..............

To me, the evidence indicates that the White race is more intelligent, creative and inventive than the other races, however...Maybe certain other races.it still wouldn't change the fact that nature/god created separate races for a reason,Baseless, unfounded assumption.and I don't think it is right to destroy what nature/god has created. Why?Similarly, I don't think nature/god created the multiple subraces of humans just so we could go and destroy what he/she/it created.You don't believe in evolution?I believe that White people are a unique creation of nature, so whether we are superior, equal or inferior to other races, doesn't change the fact that we believe we have the right to self-preservation and self-determination.

We feel that these rights are currently being denied to us in the form of denied living space, a government not of our own kind, and an extended psychological war against our self-concept and self-esteem as a people.

I don't think anyone can claim that this is fair.

Even if we were inferior, we would still love our race and believe we had the right to self-preservation and self-determination.I agree entirely.So, my question is, is proving our inherent superiority even crucial to our cause, or is it just one more abstract trap that our enemies have encouraged us to step into, to cast us in the most 'hateful' light possible?We put much care into improving our dogs through artificial selection, yet we neglect our own race. Why? I think it is stupidity. As Fade pointed out, it is a prejudice we have inherited from Christianity - the belief that we are somehow above all other creatures.

BTW, improving the race would rather contradict what you said above about "changing God's creations".

ErikD said: "So, my question is, is proving our inherent superiority even crucial to our cause..." I believe it is.

Just as with any animal species, some are considered "more valuable" to mankind than others, and, as a result, will receive more attention from us in the way of government funding to preserve their numbers, the aid of conservationists and wildlife scientists, and the sympathy of the media. For instance, if mankind could either save the rat or the tiger from extinction - but not both - it would be kiss-your-ass-goodbye to the rat.

Likewise, the white race is presently an endangered "animal", but whether the world at large wishes to preserve him from extinction will depend upon whether the white man is considered "unique" enough and "valuable" enough to do so. Now, if it turned out that the white race was indeed "inferior" to other races (which would be a de facto admission that other races are superior to him) then a strong case could be made for submerging the gene pool of whites into the greater (and superior) body of non-white genes.

Even today, it is clear that American blacks benefited from racial interbreeding with whites, and that, as a group, they are superior in intelligence to genetically pure African negroes. As a result, mixed race blacks did indeed benefit from mixing with whites, but whites themselves received no reciprocal benefit. The moral here is that African blacks could become extinct, and the world would in no way suffer, except, perhaps, in the loss of bongo-drum music.

On the other hand, if whites became extinct, then the Race that gave us the most far-reaching, inventive, and artistic culture that's ever existed would be a great loss to every race of mankind, and not just to whites alone. That's why it IS important that whites make it perfectly clear to every white lemming they encounter, that it DOES matter if we as a Race should become extinct, that there will be very negative, real-world consequences if we leave human civilization in the hands of Africa's seething, low-IQ swarms and the brutal repressiveness so characteristic of many Arabic and Asian cultures.

And one more comment: the white man has never been satisfied with merely accepting what nature has offered, but has instead bred better livestock and better agricultural plants for centuries, in order to suit his civilization's needs - improvements that nature would not have given him otherwise. Thus, the white man does not "deserve" to suvive racial extinction if his demise would mean little to humanity. For if he is no better than the world's dark masses, then he might as well stop resisting the spread of Third World peoples into America and Europe, accept the inevitable, and then commit racial suicide between the bedsheets.

I believe that European culture is probably in the top three when compared to the times at which it exists/ed, but I honestly don't know how that links up with the various European ethnicities, and hardly allows every European-descended person to claim superiority.

ErikD: I respect your opposing viewpoint, even though I don't share it.

By the way, aren't you the one who wrote that excellent essay some time back, titled "Fantasies of Rahowa" or something like that? You ought to reprint that here, in a different thread. It's one of the best I've read.

White Race: Superior, Equal or Inferior...Is this even crucial to our cause?

No it is not. In fact, it is detrimental to the cause. The focus should simply be Blood and Soil: geographically and ethnically based communities free to discriminate or not discriminate and trade or not trade as they wish. True diversity.

The general trend in nature is for life forms to diverge into wider and wider forms of variation... ie: nature wants many kinds of birds, not just one kind of bird. Similarly, I don't think nature/god created the multiple subraces of humans just so we could go and destroy what he/she/it created. Real diversity is being destroyed by racial mixing.

As a biological racist, I could not agree more. My hope for racislism is it leading to a new species, and thus, increased diversity.

I believe that White people are a unique creation of nature, so whether we are superior, equal or inferior to other races, doesn't change the fact that we believe we have the right to self-preservation and self-determination.

If there truly were no differences between races, then there isn't really much point in racialism.

Even if we were inferior, we would still love our race and believe we had the right to self-preservation and self-determination. So, my question is, is proving our inherent superiority even crucial to our cause, or is it just one more abstract trap that our enemies have encouraged us to step into, to cast us in the most 'hateful' light possible?

'The white race' is not superior as a unit, but contains the finest human individuals to have ever been-and 'the inferior' members might well carry the genes for superior individuals to manifest in the future.

I think its self-evident that the membership of the White race is, on the average, a good deal more intelligent than the membership of the Black race, for example. But what of it? Upon what basis does one assign intelligence the status of a measurement of biological superiority? Perhaps intelligence is like blood pressure; you want it a bit lowish....

In any event, the point I was really trying to make with my above remarks is that there can be no objective definition of biological superiority. Is a slug inferior (or superior) to a man? How so? I see no objective criteria for making such a determination. However, there is no question an Aryan is superior to a Negroid, by the standards Aryans are naturally inclined to develop and embrace. By the same token, Negroids are superior to Aryans by the standards Negroids are naturally inclined to develop and embrace. The fact that we believe the ability to place a man on the moon is a more vital and significant achievement than the ability to place a bone through one's nose, is simply indicative of the way we, as Whites, tend to think. There's nothing objectively true about it. There's also nothing objectively true about the idea that its bad for our Aryan people to become extinct, or for you, as an individual Aryan, to be tortured, gang raped/sodomized, mutilated, killed, cooked and eaten by Negroids. But we are naturally inclined to struggle to prevent such occcurences.

Our standards are superior because they are OURS. Objective biological superiority would simply be just an irrelevancy (for even if we were inferior, we would still wish to live, prosper and govern our own destiny, and rightly so), were it not also a logical impossibility.

IQ tests measure intelligence and predict real life success. The races differ in brain size and on IQ tests. On average Orientals have the largest brain size and the highest IQs Blacks average the lowest, and Whites fall in between. The brain size differences explain the IQ differences both within groups and between groups.

Average IQ scores for the various races:

Africans 70
US Blacks 85
Whites 100
Orientals 106

I think the topic of "inferiority" and "superiority" is a pointless debate in the realm of angels dancing on the head of a pin. Differences made people fit for their environment and all living groups were successful in terms of survival and sexual selection, which is all Mother Nature cares about. Beyond that is personal preference and/or affinity, which shouldn't be taboo. If one prefers a particular ethnic group or culture over others, that shouldn't be treated as some intrinsic "evil" that warrants burning of the heretic. According to pop anti-racist dogma, it's "bad" that one would only prefer mating with a particular racial group and exclude anybody. That's silly.

We should concentrate on wearing down these silly modern dogmas and taboos instead of trying to prove "superiority" on the internet.

IQ tests measure intelligence and predict real life success. The races differ in brain size and on IQ tests. On average Orientals have the largest brain size and the highest IQs Blacks average the lowest, and Whites fall in between. The brain size differences explain the IQ differences both within groups and between groups.

Average IQ scores for the various races:

Africans 70
US Blacks 85
Whites 100
Orientals 106

This ranking in terms of the average intelligence of these groups seems correct, but I'm wary about the numbers themselves. It seems suspicious that the average African IQ is only 70: I was under the impression that this lies within the standard definition of mental retardation.

BTW, proving the "superiority" of your race is not crucial to your cause unless you plan to go about "enlightening" all "inferior" races by instilling them with your culture.

One can formulate an argument for separatism without even mentioning "supremacy". Moreover, your argument will seem more legitimate to the mainstream if you avoid "\going down that road, so to speak.

Fantasyland plans for world domination, on the other hand, are a different matter. Good thing few of us here admit to espousing such loony ideas.

This ranking in terms of the average intelligence of these groups seems correct, but I'm wary about the numbers themselves. It seems suspicious that the average African IQ is only 70: I was under the impression that this lies within the standard definition of mental retardation.

At first I found this hard to believe, until I realized that one cannot use an IQ 70 white and compare him with an IQ 70 negro. The reason is that all IQ measures is "intelligence" - i.e. memory, reasoning ability, etc. What we call "mental retardation" includes a variety of developmental problems that go beyond low intelligence. Most mentally retarded people have problems with coordination, speech, reflexes, and a host of other neurological impairments. A white with an IQ of 70 is abnormal and probably has a range of afflictions other than low IQ that give him the characterization of "developmentally retarded."

On the other hand, a negro with an IQ of 70 is "normal." His speech and coordination are fine, he can function and take care of himself perfectly well. He just has a limited ability to acquire and apply knowledge and to solve problems, but it is no more meaningful to describe him as "mentally retarded" than it is to describe a chimpanzee with an IQ of 20 as retarded. A human with an IQ of 20 is essentially just a step above comatose, a chimp with an IQ of 20 is perfectly healthy and functional.

Philip Rushton had an interesting and very convincing essay on this question, I'll find and post it when I have more time.

IQ tests measure intelligence and predict real life success. The races differ in brain size and on IQ tests. On average Orientals have the largest brain size and the highest IQs Blacks average the lowest, and Whites fall in between. The brain size differences explain the IQ differences both within groups and between groups.

Average IQ scores for the various races:

Africans 70
US Blacks 85
Whites 100
Orientals 106

The fact that US blacks have an IQ almost exactly in between that of whites and Africans is probably due to the fact that almost every US "black" has his fair share of white blood. Since even "quadroons" and "octaroons" are considered black in America (they wouldn't be in Africa or the Caribbean), American blacks are hardly a representative sample of negro peoples.

It would be interesting to see a breakdown of American "black" IQ according to pedigree for those blacks who know their family trees. It would settle the nature-nurture debate once and for all, because obviously 1/2 and 1/4 "blacks" are subject to the same "discrimination" and "racism" as their more pure-blooded counterparts. If in spite of this they prove to be more intelligent, it would make an even stronger case for race differences in intelligence being hereditary.

It would be interesting to see a breakdown of American "black" IQ according to pedigree for those blacks who know their family trees.

This would be really hard, considering that so many Negro-Americans don't even know who their father really is.

The best way to help Africa would be having whites donate sperm to African negroes? In a few generations, the starvation problem would be solved :222

One of the major arguments used against white racialism is that "we're all equal" in regard to intelligence, human potential, and so forth. Therefore, there is no need to separate the races, the multiculturalized white American will claim, and so there is no justifiable reason to prevent their inter-breeding, since no race is "superior" to another.

If white nationalists reply to such an argument by claiming they have a "right to live separately" the multiculturalists will say: "What for? You've made no claims that you're "superior" in any way to non-whites, biologically or intellectually, so your argument for separation of the races is both illogical and impractical. Besides, mixed-race children are so cute!"

And if white nationalists argue that "separation of the races" is the only way to preserve "white culture" and "Western Civilization", the multiculturalized white American will proclaim that all races can build advanced civilizations, not just whites. And since you white nationalists have dropped the argument that you're "superior" in intelligence to non-whites, then there's no logical reason to say "white culture" won't continue as always - it will - just with different colored people carrying it onward! Why, just look at the Japs! Whites invented the automobile, the television, the camera, and yet those non-white Japs make the best ones in the world now! They've taken every white invention we've ever made and now do wonders with it! They even play German compositions from Wagner and Beethoven as well as ANY white symphony in the world! White "culture"? Ha! Ha! Culture has nothing to do with "skin color", you boob! And so it goes....

Now, if white racialists then argue that they have a right to "preserve their genetic birthright" from being mixed with non-white genes, simply for the sake of preserving the "physical appearance" of whites (mind you, no mention here of preserving the higher racial IQ of whites, just their physical characteristics) this concept will be rejected as well, since it argues from a very weak standpoint, i.e., that massive racial upheavals, massive deportations of brown-skinned people, and possibly massive civil violence can somehow be justified by white nationalists, in order that they may preserve such superficial physical characteristics as "blonde hair", "blue eyes", "pale skin", and so forth.

"Why," the multiculturalized white American will say, "those are just silly reasons! You want blonde hair - go buy your favorite shade of blonde hair-color at your local Wal-Mart! You want blue eyes, hey, your optometrist can fit you with any shade of blue you want!"

All true.

But there's one thing that your local Wal-Mart can never fit you with - a higher IQ - the kind of racial IQ that propelled whites far beyond every other race on the planet. It wasn't our blonde hair, our blue eyes, our white skin, or our "polka-dancing culture" - it was our higher racial IQ that got us where we are today. And THAT, I contend, is the only justifiable reason whites should fight for their preservation. Because the world - and I mean ALL the world - will not suffer one whit if blonde hair vanishes from the face of the earth, or blue eyes are seen no more, or pale skin turns brown from miscegenation.

But the world WILL suffer, from the darkest, disease-infested jungles of Africa to the far-flung Asian countries, whose thriving industries exist only because they exploited the creative genius of white scientists and white inventors, without which they too would revert to a less advanced people.

No, I do not advocate any form of "white supremacy" here. I do, however, argue that we must make our case for racial survival based upon this one overriding premise: That within we whites, there exists a creative spark of genius that has given the world untold miracles of science, technology, medicine, philosophy, art, and literature. It is who we are, forged long ago into our genetic make-up as surely as dark-skin was forged into the African tribesman, in order to shield him from that land's harsh sun.

That is our justification for preserving our Race, and without that justification, we have no effective argument against those - both whites and non-whites - who see no great loss to mankind should whites perish in a sea of brown, genetic goo....

As far as I'm concerned, European culture is worth preserving, and because culture is linked with ethnicities, European cultures and thus the "white race" (depending on whether or not you believe Russians to be Europeans/whites) is worth preserving.

As far as I'm concerned, getting rid of the anti-white double standard is all that is necessary for things to be set on the path to self-correction, although some other, limited measures would help.

I don't think anyone sane doubts that Russians are white.