Inferiority? Genocide? Ridiculous Concepts

[RoadScholar]

I see different posts on this forum. Some which I disagree with, some which disgust me, others which just instill terror in me. Others I simply can't understand.

For instance. The following concepts I can understand, some I agree woth, some I disagree with, to various degrees. This includes the ideas that race should be preserved, that inter-racial breeding can cause problems, that the races should be kept seperate, even that certain races are in different aspects worse or better at certain things then others.

However the concepts that certain races do not deserve to live, that some are created just to serve other races, that certain races have less entitlement as humans, and that a certain race should be spread around the world (mostly used in the context of Germans or other such ridiculous ideas.) The very fact that all of these different races exist is evidence enough that they are meant to exist. And that certainly there is no intention for a "master race" which should be bred around the world. Servitude or less human entitlements just rings of greed and blind racism to me. It makes no logical sense, if God or nature had intended that one race be slaves to another it would make sense that instead of being grouped together different "unequal races" would exist in minorities along "superior race" majorities, wouldn't it?

I thought up a whole list of things to say in support of this, but I have forgoten them now, maybe later. However anyways, to summarize, from both a religious and a ecological standpoint genocide, servitude, and master races are just ricidulous and stupid ideas.

[Loki]

I see different posts on this forum. Some which I disagree with, some which disgust me, others which just instill terror in me. Others I simply can't understand.

For instance. The following concepts I can understand, some I agree woth, some I disagree with, to various degrees. This includes the ideas that race should be preserved, that inter-racial breeding can cause problems, that the races should be kept seperate, even that certain races are in different aspects worse or better at certain things then others.

However the concepts that certain races do not deserve to live, that some are created just to serve other races, that certain races have less entitlement as humans, and that a certain race should be spread around the world (mostly used in the context of Germans or other such ridiculous ideas.) The very fact that all of these different races exist is evidence enough that they are meant to exist. And that certainly there is no intention for a "master race" which should be bred around the world. Servitude or less human entitlements just rings of greed and blind racism to me. It makes no logical sense, if God or nature had intended that one race be slaves to another it would make sense that instead of being grouped together different "unequal races" would exist in minorities along "superior race" majorities, wouldn't it?

I thought up a whole list of things to say in support of this, but I have forgoten them now, maybe later. However anyways, to summarize, from both a religious and a ecological standpoint genocide, servitude, and master races are just ricidulous and stupid ideas.

Not all of us have religious worldviews, and not all of us believe that there is a divine purpose for everything on earth. I, for one, don't. Nature is harsh and cruel - it is the survival of the fittest. In all of nature you would observe inferior and superior breeds and species - this is nothing new. The lion is superior to the impala; the tiger superior to the deer. For both the lion and the tiger, there is no such thing as equality with their herbivore preys.

I don't condone or even discuss genocide, since I think the concept is primitive and brutally cruel. I do, though, notice that without the demise of the non-European races of "mankind" within our midst, we as Europeans won't have a future to offer our children's children. We have almost reached a stage where it is a "kill or be killed" option. Certainly, in places like South Africa it is often the case.

I don't think any rationally honest intellectual disputes the notion that Europeans are far superior to races like negrids in intellectual capacity and powers. Most Asians are also superior to them. Look at Tokyo, Japan, and compare it to Lagos, Nigeria. Do you see many similarities? Are Nigerians equal to Japanese in intellectual powers?

[RoadScholar]

I do not agree with the notion that europeans are smarter than black people. It is actually an interesting subject. Most black people who are considered intellectual by society's common definitions are comparatively light skinned, or posses "white" features. However, these intellectual blacks can very well be wore intelligent than plenty of white people. It would therefore make sense that perhaps certain subgroups of different races simply are born with a small capacity for intelligence to develop, or for certain reasons it is much harder for intelligence to develop. However, that has little or not evidence behind it.

There are proven factors that make an impact on the intelligence of a person. Such as intellectual stimuli and relationship with parents and other humans as a baby. Neutrients and lack of toxins while in the womb. A fitting enviornment and educational system. As well as a certain supply of neutrients growing up. Lately doctors have added that fat babies are very likely to be intelligent, however I'm not sure this has proven to be a real factor yet.

I think all of the above are reasons why the average IQ of black people is lower than that of whites, especially in African countries. They usually don't have a great amoutn of stimuli or proper human interaction as babies. Their mothers most likely do not have a great diet during pregnancy. Their enviornment is not suited to mental development, and in Africa a lot of children are denied neutrients that are needed for mental development.

There is the concept which some racialists have that blacks have genetic problems which would make breeding with them progressively inferior. However from my limited concept of science having two parents from completly different races would increase the chances of a normal, healthy, baby. Either way, even if it could be proven that whites are inheritly smarter and blacks dumber, it would still have nothing to do with wanting to kill them, enslave them, or treat them as un-equals, in the human sense (which is tied to Western morality and yes, religion.)

[Loki]

RoadScholar, do you believe that all human races are inherently 100% equal in intellectual capabilities? How is that possible in an evolutionary scenario? Nature has no equality.

Are Norwegians are Australian aboriginals equal in intelligence? And further than that, was Homo erectus just as intelligent as modern Homo sapiens? It is just very illogical and unrealistic to think so.

[Scoob]

I think a minority of humans are truly superior, and that superior traits are scattered throughout many ethnic groups - although certain superior traits are held more by certain groups. I don't think one group has all desirable/superior traits without undesirable/inferior traits, but there are varying concentrations and ratios of such traits.

I think there are many white people who are inferior types, for instance - human society would advance greatly if all such types (in all groups) disappeared.

[RoadScholar]

RoadScholar, do you believe that all human races are inherently 100% equal in intellectual capabilities? How is that possible in an evolutionary scenario? Nature has no equality.

Are Norwegians are Australian aboriginals equal in intelligence? And further than that, was Homo erectus just as intelligent as modern Homo sapiens? It is just very illogical and unrealistic to think so.

I believe that perhaps (and I'm not even sure about this) race determines your maximum capicity for intelligence or how easy intelligence is developed, but not directly how intelligent one will be. That is something left to other factors.

[Loki]

I believe that perhaps (and I'm not even sure about this) race determines your maximum capicity for intelligence or how easy intelligence is developed, but not directly how intelligent one will be. That is something left to other factors.

There are many factors at work in determining adult intelligence. Obviously, being human is one of those factors. Animals cannot attain to human intelligence. In the same way, the average Europid would be smarter by default than the average negroid - but of course the smartest negroids would be smarter than the dumbest Europids. Yet negroids score on average 20 I.Q. points lower than Europids, I believe. This is reflected in their chaotic societies. Believe me - I grew up in Africa. They simply do not have the capacity to function beyond the most primitive tribalist instincts on their own. Whatever "civilization" they have in Africa, is almost exclusively exotic in origin. Sub-Saharan Africans have not even invented the wheel on their own....

[RoadScholar]

There are many factors at work in determining adult intelligence. Obviously, being human is one of those factors. Animals cannot attain to human intelligence. In the same way, the average Europid would be smarter by default than the average negroid - but of course the smartest negroids would be smarter than the dumbest Europids. Yet negroids score on average 20 I.Q. points lower than Europids, I believe. This is reflected in their chaotic societies. Believe me - I grew up in Africa. They simply do not have the capacity to function beyond the most primitive tribalist instincts on their own. Whatever "civilization" they have in Africa, is almost exclusively exotic in origin. Sub-Saharan Africans have not even invented the wheel on their own....

Well, either way. Wether or not you believe black people are intellectually inferior, that does not pave way to thoughts of genocide or enslavement. There is no real connection I can see with physical or mental ability and the right to live. Not even what one can do for society and a right to live, and do so freely. It all depends on your values, however. There are some people who think that the richer you are the better you are, and that inheridly richer people deserve more rights simply on a factor of wealth alone. Other things must have existed on our planet as well. I'm sure some tribe somewhere thought that tall people were better than short people and should get more rights. In fact, msot likely there was a time and place where being short would have meant better. To conclude babling: the concepts that certain features such as intelligence, wealth, or height make you a better person are old, and to my eyes, useless.

[Zimmer Mann]

One sign of intelligence is compassion and empathy. Animals can possess some limited amounts of compassion towards their own immediate family like a mother bear to her cubs. A pit bull terrier will feel no remorse or empathy for the person they have just mauled because it is not a component of their limited intelligence. With higher intelligence comes a more evolved degree of ruthfulness which is demonstrated collectively in our cultures and societies. This is by no means preprogrammed into our modern species but is rather a long arduous trip of experience. We would be mortified at our treatment by others in society for merely having certain beliefs even contained descreetly within our own heads. It has been a long trip from being killed without due-process for being a "witch" to being able to openly mock our King, Queen, or national leader on public T.V. and not get flogged for it. The idea of not killing blacks, jews, mentally handicapped, homosexuals, even criminals, is a product of this uniquely human element of progressive empathy that should never be deflated. This does not mean you have to endorse, sponsor or even like these elements of our human species. But the action of removing them through death and eradication is from a behavioral stance, surely moving against the grain of progress as individuals and evolution as a species. Otherwise there is isn't much that separates us from animals.

[Angelcynn Beorn]

One sign of intelligence is compassion and empathy. Animals can possess some limited amounts of compassion towards their own immediate family like a mother bear to her cubs. A pit bull terrier will feel no remorse or empathy for the person they have just mauled because it is not a component of their limited intelligence. With higher intelligence comes a more evolved degree of ruthfulness which is demonstrated collectively in our cultures and societies. This is by no means preprogrammed into our modern species but is rather a long arduous trip of experience. We would be mortified at our treatment by others in society for merely having certain beliefs even contained descreetly within our own heads. It has been a long trip from being killed without due-process for being a "witch" to being able to openly mock our King, Queen, or national leader on public T.V. and not get flogged for it. The idea of not killing blacks, jews, mentally handicapped, homosexuals, even criminals, is a product of this uniquely human element of progressive empathy that should never be deflated. This does not mean you have to endorse, sponsor or even like these elements of our human species. But the action of removing them through death and eradication is from a behavioral stance, surely moving against the grain of progress as individuals and evolution as a species. Otherwise there is isn't much that separates us from animals.

We are animals, there isnt anything that seperates us on a physical level. The idea that pacifism and "compassion" are signs of evolution or intelligence is laughable. Other animals are also compassionate, and not just to their own immediate kin. Their are lots of examples of animals showing concern, or even raising, human children who fall into their grasp. And not killing on purpose is the normal behaviour for all herbivores, its not an "advanced" or "human" trait, its a trait of prey and weaklings.

All of the higher cultures were founded on a basis of bloodshed, power and conquest. Thats is the way of life, the strong conquer and the weak die. In this struggle worrying about the "rights" or "welfare" of your opponenets, when they dont care for yours, is a recipe for defeat.

Besides, where do you get the idea that there are any such things as inherant rights?? The only "rights" people have are those which they are strong enough to claim and enforce for themselves. In life nobody has a right to anything unless they are prepared to fight for it. The lamb doesnt have the "right" not to get killed by the wolf, and the begro doesnt have the "right" to freedom or anything else. Neither we nor they do unless we are strong enough to fight for it.

That is all.