Why Are You A Racialist? Or Why Aren't you a Racialist?

As for me I am a Racialist. I am a Racialist because I know the value of my Race and want to Preserve it.

I am not a racialist. I am a philosopher. It is my most adament belief that no biological phenomena of any sort will reconcile the European community. On this premise I reject racialism and the entire discourse on race.

Some races on average are more beautiful and intelligent than others.

http://mi.bpcdn.us/fivefoot8blonde/baby.jpg

http://vidar.gimp.org/pi/blackbaby.jpg

http://www.allfunbear.com/teddypo/img/blackbabywithteddybear.jpg



So call me a racist, but the first child is superior to the rest.

I am not a racialist because it quite simply has never interested me.

It it of one of my opinions that a society with certain ethno-cultural demographic cores are superior to multicultural societies or societies with other demographic cores. As an example, I think old California is superior to Mexifornia, old Vancouver superior to Hongcouver, and old Britain superior to New Britain. The social experiment of unabated mass immigration and multiculturalism failed to create a society that I desire.

While I am friend or foe to certain "isms", I am reluctant to pigeonhole my entire worldview into one based on a fraction of the opinions I have.

Good answer, Caesar.

How about this: I know what I like and what I don't like, and those of us with the same likes and dislikes marry the same sort of people, live in the same types of neighborhoods, go to the same types of churches, and have friends and co-workers who generally look like us. :D

Someone define 'racialist' please; then I will answer question. I have called myself racialist in past, but I have noticed that people sometimes use the word in a sense differing from that sense in which I am wont to use the word. I would call myself a racialist, in the sense that I acknowledge racial differences and the importance of them, and in the sense that certain policies should be based on racial considerations. Hm, I suppose I did answer the question.

EYTYXEITE!
Dear Fellows, of course I'm a racialist for scientific and humanitarian reasons: this way enables us to improve Humanity!
The only matter is to keep our respect before other until to achieve the best result! No hate is acceptable, no evil aspect for the opposite. Science has to work hard in order to correct in future any Human-DNA falsification... No racism, at all!! Let racism be the "fingertip" of Jewish foreign "...policy"!

Its always the little things for me: having some Negro pull up next to me at a red light in a beat up up car with the music blasting MUTHA****A MUTHA****A MUTH****A, seeing spics in dirty clothes at the gas station buying beer and speaking in Spanish, turning on the television and rolling my eyes at the presidential debates, seeing the President celebrate Kwanzaa and Cinco de Mayo at the White House, living in a society without real communities (in which most people are total strangers to each other), seeing whiggers and white trash all the time (listening to Eminem rap about beating up women), driving uptown and seeing Mexican restaurants next to Chinese restauarants next to McDonald's and Walmart (living in a cultural vacuum), seeing billboards everywhere advertising worthless products no one needs, hearing about some kid kill other students at his school after taking his own life, being told by hypocritical Jews to hate myself and my own culture, being constantly told that ugliness is beautiful, being aware of all the lies that are repeated in mainstream culture (especially in the media), turning on the televitz and seeing "Breaking News" everytime a Jew breaks a fingernail, being told that democracy is the greatest form of government ever when I know my vote is utterly worthless and my government hates my guts. So I ask myself: what is so great about living in a place like this? What loyalty should I have to such a society? Is this the kind of society I want to leave to my descendants?

What exactly is a "racialist," N_P? Your definition of the term would be helpful, at least for me.

My definition -- a probably imperfect one -- runs as follows:

(1) A recognition that race exists,and that individuals can be separated fairly easily on that basis.

(2) A belief that each race is somehow better apart, to some degree or other. There appears to be some elasticity here, as it has never been quite clear to me how far the races are supposed to separate.

(3) That members of each race somehow feel a greater "affinity" (if that is the correct term?) with members of their respective race, and will automatically have an opposite reaction when confronted those NOT of their race. Also, that in the absence of some sort of re-education, this sense of positive and negative affinity is close to automatic.

I hesitate to assign a belief in the superiority of their race over all others to the "average" racialist, although that may also be the case.

In any event, assuming my definition is within spitting distance of being correct, nope, I'm not. Not a racialist.

Why not? (*Deep breath.*)

I do consider the culture created in Europe, by Europeans, say from the period of 1200 through 1850 CE (to pick two rather arbitrary dates), superior to that of any culture created anywhere else in human history, by any other group. Doubtless saying that would earn me chemical castration or a tarring and feathering at many of the more liberal universities in the USA, but I would say it is not likely to make a me a "racialist" in your eyes. I feel much more "affinity" (again, if that is the proper term) to those that I think reflect the best of western culture, whatever their racial or ethnic background.

Perhaps an example of where I'm going with this would be helpful? Recently someone (I think Vanessa) posted a series of pictures of truly pathetic creatures affiliated with some sort of "Rebel Army." Not only do I honestly "see" no connection between myself and any of them, I would be actively hostile to being lumped into any sort of category with them, on just about any level I can think of. And, as best I can tell they were all of "racially pure" European stock. Perhaps one of their ancestors was there at the creation the Magna Carta or sailed with Hudson. Or helped build cathedrals. I don't know. However, I do know that I've seldom seen such a group of sad sacks with buck teeth, cross eyes and Vince Gill t-shirts. I wouldn't trust any of them to change the oil in my car or mow my lawn.

Now, let's contrast this with an Asian like Yo Yo Ma, probably the greatest living cellist. Why should I NOT want him in my society? Doesn't someone like this generally raise, rather that lower, the general cultural level? Simply because he has sloping eyes and yellow skin? This strikes me as prima facie absurd. Why shouldn't it? Also, although I admit I know next to nothing about classical music, my friends tell me that perhaps the best version of Beehthoven's Ninth is conducted by Victor Klemperer, who was either a full-blooded Jew or perhaps a half-Jew, I forget which. Why should I write off buying this CD , simply based upon his ethnic make-up? Wouldn't our society potentially be poorer in the absence of such music? I say "potentially" because I have not yet picked up a copy to judge for myself.

Hmph. This went on for a bit longer than I planned. In any event, I guess you'd have to say I'm "Eurocentric" on a cultural level, but that I recognize no automatic connection with others based upon race. Conversely, I also see no reason to automatically separate from others on that basis. Doubtless there ARE some people who would see me as a racist, racialist or at least as some sort of close-minded bigot, but I don't put myself in that category. Perhaps I aspire to elitism, but that would be a different thread altogether.

Well, one does have to admit that many Asians and part-Asians are more aesthetically pleasing than negroes....

As if that weren't the understatement of the millennium.

http://www.uesweb.com/gallery/rumiko3/img/2340-24.jpg

http://www.filenote.com/redir/19642.jpg

I can understand Patrick's point but I disagree with it to an extent. Allow me to explain. For me, its not simply good enough to be of a certain racial background. I fully acknowledge the existence of white degenerates. As Dr. Brandt (the philosopher) put it: there are subhumans within every race. Unlike Nordhammer, I do not believe being of any certain race gives one some inate value. Few things disgust me more than to see such individuals (as Patrick described above) become racial chauvinists and inflate their own egos with an artificial sense of superiority. I am not out to preserve (much less fight for) the whiggers, white trash, anti-whites, miscegenators and the rest of their ilk who hate my guts. These people shall not exist to sully my ideal! Upstanding people of other races are obviously superior to ilk such as that.

For me, culture is as just as important, if not more important, than race. I place enormous value upon culture: which is precisely why I am so hostile to the existing political system, which in my view, has thoroughly vulgarized and lowered the quality of our culture by commoditizing art. It is my entire goal to escape the sort of cultural vacuum we currently live in. Likewise, I fully acknowledge the existence of racial differences. Its important to point out that these differences are averages, not absolutes. Obviously, there is quite a degree of variance within any race. I fully acknowledge that. There is no more equality within race than there is between races.

So I suppose I am more of a racialist than a racist. Actually, I do not really consider myself to be a racist at all, as races for me are simply different, not necessarily superior or inferior to each other. Likewise, it is the difference that exists across cultures that strikes me, not really any question of biological superiority/inferiority, as I am not an objectivist anyway. Unlike Patrick, however, I would still suggest that talented members of other races be excluded from our polity. Even if such individuals did make a worthwhile contribution to our society, there is no guarantee that their descendants would. Likewise, multiracial societies are factional societies. As a racial communitarian, my political ideal is that of a homogeneous society composed of stronger, united, highly connected communities which are in turn composed of smart and beautiful individuals. I place a premium upon social cohesion and the fellow feeling that in my view has been lost in individualized societies such as our own. Multiracialism and multiculturalism are incompatible with that. Perhaps this makes me more of a xenophobe than a racist. :/

I agree with Ixabert's definition of racialism. Also I think races can be categorized as physically/mentally progressive & creative; stagnant; or retrogressive & destructive - in general, without considering anomalous individuals. I believe those in the latter two categories are "inferior" to those in the former, but inferiority/superiority is not a necessary part of racialism. It is problematic to hold the whole world to 'Western standards' and enforce it with international policing organizations. The world would be better off if various racial/cultural groups were completely unhindered by one another and allowed to develop according to their own standards and wishes - this worked for tens of thousands of years. I consider the creation of multiracial societies (especially those in which one race dominates another), the practice of race-based slavery, and all forms of imperialism to be anti-racialist.

I can understand Patrick's point but I disagree with it to an extent. Allow me to explain. For me, its not simply good enough to be of a certain racial background. I fully acknowledge the existence of white degenerates. As Dr. Brandt (the philosopher) put it: there are subhumans within every race. Unlike Nordhammer, I do not believe being of any certain race gives one some inate value. Few things disgust me more than to see such individuals (as Patrick described above) become racial chauvinists and inflate their own egos with an artificial sense of superiority. I am not out to preserve (much less fight for) the whiggers, white trash, anti-whites, miscegenators and the rest of their ilk who hate my guts. These people shall not exist to sully my ideal! Upstanding people of other races are obviously superior to ilk such as that.

For me, culture is as just as important, if not more important, than race. I place enormous value upon culture: which is precisely why I am so hostile to the existing political system, which in my view, has thoroughly vulgarized and lowered the quality of our culture by commoditizing art. It is my entire goal to escape the sort of cultural vacuum we currently live in. Likewise, I fully acknowledge the existence of racial differences. Its important to point out that these differences are averages, not absolutes. Obviously, there is quite a degree of variance within any race. I fully acknowledge that. There is no more equality within race than there is between races.

So I suppose I am more of a racialist than a racist. Actually, I do not really consider myself to be a racist at all, as races for me are simply different, not necessarily superior or inferior to each other. Likewise, it is the difference that exists across cultures that strikes me, not really any question of biological superiority/inferiority, as I am not an objectivist anyway. Unlike Patrick, however, I would still suggest that talented members of other races be excluded from our polity. Even if such individuals did make a worthwhile contribution to our society, there is no guarantee that their descendants would. Likewise, multiracial societies are factional societies. As a racial communitarian, my political ideal is that of a homogeneous society composed of stronger, united, highly connected communities which are in turn composed of smart and beautiful individuals. I place a premium upon social cohesion and the fellow feeling that in my view has been lost in individualized societies such as our own. Multiracialism and multiculturalism are incompatible with that. Perhaps this makes me more of a xenophobe than a racist. :/


The way I see it there is Innate Value in being White. The Value is that other Whites naturally identify you as an extension of themselves being part of the same Family/Tribe/Clan ect. I believe what you refer to as Degenerate Whites can often times be reformed.
I also believe in order to to seperate ourselves from other Races there must be a certain belief in Our Superiority. Why Seperate and Preserve our Race when it is on the same Level as all the other Races?

I agree with Ixabert's definition of racialism. Also I think races can be categorized as physically/mentally progressive & creative; stagnant; or retrogressive & destructive - in general, without considering anomalous individuals. I believe those in the latter two categories are "inferior" to those in the former, but inferiority/superiority is not a necessary part of racialism. It is problematic to hold the whole world to 'Western standards' and enforce it with international policing organizations. The world would be better off if various racial/cultural groups were completely unhindered by one another and allowed to develop according to their own standards and wishes - this worked for tens of thousands of years. I consider the creation of multiracial societies (especially those in which one race dominates another), the practice of race-based slavery, and all forms of imperialism to be anti-racialist.

For me Racism has more to do with a feeling of Affinity and Solidarity with members of my Race and not neccearily a Matter of Superiority/Inferiority. After all to each his own is best.

The way I see it "Multiculturalism" is just a by product of our Technology.
I find your view that the Nations should be able to develop according to their own standards and wishes without "Outside" influence quite Idealistic but practically impossible.

Don't you think it's natural that the Race with the Predonderance of Numbers should be Dominate over the rest? As this is the Case in America though perhaps not the America of the future.


How is Imperialism not Racist? Before Imperialism Racism didn't even exist.

Why I am not a white supremacist can be found here (http://www.thephora.org/forumdisplay.php?f=241).

For me, culture is as just as important, if not more important, than race. I place enormous value upon culture: which is precisely why I am so hostile to the existing political system, which in my view, has thoroughly vulgarized and lowered the quality of our culture by commoditizing art. It is my entire goal to escape the sort of cultural vacuum we currently live in. Likewise, I fully acknowledge the existence of racial differences. Its important to point out that these differences are averages, not absolutes. Obviously, there is quite a degree of variance within any race. I fully acknowledge that. There is no more equality within race than there is between races.



The two (race and culture) do indeed go hand in hand. I don't think too many people, even the antiracists, will deny that there is such a thing as "European culture" or "african culture" or "asian culture" or whatever other type of culture that you want to look at.

Yet preserving culture is not enough... suppose all Whites die off or are mongrelized, but somehow a large chunk of our culture survived. If all of the non-whites and other assorted halfbreeds adhere to European culture, (don't laugh, for the sake of discussion let's assume it could happen) would it be the same? I don't think so. It would make no more sense to have some african bushmen acting European that it does to have millions of White teenagers acting like negro thugs.

::The two (race and culture) do indeed go hand in hand.

Yes. I cannot emphasize this point enough. The current situation of racial decadence is only a symptom of a much deeper cultural failing that manifests itself in other areas. So racial separatism will accomplish nothing unless this underlying cultural problem is first dealt with.

::I don't think too many people, even the antiracists, will deny that there is such a thing as "European culture" or "african culture" or "asian culture" or whatever other type of culture that you want to look at.

The funniest thing I find about this particular anti-racist approach is how anti-racists assert over and over again the importance of culture on the one hand, yet on the other deny the existence of such cultural differences in the name of humanism.

::Yet preserving culture is not enough... suppose all Whites die off or are mongrelized, but somehow a large chunk of our culture survived.

And why would whites let themselves die off in the first place? Why would whites allow themselves to be replaced by others? Why is miscegenation tolerated today whereas it wasn't a few decades ago? How is any of this possible, if its merely genes that determine behaviour? Very simple. There has been a cultural change that has changed racial attitudes. So this brings me to the point I made earlier. Any solution to the race problem must necessarily begin at the cultural level.

::If all of the non-whites and other assorted halfbreeds adhere to European culture, (don't laugh, for the sake of discussion let's assume it could happen) would it be the same? I don't think so.

I don't believe anyone here denies the importance of racial differences. The pertinent point that I am making is that solving the race problem necessarily depends upon solving the much deeper cultural problem that has paralyzed Western Europe and the colonies.

::It would make no more sense to have some african bushmen acting European that it does to have millions of White teenagers acting like negro thugs

I am not in favour of attempting to 'assimilate' such races. Several hundred years of experience demonstrates to me that is a path to failure.

And why would whites let themselves die off in the first place? Why would whites allow themselves to be replaced by others? Why is miscegenation tolerated today whereas it wasn't a few decades ago? How is any of this possible, if its merely genes that determine behaviour? Very simple. There has been a cultural change that has changed racial attitudes. So this brings me to the point I made earlier. Any solution to the race problem must necessarily begin at the cultural level.


We're coming at the same point from different sides. We need to get the sense of racialism back in our culture, of course. It doesn't make any sense to have one without the other.