingly.perhaps i am not well-read enough
to recognise your allusion.

has such a situation ever occurred?

alternatively, how do you imagine that situation developing?

tuddorsped
Sunday, October 16th, 2005, 02:00 AM
Yes, I think we will survive. I'm confident of that. And I do believe we are worth preserving.

However, if we don't then we won't. That simple. Many great races and cultures in the past have perished. I see no reason to think why any race should live forever, anymore than that of a solitary individual.

I'll be damned if I fully understand this poll though. What have 'intellectual elites' got to do with anything? :scratch:

Sigel
Sunday, October 16th, 2005, 09:38 AM
I'll be damned if I fully understand this poll though. What have 'intellectual elites' got to do with anything? :scratch:
It's a long story mate, don't worry.

Some first rate responses and an overwhelming YES. All good stuff.

Frostwood
Sunday, October 16th, 2005, 10:26 AM
perhaps i am not well-read enough
to recognise your allusion.

has such a situation ever occurred?

alternatively, how do you imagine that situation developing?

I should have said that in addition to "mere" survival, also goals that are important must be dealt with ruthlessly, if need to. Long-term, constant goals like the development of mental and physical abilities through eugenics or short-term objectives like military operations: conquering land, for example. They aren't necessarily necessities for survival as we can survive at some form like rats take refuge in sewers but, is it a sound option to deliberately wither by keeping up an absolute welfare-state where no-one's rights are breached, no matter how burdensome they are to the whole?

I'd say that one real life example could be the case with retarded people: do they need to live / be kept alive? Someone who cannot do anything but drool on his chest is unfit for life, at least according to my ideals. Or people who have serious genetic illnesses in their blood: must they have children, which then are eternally cursed with their afflictions? The key is growth. Obviously, there are and always will be people with different capabilities: some are smarter, some less intelligent, but in the end, isn't intelligence favoured over stupidity? We can't all be equal, but we all can grow and develop. Low-caste people will always be that when compared to those of higher castes but nobody said that we don't need them at all, although growth is encouraged. We can't go and slaughter everyone that doesn't meet strict criteria and spare the one per cent that does, as most likely we won't then survive the coming onslaught from other races, who realize the currently weakened state we are in after such a "purge".

Rigid binary absolutism doesn't do well here either.


I'll be damned if I fully understand this poll though. What have 'intellectual elites' got to do with anything?

It is the child of a debate between neoclassical/ANUS and mostly Sigel. As merciless as neoclassical's ideas are, I didn't see where he advocated that only some cosmopolitan intellectual elite was to be preserved, like Sigel said in this post (http://www.forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?p=125096#post125096), if I caught the meaning right.

Sigel
Sunday, October 16th, 2005, 11:30 AM
It is the child of a debate between neoclassical/ANUS and mostly Sigel. As merciless as neoclassical's ideas are, I didn't see where he advocated that only some cosmopolitan intellectual elite was to be preserved, like Sigel said in this post (http://www.forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?p=125096#post125096), if I caught the meaning right.
To be absolutely honest I am getting tired of going over the same ground. I have participated extensively in numerous threads, here and elsewhere over quite a long period and I have neither time, nor the inclination, to go over it all again.

The ANUS bunch NEVER answer any criticism directed at their articles, they have explained that they do not debate with “low-caste, low-quality whites” they find on sites like these:
http://www.forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=125074&postcount=22

Instead, their apologists have debated with me; Sean, Stig, jcs and others. All have tried their best to disguise the fact that ANUS are NOT racial preservationists.

Yet their adherence is clearly to a hybrid philosophy based on a selective blend of Nietzsche, Evola and Hinduism. Anyone can subscribe to this, regardless of their race. The Ubermensch is, thus, non-race based and is predominantly marked by his intelligence.

All have claimed that ANUS never advocate folk-genocide, but Loki had to delete a thread just because I had included direct quotes calling for such genocide from an article on their site “Death to the Undermen” or some such. Why not go and read it for yourself.

The people on tNP have spoken, and wisely. I am more than satisfied that they would never condone this.

If you do, it is your right to do so.

tuddorsped
Sunday, October 16th, 2005, 02:44 PM
We can't go and slaughter everyone that doesn't meet strict criteria and spare the one per cent that does, as most likely we won't then survive the coming onslaught from other races, who realize the currently weakened state we are in after such a "purge".


WTF!?

This is a preservationist site, last time I looked, I didn't realise that it was just a staging post on the way to mass extermination.

Still, socially dysfunctional little boys and their genocidalist fantasies don't impress me much. Perhaps when some of them get actual jobs and take on a modicum of civic responsibility then I'll maybe start listening to their daft theories.

Doubt it though.

Frostwood
Sunday, October 16th, 2005, 03:11 PM
... the fact that ANUS are NOT racial preservationists.

If racial preservationism means that every member of one's own race is sacred so that their individual freedom can't possibly be compromised, then we possess different definitions of the word 'preservationism'. I thought it meant preserving the whole of the race, not every single little part of it, however malicious they might be?


Yet their adherence is clearly to a hybrid philosophy based on a selective blend of Nietzsche, Evola and Hinduism. Anyone can subscribe to this, regardless of their race. The Ubermensch is, thus, non-race based and is predominantly marked by his intelligence.

The concept of the Übermensch is that of overcoming self and victory through will and as an idea, one might think it is non-race based. Well, it isn't restricted for solely one race so that negroes for example can't go and read it from some book and learn its basics. So, everyone can learn it (at differing levels) like everyone can learn different cultures, but the idea of will to power is the product of a single race, people with an active outlook on life. I haven't seen anything advocating race-mixing either, quite the opposite.


All have claimed that ANUS never advocate folk-genocide, but Loki had to delete a thread just because I had included direct quotes calling for such genocide from an article on their site “Death to the Undermen” or some such. Why not go and read it for yourself.

ANUS do not advocate folk-genocide. In that article, it is stated that these Undermen pervade every step of society's ladder of power. Thus, 'Underman' isn't a concept related solely to a single class of people, the folk, but to people who express "anti-evolutionary" behaviour, that of mediocrity.

If there's a need for a folk-genocide, then so be it. I don't have any moral objections against it but the situation has to be pretty grave. I'm not sure if there will ever be such a situation where we would have to resort to that measure, but we cannot let simple moral objections to prevent us from doing what has to be done. However while on the idea-level genocide isn't a closed option, reality is a different area of application altogether.


This is a preservationist site, last time I looked, I didn't realise that it was just a staging post on the way to mass extermination.

Still, socially dysfunctional little boys and their genocidalist fantasies don't impress me much. Perhaps when some of them get actual jobs and take on a modicum of civic responsibility then I'll maybe start listening to their daft theories.

Heh, calm down. The situation I described was an extremely hypothetical one, but I said it to emphasize that these "genocidalist fantasies", as you put it, can't really be realized to that extent, meaning that if all but the thousand most intelligent people were killed off we would be severely weakened. It was mostly a response to the second option of this poll.

Sean_
Sunday, October 16th, 2005, 08:50 PM
To be absolutely honest I am getting tired of going over the same ground. I have participated extensively in numerous threads, here and elsewhere over quite a long period and I have neither time, nor the inclination, to go over it all again.

The ANUS bunch NEVER answer any criticism directed at their articles, they have explained that they do not debate with “low-caste, low-quality whites” they find on sites like these:
http://www.forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=125074&postcount=22

Instead, their apologists have debated with me; Sean, Stig, jcs and others. All have tried their best to disguise the fact that ANUS are NOT racial preservationists.
That's quite a broad misinterpretation of my position. I am an ardent racial preservationist.

Yet their adherence is clearly to a hybrid philosophy based on a selective blend of Nietzsche, Evola and Hinduism. Anyone can subscribe to this, regardless of their race. The Ubermensch is, thus, non-race based and is predominantly marked by his intelligence.
That is a bland reading of the philosophy, and intelligence is not the sole determining factor. Undermen ARE non-racially-recognizable, as it has more than simple intelligence as a signifier.

All have claimed that ANUS never advocate folk-genocide, but Loki had to delete a thread just because I had included direct quotes calling for such genocide from an article on their site “Death to the Undermen” or some such. Why not go and read it for yourself.
Given your above incorrect oversimplification and correct assertion that Undermen are not racially-determined, why do you now all of a sudden claim that "Death to the Undermen" means death of a tribal grouping?

You've made a lot of sweeping generalizations that have no truth to them whatsoever, and missed a great many sub-issues which necessitate the "drastic and terrible" measures you seem to gloss over in your reading of the site's materials, in the arguments of members here, and in an inability to see how issues overlap beyond the rigidly-defined parameters you place around them.

Preservation encompasses two distinct factors: that the uniqueness of the tribe in question be preserved from obliteration and dilution from foreign elements, and that the quality of the members of that tribe is not allowed to stagnate through indolence, unchecked population growth, and passive value systems. To preserve only the quantity and assume an expectation of inherent quality due to the genetics of the tribe is a foolish and unrealistic notion, which I argue against.

People are not inherently equal.

People are not inherently "worth something", or "worth saving" simply because of their participation in your tribal clubhouse.

Not only is quantity an issue in the question of preservation, but so is the more important differential of quality, which also requires tough decision making on a leader's part.

This is also why leaders are born, and not bred: they see a larger picture than just the quantity of the population, they see the health of it as well, and they act to keep it healthy; whether the crowd agrees with them is irrelevant, as the crowd is not fit to lead. They cannot make tough decisions, they can only wail about the tragedy of death.

Nowhere did I or anyone else call for the deaths of an entire folk - that's a red herring you threw in, in your "weariness of this debate" - we only want to see quality as a determinant enter into the debate; you keep giving us moralisms about the holiness of your tribe, i keep telling you that they are worth preserving, and that I and others fight for this end, but when put on the qualitative scale of measurement, most people don't measure up. Logic then enters the picture and asks you to consider what the point is of keeping them around if they don't contribute anything but numbers.

Then enters the question of our overpopulation.

Do you see how the question is a lot bigger than what you are making it out to be?

lei.talk
Monday, October 17th, 2005, 02:47 AM
That's quite a broad misinterpretation of my position.your position?

there are eighteen posts on this thread
before yours.

none have your name on them
or in them.
You've made a lot of sweeping generalizations that have no truth to them whatsoeverplease, point out any factual or logical errors.
a great many sub-issues which necessitate the "drastic and terrible" measures
perhaps i am not well-read enough
to recognise your allusion.

has such a situation ever occurred?

alternatively, how do you imagine that situation developing?no answer.
People are not inherently "worth something", or "worth saving" simply because of their participation in your tribal clubhouse.yes! they are!

at the very least,
they provide essential diversity in the nordic gene-pool.

the crippled, retarded, brain-injured and morally corrupt
are victims of the environment
- not genetically deficient.

if raised in a healthy environment,
their children will be fine nordic-types.
what the point is of keeping them around if they don't contribute anything but numbers.

Then enters the question of our overpopulation.in my travels,
it is not blondes with blue eyes
that i see cluttering the planet.

jcs
Monday, October 17th, 2005, 04:37 AM
yes! they are!

at the very least,
they provide essential diversity in the nordic gene-pool.

the crippled, retarded, brain-injured and morally corrupt
are victims of the environment
- not genetically deficient.

if raised in a healthy environment,
their children will be fine nordic-types.
No! No they aren't!

The crippled, retarded, brain-injured, and morally corrupt are products of their own Being. To put this in more 'objective' terms, I can mention this little thing called genetics and its relation to things such as IQ.
'The poor behavior of blacks is just the product of the black's environment. If we treat them properly, we can all get along. And there's nothing different between them and us save unimportant morphological differences.'
:rolleyes:
And really, if we're all just the products of our environments--if we are permitted to pass off all our shortcomings on the world around us, so as to avoid taking any responsibility--then what is the basis for your racialism? It would seem to be nothing more than morphological fetishism. Blondism and dolichocephaly must not perish from this earth!


in my travels,
it is not blondes with blue eyes
that i see cluttering the planet.
Indeed, but there are many completely worthless Nordics on the planet. As in the other ANUS vs. Racist Humanists thread, I present this kid as evidence:
http://media.urbandictionary.com/image/large/wigger-15344.jpg

I voted for the second option in the poll, but would replace 'intellectual elite' with 'elite' or 'worthy individuals,' where worth is measured by overall character--not intellect, physical ability, and morality in themselves. A decent human should not be deficient in any area, and if someone is--well, the planet is overpopulated...

Sigel
Monday, October 17th, 2005, 09:03 AM
I'd say that one real life example could be the case with retarded people: do they need to live / be kept alive? Someone who cannot do anything but drool on his chest is unfit for life, at least according to my ideals.
This sums it up quite nicely for me. I take it that Sean and jcs would also agree with you on this point (please correct me if I’m wrong guys).

What reason could we possibly have for committing such a cowardly act on those too feeble to defend themselves? Is that the act of a Nordic person?

Let’s investigate:

2 reasons usually given (feel free to provide more, if I’ve missed any):

1. They are harmful to the genetic pool of mankind.
This is nonsense, as the pitiful people you describe are mostly unable to reproduce. One bus load of Somalis are more dangerous to our racial preservation than any number of people who “cannot do anything but drool on their chests”.

2. They waste resources.
Wrong again. Our society is more than able to maintain them. Even if you wish to argue the validity of the principle per se, you are on a slippery slope. Resources, if we strictly adhere to this principle, should also not be provided for those disabled as a result of some accident or those too elderly to care for themselves.

Take this principle to its logical conclusion and we would have death squads (or something similar) roving our streets collecting people they considered of “lower quality”. In fact such a scenario would be necessary to realise your vision.

This vision of the future is one of a small number of people you call Ubermensch inhabiting a depopulated landscape. To achieve this goal, you are willing to countenance genocide - you admit to this in your posts and articles - there is no need for me to make any of this up; it’s there for all to read.

Your philosophy is one of bloodthirsty ‘genetic hygiene’ but not of holistic racial preservation. That, my friends, is where we differ.

Frostwood
Monday, October 17th, 2005, 10:58 AM
What reason could we possibly have for committing such a cowardly act on those too feeble to defend themselves?

Reasons detailed below. But what reason we have to not commit such an act? Moralistic?


Let’s investigate:

2 reasons usually given (feel free to provide more, if I’ve missed any):

1. They are harmful to the genetic pool of mankind.
This is nonsense, as the pitiful people you describe are mostly unable to reproduce. One bus load of Somalis are more dangerous to our racial preservation than any number of people who “cannot do anything but drool on their chests”.

Of course people who are stuck to their wheelchairs or hospital beds won't likely reproduce, but what about people who have identified genetic illnesses in their blood? Should they be allowed to reproduce? I wouldn't go and straight out kill them either, if they can do something else than drool. But to allow them to reproduce is rather insane as it results in cursing generations of people with their inherited diseases. That isn't very humane either in the long run.

Invaders are a threat, yes, but what good do coma-patients do? They certainly are no boon to us.


2. They waste resources.
Wrong again. Our society is more than able to maintain them. Even if you wish to argue the validity of the principle per se, you are on a slippery slope. Resources, if we strictly adhere to this principle, should also not be provided for those disabled as a result of some accident or those too elderly to care for themselves.

Depends on the level of disability. There is quite a difference between people who can still provide spiritual guidance like elders, for example, and people who, in lack of a better expression, just drool around. If someone gets his leg broke it doesn't mean that he is instantly doomed and brought to gallows but he can do something else and unsurprisingly reproduce too, provided that he doesn't have genetic defects.

And even if our society would be more than able to maintain the severely disabled, wouldn't that still be at the expense of healthier people?


This vision of the future is one of a small number of people you call Ubermensch inhabiting a depopulated landscape.

A far more pleasant sight than that of a landscape densely populated with whatever weaklings that might have been born, swarming, buzzing and clamouring like flies if individual preservation is taken to its logical conclusion.

Shallowly speaking, I'd rather watch at proud healthy people in a healthy society rather than some FUBU-boys and -girls jumping around like apes, waving arms like they were hummingbirds. But that's just an aesthetic opinion. ;)

lei.talk
Tuesday, October 18th, 2005, 04:53 AM
The crippled, retarded, brain-injured, and morally corrupt are products of their own Being.one obvious example
points out how out of touch with reality
your sweeping statement is:
the brain-injuries suffered by infants
are not their responsibility
- their abusers are responsible.
To put this in more 'objective' terms, I can mention this little thing called genetics and its relation to things such as IQ...And really, if we're all just the products of our environments--if we are permitted to pass off all our shortcomings on the world around us, so as to avoid taking any responsibility--either you are attempting to palm-off
a transparent rhetorical device
("straw-man (http://www-personal.umich.edu/~lilyth/strawman.html)")
or you are ignorant of fairly basic science.

persons need not choose between
being "products of their own Being"
or "we're all just the products of our environments"
"so as to avoid taking any responsibility".

the inter-play of both internal and external cues
are necessary for the successful sequential development
of a human being as with any other living thing
(starting with single-celled organisms).
then what is the basis for your racialism?
It would seem to be nothing more than morphological fetishism.the most highly evolved genetic material
provides the best internal cues.
if presented with the requisite external cues
- there is a superior product.
Indeed, but there are many completely worthless Nordics on the planet...
I present this kid as evidence:
http://media.urbandictionary.com/image/large/wigger-15344.jpgthe image of an apparently ignorant and foolish youth
is neither a factual nor reasoned substantiation
for involuntary euthanasia (http://www.eugenics-watch.com/).

implicit is the pre-scientific philosophical error
that change (improvement) is not possible.
A decent human should not be deficient in any area, and if someone is--
well, the planet is overpopulated...with that standard,
if there is one person on the planet
- it is over-populated.

has your ultimate goal been revealed?

there is not a moment
that a person is not "deficient" in some area.
no one is whole and perfect
because change does exist
in the real world.

jcs
Tuesday, October 18th, 2005, 05:18 AM
one obvious example
points out how out of touch with reality
your sweeping statement is:
the brain-injuries suffered by infants
are not their responsibility
- their abusers are responsible.
Your whole argument is rife with some implicit hypothetical: what would the world be like if things were other than they are?
The world is as it is, and cannot be otherwise.


either you are attempting to palm-off
a transparent rhetorical device
("straw-man (http://www-personal.umich.edu/%7Elilyth/strawman.html)")
The statement of yours I responded to contained within itself an implicit universal quantifier. "The crippled, retarded, brain-injured, and morally corrupt are victims of the environment--not genetically deficient." The 'straw man' that you accuse me of attacking is constructed by your own statement.


the inter-play of both internal and external cues
are necessary for the successful sequential development
of a human being as with any other living thing
(starting with single-celled organisms).
So you at least admit that there are some 'internal cues'?--perhaps some genetic basis for certain characteristics? Well, now, that would mean that there are some Nordics that are worth more than others--and I hold that there are some who are completely worthless.


the image of an apparently ignorant and foolish youth
is neither a factual nor reasoned substantiation
for involuntary euthanasia (http://www.eugenics-watch.com/).
That fool is unlikely contribute to Nordic culture, society, or the Nordic genepool. In all likelihood, he will cause far more harm than good. And with billions upon billions of humans, do we really need him? Why is his life valuable? Why do you object to the deaths of the worthless?


implicit is the pre-scientific philosophical error
that change (improvement) is not possible.
No being ever changes, save in outward behavior. Our wigger here may become an exceptional member of society (highly unlikely), but wigger he will forever remain at heart. Do we want a broken individual to breed? Why does he deserve to breed? Why does he even deserve to live?



with that standard,
if there is one person on the planet
- it is over-populated.
By 'deficient,' I mean below normal. A retard suffers from deficiency of intelligence, for example.

Sigel
Tuesday, October 18th, 2005, 08:50 AM
But what reason we have to not commit such an act? Moralistic?
..... !?


I wouldn't go and straight out kill them either, if they can do something else than drool.
But the drooling ones? Oh my! Please at least make sure your knife is sharp. Sorry Gents it's the "moralist" in me.


there are some Nordics that are worth more than others--and I hold that there are some who are completely worthless.
Why do you object to the deaths of the worthless?
Why does he even deserve to live?
I think we've got the message guys. Thanks for the participation.

I'd also like to apologise for casting you as some kind of bloodthirsty maniacs. As we can see, you're clearly nothing of the sort:rolleyes: