Ethnic exclusion

[prozak]

Re: I believe in giving people every chance to explain themselves

Originally posted by tiassa
Why don't you set some criteria for the counter-argument? After all, all I ever asked for was a theoretical model explaining how ethnic exclusion could be carried out peacefully, and you've directly refused to provide that for whatever reasons you imagine to be legitimate.

"Theoretical model" must be defined or it creates a strawman for easy destruction in argumentation. Counter-argument is more well-known

I think you're cleverly attempting to evade the issue, but you still haven't met it head on yet, nor answered my initial question. Sloppy.

 

[Tiassa]

I think you're cleverly attempting to evade the issue, but you still haven't met it head on yet, nor answered my initial question. Sloppy.

Which initial question was that? The only reason I ask is that I want to make sure you're lying to posture yourself before I try once again to explain it to you.

But thanks for the vote of "clever".

Let us know when you realize that the reason you can't provide a theoretical model is that you aren't smart enough to figure one out. Don't let it bug you, though. Many people have failed to figure out that question. Various Roman governors, various Bishops, various Kings and Emperors, Hitler, &c.

As history has shown: ethnic exclusion is only peaceful when all the "others" are dead.

--Tiassa

 

[prozak]

Originally posted by tiassa
Which initial question was that? The only reason I ask is that I want to make sure you're lying to posture yourself before I try once again to explain it to you.

But thanks for the vote of "clever".

Let us know when you realize that the reason you can't provide a theoretical model is that you aren't smart enough to figure one out. Don't let it bug you, though. Many people have failed to figure out that question. Various Roman governors, various Bishops, various Kings and Emperors, Hitler, &c.

As history has shown: ethnic exclusion is only peaceful when all the "others" are dead.

--Tiassa

Well, since you're done spewing, we can move on to other things. Maybe these will understand "theoretical model" and "counterargument" as more than aesthetic concepts

To me it seems possible that any political change is peaceful; if one side sees the other is serious, the threats don't need to be made. America is one such place, but the only thing serious here is the moneyed interests.

 

[Tiassa]

Do you have anything left to offer to the progress of this topic?

Which initial question was that? The only reason I ask is that I want to make sure you're lying to posture yourself before I try once again to explain it to you.

I'm still waiting, Prozak.

To me it seems possible that any political change is peaceful; if one side sees the other is serious, the threats don't need to be made.

Theoretically, yes. But the problem is that as it is, political change includes violent events and policies. While I'm all for peaceful political change, I don't see how taking two steps backward with no promise of progress equals forward movement.

But you're presenting a paradoxical notion. Harmonious division ranks up there with peaceful warfare and healing destruction.

America is one such place, but the only thing serious here is the moneyed interests.

Indeed. Sad, ain't it?

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[prozak]

"But the problem is that as it is, political change includes violent events and policies. While I'm all for peaceful political change, I don't see how taking two steps backward with no promise of progress equals forward movement. "

1. There is no reason to indicate that ethnic exclusion is a step backward, unless you're a "minority" who perceives himself as disadvantaged.
2. Whether political peaceful change is impossible or not is another topic.

My initial question stands.

 

[spookz]

why not have it sit here

 

[Tiassa]

The Night of Peacefully Broken Glass?

1. There is no reason to indicate that ethnic exclusion is a step backward, unless you're a "minority" who perceives himself as disadvantaged.

Well, there is history, which clearly shows ethnic exclusion to be detrimental to the human endeavor. The lack of "peaceful" exclusion is a powerful testament to this fact.

So if the repeated failure of ethnic exclusion to offer progress is not a reason indicating the step backward taken to accommodate ethnic exclusion, I suppose you have a point.

If we except reality from the situation, you've got a dandy position there, Prozak.

Whether political peaceful change is impossible or not is another topic.

It's also part of the present one, which debates the merits of peaceful ethnic exclusion. Who can debate the merits when none are in evidence?

To the other, then, why did you introduce the idea of the possibility of peaceful political change? Just to remind you:

• To me it seems possible that any political change is peaceful; if one side sees the other is serious, the threats don't need to be made.

If the possibility of peaceful political change is another topic entirely, why did you include it in this topic?

Look, I know life seems easier if your bigotries were to be officially accommodated, but the simple reality is that history demonstrates otherwise. Welome to reality, Prozak. Being human is not necessarily to be a spoiled, narrow-minded brat.

Nobody has shown the benefit of ethnic exclusion, peaceful or otherwise. Part of the reason for that is that history has never shown ethnic exclusion to be beneficial. We do have a data sample to examine here. What can you offer that sheds new light on the situation?

Does it bother people to think that their great-great grandchildren might have darker skin than they do? What is the benefit achieved through segregation?

And that taps back to your original question directly:

• Why not allow ethnic exclusionism as occurred in Germany, if done peacefully?

Does that mean that as long as nobody is brawling in the streets, smashing up property, or sending millions to their unjust deaths, it's all okay? The property seizures? The forced relocations? Since "we're all adults"--as you put it--how would you go about explaining to someone that his or her skin color is the reason they should have to give up their home and move to a new one?

The answer to your question is that history demonstrates the detriment of ethnic exclusionism to the human endeavor.

In light of that, the question becomes Why strive for exclusion?

And now that we have gone circles, I feel obliged to ask if you have anything new to contribute to your own topic?

If so, let's hear it.

If not, give it some more thought. Something might still occur to you.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[prozak]

Re: The Night of Peacefully Broken Glass?

Originally posted by tiassa
Well, there is history, which clearly shows ethnic exclusion to be detrimental to the human endeavor.

"The human endeavor" is a recent creation. Previously groups kept to themselves and things like globalism and superpowers were far away

Ethnic exclusion means that we get to keep unique ethnicities, instead of breeding all of us into conformity.

 

[Tiassa]

Well, at least you said it.

"The human endeavor" is a recent creation. Previously groups kept to themselves and things like globalism and superpowers were far away

Not quite. Recognition of the human endeavor is a recent thing. The human endeavor itself, however, is merely the endeavor of all species: survival and perpetuity.

Ethnic exclusion means that we get to keep unique ethnicities, instead of breeding all of us into conformity.

I will let that stand as a testament to racism itself.

I'm as close to speechless as I get. I'm going to smoke a bowl and listen to some Yungchen Lhamo. Thanks much for the chuckle, man.

--Tiassa

 

[prozak]

"Ethnic exclusion means that we get to keep unique ethnicities, instead of breeding all of us into conformity."

You call this racism?

You're an idiot

Racism is preference of one race over another, in this case the preference that we all interbreed, lose our original cultures and traits, and become AVERAGED.

 

[Tiassa]

Would you turn down a screw just because she's the wrong color?

You're an idiot

Coming from a bigot, that hurts.

Really, you don't have anything better to say than that?

Racism is preference of one race over another, in this case the preference that we all interbreed, lose our original cultures and traits, and become AVERAGED.

Yes, you prefer your race so much more than others that you're hoping it's never diluted by some irresponsible choice of your children. Or something about like that.

Think about it, if you can: Race is that important to you.

Period.

Look at how much effort (well, there's not a whole lot of effort ....)

Okay, so look at how much time you're wasting advocating ethnic segregation while pretending it can be done peacefully and to human benefit while refusing to discuss the methods that could lead to that benefit.

And the whole point is apparently that you see other cultures as a step down? (I believe you used the word averaged as if it was a bad thing.)

Ethnicity is separate from cultural traditions. Cultural traditions can be undertaken voluntarily as one's own. Ethnicity, not so.

The question of cultural preservation is a difficult one. Especially if people decide to think like you and tie it to race. "Rap" should be a good indicator of that. While you do have good rap out there, for the most part it sucks regardless of what color your skin is. White teenagers with their arms crossed and their heads bobbing a la the angry Springer guest yelling, "Yo, yo! Lemme axe y'a kestchin!" look and sound about as stupid as their darker-skinned counterparts. Perhaps a little moreso but I do have a problem with the fact that we generally celebrate the low points of each others' cultures.

But I'm not about to stand around here and endorse your tantrum any longer. I've gotten an important piece of information from your responses and must act accordingly. If you don't have anything new or worthwhile to add to your own topic, I don't see any point in continuing. You've refused to propose a model just to show that what you're talking about is possible, and you've whined like a little child, and you've finally confessed that it's a sublimated supremacy motivating you to your racist advocacy. If you ever want to provide that model, we'll have something to talk about. However, the kind of stupidity you've started putting up makes me more than a little sick to my stomach and therefore I'm prone to bite people's heads off. As such, I will leave you to your festering bigotries until such time as you would like to transcend them.

If someone can play flamenco, I don't care where they're from. If someone can play Shostakovich, I'm not going to care about their skin color. If someone can sing Brian Wilson's high notes to "Good Vibrations" then I'm not about to require them to be light-skinned. For heaven's sake--would you turn down a fuck specifically because she was "the wrong color"? After all, you wouldn't want to take a chance at "Watering down" your genes.

,
Tiassa

 

[prozak]

"Yes, you prefer your race so much more than others that you're hoping it's never diluted by some irresponsible choice of your children. "

Race is important. It's a genetic record of the history of my people. And I have no desire to both adulterate myself and others for the social pretense that we're all equal. No individuals, races, groups, social classes, etc. are equal.

"Bigot" is your only defensive move; how weak. I'd think if you were *equal* you'd do more

 

[spookz]

prozak

race is important only if visible races having their provinces in ignited carbonaceous material, create a conflagration. having your genes record history is akin to having missiles of ligneous or porous consistency fracturing your osseous structure tho the appellations will eternally be benign. this in turn makes your desire merely one of neophyte serendpity.

"No individuals, races, groups, social classes, etc. are equal."

in that case can you explain why members of an avian species of identical plumage congregate? (a hint.....male cadavers are incapable of yielding testimony in an ethnically excluded planetoid)

ps: i notice your posts that coruscate with pultritude are truly odiferous.

 

[Tiassa]

At least you believe it.

Race is important. It's a genetic record of the history of my people. And I have no desire to both adulterate myself and others for the social pretense that we're all equal. No individuals, races, groups, social classes, etc. are equal.

Yes, that qualifies.

To be honest, I'm much more forgiving of someone's bigotries when I see that yes, they do believe these things. In that sense, you're less annoying than those who posture themselves as Libertarians in order to get some deconstructive exercise.

All people are "my" people. And when we find intelligent life off-planet, so shall they be.

It might be important to some people to be white or black or whatever, or French or German or Irish-Italian-Swedish-with-Cherokee-blood .... Viva Mexica! Sure, some might find their nationality and ethnicity important as an identity, but I'm a human being, and that is the most basic connection I have to anyone right now. I don't see how separating myself out for ideological infighting on the basis of ethnicity helps anything. Think of it this way, Prozak: racism is problematic when attentions given to ethnicity obscure the human processes. When someone's skin becomes more important than whether they are alive or dead, guilty or innocent, good or bad, intelligent or stupid, ad nauseam, it's time to ask a few questions about why ethnicity is so important.

History is history. The rest of it is just your paranoia and arrogance.

I don't understand how any human being can look life in the face and refuse to adapt or evolve. But maybe someday I will. I keep waiting for someone express it intelligibly. But, like God, a repeated failure by those who hold such ideas to properly justify them does not mean that justification doesn't exist. However, the general trend shows that intelligent racism doesn't exist because the processes that result in such an acute regard of ethnicity is born of ignorance.

Read some mtDNA studies, Prozak. You'll see that your genetic history is, indeed, recorded. And you'll find that you're not as pure or culturally distinct as you thought you were. And then (hopefully) you'll realize that what you're insisting on is that future history be written according to your prejudices. Heaven help you that your "superior" bloodline should be "adulterated".

The history of societal and cultural development is quite fascinating, especially after you stop looking to it solely for political justification.

--Tiassa

 

[prozak]

Re: At least you believe it.

Originally posted by tiassa
1 - All people are "my" people. And when we find intelligent life off-planet, so shall they be.

2 - Sure, some might find their nationality and ethnicity important as an identity, but I'm a human being, and that is the most basic connection I have to anyone right now.

3 - When someone's skin becomes more important than whether they are alive or dead, guilty or innocent, good or bad, intelligent or stupid, ad nauseam, it's time to ask a few questions about why ethnicity is so important.

4 - History is history. The rest of it is just your paranoia and arrogance.

5 - I don't understand how any human being can look life in the face and refuse to adapt or evolve. But maybe someday I will. I keep waiting for someone express it intelligibly.

6 - Read some mtDNA studies, Prozak. You'll see that your genetic history is, indeed, recorded. And you'll find that you're not as pure or culturally distinct as you thought you were.

1 - All people are my people, and yet my tribe are my people. In the same way the world is my family, but my immediate family is most important.

2 - Not as identity; as ethnic history and values passed on from generation to generation that are distinct in the world. This is why we refer to miscegenation as "norming."

Also, you made a grotesque logical fallacy in starting your argument from the perspective of others and then reverting to your own

3 - There is never a single basis of decision. Someone's skin != their race, also.

4 - History is history; your paranoia and arrogance, not to mention your desire for social status, is what propels you against race.

For you, to disprove race is to succeed; you don't care aobut the consequences.

5 - There is no "one course" of evolution; if you're arguing that, you're arguing FOR white supremacy. Not bright.

6 - Present me an mtDNA study that suggests race does not exist, without requiring semantic or political redefinitions on the part of the "scientists" involved. I've seen many (summaries of) studies claiming to disprove race and every single one makes this error.

I didn't call you a stupid nigger; you should have the same courtesy and stop trying to label my beliefs before they've even been expressed.

 

[Teri]

Late reply to John MacNeil

To John McNeil
Apologies for the late reply to your post. If you’re still keeping an interest in this thread, then let me concede, that when writing my own post, I did not even consider the Aboriginal culture or language. So, in answer to your reply to me – point taken. In current times, although racial harmony is still a long way off, efforts are being made to remedy the problems. I would hope students in school these days are taught about all the skeletons in the Australian historical closets. To be perfectly honest I can’t even remember being taught much about Aborigines at school; from what I do remember, back then, teachers spoke of them as if they were nuisances that had to be dealt with upon the arrival of the ‘great white race’. Also, very little was mentioned of the early white settlers being ‘convicts’.

My reply to Adam was a reaction from remembering how I felt when treated as an outsider in a suburb of my own country. But you’re right- who am I to say this is my country? And when you get down to it, my basic instincts really place me in a position where I would ask that question of everyone. It all boils down to ownership of the planet. But do humankind really own this planet? I think this topic has too many facets to argue about to the satisfaction of everyone. I’ve been skimming the exchanges above and know I don’t want to get involved because I believe it will prove to be as fruitless an endeavour as the ‘god/no god’ debate. One thing I know for sure is I do not agree with racial exclusion.
Cheers.
Teri

 

[Xev]

Prozak:

"Ethnic exclusion means that we get to keep unique ethnicities, instead of breeding all of us into conformity."

You think that if we were to drop the pc conformist bullshit about "my race is the human race" and "every man is my brother", we wouldn't have the current situation where nobody has any identity save what the dominent cultural paradigm feeds them?

I like it.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Prozak:

"Ethnic exclusion means that we get to keep unique ethnicities, instead of breeding all of us into conformity."

You call this racism?

You're an idiot

Racism is preference of one race over another, in this case the preference that we all interbreed, lose our original cultures and traits, and become AVERAGED.

If AVERAGED sounds so bad to you, it must mean that you presently consider yourself above average, right? So, you have preferenceage of one race over another, right? So, you advocate racism, right?

And this is the reason I have asked you if YOU were ready to be the one to be relocated, because that might have proved you were not a racist. But no, what you want is to have the other, inferiour people, chucked out.

By ethnic, do you mean race, culture, or both? Is a black person whose family has lived for 4 generations in the USA an American?

Is a 10'th generation Englishman who has converted to Islam still an Englishman? Not easy, ehh?

All that said its an idiotic myth that ethnic diversity will disappear if we dont segregate races and cultures. Races and cultures have lived side by side all through history (sometimes peacefully, sometimes not), but differences persist. All cultures change, pick up things from other cultures, reject other things, we are not living in museums, and why should we?

Part of my culture is better than yours, part is worse -- and vice versa. Why shouldnt we learn from each other?

Actually, I like ethnic diversity. For example, my hairdresser is white, and she's a very nice person.

Hans

 

[Tiassa]

Is there a topic left? Hello?

Prozak

• 1 - All people are my people, and yet my tribe are my people. In the same way the world is my family, but my immediate family is most important. Does skin color change your regard for your family? Does an ethnic mix in, say, a grandchild or a nephew or niece actually lower your regard for that member of your family?

• 2 - Not as identity; as ethnic history and values passed on from generation to generation that are distinct in the world. This is why we refer to miscegenation as "norming." And a merry Christmas to you. And also a happy Hannukah. And a solemn and dignified Ramadan. And a kwaaaazy Kwanzaa. I have never heard of miscegenation being referred to as "norming". Is that a term from an Aryan Nations newsletter? Seriously, where does it come from?

• Also, you made a grotesque logical fallacy in starting your argument from the perspective of others and then reverting to your own. Actually, one of the things I do that really annoys people is to accept their arguments at face value and apply them as broadly as they would need to be applied in order to have any integrity. Most people don't think that far ahead, so it's kind of embarrassing for them when they realize they're contributing to Armageddon.

• 3 - There is never a single basis of decision. Someone's skin != their race, also. But what business has race being that important a criteria? A good person is a good person is a good person. A bad person is a bad person and hopefully might someday become good. But they come in all colors, all races, all ethnicities, all nationalities.

• 4 - History is history; your paranoia and arrogance, not to mention your desire for social status, is what propels you against race. What, aside from the selfish exploitation thereof, have I against race?

• For you, to disprove race is to succeed; you don't care aobut the consequences. I'll leave that one for you to explain when you're able.

• 5 - There is no "one course" of evolution; if you're arguing that, you're arguing FOR white supremacy. Not bright. Don't reach so far, you might pull a groin. Let's start with life: if the races were not meant to interbreed, they would not be capable of doing so. Perhaps we should look at society? Cooperative efforts have always accomplished better ends than combative efforts. Harmony leads to prosperity. Conflict only leads to destruction. If a species disappears because of its faults, it's still evolution.

• 6 - Present me an mtDNA study that suggests race does not exist, without requiring semantic or political redefinitions on the part of the "scientists" involved. I've seen many (summaries of) studies claiming to disprove race and every single one makes this error. Why would I do that? You asserted: Race is important. It's a genetic record of the history of my people. And I have no desire to both adulterate myself and others for the social pretense that we're all equal. History is history, Prozak. If you choose to think more or less of a human being based on their color, that's your own paranoia and arrogance. In the meantime, read some mtDNA studies. I don't care which. Try the ones examining common haplogroups in Asian and Native American cultures. There's even the insertion of a European-looking "X" haplogroup in the last five-thousand years, which is important to me toward other historical considerations (pre-Columbian trans-Atlantic activity). But you'll find, just by looking around in the field, that you're quite closely related to those you wouldn't want "adulterating" your bloodline.

• I didn't call you a stupid nigger; you should have the same courtesy and stop trying to label my beliefs before they've even been expressed. What the hell are you talking about? Are you mixing up topics? Were you referring to a different Tom Metzger? Are you arguing the topic, or arguing against me?

I believe the word "sloppy" has come into the topic before?

I don't mind that you used the word, but I would have thought you would put better effort into not being sloppy.

sigh,
Tiassa

 

[Squid Vicious]

Originally posted by Xev
You think that if we were to drop the pc conformist bullshit about "my race is the human race" and "every man is my brother", we wouldn't have the current situation where nobody has any identity save what the dominent cultural paradigm feeds them?

I like it.

I don't. While presently we're being force fed the "my race is the human race" crap, if we segregate along ethnic lines it will be replaced with the previous "my race is this race" crap.

It doesn't matter whether we divide along ethnic lines or not, people are still going to buy whatever they're sold. Instead of universal sheep, we have ethnically divided sheep. How is this beneficial or desirable? In fact, giving someone a more reinforced identity will only retard growth, not be a catalyst for it.