PDA

View Full Version : The Morality of Ethnic Advocacy


SwordOfTheVistula
Wednesday, October 17th, 2007, 04:29 AM
From a side debate that started on the death penalty thread:

http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=2024&page=8

I believe your racism makes you write generalizations about blacks. I find racism wrong in all its forms, whether against blacks or whites. If you justify racism against one group only then that is a double standard.

Aside from the fact that I didn't make any generalizations anywhere in that thread about blacks-

My argument regarding 'racism' is that it is natural to favor people who are more like you, and it is natural for people to work together with other people similar to them to advance positions advantageous to that group.

If one group tries to set an example by not advocating in favor of themselves, and other groups continue to advocate in favor of themselves, the group which does not stand up for itself will be run over.

Also, given this nature of groups to combat eachother over rival interests, the less 'diverse' a self-governing entity is, the more smoothly that self-governing entity will operate.

CharlesDexterWard
Wednesday, October 17th, 2007, 09:02 AM
Sword, I agree with you. Minding and caring for your own is not racism. If migration boards and other authorities were run by nationals and identitarians, not by corrupt and spineless bureaucrats/politruks, there wouldn't be much of a problem. A souvereign nation decides who to take in and not, without giving an official reason for each case.

There is no 'double standard' in that, not anymore than my friendship is a double standard. It is natural, uncomplicated and frank.

I am against racism. That may some feeble-minded or faint-hearted to some of you. My experience is the opposite. Racists, who are convinced that they are in some objective sense 'better', do not make good decisions. Their judgement is clouded, their spirit impaired.

stormlord
Wednesday, October 17th, 2007, 09:24 AM
If one group tries to set an example by not advocating in favor of themselves, and other groups continue to advocate in favor of themselves, the group which does not stand up for itself will be run over.

What your saying isn't even a very extreme view despite what the media suggests. The extremely influential and respected biologist Garrett Hardin said exactly the same thing; it is simple logic.

The real way in which the issue is confused is that the people who throw around the racist tag have never defined exactly a) what they mean, and b) the logic behind their classification of racism as immoral.

CharlesDexterWard
Wednesday, October 17th, 2007, 09:38 AM
The real way in which the issue is confused is that the people who throw around the racist tag have never defined exactly a) what they mean, and b) the logic behind their classification of racism as immoral.Most uses of the word in contemporary law, mass media and politics are not proper uses, I agree. I think that's the main reason why racism has gotten quite some people talking for it. It's a ressentiment against the nonsense that goes on in public. The ressentiment comes out on the internet, but I doubt that it will be functional politically.

DanseMacabre
Tuesday, November 20th, 2007, 05:15 AM
If one group tries to set an example by not advocating in favor of themselves, and other groups continue to advocate in favor of themselves, the group which does not stand up for itself will be run over.


Which is the problem whites have today in my opinion. Non-whites are connected with their race while whites aren't. And so whites find themselves in the unfavorable position they are in today.