PDA

View Full Version : What is More Important: Racial Progressiveness or Racial Preservation?



Bridie
Monday, October 23rd, 2006, 01:56 PM
2 questions :


A] Which would you think is more important if you had to choose?

1) the pursuit of progressiveness at any cost, or

2) the pursuit of racial preservation (and perhaps ethnic homogeneity) at any cost?



B] Would you personally think it okay to justify or excuse racial interbreeding, and perhaps the extinction of a race (or sub-race), with claims of it being in the interests of progressiveness?

1) No

2) Yes

goldgrube
Monday, October 23rd, 2006, 02:05 PM
I think the two greatly overlap. In fact, the races one is trying to preserve are coincidently the progressives ones

Bridie
Monday, October 23rd, 2006, 03:33 PM
I think the two greatly overlap. In fact, the races one is trying to preserve are coincidently the progressives ones
But they don't necessarily overlap... and that's where the problem lays.

I personally have more interest in preserving European Europid sub-races over Mongoloid ones any day. I would rather see Alpinids, for example preserved... yet I couldn't give a toss about the considerably more progressive Sinids. Get where I'm coming from? ;)


In any case, as a white supremacist, I REFUSE to believe that a Mongoloid could be considered in any way more progressive than (read : superior to) a Euro Europid.

Glynd Eastŵd
Monday, October 23rd, 2006, 03:39 PM
I think we should preserve all the subraces found within Europe, but with a slight slight emphasis on the progressive ones (Nordid, Dinarid, Mediterranid, Atlantid etc). ;)

Agrippa
Monday, October 23rd, 2006, 03:39 PM
I didnt vote in the poll so far because my answer would be its both as important from the European perspective since its about our groups and communities, homogeneous units with a social coherence, consciousness, solidarity and responsibility. I'm all for responsible and human Eugenics, not Liberal-Individualised ones going after economic standards alone. This would mean to get rid of negative traits and trends and enhance the general level of the population - would include a certain tendency for making people more racially progressive too. Thats the way to go since mixture as such doesnt really enhance Europeans since we have some of the most progressive variants of the world in our ranks. Those are the one on which our civilisation and groups were and are based on, not foreign ones.

However, if my own group would be totally degenerated and having no progressive potential for whatever reasons, I would hardly say that racial preservation would have any value then if the foreign elements would have a much higher level of development. But this is, for Europeans, not the case.

In general progressive development in race and culture are more important than preservation, because change will always occur, its the fact that we are speaking about my own group and related groups as well as about the potential of this group which makes its worth being preserved. I see the greatness and potential we are having, therefore I want to preserve it. Its no short term oriented end in itself alone - its planning and securing a future for my kin as well as mankind as a whole.

This world will change for sure, climatic changes, changes in the biotop, flora and fauna, possible catastrophies, no matter what we do, this world will not look the same in 15.000 years from now. So in the end and on the very long run, progressiveness will be more important for sure, but for the time we are living in and the near future our communities are the healthy and strong base for positive development of our kin and mankind - therefore we must protect it and if one mixes and expands, it should be always the higher level group, never vice versa, but as things are in the degenerated Liberalcapitalistic West, we experience the opposite and dysgenic trends.

If we want to secure our survival and potential, we must protect ourselves from negative foreign and inner influences. For the reasons mentioned in another thread, even the immigration of high level individuals would be negative, especially if dealing with masses:
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?p=662616

But to make the importance of progressive traits clear, I might use one very extreme example:
Just imagine that the own group would have lost a lot of its potential, being already fully degenerated and stamped by negative trends, no longer able to do anything greater than surviving on a low level for some generations more and die off later...

In such a situation, if a more progressive group could give the own unit new energy and positive traits, mixture is obviously good and there is not too much of value to protect. Racial preservation of a degenerated group? Well, one could argue with diversity, and yes, if it does no harm to mankind diversity is a value, but if wanting to see the own group as an important part of mankinds development on a biological and cultural level, surviving on a higher level not just through the mercy of others, this is no option.

Therefore for us Europeans its now no contradiction to strive for more progressive, biologically versatile and advanced traits and our preservation, actually to disregard one of the two aspects mean to make our own group weaker and reducing its chance for survival and further development. Preserving the own scum as an end in itself would be a sick joke - thats like a lowest level, degenerated and dumb individual talking all the time about "white superiority". We should try to preserve our own biological and cultural potential for ourselves, the good of our groups and bloodlines and the species as whole.

If speaking about progressive or generally biologically advantageous and positive traits, one shouldnt reduce everything to subracial differences by the way since there are Alpinids which are by far superior to a given Nordid or Dinarid individual, even though the evolutionary trend of Alpinisation as such is inferior. The trend as such is, not necessarily the whole spectrum which is quite large and for sure not every individual.

Bridie
Monday, October 23rd, 2006, 04:16 PM
In such a situation, if a more progressive group could give the own unit new energy and positive traits, mixture is obviously good and there is not too much of value to protect. Racial preservation of a degenerated group? Well, one could argue with diversity, and yes, if it does no harm to mankind diversity is a value, but if wanting to see the own group as an important part of mankinds development on a biological and cultural level, surviving on a higher level not just through the mercy of others, this is no option.
Well that begs the question.... what exactly would you consider to be "degenerate" Agrippa? And who would be the one to decide when a group is degenerate enough to warrant race mixing? Since individual perceptions of what "degenerate" actually is are going to be subjective, who would we trust? And let's remember that degenerate people can recover and become strong, healthy and capable again without race mixing, (look at how the people of Europe recovered from the Dark Ages) it's debatable whether or not race mixing could ever be justified. Once a race becomes extinct, there won't be any turning back and saying, "well we didn't realise the value and worth of that group at the time, but now we do, we want them back, and it's too late."

Values change with time. What may be valued in one generation, may be considered a flaw in another. And let us not forget that it is the majority and the dominant who dictate value systems.... but what if they're wrong? What if they're corrupt?

You keep talking about survival Agrippa - that the degenerate won't survive and thrive, and this is why we need to aspire to progressiveness - and that would have been relevant for sure hundreds of years ago... but not now. It is the weak who are prospering now anyway.


Also, it must be asked... what exactly does "surviving on a higher level" entail in your opinion?



Therefore for us Europeans its now no contradiction to strive for more progressive, biologically versatile and advanced traits and our preservation, actually to disregard one of the two aspects mean to make our own group weaker and reducing its chance for survival and further development. You do recognise the potential for exploitation of this notion of pan-racial progressiveness don't you Agrippa? How would you safeguard against that?



thats like a lowest level, degenerated and dumb individual talking all the time about "white superiority". Was that a dig at me? ;)

cosmocreator
Monday, October 23rd, 2006, 09:09 PM
I'm not so interested in preserving Europids as is but rather protecting from foreign races so that they can progress further.

Agrippa
Tuesday, October 24th, 2006, 12:32 AM
Well that begs the question.... what exactly would you consider to be "degenerate" Agrippa?

Well, there is a certain standard of the species at this level of development. There are traits which are more promising for survival in as much situations as possible and more important for being as a group dominant, able to evolve on, for higher cultural, social and biological development. There were always forms which were more or less a dead end, others which showed the versatile character of a human generalist able to compete with changing environments as well as competitors and at the same time exploring new aspects and potential constantly.

Every deviation, every removal or regression from the higher versatile standard means degeneration. F.e. if humans reached an intelligence level (just for convinience I deal with IQ for the moment) of 110, dominance of balanced schizothymic personality traits advantageous for forming an effective group and a versatile physical performance status of 10, attractiveness of 10 every loss: F.e. going down because of a change in the population, of genetic characteristics to 95, degenerated psychic characteristics or rise of other variants, physical performance going down to 8 and attractiveness to 7 would mean degeneration.
This could happen in a progressive peak group both by degeneration from the inside or mixture with lower elements. Thats the worst case, it means a decrease of positive genetic frequencies. Actually it doesnt really matter whether the cause is mixture or contraselection - negative, dysgenic selective trends because in both cases the core of the group, what should be protected, would be harmed. Whats making "the mixture scenario" worse are mainly the kinship as well as socio-cultural and other considerations (compare with advantages of a homogeneous society etc.).


And who would be the one to decide when a group is degenerate enough to warrant race mixing? Since individual perceptions of what "degenerate" actually is are going to be subjective, who would we trust?

Well, the main subjective component being the goal and general outlook, perspective on society and humans as such. If one says intelligence doesnt matter, a strong group being able to survive in as many situations as possible, people living in a coharent and solidary, socially and ecologically responsible, a true community and not just society - people and group evolving on and gaining knowledge and even further potential through improving both society in a cultural and people in a biological way is no goal nor value at all, there is a problem. Because a nihilist dont caring for progress or not agreeing on progress at all nor "at least more eternal" values of kinship and progress, survival and niveau can't agree with a certain way of evaluating groups and individuals most likely, because for him an ugly, weak, dumb and violent dégénéré might have the same value as an individual being able to survive and reproduce successfully, even producing higher levels going beyond that "basic duties" in the social and cultural field from Palaeolithic to modern times and being the backbone of todays society as he was the backbone of past ones - since both "are just human individuals..."


And let's remember that degenerate people can recover and become strong, healthy and capable again without race mixing, (look at how the people of Europe recovered from the Dark Ages)

The "Dark Ages" were mainly a problem for cultural development, but not for racial-biological one. Remember, most of the time instable and hard times produce the biological potential being used in stable and wealthy periods. Because good variants grow with the challenges and eliminate their competitors then, the worse flourish mainly in times which have just very one sided demands and mainly select negatively (e.g. who can survive with the minimal energy etc.)

In the "Dark Ages" the numbers of infantilised and reduced variants again shrank, clans of progressive variants dominated the face of Europe, they finally formed a civilisation again, but overpopulation, hunger, diseases and negative selection as well as many other factors let their numbers going (relatively) back THEN!

From that negative period of racial-biological development Europe never fully recovered and our current pace of degeneration is unseen both because of negative developments in the inside and mass immigration of low and non-integrable variants from the outside.


it's debatable whether or not race mixing could ever be justified. Once a race becomes extinct, there won't be any turning back and saying, "well we didn't realise the value and worth of that group at the time, but now we do, we want them back, and it's too late."

Question doesnt rise. We can have reservations, indigenous areas and genetic libraries, thats not the point - race mixture always took place, that was never the problem, the problem was a lack of selection on an individual and especially group level.

F.e. what if Australiform or even Negroid people would have reached Europe and even Britain in the Mesolithic and Neolithic time, just think about it for a moment in a hypothetical manner. What would it have mattered?
If some would have made it up and the locals would have mixed, so what?

What would have happened next? In the individual and group selection, this cruel and merciless filter of nature all genetic variants, all genetic traits showing up in the phenotype and not being advantageous for the population in Europe would have been selected out in just some generations. Actually real Negroids would in most cases not made it in group numbers up to the North at all. They would have been able to fight their way through Europe, stand a climate being hostile to them and the compete with people being adapted to that environment for thousands of years already. But even if they would have made it and infiltrated one group, being successful in it through in individual selection, in the group selection more classic Europid and progressive variants would have eliminated them or at least pushed them in the worst areas they themselves dont want to inhabitate at this time.
And if they those Negroids would have brought one or two advantageous traits: Good for Europids, they would have taken them, but selection would have eliminated all others.
So its not about a religion of purity, its about the survival of the population and the base as such and to keep or even elevate the existing niveau. Since Negroids dont have too much to offer and just substitute our own lines mixture is bad. Not because mixture as such is always problematic since it wasnt nor isnt. What matters most is selective pressure. If the selective pressure is very high, you can let people mix even, f.e. in the Neolithic period, those being unfit and showing negative traits for the Europid people would have been eliminated naturally very soon by other groups not accepting the mixed people if looking foreign, by the climate being hostile to the foreigners and by individuals and groups showing greater abilities after thousands of years of upbreeding for the European/West Eurasian environment.


Values change with time. What may be valued in one generation, may be considered a flaw in another. And let us not forget that it is the majority and the dominant who dictate value systems.... but what if they're wrong? What if they're corrupt?

Well, they are corrupt now and it can't get much worse than it is, so the worst case scenario is already reality, every trial to make it better can be just seen as the last chance.


You keep talking about survival Agrippa - that the degenerate won't survive and thrive, and this is why we need to aspire to progressiveness - and that would have been relevant for sure hundreds of years ago... but not now. It is the weak who are prospering now anyway.

Well, they dont dominate, they just reproduce more often, thats a GREAT DIFFERENCE! If you let the worst and foreign elements reproduce constantly, even help them all the time and discourage the best to do so, at the same time dont even allow Eugenic measures prenatally we have a dysgenic, a pathological culture which must be fight with the necessary means. Its a perversion.


Also, it must be asked... what exactly does "surviving on a higher level" entail in your opinion?

If some dwarfened half-ape humans with the brain size of a chimp would survive in isolated areas of retreat by living from carrion and roots, not knowing anything about their environment, not being able to evolve to a higher form any more and just waiting for their end to come this is the lowest thinkable way of surviving to give an impression.


You do recognise the potential for exploitation of this notion of pan-racial progressiveness don't you Agrippa? How would you safeguard against that?

Regional variation and identity, homogeneous communities and the survival of Europeans and occidental civilisation being so important for our group as well as for the progress of mankind that it has to be secured. The crucial question is always: Whats to win for my ethnoracial group, for mankind and the ecosystem by doing so? I'm for pan-racial progressive and collectivist ideals, but mainly for bringing up a better order for the world and safeguarding a path which is more human, social and peaceful, while at the same time aspiring for social, cultural, scientific and biological progress for my group and mankind.

Remind you, its not about a cult of purity I say, its about the big picture. The problem is not a foreigner here or there, its about the millions and millions which came and the fact that our own birth rates, especially "of the progressive backbone" constantly declined in the last decades, even centuries already.

To break everything down to the most simple formula on that matter: The progressive avantgarde of the future should be my people and group if possible. I have the highest trust in the potential of Europeans, German and Indoeuropean idealistic spirit, the classic outlook on life formulated in Europe, the social discipline and scientific way of approaching problems, the rational and group oriented state models, the European racial peak types, the racial base of Europe. I belong to it, thats why I want to preserve it, my kin, my group, my race. But thats not the only reason. To lose this potential would be a serious blow for all of mankind, the potential destroyed with us, the chances lost with the true Europe would be horrific. A mixed-up, downgraded and downbred, heterogeneous plantagement of the plutocracy would be even a mean of destruction rather than production of real values for the people and species.

Even though others might be able to reach a similar level, its not in my interests to give up space and blood for others for nothing, especially if we can do it as good or even better and have a great potential in us. I see the potential in some other groups, they should see the potential in our's, we have Europe and our Neo-European colonies, those are the areas for the temperate climate race and culture of Europeans, the others have their areas. As long as the others can accept that, I see no problem and individuals are not the problem in any case, we are speaking about trends and masses, populations and genfrequencies, cultural and social standards. Things will get better again on a big scale or its over for us and then there will be only a "progressiv world standard left anyway". But its not that far now, to prevent it we must care about the variants and traits in our population more too, not just about immigration, since they are the backbone, they made us Europeans bigger and more successful than most others, losing them means losing the motor and future potential.
So there can be no "this or that" at the moment, and what will be in thousands of years, who knows, my duty is to try to do the best for my people and the species to survive on a higher level then - if we fail we fail, if we succeed - we just do. Our duty is to try it. As long as our group can survive as a homogeneous group(s), we have to do so since its in our own genetic and cultural interests, as well as in the interests of mankind and progressive racial and cultural developments.


Was that a dig at me? ;)

No. But I dont have too much sympathies for a lowest level "white" who constantly proclaims he is superior to the highest standing Indians or Chinese, thats like a pug saying to a wolf-husky breed "you dirty bastard are not worth to stay in the same room with me because I'm 'pure'..." ;)
Worst are those not even knowing why they say so. Kinship has a value in its own, thats why even such Europeans are my kin and the highest standing Indians and Chinese are not, but this doesnt make the European really superior per se. Only traits make superior or not for a certain context, some contexts and assessment criterions are just more longer term oriented, important for the individuals and groups than others - those are the progressive and generally advantageous ones. They are largely the same in all modern human groups and some have a higher frequency of individuals caring them than others, which makes again the whole group-population more progressive and superior or less so. Regional adaptation and kinship as well as socio-cultural considerations are the border, not progressive or generally advantageous genetic characteristics.

Ascension
Tuesday, October 24th, 2006, 12:46 AM
I think we should preserve all the subraces found within Europe, but with a slight slight emphasis on the progressive ones (Nordid, Dinarid, Mediterranid, Atlantid etc). ;)

Could you elaborate more on what you consider to be non-progressive subraces?

Taras Bulba
Tuesday, October 24th, 2006, 12:50 AM
Care to define progressiveness?

cosmocreator
Tuesday, October 24th, 2006, 12:53 AM
Care to define progressiveness?


Human traits that farthest removed from the ape form.

Skildur
Tuesday, October 24th, 2006, 12:54 AM
Could you elaborate more on what you consider to be non-progressive subraces?

In my understanding it's Baltids and Alpines mostly.

Taras Bulba
Tuesday, October 24th, 2006, 12:56 AM
Human traits that farthest removed from the ape form.

I see. :scratch

Agrippa
Tuesday, October 24th, 2006, 12:57 AM
Care to define progressiveness?

Compare:
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=43471
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=44712
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=44767
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=60131

goldgrube
Tuesday, October 24th, 2006, 01:18 AM
I have a quick question: I understand that progressiveness is fixed to some subraces, i. e. some subraces tend to never be primitive, but still, how variable is progressiveness within a given subrace? For example, like height.
Can two pure examplary species of same exact subrace have different degrees of progressiveness?
Or is a subrace homogeneously progressive?

Agrippa
Tuesday, October 24th, 2006, 01:28 AM
I have a quick question: I understand that progressiveness is fixed to some subraces, i. e. some subraces tend to never be primitive, but still, how variable is progressiveness within a given subrace? For example, like height.
Can two pure examplary species of same exact subrace have different degrees of progressiveness?
Or is a subrace homogeneously progressive?

Well, subraces, racial types are evolutionary tendencies, specialisations. As such its clear that there is usually still a lot of variation and even if there is no racial variation at a certain date, there would be variation through mutations, recombinations and gendrift in the future. So yes, individuals always vary, but to put it that way: Normal and typical individuals of a given racial type might be as a rule progressive, whereas the normal and typical individuals of another one aren't. Skandonordids f.e. are as a rule progressive, some just more than others and there is, like in all variants, normal and pathological variation - not just variation through mixture.

One has to understand how certain tendencies came up: By being selected. Selected how? Genetic variants were in a given context more successful, had more offspring. Mutation - Variation - Selection, the most basic Darwinist rules. Variation exists in all populations and types, therefore different trends are always possible too and its mainly about selection which determines the fate.

The higher the positive selective pressure (for a generalist type and high performance) the more progressive, the weaker, the slower the development (primitive) and the stronger the negative selective pressure, the stronger the degeneration (f.e. infantilisation).

One could, in many, many generations, breed out of Negrids a Nordid type and vice versa f.e. by always favouring in every generation the respective traits and introducing the mutants being not present in the genpool from start.
Nordisation is as a trend progressive, even though not all Nordid individuals are as such balanced and possess generally advantageous genetic traits of course, a population consisting out of Nordid individuals produces such a high level average.

Bridie
Tuesday, October 24th, 2006, 03:00 AM
So its not about a religion of purity, its about the survival of the population and the base as such and to keep or even elevate the existing niveau.This is a problem for me. Eg, (on small scale, but same could be applied to a larger scale) if that's the case then my family and myself would be considered some of those who should be interbred with those with darker pigmentation, we're all very fair and this is obviously a weaker trait. Wherever you live in the world, darker pigmentation is going to be a plus. I'm sorry I wouldn't accept that. I love my family just the way they are and don't see why we should alter ourselves to appeal to some "higher ideal".

Remember what you said before to HH-City about kin and supporting each other? I find this whole notion of pan-racial progressiveness to be contradictory to that. I would NEVER say that a member of my family is inferior to a foreigner... even if objectively I could see that in some ways they were.... because I am loyal and supportive of my family members. On a larger scale this also applies to race - as race = kin, imo.

By you singing the praises of foreigners, and at the same time insulting some of your own, you're betraying your own people.



To break everything down to the most simple formula on that matter: The progressive avantgarde of the future should be my people and group if possible. I have the highest trust in the potential of Europeans, German and Indoeuropean idealistic spirit, the classic outlook on life formulated in Europe, the social discipline and scientific way of approaching problems, the rational and group oriented state models, the European racial peak types, the racial base of Europe. I belong to it, thats why I want to preserve it, my kin, my group, my race. But thats not the only reason. To lose this potential would be a serious blow for all of mankind, the potential destroyed with us, the chances lost with the true Europe would be horrific. A mixed-up, downgraded and downbred, heterogeneous plantagement of the plutocracy would be even a mean of destruction rather than production of real values for the people and species.
I see you as contradicting yourself here... you say you want to preserve your kin, your group, your race... yet if they were to ever falter, or encounter a group who were objectively superior in many ways you'd readily see your own people's traits substituted for theirs.



The "Dark Ages" were mainly a problem for cultural development, but not for racial-biological one.Well, realistically the same could be said for Australids and Negroids as well as many other supposedly inferior races then. Perhaps due to difficult, unfavourable environmental factors they never realised their true cultural potential. And obviously Negroids do have some physical characteristics that one could see as being advantageous to Europids... perhaps we should interbreed with them so that our people can run faster, have more sexual success, and sing and dance in a really groovy way. ;) :D

Glynd Eastŵd
Tuesday, October 24th, 2006, 03:12 AM
Could you elaborate more on what you consider to be non-progressive subraces?

I never said they were completely non-progressive, and I was only being half-serious with my post, but I think Alpinids, and certain varieties of Cromagnid like Baltid, Bruenn or Borreby are among the less progressive subraces in Europe, so to speak. Their features, height and body-types are less progressive and more infantile compared with Nordid and Dinarid types for example. However, with that said, I'd be much more inclined to preserve a non-progressive subrace of Europeans like Alpines, over a progressive but non-European subrace, like Iranids.

Agrippa
Tuesday, October 24th, 2006, 03:40 AM
This is a problem for me. Eg, (on small scale, but same could be applied to a larger scale) if that's the case then my family and myself would be considered some of those who should be interbred with those with darker pigmentation, we're all very fair and this is obviously a weaker trait. Wherever you live in the world, darker pigmentation is going to be a plus. I'm sorry I wouldn't accept that. I love my family just the way they are and don't see why we should alter ourselves to appeal to some "higher ideal".

Skin pigmentation is secondary and lighter pigmentation has various advantages too, but it depends on the exact region of course. We spoke about that if looking at the Australian climatic zones already. As I said there, your bloodline has two options while staying unchanged: Look carefull after protection, some light Arabs and Berbers show how that could work, or simply living in an area which suits the racial specialisation better.


Remember what you said before to HH-City about kin and supporting each other? I find this whole notion of pan-racial progressiveness to be contradictory to that. I would NEVER say that a member of my family is inferior to a foreigner... even if objectively I could see that in some ways they were.... because I am loyal and supportive of my family members. On a larger scale this also applies to race - as race = kin, imo.

It does. Thats like an enemy being a great warrior and an ally being not such a great one - still they are enemies and allies in case.

I agree with you on that insofar, that I want to be social, solidary and human especially to members of the own group as long as they show good will. Good will means for the future that they accept human Eugenic measures, working mostly prenatal, ACTUALLY FOR THEM, too. This means the knowledge of knowing the own insufficiencies, accepting them and accept to work on it as far as possible for the better of the own bloodline and group. If I attacked people of my kin, it was mainly about those being scum, thats one part and scum exists in every group, the other being people who think just because they "are pure and belong to X" they are generally superior, even if they aren't objectively, and dont have to change or work on themselves and their group, as if they would be perfect already. This attitude is not the rational approach one needs, at least not for the leadership, some common people can think that way if it helps them and makes them stronger probably...


By you singing the praises of foreigners, and at the same time insulting some of your own, you're betraying your own people.

Not really. If speaking about my people I dont speak in the same way of every individual - same is true if speaking about mankind, I dont mean every dégénéré somewhere in the jungle, even though they are humans too. Not every idiot, violent criminal or corrupted sociopath is a good member of my group, even if being born into it. In fact he might do more harm to my people than a lot of immigrants do. Its about whats good for the majority of individuals, the group as a whole and mankind, not about defending every jerk and his actions just because he has the same label.
Otherwise honour to whom honour is due. By stating that the foreigner X is more intelligent or a great scientist, soldier or whatever, I'm just stating the obvious and facts. I dont betray my own people just telling them the truth.


I see you as contradicting yourself here... you say you want to preserve your kin, your group, your race... yet if they were to ever falter, or encounter a group who were objectively superior in many ways you'd readily see your own people's traits substituted for theirs.

Depends on the own group's potential. If the own group could reach a similar level without being substituted and be it just in parts, I would go this path, if that isnt possible, substitution is of at least certain parts and the introduction of new traits would be inevitable if the own group should be able to compete and true progress being the goal.


Well, realistically the same could be said for Australids and Negroids as well as many other supposedly inferior races then. Perhaps due to difficult, unfavourable environmental factors they never realised their true cultural potential.

The difference is that progressive variants showed their potential various times, again and again, in different regions and times. Furthermore they didnt lived as primitive as Australids even in Mesolithic times, even before. So thats not even worth a direct comparison. The European's in pre-state, pre-higher civilisation times were already much higher developed and much closer to us than many Aborigines are today even if speaking about cultural and social characteristics alone.


And obviously Negroids do have some physical characteristics that one could see as being advantageous to Europids... perhaps we should interbreed with them so that our people can run faster, have more sexual success, and sing and dance in a really groovy way.

All of their advantages produce, as far as I know, significant disadvantages for general adaptiveness, but regional (temperate climate, European socio-cultural patterns) in particular and especially for modern and higher developed societies. If there would be any truly advantageous traits - f.e. an immune variant being important for our well-being and survival, this would be true, like I said above already:

If the own group could reach a similar level without being substituted

Actually with the possibility of genetic engineering and manipulation this will be no problem in the future and as I said:
-Through modern mixture no selective sweep in favour of our group could take place in time - for sure not while keeping up the own base and structures.
-Even if this would mean interbreeding with large numbers and uncertain results, with many mixed ones getting negative foreign traits and just a few the need ones.

There is no real alternative in such a case (immun-variants being the most likely scenario) of emergency for the group than genetic manipulation anyway. Mixture won't solve that - the only group which would really get improved to mixture are some Negrid variants and not vice versa. To let them in masses into our European core and primary areas is just madness. I know you know that too hopefully, but its worth to be repeated for all...

Spirit of Fire
Tuesday, October 24th, 2006, 04:01 AM
Remind you, its not about a cult of purity I say, its about the big picture. The problem is not a foreigner here or there, its about the millions and millions which came and the fact that our own birth rates, especially "of the progressive backbone" constantly declined in the last decades, even centuries already.


That is an issue with the progressive backbone pretty much everywhere. Look at the birthrates in Japan. Same goes with the upper classes of the other nations, even those with relatively high birthrates. Once the society reaches a certain standard of living, the birthrates decline.



No. But I dont have too much sympathies for a lowest level "white" who constantly proclaims he is superior to the highest standing Indians or Chinese, thats like a pug saying to a wolf-husky breed "you dirty bastard are not worth to stay in the same room with me because I'm 'pure'..." ;)

Worst are those not even knowing why they say so. Kinship has a value in its own, thats why even such Europeans are my kin and the highest standing Indians and Chinese are not, but this doesnt make the European really superior per se. .The thing is, they have the potential to breed progressive and superior individuals. If anything they have the superior aesthetic beauty compared to the others, pretty well capable of reaching to the level fo the better Indians or Chinese when supplemented with higher education.

Besides, this is not a kind of behaviour you see only from the whites; many Arabs, Turks, Filipinos etc also think they are superior. they encourage their children to marry up (within their own race/ethnicity) if possible, and they strongly oppose mixing with the foreigners.
I think it's quite healthy attitude and helps preserving the race. I personally find it quite ridiculous to hear a low level Filipino or Pakistani (or any Flipino or Pakistani for the matter) to claim they are superior to the whites, but I support their idea since it discourages race mixing. Besides, many of those so called lowly hillbillies are proud to be white cause of the accomplishments of the whites. They are not all tha ignorant imho.

Bridie
Tuesday, October 24th, 2006, 09:19 AM
Skin pigmentation is secondary and lighter pigmentation has various advantages too, but it depends on the exact region of course. There are secondary and primary progressive features?

Lighter pigmentation has it's advantages in specific environments, and so do most characteristics... whether it be more individual energy extended to physical strength and less on intellectual or vice versa. I know you say that the versatile traits are the progressive ones, but versatility can only go so far.... eventually specialisation is needed for any great advancement. Eg; Do you think Einstein would have been able to achieve all that he did if he directed more of his energy toward social skills and mundane, physical tasks? And would Ian Thorpe be such an competitive and successful ahtlete if much of his time was spent intellectualising and analysing? Without specialisation nothing "great" will really ever be achieved.



It does. Thats like an enemy being a great warrior and an ally being not such a great one - still they are enemies and allies in case. :thumbup




I want to be social, solidary and human especially to members of the own group as long as they show good will. Good will means for the future that they accept human Eugenic measures, working mostly prenatal, ACTUALLY FOR THEM, too. So you will only be sociable and humane to people who agree with you?



If I attacked people of my kin, it was mainly about those being scum,Okay, I can understand that. But the jury's still out for me on whether or not that's right. You see, even scum has potential.... perhaps it is "sociey's" duty to help them to realise that potential. :chinrub Scum aren't just scum for no reason... I've always thought that it's because of poor up-bringing, lack of education, lack of proper intellectual stimulation (along with other developmental features), poor health care etc etc, that some people turn out to be such a waste of space.



the other being people who think just because they "are pure and belong to X" they are generally superior, even if they aren't objectively, and dont have to change or work on themselves and their group, as if they would be perfect already. This would be a great weakness for sure. And it would be the responsibility of the more intelligent, educated, wisened people of the group (essentially the leaders/elders) to guide them toward the right path. People who are ego-centric are also easily led and manipulated.... hence the weakness.



Not every idiot, violent criminal or corrupted sociopath is a good member of my group, even if being born into it. In fact he might do more harm to my people than a lot of immigrants do. Its about whats good for the majority of individuals, the group as a whole and mankind, not about defending every jerk and his actions just because he has the same label.
Point taken. ;)



Otherwise honour to whom honour is due. By stating that the foreigner X is more intelligent or a great scientist, soldier or whatever, I'm just stating the obvious and facts. I dont betray my own people just telling them the truth.
They're not facts, they're opinions. And I think that you would be betraying your own people if comparing them to the "great foreigners". Eg, as a mum I know each of my kids has their own strengths and weaknesses. I try to focus on my children's strengths and steer them in the direction of developing those... this can only have a positive outcome. To focus on my child's weaknesses or point out that *Jack* is great at soccer when my son isn't, would just be cruel and serves no good purpose. This doesn't mean that I would lie to my son and tell him that he's good at soccer... I just don't focus on it.

Now, each group of people, and even individuals within that group, will have strengths and weaknesses too... but we don't have to emulate or take on (via interbreeding) the strengths of other groups'. We can go down our own path and develop our own unique strengths. The dominant group will then dictate social conditioning and popular opinion, and most likely that groups strengths will become the most sought after, favoured characteristics.

See how in the 1970's the height of beauty in women was the Nordic look... look at old magazines... models with long, thin faces, thin lips, small mouths, blonde hair, "sharper" noses etc graced the pages. Now with multiculturalism being all the rage in what used to be largely Nordic countries, the ideal model of beauty has changed... "button" noses, full lips, wide mouths, rounder faces...

The majority, or the dominant group will dictate popluar ideas of what's desirable and what's not. It's important to keep in mind that "ideals" are highly changable and not absolute.



Depends on the own group's potential. If the own group could reach a similar level without being substituted and be it just in parts, I would go this path, if that isnt possible, substitution is of at least certain parts and the introduction of new traits would be inevitable if the own group should be able to compete and true progress being the goal.
I disagree. This is where subjectivity in the assessment of negative traits becomes an problem. "One man's shed is another man's castle". (I just made that up. :tired2: There is a real saying in English that means the same thing, but I can't remember what it is just now! :fshy: )




The European's in pre-state, pre-higher civilisation times were already much higher developed and much closer to us than many Aborigines are today even if speaking about cultural and social characteristics alone.
Yes, that would be true. :)

Jäger
Tuesday, October 24th, 2006, 10:37 AM
That is an issue with the progressive backbone pretty much everywhere.
That's exactly why this needs active support.


The thing is, they have the potential to breed progressive and superior individuals.
Hardly. More progressive than they were, yes. But not anything special.

Agrippa
Tuesday, October 24th, 2006, 11:58 PM
That is an issue with the progressive backbone pretty much everywhere. Look at the birthrates in Japan. Same goes with the upper classes of the other nations, even those with relatively high birthrates.

Its not even about the upper classes alone, in all social classes the better tend, at least in a certain social environment, to have less children.


Once the society reaches a certain standard of living, the birthrates decline.

Its not that easy. Thats a general problem of the Western civilisation and the Liberalindividualist and egalitarian societies and ideologies in particular. To associate the decline of birth rates with wealth primarily or even alone is a big mistake and simplification, but one being favoured by some scholars for specific reasons.

However, dysgenic trends, negative-, contraselection being a general problem of many populations, of mankind as a whole like I pointed out in various threads already. There is intra- and interethnic contraselection. Inside of the (especially Liberal-Individualistic) groups, populations the lower individuals have more offspring (on average!) and worldwide the same is true for the less developed groups (on average!).


The thing is, they have the potential to breed progressive and superior individuals. If anything they have the superior aesthetic beauty compared to the others, pretty well capable of reaching to the level fo the better Indians or Chinese when supplemented with higher education.

Sure, but not through education and a better environment for the individual phenotype doesnt change the genetic factors, only selection, breeding, manipulation does. But Euphenic measures, the betterment of the environmental conditions and social-cultural level being important too of course.


Besides, this is not a kind of behaviour you see only from the whites; many Arabs, Turks, Filipinos etc also think they are superior. they encourage their children to marry up (within their own race/ethnicity) if possible, and they strongly oppose mixing with the foreigners.

Its just natural to defend the own habitat and group. However, it makes more sense in some cases than in others and the exact strategy matters, the fact as such is natural and good.


I think it's quite healthy attitude and helps preserving the race.

Right.


I personally find it quite ridiculous to hear a low level Filipino or Pakistani (or any Flipino or Pakistani for the matter) to claim they are superior to the whites, but I support their idea since it discourages race mixing. Besides, many of those so called lowly hillbillies are proud to be white cause of the accomplishments of the whites. They are not all tha ignorant imho.

Never said that. In fact I like many of those which have some savvy at least, but there are those others which just harm the own group more than they help with their ignorance and behaviour. They ridicule every reasonable concept for racialism.

Btw, its still stupid to feel superior to a foreign peak variant in general just because the own group made something of significance somewhere back in time. Its good to be proud of that and trying to try to accomplish similar greatness, but that still doesnt make the individual generally superior if the other foreign variant has exactly the traits being important for those achievements whereas the individual in question hasnt. Than it would be ridiculous to reduce things to the superiority of every X over every Y.


There are secondary and primary progressive features?

Traits being primarily advantageous or disadvantageous in a very local context can't be considered being generally progressive at all. Beside that there are more and less important traits like high cranial capacity and orthognathy vs. narrow and prominent nose.


Do you think Einstein would have been able to achieve all that he did if he directed more of his energy toward social skills and mundane, physical tasks? And would Ian Thorburnpe be such an competitive and successful ahtlete if much of his time was spent intellectualising and analysing? Without specialisation nothing "great" will really ever be achieved.

Better argue with Ernest Rutherford than Einstein ;)

Answered that here:
http://forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=549045&postcount=98

Thread:
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=66306


So you will only be sociable and humane to people who agree with you?

No, I'm nice to all people as long as they dont do harm to my group and the goals which are important for the majority of individuals, group and mankind. One doesnt have to agree with me, but if its a crucial point in history and it would be possible to go on for further higher development, true solidary communities and responsible long term planning and there would be individuals or groups fighting those wanting to work for a better future I for sure won't be gingerly with them if they fight the people I support and try to destroy the future of my group and mankind.


Okay, I can understand that. But the jury's still out for me on whether or not that's right. You see, even scum has potential.... perhaps it is "sociey's" duty to help them to realise that potential. Scum aren't just scum for no reason... I've always thought that it's because of poor up-bringing, lack of education, lack of proper intellectual stimulation (along with other developmental features), poor health care etc etc, that some people turn out to be such a waste of space.

Right, thats why I'm all for social responsibility and programs, Euphenic measures and healthy communities. Its the job of science and research to distinguish heritable from acquired positive as well as negative traits. There are, and thats for certain, both cases possible in many low level individuals. Some show still potential - or relatives do at least - others dont. But again, this would be the job of commissions and genetic consultancy for parents, dealing primarily with real results and not just opinions.

Actually a low level family could be improved by both social Euphenic as well as genetic Eugenic programs if having at least minimal potential. So I dont give them up, its just clear they are in their current form not the backbone of the group and must be brought to a higher level for the better of themselves, their children and the group, with higher potential for them as well as the collective.


The majority, or the dominant group will dictate popluar ideas of what's desirable and what's not. It's important to keep in mind that "ideals" are highly changable and not absolute.

Facts, development and sometimes even certain values can be close of being absolute, ideals aren't, some are just more eternal and generally true than others though, those are the ones on which we have to focus on. Others must be determined by the leadership according to the needs of the majority of individuals, group, species and ecosystem as always.

You are right, crucial is a good leadership and dominant group - they can feel superior in a way, but must feel at the same time that they have a great responsibility and duties for the group. If thats not the case, we have a serious problem. The majority will just follow and most of this being discussed here won't be that important if dealing with me or people thinking like me anyway, they will follow us for other reasons or not. Only the idealistic and more rational elite will even think that far and try to truly understand in my opinion. Its not the job of every specialist to care about everything anyway. F.e. why should a great engineer or craftsman care as much about biology and the social structures of the group as political activists and idealists or respective scientists do? They dont have as much time nor will they reach a similar level of knowledge in most of the cases, even if having the same or even higher intellectual capacities. Thats what a political elite should be there for, to care for that and to decide according to the best of the majority of individuals and group.

We can't assume that everybody cares as much about the things being very important even for his bloodline and group. In a good system thats just another division of labour with both parts having duties on their own. Crucial is just that it works for the majori...you know what.

Ideals like culture in general is no end in itself or at least shouldnt be, its the crunch and tool of the instinctive insecure human species, there to secure bloodlines, group's, species' survival and development. Thats not all, but its the "primary job" it has to fulfil.

Haldís
Wednesday, October 25th, 2006, 10:03 AM
Thank you. The average Northern European over the most "progressive" non white at any time :)

Aistulf
Saturday, January 27th, 2007, 08:24 PM
A2 B1. (I forgot to vote for A2 in the poll, I only voted for B1).

SubGnostic
Tuesday, January 30th, 2007, 03:03 PM
Progressiveness or racial preservation?

Or enhancing mental qualities and health, rather than being concerned about aesthetics? This, of course, in the context of racial preservation in a wider sense.

Jäger
Tuesday, January 30th, 2007, 05:02 PM
Or enhancing mental qualities and health, rather than being concerned about aesthetics?
Mind and Body my dear, the term progressive refers not only to aesthetics.

SubGnostic
Thursday, February 1st, 2007, 05:17 PM
Mind and Body my dear, the term progressive refers not only to aesthetics.

And the practical benefits of a certain morphology in a modern society are...?

Jäger
Thursday, February 1st, 2007, 06:18 PM
And the practical benefits of a certain morphology in a modern society are...?
What I said implied that the body can be the expression of the mind, or better put "spirit", not that some type of body is extremely useful in our times, yet such things shouldn't be negelected either.

Maybe we have to bomb us back to the stoneage ;)

Bioblitzkrieg
Thursday, February 1st, 2007, 07:58 PM
Seems people here want a clean cut answer, and reality is never so nicely defined.

The fear alot of people have here in regard to Agrippa's views on progressiveness arise when the question comes "should we inject this foriegn trait into our gene pool because it is advantagous" The topic becomes too black and white between culture and physical morphology,

Its obvious that since the neolithic, progressive trends in the agricultural belt of the human race became more than evident, and over time as sedintary lifestyles spread out from the early fertile belts of the middle east a mixture of indigenous adaptation and foriegn influence and migration has formed the world as we know it today.

In my opinion a very infantile "not average" Alpinid would still be a European and for that possess an undeniable right to thier place in Europe over a Nord sinid with overall faster cognitive abilities.



to have a hoakey idealistic allegience over fact and rationality is dangerous, as yes, that nord sinid in his asiatic world would be the more progressive human being, just not belonging on the European side of Eurasia. We cant let ego or the longing for defense subjectively misrepresent reality, even if it doesnt always put the white man as the god over all other races, its true, europeans are overall one of the most progressive races on earth and without a dought have been the most dominant race on earth for the last few centuries. But I think the progressive asian will soon show us that the white man isnt the only member in the exclusive God man club.

If a change accurred in a society and ethnic family, be it by climatic adaptation, immigration, or change in lifstyle due to population and economic prosperity, the end would be the same, in regards to the razor of truth that would throw away the features non benificiary at the time, and maintain and further the ones useful and advantagous.

can many people here deny the "coincidence" that enlightened Europe perverted its own nature enough to halt its population growth, right at our peak of power we most destroyed our own natural links, religious and cultural roots were torn up for modernity and its benefits, which in the short run made us ubermensch over others, but in the long run made us unable to even maintain our numbers or retain a sustainable society, the old are growing in numbers and the young are dwindling,

in a largely europid lead sequence, we pushed so much carbon into the atmosphere that now western europes climate is changing in a way unseen in thousands of years, the atlantic coast acting more and more like the mediteranean, and "coincidentally" the exploits of imperialism accuring at the same time laid the seeds of todays minorities in thier former Empire's homelands, which coincidentally happen to be more suitable for peoples from the south as time progresses, north africans in france and England, in 50 years, some parts of those countries may not even be too different than a coastal area from thier north african former homeland. We pushed ourselves to this point, the more primitive races are only doing what we allowed to happen.

To try to plug the problem up in terms of race mixing is just one of many facets to the issue, change is inevitable, and the european race has decided its fate upto this point, personally I think blond hair and blue eyed features will push back into the continent, it may be lost in france and the british isles, but retain its stronghold in the colder and less minority filled areas in north eastern europe, I dont think Belarus or lithuania have to worry about algerians taking thier cities and outbreeding them. This is a very sad fact, but so is global warming, and the conditions europeans themselves helped push into motion when we subjugated lower peoples and made them our invisible hands.

There is no black or white, we want to preserve our past, but we already altered our connection to it, the choice becomes how to maintain in this changing world that is now partly out of our hands. We cant expect a return to Magnus Europa, but we can realize how were sinking into non existance and reform new strongholds and secure a future, for our European and Progressive traits, but I may be too idealistic and can understand greatly why a Scot or Englishman wont accept what I said, Id like to believe new england in America can still be returned to a north west european dominated region, but im also studying how the landscape is changing, it hasnt even snowed yet in new york city this year...and Long island is turning into Israel, in ethnic parrarel and climatic comparison