Question for the race supremacists...

Post Reply New Topic

endogamy (marriage within community/family), purdah of women etc is common throughout the middle-east/India and so the video you posted is hardly news. it's cultural not religious (i.e. inbreeding in islam is misleading).

As a tangent I got to ask Lawrence Krauss a question on his Reddit AMA and he responded.

I basically asked him what he thinks the impact of extreme inequality will have on scientific development. He said he worries we are regressing to a social model we had centuries ago where technological and scientific progress is owned by the elite and used to enhance their station in society while most of society struggles to receive benefits from this progress.

I've watched his "Universe from Nothing" lecture many times, although it is old at this point. Fascinating stuff...

You have an unusual discussion style.
It's like trying to plug holes in a dike.
Every time one thinks one has got it covered, another one develops.

I am aware of the need to differentiate between religion and culture.
But there is an intertwining of the two here.
The tradition of marrying first cousins was inspired by their prophet Muhammad who did just that, based on what was said in the video.

Christianity also influenced western culture.
Could you give me an example where the predominant religion in any country hasn't affected its culture?

Regarding: "...so the video you posted is hardly news."
Could you point out to me where I gave the impression I was presenting new...errr...news?
You mean by my warning about how the video is confronting?
If so, you are missing the point.
We "all" know about beheading videos, for example, but viewing the imagery is very different from knowing about the practice.
I have never watched such a video, nor do I have any intention to do so since I don't need that sort of experience affecting the rest of my life.

Also, what is the motivation of your comment?
It seems to me that your intention is to diminish my authority on the subject.

Let me make this clear: I am not the Messiah.
"Read my lips": This is "work in progress" for me, not a summary of vast experience and research.
Does that make things better?

Oh, oh...
And I avoid debates almost all of the time.
I am interested in discussion, not debates.
I am interested in investigative...errr...investigation on the subject.
I am interested in a rational, objective exploration.
I am not interested in making a political point.
And I am not interested in scoring debating points.

Pax.

Racial concepts had been codified by other groups long before that. Try the Indian caste system for instance. Or even better, try the Old Testament, which sets out various rules to prevent God's chosen people from mixing with the goyim with the promise that one day they (the Israelites) will rule over them.

I doubt there are very many people at all who do actually try to rank races in terms of who's better, and the idea that there are is more down to the media simplifying and sensationalizing things. What does the concept even mean? Better at what?



I don't really understand what people find so baffling about the Nazis. Most of human history involves groups trying to maintain control of territory and gain control of new territory, and taboos against intermarriage have been common in many cultures too.

LOL! I never thought I came across like that..well what do you know I'll quit being a dick (for now)

re: the Indians their caste system is not based on "race", it's a class system coded on occupation - ask any Indian....

re: the eternal Jew - now lets not entertain anti-Semitic notions shall we

I let this comment slide a few pages back because correcting it is not that relevent, but since the discussion has been re-opened, racism was not needed to justify any of those things in the 1500s (you're perhaps thinking of the 1800s race scientists arguing these points, or modern racists justifying European history when frankly no justification of European history is needed).

i) put themselves on top -literally done by every conquering society ever.

ii) justify conversion of the heathen- not as universal but consistent with many religions over the years. Christians were trying to convert the conquered as far back as the 4th century and Muslims had been doing it since the inception of the religion.

iii)justify slavery -Again no justification was needed the the 16th century. Slavery was a widely accepted institution across many many cultures. It was only later as the enlightenment took hold that it was considered a barbaric practice.

iv) justify colonization- again gold and money was the only justification needed in the 16th century.

v) justify making up stories of manifest destiny- nothing new, many considered their peoples to be the special or "chosen ones"

So if someone brings up a point, you automatically assume the worst?
You have a history of this sort of behaviour, behaviour seemingly designed to stifle free discussion.

Could I suggest you try and be objective and see life through an impartial POV?
Virtue signalling is not needed here.
And personally speaking, it isn't wanted.

What you are doing is weaponising Political Correctness, with the seeming intention to intimidate.
It is a sign of a desire to control, or as Nietzche would say: a "Will to power."
And that attempt to dominate others is *NOT* a virtue.

Read my lips:
You are not the arbiter of morality here.
I am.

Regarding what you consider an offensive comment: "Or even better, try the Old Testament, which sets out various rules to prevent God's chosen people from mixing with the goyim with the promise that one day they (the Israelites) will rule over them."

The Jewish philosophy did, in fact, have a genetic isolationist policy, which is interesting now when you consider that very few "original" Jews are in existence.
It was difficult to join the Jewish community, and still is, presumably, with orthodox Jews, and much more difficult if one's mother was not Jewish.
I.E. Proof of genetic Judaism through the mother at least.
Though seemingly rare, some Jews to this day will not accept a child as being Jewish if the Mother wasn't.
I know this through personal experience.

Objectively speaking, (I'll give the definition of being objective below) , the original Jewish philosophical structure can be seen as elitist, "The chose people" is certainly an indication of this.

Question:
How is stating the facts antisemitic?
The presentation of slam_thunderhide obviously tickled your seemingly involuntary virtue-signalling nerve, but, in essence, what he said was part of the cultural emphasis at one time in Jewish history.
Perhaps he should have explicitly qualified the time context in which he spoke?
Though he did indicate it was the Old Testament with a not unreasonable assumption that time would have mitigated Jewish philosophical doctrine.
Personally, I think the issue is with you. <shrug>

Now the question is: Does he truly embrace antisemitic sentiment?
I didn't jump to that conclusion, but you strongly suggested via bringing up the matter, that it had a significant place in your thinking/mindset.
Perhaps you were simply warning others with your ferociously shaking virtue-signalling finger. <shrug>
Perhaps you were simply being diplomatic in the way you approached the subject with him in particular, but I know from personal experience how intimidatory an off-the-cuff remark of this sort can be.

Now that you know how you might be negatively influencing some people in the discussion, could you please be more circumspect in your moral assessment/presence?
After all, your speculation has been shown to have been false a number of times in my case, at least.
And It does nothing for the discussion at hand apart from stifling free discussion.

Also consider: Most people understand where the line is drawn in regards to racist commentary.
I found your intrusion unnecessary and self-gratifying, something which should be done in the privacy of your own home.

<pomposity mode maintained in a holding pattern>

Pax.

Yeah but they;
i) Did all your points 1) through to v)
ii) They did it well (particularly good at mass killing)
iii) once colonial empire was established they tried to re-write history in a flattering light glossing over all the nasty bits

Actually my intention is the opposite...I want to get people to think about what they are typing. You claim my posts are an "intrusion" which means you are trying to stifle my own right to free speech on this forum??

Perhaps you should take a dose of the same medicine you are prescribing to me...

I have never stopped anyone from expressing themselves, perhaps you should practice what you preach

Cyberdad is wrong about India. See below

"When you can't refute the message, attack the messenger's character." -- Attributed to Machiavelli

It's almost impossible to conclude the origin of caste given the time frame that has passed. The Indian government itself has rejected this notion (just google it). The codification of caste was/is largely based on occupation and attempts to demonstrate genetic differences ignore historical demographic shifts within communities, caste mobility and endogamy.

The caste system was based on hierarchial notions pertaining to social class.

Basically, most of the people under it were of the "Indian" race, though many ethnic groups were represented.

Exactly, my wife told me that within social classes there are a mosaic of races/ethnicities so it's nonsense to equate a particular caste with one ethnic/racial group

Caste is more equivalent to "class" and is evil in that lower classes have been kept downtrodden which is why the Indian government is attempting to remove it.