You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: How Identity Politics & Facebook Are Used As Weapons of Mass Control & Social Engineering. Plus, Exposing Trump's Obvious Corruption and Billionaire Backers. (Richard D. Hall's Interview with Neil Sanders).

in #politics7 years ago (edited)

We appear to share consensus on things such as the world is run by often evil and unscrupulous people who do not have the interests of the rest of the planet at heart, on issues like natural health, false flag terror, wars in the middle east, the military industrial complex, government overreach and corruption, etc.

But on the biological nature of Man, race in particular, we differ 180 degrees.

You are open to various theories that go against mainstream thinking when it comes to the issues mentioned in the first paragraph, but on race you appear to be guided more by an inner, spiritual or religious conviction that equality exists, race doesn't, and we can 'all get along if we try'. If you search for 'equality', as for morality, ethics, and human rights, these only exist in the abstract, no molecule in the physical universe around us contains them.

There is plenty of research out there from well meaning and reasonable voices that talks about race being, contrary to your thesis, quite real and more than skin deep. This might include IQ testing (book: The Bell Curve, and others), academic achievement, looking at the history of one race as opposed to another, observing behaviour, health and resistance to certain illnesses, testosterone levels, and crime statistics. The research goes into the reasoning behind it, and if you accept the theory of evolution, it makes sense.

I once sent a sample of my saliva to a company over in the US and a few weeks later they told me with pretty good accuracy what my ethnic origins are - hence race can't be an artificial construct like you suggest. It can also be determined from bone fragments. Breeds of dogs are also different in the way they behave based on their genetic inheritance. Race is somewhat like an extended family. Just as we pass our legacies down our bloodline, similar goes for ethnic groups as a whole, hence a nation can exist over a thousand years. There is also the notion of racial soul, there is an Indian author living in Canada called Frank Raymond who observes a uniqueness in the racial soul of whites in particular.

The vast majority of nation states in the world are generally seen as ethnically based, and this carries meaning for people. In past eras it would have been more like a tribe within certain geographic boundaries, but the idea is the same.

There has also been research showing loss of trust and willingness to redistribute wealth in multicultural societies (Putnam), and similar research by Dr Frank Salter.

You not only deny biological race, but at the start of your reply you deny culture as well, in West vs East. There is certainly a meaningful distinction between Occidental and Oriental thought, philosophy, religion, music, art, and culture, and has been throughout history. I do not understand why this is even a problem. We are not infinitely malleable as you (and the Marxists for that matter) suggest. If that were the case, surely all foreign cultures coming to the West would assimilate within a generation without any friction or effort - as social pressures would incentivise becoming just like the parent culture. And it not only goes for race, but personality type. After reading Susan Cain's 'Quiet' I could see how ingrained introversion / extroversion is, how it is a survival strategy that would have developed in our human and non-human ancestors over millions of years. She mentions an experiment where introverts showed they prefer the company of other introverts, but also of extroverts showing preference for boisterous and competitive behaviour in others while playing sport - they prefer other extroverts like themselves, as they can understand them better.

If you had to go to prison and be forced to survive amongst other inmates of another race that hated yours, do you could win them over with talk alone? Do you seriously think that if you taught your ideas to ghetto blacks that their crime rate would drop to be proportional to their share of the US population, or get Zionist Jews to live in peace with the Palestinians, or Wahhabi Muslims to adopt a peaceful Islam, stop the Rwandan genocide, get the Croats, Serbs and Bosnians to live in one state again, etc?

I certainly wouldn't be naive enough to state I don't have any fears. Love and fear are both fundamental parts of being human. Would you not fear the children of the world being vaccinated? And again, 'it is unwise to make decisions in a state of fear, better options exist' - this is a vague statement. How? My politics may have an element of fear, as do all, but it was forged over years, not knee-jerk as you suggest.

At one point does your biology denying stop? Gender? Sexual preference? No innately evil (no psychopathy in other words) people or kind people? Animal and human? Animal and plant?

And contrary to what my ideological opponents claim, so called 'racism' or 'bigotry' does not make one angry. It is the bottling up of those emotions by telling people the lie that we're all equal and all cultures and religions are basically the same. Some years ago after observing the world and realising that no, there are deep and innate differences between cultures and some religions act more like tools of warfare, I stopped being a 'liberal' and politically correct, and there was a lot of anger for a time. Then I began to understand the world the way it actually is, and keep making observations, and I became calmer and I believe more fulfilled. Once you accept how life is, life makes sense - and what better way to self knowledge than understanding our own racial heritage and what it all means, how we fit into the world, and how others we meet fit into the world. Granted, it's not everything - but it's something, and those who wish to explore it should not be discouraged from doing so.

I believe there are many good reasons to follow the Alt-Right, as whites are being denied a healthy sense of nationalism that other races take for granted in their countries. And non-white immigration (which we never voted for) will inevitably undermine the racial and cultural heritage of the US, Britain, France, Australia, etc, given enough generations unless something is done. If the Japanese, Indians or Chinese have the right to continue their cultural heritage, then so do we, why should we agree to have that moral right denied us?

I still have not seen the videos, but I take it their refer, erroneously to Infowars and Breitbart as 'Alt-Right'. Anyone that knows anything about the Alt-Right knows that Richard Spencer (he runs Radix Journal website) exemplifies the Alt-Right, with others such as American Renaissance, VDare and Occidental Observer also providing contributing views.

On the contrary, it does convey meaning to make generalisations, or judgements, however you want to put it. Broadly speaking, modern National Socialist types in the US context at least (Renegade Broadcasting), make a particular point of being against the Alt-Right, and they cite homosexuality, being as they see it, accepting degeneracy, being the main reason. But the media, and by that I mean 'mainstream' media (sometimes I get lazy) certainly refer to the Alt-Right as 'Nazis', and always bring up some sort of comparison to Hitler.

So again, your approach to truth appears to me not to be objective, surely if you put as much research into this topic I raised above you would surely have to acknowledge race is more than skin deep at the very least, and it has implications for how we live life on this planet. You seem very convinced when it comes to vaccines being more harm than good, but the evidence there isn't absolute either, you have a good case, but there are no absolutes.

As they say, 'the truth fears no investigation'.