Race and Ethnos

[OnionPeeler]

Very well. No posts here in days. Then counter this argument rationally.

Race does not exist. Its application and definition is an invalid paradigm designed to foster pseudo-physical classism. Neither Darwinian speciation or social separatism can explain "race."

Skin color, or the presence of melanin, is precisely skin deep. Other variatons attributed to race are more properly attributed to environment and nutrition. New world studies affirm that body form and skull structure are more readily explained by nutrition and environment than an inherent genetic "race."

Human is human. We all speak. We all feel. We all know joy and pain. Any further differentiation is needlessly combative.

Counter by reason. If you have the balls.

[Siegfried]

Race does not exist. Its application and definition is an invalid paradigm designed to foster pseudo-physical classism. Neither Darwinian speciation or social separatism can explain "race."

Isolated groups of people grow apart, both in a cultural and in a genetic way. Differences in environment and culture lead to differing selection pressures on various traits, thus resulting in genetic differences (some genes are more successful in population A than in population B). These genetic differences in turn lead to differences in behaviour, and thus in culture. It's a feedback loop, so to speak. So basic evolutionary theory can explain racial differences, and even predicts them.

Skin color, or the presence of melanin, is precisely skin deep. Other variatons attributed to race are more properly attributed to environment and nutrition. New world studies affirm that body form and skull structure are more readily explained by nutrition and environment than an inherent genetic "race."

This is far from proven. Of course, nutrition and environment have their impact, but an overwhelming amount of data points to the importance of heredity. Read, for example, Rushton's 'Race, Evolution, and Behaviour', which can be downloaded for free from www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/reb.html

Human is human. We all speak. We all feel. We all know joy and pain. Any further differentiation is needlessly combative.

Yes, we all speak; but we do not all speak alike. Neither do we feel, enjoy and suffer alike. Cultural and genetic differences set us apart. To 'unite' various races and ethnic groups into one nation-state, is to cause a 'clash of instincts'; the differing instincts of the races/ethnic groups will conflict, leading the nation-state into turmoil and decadence.

Just my two cents.

[OnionPeeler]

Firstly, I will concede without argument that a form of Dawin's evolution is operable. I will further concede that a range of physical variation exists within human populations. The point of contention is whether these variations are so significant as to require the definition "race" and to then act in some way upon that definition.

There are species of birds which are nearly identical and reproductively compatible. They are separated only by differing mating ritual. In the animal world this is a significant barrier and almost certainly aids Darwin's speciation.

I think that in turn you will concede that much of what is human behavior is social behavior. And so we must make a distinction between human behavior (soft coded) and animal behavior (mostly hard coded). This is not to say that humans lack hard coding. We certainly have it. It regulates our body temperature, heart rate, breathing and many other systems.

But human mating is almost entirely a social process. It involves communication, even negotiation. It is conducted under whatever societal norms prevail. It pays no attention to 'race' unless there exists some social taboo or incentive regarding 'race'.

So we come back to the question. Is race of any social importance? The answer is yes and no. It's important when we make it so by acting on a definition.

Aryans, whites, Europeans - whatever the preferred term - are actually among the most admirably inclusive peoples historically. Your own touted historian, Arthur Kemp, chooses as theme miscegination. Whether conquered or conqueror, the old Indo-Europeans readily embraced what today we call 'multiculturalism' time and time again. It was a Persian King, if I recall, that called himself "Aryan, and the son of an Aryan" but also "a protector of all the people." Hitites, Romans, Greeks, - they were always ready to adopt an honorary Aryan on the basis of talent, loyalty or affection. The notion of race in a cosmopolitan setting broke down as readily with them as it now does in Europe and America.

So race is socially insignificant unless made socially significant. Logically, this is a pretty silly statement...but I think you can see where I'm headed. The key word is social. In either case, 'race' is socially applied even if 'physically' defined.

If I say that race is significant and important I've assigned a social significance. I have chosen, willfully, to accept a set of markers to define race and act in some socially determined acceptable way. (In saying 'acceptable' here I'm am acknowledging that a racialist society has it norms just like any other.)

---
Natually, I'm playing the devil's advocate in this thread. And imitating their lines very well, I might add. I was hoping to fashion from this thread devastating arguments against the dissimulative tactics used to advance the 'Race is Social Construct' position. So bring it on. Play either side.

[Rahul]

If one is to understand race as a cohesive folk, which seems to be the reason behind a forum such as this, Oswald Spengler on race, on blood and soil is a must-read.

Rest are mediocre and momentary beliefs.

[Nordgau]

Natually, I'm playing the devil's advocate in this thread. And imitating their lines very well, I might add. I was hoping to fashion from this thread devastating arguments against the dissimulative tactics used to advance the 'Race is Social Construct' position. So bring it on. Play either side.

Hmpf, I hate arguing around with the "race doesn't exist" knights. That is today's dogma. If they come with their "It's just skin colour" song, I tell them that there are much more racial characteristics than skin colour, and that one classifies races from many characteristics: for example, there are clear differences in many facial features. That already confuses them, because they often never thought deeper about the PC sentences, they hold against us.

These people often are ideologist and havn't ever thought about evolution and anthropological development among mankind, about hereditary factors etc. When their diatribe of "We are all the same" starts sounding, it's simply ideology and they ignore totally, that man is a part of nature. If one has a safe knowledge of biological-anthropological things, there are good chances, if one is clever in debating, to attack them again and again at their weak points, to beat their whole ideological construction soften, and then to sting right into the heart of it, so that it at last will implode. Touché!

At last you must have kneaded them so soften, that they admit that there are groups within mankind which are different because of different development through selection, isolation and mutation. Surely - nobody denies that these groups belong in spite of their differences to one species. Of course they just admit the existence of physical different groups because of genetic reasons. They'll say that these differences have no importance. Now, if you're strong enough, be ready for the great hit, the climax: These anthropological differences aren't just "surface", they are the result of biological breeding and development over a very long period of time and under hard environmental conditions. And it is quite a normal phenomene of biology, of life itself, that also the development of mental-psychical-intellectual characteristics went into different ways. History, culture, spirituality and different behaviour of man shows this clearly.

If the antis are now a bit perplex about this all, enjoy us with a last pirouette: twist them their "argument" out of their hands and use it against them by saying that the "equality of mankind" is a myth, a dogma: a social construct, born out of false liberal, religious or left ideology. Accuse them! They are those who are wrong! That's the truth!

[Götterschicksal]

Ofcourse you all know that gender is also a social construct. There is no difference between males or females.

[Jack]

Race is a biological-spiritual community. You lose :p

[OnionPeeler]

It's true that the rank-and-file are only aping the line. But isn't it true that we need to be able to counter BOTH the one-line echoman and the ideologue. For those who like memic theories there's probably a lesson in an 'idea' (such as it is) taking on a life of its own.

The catchy counter is good for short time situations. "Equality is a myth" is a good one since examples are so readily and obviously available. Another quick-counter to "social construct" is one I've mentioned elsewhere:

If race is a social construct, implying that physical differences are irrelevant, then upon what basis was the construct formed? If they insist that race is social construct, they must concede that "race is a social construct" is itself a social construct (as Thorburnulf points out).

I think there's some value in understanding the techniques, despicable though they are, of our enemies. Two key components to deconstruction are:

undefine words critical to your opponent's argument
use high level evidence when necessary (mind cannibalism)

This is almost the antithesis of rational science:

strictly defined words in context
use low level data as a rule

A great many fabricated systems collapse if we strain them through a ruthless epistemology.

[Jack]

And that, everyone, is why my (well, Yockey's) definition of Race as a biological-spiritual community is bulletproof.

[hardcorps]

Race does not exist. Its application and definition is an invalid paradigm designed to foster pseudo-physical classism. Neither Darwinian speciation or social separatism can explain "race."

Skin color, or the presence of melanin, is precisely skin deep. Other variatons attributed to race are more properly attributed to environment and nutrition. New world studies affirm that body form and skull structure are more readily explained by nutrition and environment than an inherent genetic "race."

Human is human. We all speak. We all feel. We all know joy and pain. Any further differentiation is needlessly combative.

I think the question of race’s objective existence, beyond its cultural currency, is something of a straw man. Race among humans IS the equivalent of breed in dogs. It’s undeniable. No one questions the genetic similarities and common ancestry of shepherd dogs and terriers. No one would claim ‘breed’ is a fallacious concept, just because all domesticated dogs may produce fertile offspring together.

Winning this argument helps us not a jot, though. If the antis succeed in whittling down our belief in white separatism to something like there being 5/6 races of man, with many mixes, I would consider myself defeated. (I don’t want to be lumped with all that’s categorised as Caucasoid. I am White.)

The real question is whether ‘whiteness’ is socially constructed - whether it's a logically valid term. To some extent, of course, it is arbitrary. The proof of this is that there is no exact definition of who’s white, and who’s not. This is a REAL problem for us. There are just too many contradictions! Two of the logical conditions of truth are that it is unchanging and universal. (Similarly, even unquestionably ‘white’ stocks have undergone considerable mongrelisation, in dribs and drabs, over the millennia.)


HOWEVER, I BELIEVE A STRONG ARGUMENT CAN STILL BE MADE TO DEFEND AGAINST THE PERCEIVED ARBITRARINESS OF WHITENESS. Once it is shown that whiteness is real, even though we have never all been under one banner (the Roman Empire came close, though), we can argue that we have the right to self-determination - or at least are justified in working together for separate white subracial/national homelands.

Anyhow, here’s my argument for the racial sense as being innate- that is, 'clustering in groups along racial lines WOULD occur in a Hobbesian "state of nature" without any racialist indoctrination whatsoever':
1. In a state of nature in which the races of man were all randomly scattered I would say, without any doubt, that ‘birds of a feather would tend to flock together’ (all things being equal).
2. In this hypothetical state of nature, clustering would occur first on the basis of IQ and personality. (To illustrate this point, I generally better enjoy the company of intelligent non-whites to that of very uncouth whites. For ideological reasons, though, I would ALWAYS pick the company of racial kindred. Without any ideological qualms though, in a state of nature, I would probably move toward those of similar temperament to myself.)
3. Then further separation would occur, among the more intelligent and thus discriminating (whose instincts would not have been corrupted yet) race-mixed groups, on the basis of general kinship and a sense of familiarity as expressed through phenotype. (I would add that among stable – or pure - (sub)racial types, there is a more perfect relationship between what a man is (personality etc) and what he looks like. In these mixed-up times, a phenotypic mulatto may have received an inordinate amount of ‘white’ genes - through the randomness of recombination - that direct brain and character function. This poor centaur of a man walks around looking like Leroy Brown, but he has somehow inherited the spirit of a Viking! The same topsy-turvy thing results where the mixed individual has only received the relatively few genes required to pass as phenotypically white. His whole manner of relating to the world, his emotionality, though is foreign and his IQ probably lower. So when I say those possessing that level of intelligence that makes one innately discriminating and somewhat elitist will gravitate to those who look similar to themselves, I’m presupposing a true harmony between looks and character that has probably not existed among Europids for a long time. Still, though, clustering along racial lines would be observable among even the generally somewhat impure people of today.)
4. These clusterings of ‘discriminating’ Europid types would eventually reproduce some less gifted/discriminating offspring – according to the normal fluctuations of heredity etc. Thus the whole existence of a racially homogenous white society would come into being without any pre-existing racialist culture. (The religious impulse would exist without a certain Jew being crucified; the white racialist one would, similarly, exist without one AH or the KKK.)

Conclusion: I have tried to show how racial type would play a part in the evolution toward a functioning society – even coming from a state of nature where people were without a pre-existing culture. In other words, quite independent of socialisation or ‘western’ spiritual leanings, I would still cringe in the presence of a swarm of Mongoloids!

The best thing that comes to mind as a way to support these claims, concerning instinctive racial clustering, is something JohnJoyTree posted at SF a while ago. A recent study strongly indicated that people have an instinctual preference for those who look similar to them:

http://www.nature.com/nsu/020624/020624-4.html

I suppose also, even if one had never seen one's own face, one would be attracted to those with a similar scent etc. Body odour characteristics DO differ among the (sub)races.


In the end I don’t, though, see a huge priority in convincing antis of the moral rectitude of the racialist stance. If they’re non-white, they’ll probably almost always want to mix with us! If they’re white and they haven’t felt the ‘call of the blood’ by about age 20, one doubts they ever will. Perhaps they come from too poor a stock! This is not to say that if our way of thinking ever became profitable, they wouldn’t jump on the bandwagon. (That’s why the Nazis froze NS membership after a certain date, to stop the many Johnny-come-lately opportunists.)

ROFL, I could be wrong though! Maybe, through some argumentative wizardry, we will cause Kofi Annan to get the 14 Words passed as official United Nations policy – but I think not